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

NuMarvel · 30-04-2013 01:23PM

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.

Are you aware how children with same sex parents are being disadvantaged because the law won't allow their parents to marry?

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2013 01:32PM

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.

I would very much like to see where Christ himself said anything of the sort as as far as I am aware all we have are second hand accounts.

Zombrex · 30-04-2013 03:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Seriously how many times does this have to be rebutted?

The argument against incest doesn't apply to homosexual marriage unless the couple are related.

The argument against polyamorous relationships doesn't apply to single couple heterosexual or homosexual relationships (by definition).

Unless someone address the arguments against incest or against polyamorous marriage they are not arguing for them. There are specific arguments against these things are are not related to homosexual marriage.

Your post is like saying we cannot let women vote because if we do what is to say we can't let 5 year old children, or dogs, vote. Of course the reasons we don't let children and dogs vote has nothing to do with letting women vote. Equally the arguments against incest or polygamy have nothing to do with homosexuals marrying.

Oh that slippery slope!

Corkfeen · 30-04-2013 04:05PM

Jimi you love claiming that people have been 'cured' of homosexuality but you've yet to prove it. Provide a study that proves these treatments actually work and aren't potentially detrimental to the mental health of those who avail of them. If a treatment has no basis and is potentially dangerous, it should not be available to those who are under 18.

Also, same sex marriage will pass even if you don't support it. Many believed divorce would undermine marriage, funnily enough it has not. The world is not crumbling around us even as many countries in Europe and States in America legalise same sex marriage. I'm gonna call your bluff and can confidently say that society will remain intact.

Links234 · 30-04-2013 05:18PM

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

you called?

let me state it again, ALL of this kind of bullpuckey is abuse. ALL OF IT.

in simple terms, it is abuse because it attempts to fix something that is not wrong in the first place. a crude comparison would be giving someone who doesn't have cancer chemo, that is to say giving a "treatment" to a perfectly healthy person.

it is abuse because it does not work.
the former leader of Exodus International, one of the biggest "gay conversion" cults in the world, came out and said "nope, still gay!" and says it doesn't work: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/john-paulk-ex-gay-therapy-apology_n_3155536.html

The UN considers it abuse, ever major health organization in the developed world considers it abuse.

the instances of abuse I brought up were that of George Rekers' "therapy" that resulted in suicide. and for those who don't know, Rekers was the father of gay-conversion or reparative "therapy", he was a founder of the Family Research Council, a member of NARTH, and of course he himself is a repressed homosexual caught with a rent-boy. Lets just remind ourselves that when you refer to "professionals" in your post, this is who you're referring to, this is anti-gay "therapy" in the United States, him and people like him.

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.

so you're for this kind of quackery?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXWFZz0Qjo

Major ‘Ex-Gay’ Life Coach Accused of Sexual Misconduct By Former Clients
Pastor And Ex-Gay Counselor Charged With Sexually Assaulting Male Clients
Canadian Ex-Gay “Shock Doc” Therapist Sentenced To Prison For Sexually Assaulting Patients
Ex-Gay Counselor Chris Austin Convicted of Sexual Assault

Ex-Gay ‘Touch Therapy’ Leads to Sexual Assault Conviction

Yeah, those are the "professionals" you talk about Jimi.

And lets just be absolutely clear on this one, the proposed California law banned these kinds of "therapy" for children. so you're all for parents being able to send their children to these kinds of quacks and snake oil salesmen. nice to know what kind of abuse you're actually for so we can quote you on it again

However, I can see the political agenda afoot in the ban, and THAT is what I call shenannigans on.

oh and the religious organizations who are pushing this gay-cure abuse don't have an agenda? :rolleyes:

1ZRed · 30-04-2013 05:21PM

Anyone who believes someone can be cured of homosexuality needs their head examined and then to be dragged kicking and screaming back to biology class.

Orientation is hardwired and determined at gestation by epigenetic/genetic causes.

This doesn't surprise me among the fanatically devout. Very little interest in actual scientific facts just absurd little notions prevail with them.

robp · 30-04-2013 05:45PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

I looked at some reports and the official reason of the camp was to train rangers. Whether or not that is is a cover I do not know but bear in mind there was an 'official' reason. Some other allegations link it to a militia training area. I thought the Boer war was over but who knows.

robp · 30-04-2013 05:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Did I say that? Where did I say that? I am getting tired of you misquoting me and giving relevant stories to gain sympathy.

