The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

JimiTime · 27-04-2013 08:52PM

1ZRed wrote: »

This first comment sums up the group of crazy that follows these articles. It'd hardly say they have anything rational to say at all.

Its certainly my kind of 'crazy' alright. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with that brother on what he said in that. I just wish more Christians had such a backbone. There is no love in sugar coating lies. Only the truth will set you free, and grant you life. An enemy wont care enough to tell you the truth for fear that he/she will be derided or worse. A friend will tell you the truth and accept the consequences. Beware the fence sitters who are moderate for moderates sake. Who'd rather stay friendly with everyone, at the expense of sharing truth.

As the proverb says, 'A wound from a friend can be trusted, but enemies multiply kisses'.

JimiTime · 27-04-2013 09:03PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Excellent proselytizing

Were the letters to the Corinthians, Ephesians etc, attempts to convert non believers? No, they were intended for the believers. The letter's intent is to bring professing Christians to Christ, and away from worldly philosophies that have perverted and permeated the church. So that a non-believer expresses an issue with the content, doesn't actually matter as its not addressing them.

Zombrex · 27-04-2013 10:31PM

robp wrote: »

What are you suggesting the various churches teach?

That there is something inherently wrong and possibly damaging about homosexual relationships, for both the couple and any children that are raised in that union, because such relationships go against the natural plan that God has designed for how he wishes humanity to behave when it comes to love, sex and parenting, and that it would be better for all concerned not to partake in such a relationship.

robp wrote: »

Why use the flat earth myth as an analogous example when a flat earth wasn't even a real belief?

Flat Earth was a real belief at some points in history. But you could just as easily use Young Earth theory (which certainly is a real belief). The point is that these young Christians who wrote the Open Letter are picking what reality teaches them over the traditional interpretations of the Church, which they feel do not match with reality.

And traditional Christianity seems to have no serious response to that, any more than Young Earth Creationists can mount a serious response to the age of the Earth* They both just say go read the Bible, which has never worked particularly well when reality is crashing at the door. The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't go around the Earth, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and homosexual relationships don't damage or lead to destruction.

These young Christians will of course become the current generation, Christian doctrine will adapt, and future Christians will look back on current Christians and think wasn't it so odd what they believed. This has happened hundreds of times in this history of Christianity. And no doubt future Christians will say that it was Christianity that actually lead the charge for the acceptance of homosexuality couples

(we should probably start counting down until JC invades this thread)

aloyisious · 28-04-2013 10:29AM

I see it's still being claimed that one person's religious beliefs preclude the extension of Civil Marriage rights to LGBT persons. I've grown out of this deliberate linking of the expression Gay with Marriage. This link is disinformation being used by Irish Citizens of religious persuasion to refuse their other fellow Irish Citizens the same rights to Civil Marriage that they enjoy.

The thing I fear is that if this is accepted, that the self-same denyers may well turn their attention to those of other religious beliefs and claim that they are not entitled to access Civil marriage and the Registrar to record their marriages civilly, as they are not of the one true faith.

robp · 28-04-2013 01:54PM

MrPudding wrote: »

But you can't use your religious debate as justification for discriminating against a class of person. If you want to discriminate against a person, or class of persons, you need to be able to explain the reason for that discrimination in a way that is accessable to them, otherwise, quite rightly, you will be unable to persuade them that you are correct in your discrimination. How can you persuade a person that does not believe your religion that you are correct to discriminate against them? This is one of the reasons why religious reasons are not sufficient for a basis of law.

But some religious organisations don't support IVF either... But again, where is the basis for this requirement of pro-creation and why is there an exception for opposite sex couples that cannot or will not have children? You are the one deploying the argument, I would expect you to know the basis of the argument.MrP

Well I am neither arguing for or against gay marriage but actually for a more intelligent debate. It seems like your trying to rewrite what are the doctrines of the various religion around your narrative. They have had this view of marriage for procreation way fr a very very long time so to say its being only been assembled now to resist gay marriage is very odd and outright refutable. I think procreation is not solely a religious issue, so from a religious mindset their argument is universal not just for the religious.

MrPudding wrote: »

[B]Marriage has never been a requirement for procreation anf pro-creation has never been a requirement of marriage. [/B]The idea that children will be born in a marriage is somewhat obvious, but it deployment as a thin veil over bigotry and an argument to justify continued discrimination seems reasonably new.
MrP

Never heard of a shotgun wedding?