The reason why polygamous marriage is essential to refer to in this debate is two fold.

First reason, despite the ridiculous claims on this thread that it is outlawed for tax reasons it is actually restricted because people believe the state can intervene and decide who is entitled to marry. The second reason is that there is a niche market for it and not just among some muslims/mormans and that threatens society. LGBT activist/ writer Masha Gessen says it better then I can.

Gay marriage is a lie,” Gessen is heard saying in the video.

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there,” she added.

“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist,” she said to loud applause.

"This may have something to do with the fact that she has 'three children with five parents,'" he added.

"I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage,” she said.

link

NuMarvel · 30-04-2013 06:23PM

robp wrote: »

Did I say that? Where did I say that? I am getting tired of you misquoting me and giving relevant stories to gain sympathy.

The reason why polygamous marriage is essential to refer to in this debate is two fold.

First reason, despite the ridiculous claims on this thread that it is outlawed for tax reasons it is actually restricted because people believe the state can intervene and decide who is entitled to marry. The second reason is that there is a niche market for it and not just among some muslims/mormans and that threatens society. LGBT activist/ writer Masha Gessen says it better then I can.

link

So, let's be sure we're clear. Because one person, thousands of miles away, once said they want to use same sex marriage as a means to introduce polygamous marriages, you believe there's a "niche market" and that it's "essential" to debate that issue too?

This is a strawman. There is no correlation between countries giving same sex relationships legal recognition and giving polygamous relationships legal recognition. In fact, countries that allow polygamous marriages are usually opposed to homosexuality, never mind same sex marriage.

robp · 30-04-2013 06:36PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

So, let's be sure we're clear. Because one person, thousands of miles away, once said they want to use same sex marriage as a means to introduce polygamous marriages, you believe there's a "niche market" and that it's "essential" to debate that issue too?

This is a strawman. There is no correlation between countries giving same sex relationships legal recognition and giving polygamous relationships legal recognition. In fact, countries that allow polygamous marriages are usually opposed to homosexuality, never mind same sex marriage.

As I said its relevance is two fold but even if I was arguing solely with a slippery slope argument (which I am not) you can't establish a correlation as legalisation hasn't happened yet in a western country so there is no correlation because we have no incidences. Gay marriage is a very very new political issue only present for 20 years or so whilst something like abortion has over 100 years behind it. The situation will take time to evolve into a pattern which is predictive. Its to early to predict anything yet.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 07:39PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jimi you love claiming that people have been 'cured' of homosexuality but you've yet to prove it.

No I'm not, I'm for informing people, that there are people who say they have been. Thats all. This is the same evidence that is accepted for most pro-LGBT views. It might all be nonsense, but the people and their testimony exist.

Provide a study that proves these treatments actually work and aren't potentially detrimental to the mental health of those who avail of them. If a treatment has no basis and is potentially dangerous, it should not be available to those who are under 18.

Thats not actually how it works, but is merely a piece of giggery pokery employed to make stupid, agenda driven people think 'yeah, that sounds reasonable'. You see, I'm not looking to espouse the effectiveness of any reparative therapy. I've no real idea if any of them work or not. I've never aimed to do such a thing. I in fact, think most of the profession in question is a steaming pile. All I have is the witnesses that testify as to how it worked. Much like someone in drug or alcohol treatment would testify (There are people who claim to be harmed by these treatments you know). I'm pointing out the political motives afoot in blanket banning them, rather than any real concern for kids etc. With little evidence, its become 'fact', that sexuality is intrinsic, genetic, unchangeable etc. Ironically then, anyone who disagree's is asked for immutable evidence to the contrary etc. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Also, same sex marriage will pass even if you don't support it.

I agree.

Many believed divorce would undermine marriage, funnily enough it has not.

No fault divorce has indeed undermined marriage.

The world is not crumbling around us even as many countries in Europe and States in America legalise same sex marriage. I'm gonna call your bluff and can confidently say that society will remain intact.