Zombrex wrote: »

That there is something inherently wrong and possibly damaging about homosexual relationships, for both the couple and any children that are raised in that union, because such relationships go against the natural plan that God has designed for how he wishes humanity to behave when it comes to love, sex and parenting, and that it would be better for all concerned not to partake in such a relationship.

and the average Joe could really dismiss that argument solely from knowing a few people in a gay relationship?

Zombrex wrote: »

Flat Earth was a real belief at some points in history. But you could just as easily use Young Earth theory (which certainly is a real belief). The point is that these young Christians who wrote the Open Letter are picking what reality teaches them over the traditional interpretations of the Church, which they feel do not match with reality.

And traditional Christianity seems to have no serious response to that, any more than Young Earth Creationists can mount a serious response to the age of the Earth* They both just say go read the Bible, which has never worked particularly well when reality is crashing at the door. The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't go around the Earth, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and homosexual relationships don't damage or lead to destruction.

These young Christians will of course become the current generation, Christian doctrine will adapt, and future Christians will look back on current Christians and think wasn't it so odd what they believed. This has happened hundreds of times in this history of Christianity. And no doubt future Christians will say that it was Christianity that actually lead the charge for the acceptance of homosexuality couples

Maybe a flat earth was a real belief at 6,000BP but not recently.

NuMarvel · 28-04-2013 02:27PM

robp wrote: »

Well I am neither arguing for or against gay marriage but actually for a more intelligent debate. It seems like your trying to rewrite what are the doctrines of the various religion around your narrative. They have had this view of marriage for procreation way fr a very very long time so to say its being only been assembled now to resist gay marriage is very odd and outright refutable. I think procreation is not solely a religious issue, so from a religious mindset their argument is universal not just for the religious.

Arguably, if we want a more intelligent debate, then religions shouldn't come into this in the first place. We're not debating their definition of marriage. It's the civil, legal definition of marriage that's up for discussion.

And whatever it's historical context may or may not have been, marriage today is not dependent on the presence of children, on the ability to have children, or even the desire to have children.

robp wrote: »

Never heard of a shotgun wedding?

Ever heard of a shotgun conception? No, me neither.

robp · 28-04-2013 07:26PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Arguably, if we want a more intelligent debate, then religions shouldn't come into this in the first place. We're not debating their definition of marriage. It's the civil, legal definition of marriage that's up for discussion.

And whatever it's historical context may or may not have been, marriage today is not dependent on the presence of children, on the ability to have children, or even the desire to have children.

??? Are you serious? Do you even know what forum you are in? We are debating their definition of marriage. This is the Christianity forum, and thus it relates to gay matters and Christianity. I don't mean to be rude but there are other places to discuss what you refer to.

Laws are vague and succinct. They rarely rationalise social institutions or give society it's values and this is about both. A small minority marry today with no wish whatsoever for a family but its hard to see why the minority should define the majority. I am sure many of those would take up civil partnerships if they were legally allowed.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Ever heard of a shotgun conception? No, me neither.

Perhaps you could try a clearer analogy. Why would marriage be akin to the biological?

NuMarvel · 28-04-2013 08:36PM

robp wrote: »

??? Are you serious? Do you even know what forum you are in? We are debating their definition of marriage. This is the Christianity forum, and thus it relates to gay matters and Christianity.

But we're not debating their definition of marriage. The Christian definition of marriage is clear: One man and one women, to the exclusion of all others, until death.

What we are debating is why that should apply to civil law, in a secular society.

robp wrote: »

Laws are vague and succinct. They rarely rationalise social institutions or give society it's values and this is about both. A small minority marry today with no wish whatsoever for a family but its hard to see why the minority should define the majority. I am sure many of those would take up civil partnerships if they were legally allowed.

So you are proposing that those couples who don't and won't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry? I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.

There are plenty of gay couples wishing to marry who will already have children or will want to have children. If we are to view marriage as an institution where children are mandatory, then those couples will need to be allowed to marry in the same way and fashion as heterosexual couples.

Benny_Cake · 28-04-2013 09:02PM

I think we're in danger of getting sidetracked into a debate on what should or shouldn't be discussed here. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the broad range of areas where Christian faith and homosexuality intersect. Clearly a variety of different views are held by Christians on the subject and this is the place where that can be discussed, however, the question of same-sex civil marriage is a hot topic at present and one which a number of Christian denominations have not shied away from stating their views on. So it is inevitable that this will be discussed here too.

Zombrex · 29-04-2013 12:01AM

robp wrote: »

and the average Joe could really dismiss that argument solely from knowing a few people in a gay relationship?

Apparently so. How many perfectly happy normal gay people would you need to know before you conclude that there is something wrong with a teaching that says all these people are in fact perverse and unhealthy?

Maybe a flat earth was a real belief at 6,000BP but not recently.

Well yes, that is generally what happens to archaic beliefs that don't match with reality. Which was the point.

robp · 29-04-2013 10:59AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

But we're not debating their definition of marriage. The Christian definition of marriage is clear: One man and one women, to the exclusion of all others, until death.

What we are debating is why that should apply to civil law, in a secular society.

I am glad that you now atleast accept discussing of the Christian view's interface with the law as sufficiently 'intelligent ' for the Christianity forum.

NuMarvel wrote: »

So you are proposing that those couples who don't and won't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry? I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.

There are plenty of gay couples wishing to marry who will already have children or will want to have children. If we are to view marriage as an institution where children are mandatory, then those couples will need to be allowed to marry in the same way and fashion as heterosexual couples.

Why exactly? They aren't the biological parents. And why not polygamous couples? There is a very real niche demand for polygamous marriage.

Bannasidhe · 29-04-2013 11:59AM

robp wrote: »

I am glad that you now atleast accept discussing of the Christian view's interface with the law as sufficiently 'intelligent ' for the Christianity forum.

Why exactly? They aren't the biological parents. And why not polygamous couples? There is a very real niche demand for polygamous marriage.

They aren't the biological parents. - can I say this once again - I am a biological parent. I am also homosexual. My OH had no legal relationship with our son even though she was there from the beginning.

My sister is also a biological parent. She is heterosexual. Her husband was allowed to adopt her son even though the first time he met his 'son' my nephew was 10 years old.

In many families headed by a same-sex couple one member of the couple is the biological parent - as the law currently stands in a heterosexual marriage an non-biological parent is allowed to adopt their spouse's biological children provided there is not another legally recognised parent. Why should the children of gay couples be treated any differently?

If the law allows a non-biological parent to be recognised as legally a parent via the mechanism of marriage why should only heterosexuals be allowed to avail of this provision?

More Irish citizens wanting polygamous marriages than same-sex ones are there?

1ZRed · 29-04-2013 12:44PM

robp wrote: »

I am glad that you now atleast accept discussing of the Christian view's interface with the law as sufficiently 'intelligent ' for the Christianity forum.

I think you misunderstood, he stated that your definition is one man, one women but asked how that should apply to a civil law in a secular society where religion has no say on state issues. Why should one religion's ideals be applied to everyone even if they don't follow or believe in them?

A religion's beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not laws and often they can cause problems because they are not always ethical. If we were a country mainly of Jehovah's witnesses would you see it as realistic or right to ban blood transfusions purely on the grounds of religious purposes?
There was also the issue of contraception being illegal here for far, far longer than it should have been because of the religious influence here. That wasn't right.

So you see what religions view as right or wrong doesn't apply into state law very well. If you don't believe in them then don't partake, but don't overrule everyone with your beliefs if they don't follow them. That's why we are a secular state.

So if you don't agree with gay marriage then don't partake or even hold them in your church under your rules, but outside of which don't hold your views over everyone else. I don't see what right you have to deny them purely on the grounds of your beliefs even when it has no impact on your life whatsoever and when they might not believe in what you were saying.

And why not polygamous couples? There is a very real niche demand for polygamous marriage.

Slippery slope fallacy. We are talking two men and two women who want to marry only, how does that have anything to do with polygamous marriage?
But if we were to grant polygamous marriage, would you also allow gay polygamous marriage too, or does there still need to be a distinction made there as well?

NuMarvel · 29-04-2013 02:23PM

robp wrote: »

I am glad that you now atleast accept discussing of the Christian view's interface with the law as sufficiently 'intelligent ' for the Christianity forum.