Its very early days. Your view does seem to be in the majority. I suppose after the warnings are ignored, it will be time that will tell. The seeds sown will likely not reach maturity in our lifetime though. Its a gradual generational thing.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 07:46PM

lazygal wrote: »

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

The marriage you are talking about may have been a very different thing if Christianity had not been at the fore of informing our moral and societal concepts of the last few centuries. We are now moving into the post Christian era, and in years to come, marriage may well be completely unrecognisable from the marriage we have had in the Christian west for the last century.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 07:49PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Orientation is hardwired and determined at gestation by epigenetic/genetic causes.

Thats not actually a fact. Just FYI. Such has been the effectiveness of the LGBT agenda over the years, that people do just accept it as such though.

JimiTime · 30-04-2013 07:52PM

Links234 wrote: »

and to think I tried my bestest and didn't call you a monster

You need to try harder to read what has been written by posters who do not share your views so, and not simply paint a caricature based on your own preconceptions.

Corkfeen · 30-04-2013 08:11PM

No Jimi, conversion techniques have proven to be dangerous for the mental health of an individual. Drug and alcohol rehab is proven to work and for a teenager with substance abuse issues, it would be detrimental for them not to deal with the issue. Any negative effects generally outweigh the long term benefits. Homosexuality is not a mental illness so cannot be treated, this is a fact so lobbing a confused teenager into a facility that follows biblical pseudoscience is inherently dangerous and has no benefit.

If you're over the age of 18, fine but a teenager's sexuality should not be 'fixed' by people who are utilising techniques that are condemned by psychologists and health organisations across the world. Conversion therapy groups lob out people who claim to have been cured even though they later 'transgress' indicating that witness testimonies are suspect. They have never proven in a peer reviewed environment that their techniques aren't bull****. To be blunt, a person would have to be an awful parent to allow their child to participate in such 'therapy'.

You can blame international denunciations of conversion therapy and other supposed techniques to fix ones sexuality to be some odd political agenda. It's rather strange how people who believe one's sexuality can be fixed cannot back it up while everyone is perfectly capable of backing up their points. But we'll just need blame the liberal media bias, shall we?

http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

lazygal · 30-04-2013 08:16PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The marriage you are talking about may have been a very different thing if Christianity had not been at the fore of informing our moral and societal concepts of the last few centuries. We are now moving into the post Christian era, and in years to come, marriage may well be completely unrecognisable from the marriage we have had in the Christian west for the last century.

How is my non Christian marriage undermining Christian marriage though?

Other religions have had marriage arrangements very similar, if not identical to 'Christian' marriages. Are they undermining Christian marriage too? Or are those marriages fundamentally different from Christian marriage?

jill_valentine · 30-04-2013 08:27PM

I'm still at a bit of a loss here about why Christians think somebody would choose to be gay. I've never really had their reasoning on that one satisfactorily explained to me.

VinLieger · 30-04-2013 09:42PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm still at a bit of a loss here about why Christians think somebody would choose to be gay. I've never really had their reasoning on that one satisfactorily explained to me.

Duh cus they were raised by gay parents.... oh wait

aloyisious · 01-05-2013 08:13AM

Seriously though, JimiTime, do you not accept the possibility that in all the wonderful variety of human life, that there is the chance that all is not nurture, that most is nature? What is your opinion of Bi-sexual and Transgender people, do you think they are also nurture or lifestyle choices?

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 09:05AM

robp wrote: »

As I said its relevance is two fold but even if I was arguing solely with a slippery slope argument (which I am not) you can't establish a correlation as legalisation hasn't happened yet in a western country so there is no correlation because we have no incidences. Gay marriage is a very very new political issue only present for 20 years or so whilst something like abortion has over 100 years behind it. The situation will take time to evolve into a pattern which is predictive. Its to early to predict anything yet.

Which is why we never should have let women vote. Now we are going to have to let children vote. And dogs. And toasters.

I mean once we abandon the value system that says "one man one vote", we open a whole can of worms. Sure it starts off simple enough with women voting. But then how do you argue that children shouldn't be allowed vote? And then toddlers?

Pretty soon every human is voting (after all voting is a human right). But how do we stop non-humans voting if they want to? You have to then let dogs vote. And cats. And horses. Eventually we will get to plants because once you get down to the lower level animals there isn't much difference between them and plants so how could we realistically say lower level animals but not plants.