If Christians want to discuss the Church's definition of marriage in light of same sex marriage, then go for it. I'm not impeding that and it could be an interesting discussion to watch. This would absolutely be the right venue to do so.

But to date, most of the objections have been about civil marriage being extended to same sex couples. That takes the discussion out of the realm of what the Bible says and means that objections must be framed in terms of democratic rights and duties.

robp wrote: »

Why exactly? They aren't the biological parents.

What does being the biological parents have to do with anything? Marriage isn't limited only to those capable of having their own biological children together.

Bannasidhe · 29-04-2013 03:20PM

There was much discussion here about 'curing' homosexuality and the fact that in some places this so-called 'therapy' has been made illegal for under 18s to protect minors.

Well, here is the reality of these 'conversion' camps and why gay teens need to be protected.

Three ‘gay and effeminate’ teens have died after being starved and tortured at a camp designed to turn them into ‘men’.

Raymond Buys, 15, is shown above in a picture taken in April 2011 as undernourished, withered figure battling for his life.

Only ten weeks prior to this photo being taken, the teen’s parents enrolled him at the Echo Wild Game Rangers training course in South Africa in perfect health.

When he was admitted to hospital, Buys was severely malnourished, dehydrated, his arm was broken in two places and there were burns and wounds all over his body. He stayed in intensive care for four weeks until he died.

Camp leader, Alex De Koker, 49, and employee Michael Erasmus, 20, are on trial for charges of murder, child abuse and neglect, along with two cases of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm in relation to Buys’ death.

‘I sent my son on this course to make him a better man, to give him a better future,’ Buys’ mother said. ‘I trusted Alex De Koker with his life.’
She said that her son started the course on 12 January 2011. Over the next two months she spoke to Mr Buys just three times and was told by Mr de Koker that he was self-harming.

‘Raymond was only allowed to speak to me on speakerphone,’ she said. ‘When I asked him why he was hurting himself, he told me ‘Mum, I’m not doing it to myself”

http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/three-teens-starved-tortured-and-killed-at-gay-conversion-camp/

MODS - apologies if the fact that I have posted this in 3 threads counts as spam and please delete if you deem it necessary but I think things like this need to be seen my those who support such 'therapy' and those who it is aimed at and that requires posting in multiple threads.

Benny_Cake · 29-04-2013 03:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There was much discussion here about 'curing' homosexuality and the fact that in some places this so-called 'therapy' has been made illegal for under 18s to protect minors.

Well, here is the reality of these 'conversion' camps and why gay teens need to be protected.

http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/three-teens-starved-tortured-and-killed-at-gay-conversion-camp/

MODS - apologies if the fact that I have posted this in 3 threads counts as spam and please delete if you deem it necessary but I think things like this need to be seen my those who support such 'therapy' and those who it is aimed at and that requires posting in multiple threads.

That site appears to be down, but there is another article on this here (warning - there's a pretty upsetting image of one of the teens at the top of the page:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-04-29-raymond-buys-15-years-old-dead-for-not-being-manly

From reading that, it appears stem largely from an unholy mix of extreme homophobia and far-right Afrikaner nationalism of the Eugene Terreblanche variety. While I have sympathy for the families, what on earth were they doing entrusting their kids to such people?

Bannasidhe · 29-04-2013 04:02PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That site appears to be down, but there is another article on this here (warning - there's a pretty upsetting image of one of the teens at the top of the page:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-04-29-raymond-buys-15-years-old-dead-for-not-being-manly

From reading that, it appears stem largely from an unholy mix of extreme homophobia and far-right Afrikaner nationalism of the Eugene Terreblanche variety. While I have sympathy for the families, what on earth were they doing entrusting their kids to such people?

But - and this is why I posted it here - such places exist because of this 'belief' that homosexuality can be 'cured'. A belief we have seen expounded in this thread on more than one occasion.

It cannot because it is not an illness - no matter how much some people want it to be.

robp · 29-04-2013 07:07PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They aren't the biological parents. - can I say this once again - I am a biological parent. I am also homosexual. My OH had no legal relationship with our son even though she was there from the beginning.

My sister is also a biological parent. She is heterosexual. Her husband was allowed to adopt her son even though the first time he met his 'son' my nephew was 10 years old.

In many families headed by a same-sex couple one member of the couple is the biological parent - as the law currently stands in a heterosexual marriage an non-biological parent is allowed to adopt their spouse's biological children provided there is not another legally recognised parent. Why should the children of gay couples be treated any differently?

If the law allows a non-biological parent to be recognised as legally a parent via the mechanism of marriage why should only heterosexuals be allowed to avail of this provision?

More Irish citizens wanting polygamous marriages than same-sex ones are there?

First and foremost the interests of the children should be placed first. Their interests must be placed before any dubious PC agendas. In the case you mentioned I wouldn't object to gay couple couple having the same option of adoption. This doesn't require marriage rights. Yet, in regular adoption application processes male and female couples must be given precedence over same-sex couples.

1ZRed wrote: »

I think you misunderstood, he stated that your definition is one man, one women but asked how that should apply to a civil law in a secular society where religion has no say on state issues. Why should one religion's ideals be applied to everyone even if they don't follow or believe in them?

A religion's beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not laws and often they can cause problems because they are not always ethical. If we were a country mainly of Jehovah's witnesses would you see it as realistic or right to ban blood transfusions purely on the grounds of religious purposes?
There was also the issue of contraception being illegal here for far, far longer than it should have been because of the religious influence here. That wasn't right.

There are plenty of 'liberal' PCs beliefs which are no less harmful when forced on people.

1ZRed wrote: »

So you see what religions view as right or wrong doesn't apply into state law very well. If you don't believe in them then don't partake, but don't overrule everyone with your beliefs if they don't follow them. That's why we are a secular state.

So if you don't agree with gay marriage then don't partake or even hold them in your church under your rules, but outside of which don't hold your views over everyone else. I don't see what right you have to deny them purely on the grounds of your beliefs even when it has no impact on your life whatsoever and when they might not believe in what you were saying.

Slippery slope fallacy. We are talking two men and two women who want to marry only, how does that have anything to do with polygamous marriage?
But if we were to grant polygamous marriage, would you also allow gay polygamous marriage too, or does there still need to be a distinction made there as well?

The reason many people object to polygamous marriage is analogous to the objection to same sex marriage. Its based on a value system judgement from both liberal and conservative objectors. That is rarely acknowledged and always ignored in the typical 'the gov has no right to decide who I marry comment'. You yourself trip into this hypocrisy

I don't see what right you have to deny them purely on the grounds of your beliefs even when it has no impact on your life whatsoever and when they might not believe in what you were saying.

3 way marriage is so objectionable that discussing gender combinations is not even worthwhile. Life is regulated in all sorts of ways for the social good but a gov has every right to be concern on this matter.

If people are interested in that story from South Africa the Independent's or the Telegraph's coverage is more informative. For some reason they and the other broadsheets don't mention anything gay. So many laws were probable broken at a place like that, that GLBT legislation would probably be the last to be applied. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/10015978/Teen-dies-after-being-beaten-at-camp-that-makes-men-out-of-boys.html

Bannasidhe · 29-04-2013 07:13PM

robp wrote: »

First and foremost the interests of the children should be placed first. Their interests must be placed before any dubious PC agendas. In the case you mentioned I wouldn't object to gay couple couple having the same option of adoption. This doesn't require marriage rights. Yet, in regular adoption application processes male and female couples must be given precedence over same-sex couples.

There are plenty of 'liberal' PCs beliefs which are no less harmful when forced on people.

The reason many people object to polygamous marriage is analogous to the objection to same sex marriage. Its based on a value system judgement from both liberal and conservative objectors. That is rarely acknowledged and always ignored in the typical 'the gov has no right to decide who I marry comment'. You yourself trip into this hypocrisy
3 way marriage is so objectionable that discussing gender combinations is not even worthwhile. Life is regulated in all sorts of ways for the social good but a gov has every right to be concern on this matter.

If people are interested in that story from South Africa the Independent's or the Telegraph's coverage is more informative. For some reason they and the other broadsheets mention anything gay. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/10015978/Teen-dies-after-being-beaten-at-camp-that-makes-men-out-of-boys.html

Who are you to decide that denying the childre of same-sex couples two legal parents is in the interest's of children?

The telegraph didn't say they were gay ergo they weren't ????

Riiiight.

In other news, Fox says Obama is Muslim....