And then when you are letting plants vote, which are pretty much objects, well how do you argue against actual objects voting. So we have to allow toasters, washing machines, chairs etc to vote.

Pretty soon we have undermined the whole concept of voting rights. All because the people who argued for the right of women to vote didn't consider the long term problems undermining the tradition of voting would bring. In a hundred years we will have toasters voting and democratic society will have stopped functioning.

One man, one vote! That is the way it is naturally supposed to be, and we should never have started messing with it!

robp · 01-05-2013 11:16AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Which is why we never should have let women vote. Now we are going to have to let children vote. And dogs. And toasters.

I mean once we abandon the value system that says "one man one vote", we open a whole can of worms. Sure it starts off simple enough with women voting. But then how do you argue that children shouldn't be allowed vote? And then toddlers?

Pretty soon every human is voting (after all voting is a human right). But how do we stop non-humans voting if they want to? You have to then let dogs vote. And cats. And horses. Eventually we will get to plants because once you get down to the lower level animals there isn't much difference between them and plants so how could we realistically say lower level animals but not plants.

And then when you are letting plants vote, which are pretty much objects, well how do you argue against actual objects voting. So we have to allow toasters, washing machines, chairs etc to vote.

Pretty soon we have undermined the whole concept of voting rights. All because the people who argued for the right of women to vote didn't consider the long term problems undermining the tradition of voting would bring. In a hundred years we will have toasters voting and democratic society will have stopped functioning.

One man, one vote! That is the way it is naturally supposed to be, and we should never have started messing with it!

That is an entirely spurious analogy. If it had substance it would have been part of the arguments used to resist to women suffrage but it was not. Its a pure heart-string-tugging fallacy.

VinLieger · 01-05-2013 11:21AM

robp wrote: »

That is an entirely spurious analogy. If it had substance it would have been part of the arguments used to resist to women suffrage but it was not. Its a pure heart-string-tugging fallacy.

Which is exactly what the polygamous marriage argument is when talking about homosexual marriage, the 2 have absolutely nothing to do with each other except that people who disagree with gay marriage, even thought it has nothing to do with them, like to use it as a scaremongering tactic

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 11:28AM

robp wrote: »

That is an entirely spurious analogy.

It is a spot on analogy.

The arguments used for why we don't allow children, dogs and toasters to not vote do not apply to women. Therefore a slippery slope argument to stop women voting would be stupid.

The arguments for why we don't allow family members to marry, or why we don't allow polygamy do not apply to homosexual marrying. Therefore a slippery slope argument to stop them marrying would be stupid.

robp wrote: »

If it had substance it would have been part of the arguments used to resist to women suffrage but it was not. Its a pure heart-string-tugging fallacy.

Er, what?

It isn't an actual serious argument against women voting Robp, it is a ridiculously stupid argument against women voting.

But then the argument of a slippery slope is a ridiculously stupid argument against homosexuals marrying. Which is what this highlights.

The difference is that people are making that argument with all seriousness, where as this was satire to expose how silly the slippery slope line of arguing is.

NuMarvel · 01-05-2013 01:32PM

Zombrex wrote: »

But then the argument of a slippery slope is a ridiculously stupid argument against homosexuals marrying. Which is what this highlights.

The difference is that people are making that argument with all seriousness, where as this was satire to expose how silly the slippery slope line of arguing is.

What makes the slippery slope argument all the sillier is that we've heard it before. Back in the 50s, the opponents of interracial marriage in the US said marriage equality for mixed race couples would lead to polygamy and incest. It would also harm the children, and threaten the institute of marriage and so on and so forth. It was balderdash then, and it's balderdash now.

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 06:24PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Seriously though, JimiTime, do you not accept the possibility that in all the wonderful variety of human life, that there is the chance that all is not nurture, that most is nature?

I dont accept it as wonderful, but I do accept that there is likely biological causes in some, and non-biological causes in others. I don't actually believe that its all innate, nor do I believe that its all nurture. From what I've read, that seems to be what the evidence suggests. In other words, causes vary. Its not simply, 'you're born gay'. Some may be, some may not be.