MrPudding · 29-04-2013 08:02PM

robp wrote: »

First and foremost the interests of the children should be placed first. Their interests must be placed before any dubious PC agendas. In the case you mentioned I wouldn't object to gay couple couple having the same option of adoption. This doesn't require marriage rights. Yet, in regular adoption application processes male and female couples must be given precedence over same-sex couples.

Why must male and female couples be given precedence over same sex couples? Given that you have started off talking about interests of the children being put first, I presume you think that male and female couples satisfy this requirement. So, do you have any evidence that this is the case or are you just guessing?

robp wrote: »

The reason many people object to polygamous marriage is analogous to the objection to same sex marriage. Its based on a value system judgement from both liberal and conservative objectors. That is rarely acknowledged and always ignored in the typical 'the gov has no right to decide who I marry comment'. You yourself trip into this hypocrisy
3 way marriage is so objectionable that discussing gender combinations is not even worthwhile. Life is regulated in all sorts of ways for the social good but a gov has every right to be concern on this matter.

Nah. It is yet another empty argument. Each type of marriage that is argued for should be looked at individually. When we allow same sex civil marriage, and we will, this does not mean that we will have men marrying children or dogs or their sisters. Legalising same sex marriage will have the effect of legalising same sex marriage.

That said, perhaps a movement may begin to try to legalise some other type of marriage, incestuous perhaps, but allowing same sex marriage will not necessarily mean incestuous marriages must be allowed.

The fact that there are no valid political or social reasons why same sex civil marriage should not be allowed has no connection, whatsoever, with any other kind of marriage.

MrP

1ZRed · 29-04-2013 08:10PM

robp wrote: »

First and foremost the interests of the children should be placed first. Their interests must be placed before any dubious PC agendas. In the case you mentioned I wouldn't object to gay couple couple having the same option of adoption. This doesn't require marriage rights. Yet, in regular adoption application processes male and female couples must be given precedence over same-sex couples.

And why is this by any chance? If you're thinking male/female adoption is somehow superior it's actually no better than two people of the same sex raising a child. This from scientific evidence that showed what was most beneficial to a child was two good role models that loved and cared for them. Gender actually wasn't important or paramount.

There are plenty of 'liberal' PCs beliefs which are no less harmful when forced on people.

Would love to hear of an example of one. We've actually seen a multitude of harmful results that has been brought on by a conservative, religious influence. The recent case of Savita Halappanavar and abortion in Ireland is one example.

The reason many people object to polygamous marriage is analogous to the objection to same sex marriage. Its based on a value system judgement from both liberal and conservative objectors. That is rarely acknowledged and always ignored in the typical 'the gov has no right to decide who I marry comment'. You yourself trip into this hypocrisy
3 way marriage is so objectionable that discussing gender combinations is not even worthwhile. Life is regulated in all sorts of ways for the social good but a gov has every right to be concern on this matter.

The actual objection to polygamous marriage is that it is extremely difficult to tax and regulate compared to two partnered people.

And polygamous marriage is not the issue being discussed here. This is an argument an gay marriage between two committed people who want the same equal rights as heterosexual couples. I fail to see if we're talking about two people here why polygamous marriage must always be dragged into it. It just seems like a last resort at a failing argument against same-sex marriage.

What is the social good by the way? Care to elaborate on that? If allowing gay marriage will do society harm I've yet to see how and when you look to countries like Sweden who have had same sex marriage for over a decade I don't see how their society has somehow crumbled and fallen apart. If anything it would do society good to allow people to be treated equally. By giving gay couples the same rights as straight people it would help to do away with homophobia and discrimation based on sexual orientation. There was a gay bashing up in Dublin recently, do you think that is good for society?

You still haven't answered why religion should have any input on this matter when clearly they don't at all, nor should they. You really don't have any right on what I'm entitled to like I have no right to tell you what you're entitled to.

If people are interested in that story from South Africa the Independent's or the Telegraph's coverage is more informative. For some reason they and the other broadsheets don't mention anything gay. So many laws were probable broken at a place like that, that GLBT legislation would probably be the last to be applied. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/10015978/Teen-dies-after-being-beaten-at-camp-that-makes-men-out-of-boys.html

Just because the word 'gay' wasn't mentioned that means they weren't. Fantastic insight there.

MrPudding · 29-04-2013 08:11PM

robp wrote: »

Well I am neither arguing for or against gay marriage but actually for a more intelligent debate. It seems like your trying to rewrite what are the doctrines of the various religion around your narrative. They have had this view of marriage for procreation way fr a very very long time so to say its being only been assembled now to resist gay marriage is very odd and outright refutable. I think procreation is not solely a religious issue, so from a religious mindset their argument is universal not just for the religious.

I am not trying to rewrite any particular doctrines. I am quite happy for you to point me to sources which show the child bearing requirement of marriage, before the same sex marriage debate kicked off, of course. And to be frank, I am not really that bothered if it does exist, as I am 100% certain there is no pro-creation clause in civil marriage. But I would genuinely be interested. I have only really started looking at this subject fairly recently, and it seems to me that this particular argument has only started to be deployed fairly recently, in the last few years. But then, as I have only really been looking at it recently, I could easily be missing a lot. So please, feel free to show me examples of this argument being used in the past.

robp wrote: »

Never heard of a shotgun wedding?

I assume this is a joke, but in case it isn't... So what? If there was no shotgun wedding was there an enforced abortion? All shotgun weddings show is that particular people believed that people should be married before they could have children, it does not show a requirement either way.

MrP

aloyisious · 29-04-2013 08:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - and this is why I posted it here - such places exist because of this 'belief' that homosexuality can be 'cured'. A belief we have seen expounded in this thread on more than one occasion.

It cannot because it is not an illness - no matter how much some people want it to be.

On the topic of gay-conversion, there's this story/report: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/04/26/us-ex-gay-1990s-ambassador-says-hes-always-been-gay-and-apologises-for-campaign/

Benny_Cake · 29-04-2013 08:22PM

Regarding polygamy, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair that some expect gay people to tie themselves in knots coming up with a logical reason as to why same-sex marriage should be allowed, but polyamorous marriages shouldn't. The vast majority of polygamous marriages throughout history have been heterosexual so if anything set us on the slippery slope, then heterosexual marriage did. If and when a campaign for polyamorous marriage makes itself know, it can be dealt with on it on it's own merits.

Kiwi in IE · 29-04-2013 09:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There was much discussion here about 'curing' homosexuality and the fact that in some places this so-called 'therapy' has been made illegal for under 18s to protect minors.

Well, here is the reality of these 'conversion' camps and why gay teens need to be protected.

http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/three-teens-starved-tortured-and-killed-at-gay-conversion-camp/

MODS - apologies if the fact that I have posted this in 3 threads counts as spam and please delete if you deem it necessary but I think things like this need to be seen my those who support such 'therapy' and those who it is aimed at and that requires posting in multiple threads.

That is unbelievable. The parents have to take some responsibility also for sending him there. I would be no more concerned about whether my kids were gay or straight than I would care about the outcome of a pregnancy being a boy or a girl ie not at all! The only worry I would have about one of my children being gay would be the ridiculous, ignorant bigotry that they may face.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 10:34AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There was much discussion here about 'curing' homosexuality and the fact that in some places this so-called 'therapy' has been made illegal for under 18s to protect minors.

Well, here is the reality of these 'conversion' camps and why gay teens need to be protected.

http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/three-teens-starved-tortured-and-killed-at-gay-conversion-camp/

MODS - apologies if the fact that I have posted this in 3 threads counts as spam and please delete if you deem it necessary but I think things like this need to be seen my those who support such 'therapy' and those who it is aimed at and that requires posting in multiple threads.

It is telling, that once again you dig up these awful things WHICH NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH, as if there are some who want this type of thing going on. Someone brought up a horrid instant of child abuse before too, and then talked to me like I was defending it, calling me a monster etc. Its the height of disingenuity....or stupidity.

There are people in Africa who believe raping a child gets rid of AIDS. It would be quite stupid to ban AIDS treatment on account of this now wouldn't it! I'm sure ALL would welcome such gay conversion 'treatment' like the one you linked to be eradicated. I certainly would. The fact is, that the law in California will actually encourage MORE of this carry on, because it bans professionals who are regulated etc from practicing, driving people to these mad camps. Like I've said before, there was nothing specific in the ban, but rather a politically motivated blanket ban on regulated PROFESSIONALS. Teens are certainly NOT protected by this, if anything, they are in more danger.