What is your opinion of Bi-sexual and Transgender people, do you think they are also nurture or lifestyle choices?

I would have a similar view about Bi-sexuality as I would about homosexuality. Transgenderism is probably similar too. Some who have a hormonal imbalance, Gender Identity Disorder etc. Others, who may have been traumatised in their youth etc. I've a lot of friends who work in various social service roles, and one of the off shoots of child abuse is sexual and gender confusion. One friend, who works with drug addicted prostitutes, says there is an unbelievable amount of these women who are in lesbian relationships. Most of these women were horribly abused in their youth, and are still being abused by men. Due to her experience, she believes that many of the women are lesbian not through any innate cause, but rather through their experience with the men throughout their lives. She said its either that, or a tremendous percentage of lesbians happen to have been abused, and became prostitutes which simply doesn't make sense statistically.

Sexuality etc just seems so corruptible. When you consider that there are people who want to marry horses or objects, or people who like to eat other peoples feces etc, it becomes very apparent that people choose all kinds of mental stuff, and not always because they were born with some innate cause.

I think the fact that you are not allowed to publicly think anything contrary to what the LGBT groups tell you is acceptable, will mean that there'll probably be very little honest insight (scientifically) into these things going forward. Its a political minefield, and a scientist would be mad to risk his/her career by getting into it, unless of course its to back up what the LGBT lobby insists on.

I looked at the SPRC 'hate group list' recently, and some of the people on there, I was like 'wow'. It was simply, 'Disagree with gay adoption or marriage - file under hate group'. They are a respected institution too. People have to be very careful in terms of all things LGBT, such is the power of its lobby. I'm not talkin about the vile groups who would wish violence on people etc, but peace loving institutions (Who invite homosexual people into their homes. Make them dinner, and talk about their differences etc) who have a traditional view on marriage, and hold to Christian values. These are 'hate groups' because they don't conform to the modern, LGBT agenda led views on gender difference and marriage. Its insidious. Their agenda is winning the day though, to the point that even professing Christians are leaving Christ behind to be on the 'right side of history'.

Anyway, I've gone off on one there. What was the question?

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 06:26PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm still at a bit of a loss here about why Christians think somebody would choose to be gay. I've never really had their reasoning on that one satisfactorily explained to me.

Has anyone said that? People choose who they have sex with. Why/how they arrive at the point where their sexual urges are for members of the same sex is the question.

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 06:33PM

lazygal wrote: »

How is my non Christian marriage undermining Christian marriage though?

The legal framework of your marriage is from the Christian west. We just call it marriage, the same as mine. I don't say 'I'm in a Christian Marriage'. I'm simply married. It is understood what this is. Whether you are a Christian or not, marriage is what it is as informed by the years of Christian influence.

marienbad · 01-05-2013 06:34PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The legal framework of your marriage is from the Christian west. We just call it marriage, the same as mine. I don't say 'I'm in a Christian Marriage'. I'm simply married. It is understood what this is. Whether you are a Christian or not, marriage is what it is as informed by the years of Christian influence.

That is not completely correct though is it ? What about unions before Christ ?

lazygal · 01-05-2013 06:38PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The legal framework of your marriage is from the Christian west. We just call it marriage, the same as mine. I don't say 'I'm in a Christian Marriage'. I'm simply married. It is understood what this is. Whether you are a Christian or not, marriage is what it is as informed by the years of Christian influence.

But why do loads of other religions have marriages that are indistinguishable from 'Christian' marriage if Christian marriage is so unique? Whats the difference?

Corkfeen · 01-05-2013 06:43PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Anti-LGBT

Which groups out of that list would you classify as innocent of the accusations of being anti-LGBT and bigoted in nature? I've glanced through a few of them and the case for them having a hateful agenda seems legitimate, I even recognise many of the groups from prior statements that they have made.

A couple of them endorse quarantining people with aids and the death penalty for homosexuals. Others portray them as predators.

Edit: Checked entire list and none of them seem unwarranted. Each of their claims was far more far reaching than simply being opposed to gay marriage. Most seemed to desire for gay people to be treated as second class citizens or criminals. I'm really wondering how you could doubt that these organisations preach hate.

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

Comments