So just to reiterate. There is little argument about how awful, cruel, and stupid the places like the one in your article are. The argument, is that just because these 'treatments' exist, is no reason to ban regulated professionals from carrying out treatment UNLESS THEY CAN SPECIFICALLY SHOW THE ISSUE WITH THE PARTICULAR TREATMENT. For example, there is one treatment I am aware of, where they believe that boys who have been deprived of a father, can sometimes in their longing for a father, confuse this male affection with sexual affection after puberty. I.E. Having not experienced the fatherly affection, and longed for it, at puberty this causes a sexual confusion. The therapy involves being affectionate with other men, but not sexually. Trying to un confuse them so to speak. Now, people are more than free to question its validity, but the fact is, the legislators DIDN'T. They simply said, No, if you have homosexual feelings, you can only go and have them affirmed by professionals. People then start posting all the horror stories about poor kids being practically tortured, as if it represented all therapy.

By the by, I'm not into the profession of psychiatry as a whole, and believe its a bit of a nonsense at times. However, I can see the political agenda afoot in the ban, and THAT is what I call shenannigans on.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 10:49AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Regarding polygamy, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair that some expect gay people to tie themselves in knots coming up with a logical reason as to why same-sex marriage should be allowed, but polyamorous marriages shouldn't. The vast majority of polygamous marriages throughout history have been heterosexual so if anything set us on the slippery slope, then heterosexual marriage did. If and when a campaign for polyamorous marriage makes itself know, it can be dealt with on it on it's own merits.

Not so. Marriage in the west has very much evolved into the Christian mode, based on Christian principals and teaching. Christ himself telling us that it was a man and a woman, and that God intended it to be a one on one thing. Of course, on a societal level, we began the slippery slope with no faullt divorce etc, so yeah, we certainly can't say we've not undermined marriage ourselves already. We are guilty as charged, and hypocritical to boot. However, this does not mean we simply continue down the slippery slope. The slippery slope simply gets slippier when we redefine marriage to be genderless. Now many of the gay marriage proponents don't like the gay marriage term, so are going in for the term 'equal marriage'. There is no denying the slippery slope. The same arguments for redefining marriage for homosexuals, can be used for incest, polyamory etc. In fact, it is nigh on impossible to be consistant and logical when denying incest proponents and polyamorous proponents 'equal' marriage in the face of gay marriage.
The further we move away from what Christian marriage is, the more we undermine marriage. Rather than looking to continue to undermine it, we should be looking to to strengthen it again.

VinLieger · 30-04-2013 11:43AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The further we move away from what Christian marriage is, the more we undermine marriage. Rather than looking to continue to undermine it, we should be looking to to strengthen it again.

Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs about marriage on others? And how does me belieivng something else affect your marriage or beliefs or life at all? I think divorce being available is a good thing, i think gay marriage being available is a good thing but im not asking you to go out and do them yet you insist on asking others to do what you want.

marienbad · 30-04-2013 11:56AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Not so. Marriage in the west has very much evolved into the Christian mode, based on Christian principals and teaching. Christ himself telling us that it was a man and a woman, and that God intended it to be a one on one thing. Of course, on a societal level, we began the slippery slope with no faullt divorce etc, so yeah, we certainly can't say we've not undermined marriage ourselves already. We are guilty as charged, and hypocritical to boot. However, this does not mean we simply continue down the slippery slope. The slippery slope simply gets slippier when we redefine marriage to be genderless. Now many of the gay marriage proponents don't like the gay marriage term, so are going in for the term 'equal marriage'. There is no denying the slippery slope. The same arguments for redefining marriage for homosexuals, can be used for incest, polyamory etc. In fact, it is nigh on impossible to be consistant and logical when denying incest proponents and polyamorous proponents 'equal' marriage in the face of gay marriage.
The further we move away from what Christian marriage is, the more we undermine marriage. Rather than looking to continue to undermine it, we should be looking to to strengthen it again.

Was allowing divorce part of that slippery slope ?

lazygal · 30-04-2013 12:39PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The further we move away from what Christian marriage is, the more we undermine marriage. Rather than looking to continue to undermine it, we should be looking to to strengthen it again.

I don't have a christian marriage, just a marriage. How am I undermining marriage?

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments