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

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 03:39PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Sorry to say we've already started changing marriage to include divorce, so that one man, one woman thing for life rarely holds up.

I'm glad that you are sorry to say it, you obviously see the issue. Why then would you seek to undermine it further though?

And also you're using a strawman's argument with this. This is about gay marriage not polygamous marriage or incestual marriage. They've zero connection with one another so if you want to start discussing those matters then start your own thread on them because this is about two men and two women who want to marry, nobody is asking for polygamous, incestual marriages that's all in your head.

Its very much part of it, and you may not like the association (I'm glad you don't), but dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love. If you want to use the arguments, then at least have the smarts to indulge in some foresight rather than getting annoyed and trying to ignore what your agenda opens the door to.

1ZRed · 08-05-2013 03:47PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm glad that you are sorry to say it, you obviously see the issue. Why then would you seek to undermine it further though?

I said sorry in a sarcastic way obviously. If somebody was extremely unhappy in their marriage or getting abused then it is a fantastic thing that they can get out. That is only right!

Its very much part of it, and you may not like the association (I'm glad you don't), but dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love. If you want to use the arguments, then at least have the smarts to indulge in some foresight rather than getting annoyed and trying to ignore what your agenda opens the door to.

Then allowing straight marriage in the first place is what opened the door to all of this, therefore straight marriage is to blame by your logic.

Maybe we should abolish straight marriage so? Do I have enough smarts for you now?

Corkfeen · 08-05-2013 04:06PM

Each claim should be viewed individually, you repeatedly use this slippery slope. I haven't seen any signs of either polygamous or incestuous marriages being allowed as the objection to them are significantly different. We have previously proven to you that same sex couples can be equally good parents as a straight couple but you'd prefer to discount that from your memory.

Same sex parents already exist, single people can adopt. Why shouldn't both parents be recognised legally as the parent through marriage. This legally does protect the child for example if one of the parents were to die. At this point in time, the state says that same sex couples' relationships are inferior and any children which they have, have inferior rights to the children of a married couple. You know damn well that society won't be crumble as a result of same sex marriage, in fact it will benefit.

Also, not everyone that marries want children. They are conferred legal rights through marriage that aren't based on the state's expectation for them to have children. There's no fertility tests or cut off ages etc.

You still haven't covered the non religious reasons for objecting to homosexuality. Shall you be covering questionable stats on promiscuity or aids? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 04:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Well the reason I object to redefining marriage is not a religious one, but a societal one. Contrary to what the lobby groups say, the state is not interested in who you love. That is not why it holds marriage in esteem. In some ways, due to the fact that powerful politicians are now regurgitating the LGBT lobby's words about 'Why should we tell people who they can love' (What nonsense), it could be said its already been redefined in order to be legally redefined. So not only is the state undermining marriage by doing such a thing, but it also means that there is no logical reason to deny incestuous, polyamorous or whatever else comes down the line. Marriage afterall, according to the likes of David Cameron, is the state telling people who they can and cannot love.

Marriage as the institution of one man and woman for life, to the exclusion of all others, is the most secure place for children to born into and be raised in. It is the foundation of a successful society, and is what should be maintained and in fact strengthened and continually encouraged.

That highlighted bit is an argument against divorce.

We have divorce.

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 04:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That highlighted bit is an argument against divorce.

We have divorce.

Actually its not. Its an argument FOR marriage.

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 04:29PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Then allowing straight marriage in the first place is what opened the door to all of this, therefore straight marriage is to blame by your logic.

Maybe we should abolish straight marriage so? Do I have enough smarts for you now?

To repeat.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love.

08-05-2013 04:35PM

JimiTime wrote: »

To repeat.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who can have kids kicks down the door for incestual marriage (and removing marriage rights from people who can't or don't want kids)

Corkfeen · 08-05-2013 04:35PM

JimiTime wrote: »

To repeat.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love. If you want to use the arguments, then at least have the smarts to indulge in some foresight rather than getting annoyed and trying to ignore what your agenda opens the door to.

At one point people believed that people should not marry outside of their race. So you could argue that could have led to the floodgates opening too. I know you hate the contrast but they have much in common. The argument styles against same sex marriage are similar to the one that you use against same sex marriage .

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to unhealthy children
...
Forde-Mazrui noted that similar arguments against same-sex and interracial relationships appear in regards to children. There was once total opposition to couples adopting children of different races, and there is still weight placed against allowing a white couple to adopt a black child, he said, because of societal pressures. The National Association for Black Social Workers has said such cases may result in black children having “white minds.”

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

I also found this to be somewhat amusing.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-you-cant-tell-the-difference-between-these-actual-anti-interracial-and-anti-gay-marriage-quotes/#0

Particularly this anti-interracial marriage comment, -"I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

Viper_JB · 08-05-2013 04:45PM

JimiTime wrote: »

To repeat.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love.

I don't think comparing homosexuality to incest or Polygamy is valid in any way shape or forum, legislating for gay marriage does exactly that no more no less, Christianity does not own marriage, if you want to discriminate or hold prejudiced against homosexual people because your god tells you too then surely that's between you and him, but shouldn't have any affect on someone else relationship.

This thread does make me lose hope for a lot of people out there, a little bit of love and acceptance goes a long way...

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 04:47PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Your awful attempts at theology aside, its God that they have an issue with.

And again unless God is communicating directly to you his views on homosexual relationship, it isn't God they have an issue with, it is claims about God and those who believe those claims that they have an issue with.

Someone has claimed something about God (that he doesn't approve of homosexual relationships) and you have believed them. Not God, but them, the person who made this claim. You have considered this claim, concluded it is reasonable, and then asserted it as true yourself.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just like when the Israelites demanded of Samuel a King, it was God that they were rejecting. Gods revelation to man is clear on the issue

Has God revealed this directly to you?

If not you are getting this information third hand as part of the swarm of claims about god/gods/God, and you are choosing which claims to accept and which to reject. Which is why you aren't a Mormon, or a Jew, or a Hindu. Joseph Smith claimed a lot of things about God, but you don't believe them.

So again the question is why do you accept the claim made by others that the divine creator of the universe is displeased by homosexual relationships?

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 04:54PM

JimiTime wrote: »

To repeat.

Dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love.

By Darwins beard this again

As has been explained literally a hundred times already there are reasons against both incest and polygomy that what ever your feelings on these reasons have nothing to do with the notion that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Or to put it another way

The reason we don't allow incest isn't because it breaks the Christian definition of marriage, therefore accepting a non-Christian notion of marriage cannot kick the door open for polygamy or incest because the reasons we don't have that were not because they went against the tradition man/woman Christian notion of marriage.

It is like claiming the only reason we don't allow bank robberies is because it takes up too much time for those in the queue so if we introduce ATMs and speed up queues we kick the door open for bank robberies. :rolleyes:

So please Jimi, if you are going to call others dishonest try not to do it while blatantly presenting such a dishonest argument yourself :rolleyes:

Benny_Cake · 08-05-2013 05:25PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

At one point people believed that people should not marry outside of their race. So you could argue that could have led to the floodgates opening too. I know you hate the contrast but they have much in common. The argument styles against same sex marriage are similar to the one that you use against same sex marriage.

Mildred Loving (of Loving v Virginia, and a committed Christian all her life) certainly saw a connection between her struggle and this struggle:

"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/24/marriage-equality-civil-rights-inheritance

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 05:43PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Each claim should be viewed individually, you repeatedly use this slippery slope. I haven't seen any signs of either polygamous or incestuous marriages being allowed as the objection to them are significantly different.

You can choose to ignore the blatantly obvious issue. Like when Dr. Bernard Nathanson was looking to get abortion legal in the US, he was so determined, that he didn't care about cooking the books, lying etc, as he saw the ends. Some of us have a more considered approach to the overhaul of arguably the most important institution in society.

We have previously proven to you that same sex couples can be equally good parents as a straight couple but you'd prefer to discount that from your memory.

That didn't need to be proven to me, as I don't believe, nor have I ever believed that same sex couples can't be good parents. You may be mixing that up with my position on the fact that a child should ideally have both a mother and a father, and that mothers and fathers are not inconsequential.

Same sex parents already exist, single people can adopt. Why shouldn't both parents be recognised legally as the parent through marriage.

In the case of one biological parent having a same sex partner, case can be made to have the same sex partner as other parent with the consent of the childs biological father or mother. It doesn't redefining marriage.

You know damn well that society won't be crumble as a result of same sex marriage, in fact it will benefit.

I don't believe society will crumble because of homosexuals getting together. I do believe that in the years to come though, we'll suffer the consequences of undermining marriage.

Also, not everyone that marries want children. They are conferred legal rights through marriage that aren't based on the state's expectation for them to have children. There's no fertility tests or cut off ages etc.

And?

MrPudding · 08-05-2013 05:45PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm glad that you are sorry to say it, you obviously see the issue. Why then would you seek to undermine it further though?

Its very much part of it, and you may not like the association (I'm glad you don't), but dishonestly pretending that marriage is about who the state lets you love kicks the door open for all of this. If the state are convinced, or pretending that marriage is about who it says you can love or not, then when the incestuous adults and polyamorous folk come knocking, they can use the poor definition that is being used to get marriage redefined for homosexuals, and look at how the state is telling them who they can and cannot love. If you want to use the arguments, then at least have the smarts to indulge in some foresight rather than getting annoyed and trying to ignore what your agenda opens the door to.

Quite some time ago I posted links to the proposition 8 cases in California and recommended that people using these flawed arguments should read them. Clearly you didn't.

These arguements are deeply flawed and where dismissed quite easily by the courts. You really should familiarise yourself with them. I know you don't care what people think of you, but perhaps you should.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mildred Loving (of Loving v Virginia, and a committed Christian all her life) certainly saw a connection between her struggle and this struggle:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/24/marriage-equality-civil-rights-inheritance

Loving was quoted extensively in the proposition 8 cases. Also well worth a read.

MrP

1ZRed · 08-05-2013 05:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You can choose to ignore the blatantly obvious issue. Like when Dr. Bernard Nathanson was looking to get abortion legal in the US, he was so determined, that he didn't care about cooking the books, lying etc, as he saw the ends. Some of us have a more considered approach to the overhaul of arguably the most important institution in society.

That didn't need to be proven to me, as I don't believe, nor have I ever believed that same sex couples can't be good parents. You may be mixing that up with my position on the fact that a child should ideally have both a mother and a father, and that mothers and fathers are not inconsequential.

In the case of one biological parent having a same sex partner, case can be made to have the same sex partner as other parent with the consent of the childs biological father or mother. It doesn't redefining marriage.

I don't believe society will crumble because of homosexuals getting together. I do believe that in the years to come though, we'll suffer the consequences of undermining marriage.

And?

Seriously I'd love some evidence from you for once. What are the consequences going to be? Four horses of the apocalypse? Famine? Flood? Seriously I fail to see how allowing people of the same gender who are in love to marry will cause such chaos.

We've heard it ALL before in the cases against mixed race marriages. How history has a humorous way of repeating itself.

You'll see yourself on the wrong side of history when people look back at this, just as they do now with mixed race marriages.

Funnily enough if you were religious back then in those times you'd also be programmed to be viciously against that too, and I bet you don't see the big deal with mixed race marriage these days though, no?

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 05:51PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mildred Loving (of Loving v Virginia, and a committed Christian all her life) certainly saw a connection between her struggle and this struggle:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/24/marriage-equality-civil-rights-inheritance

Again Benny, as a person who believes Jesus is Lord, are you committed to seeking the heart of God in this?

1ZRed · 08-05-2013 05:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Again Benny, as a person who believes Jesus is Lord, are you committed to seeking the heart of God in this?

So the fact that he's religious, just as you are, but doesn't appear to be so outwardly against this as you are has you doubting his faith, or means that it's not as strong as yours? Nice

Benny_Cake · 08-05-2013 06:00PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Again Benny, as a person who believes Jesus is Lord, are you committed to seeking the heart of God in this?

Yes, I am, and I do (don't like discussing what I pray about, but this is something I do - I'm always conscious of the fact I could be completely wrong about something).

I don't expect us to agree on this, but even if I saw homosexuality as inherently wrong (and I don't) I would see no good reason to prevent families consisting of same sex couples, and any children they may have, of availing of the same access to civil marriage as straight couples have. It seems to me that a loving marriage is a fundamentally good thing, for the couple and for society.

Benny_Cake · 08-05-2013 06:09PM

1ZRed wrote: »

So the fact that he's religious, just as you are, but doesn't appear to be so outwardly against this as you are has you doubting his faith, or means that it's not as strong as yours? Nice

In fairness, I have my doubts just as much as anyone else, and I'm probably not as religious as Jimi is. Jimi is asking that I be open to having my mind changed on this I think, I'd ask the same of him!

I just don't see why my gay friends, or LGBT people everywhere, should have to struggle so hard simply to have the same level of recognition accorded to their committed monogamous relationships as anyone else. It's one of the big civil rights issues of our times and I'm encouraged that there are Christian voices supporting this struggle, and others who are at least willing to consider their position on the issue. Of course there are a great many figures in the across the churches, many of them quite powerful, who feel differently.

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 06:09PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Yes, I am, and I do (don't like discussing what I pray about, but this is something I do - I'm always conscious of the fact I could be completely wrong about something).

Do you mind saying what you have done to seek the heart of God on this?

I don't expect us to agree on this, but even if I saw homosexuality as inherently wrong (and I don't) I would see no good reason to prevent families consisting of same sex couples, and any children they may have, of availing of the same access to civil marriage as straight couples have. It seems to me that a loving marriage is a fundamentally good thing, for the couple and for society.

Well that would be a different conversation, about the practicalities. A much more important pressing issue for a Christian, is finding Gods heart on the matter, and in turn, how we present it to others.

Benny_Cake · 08-05-2013 06:24PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you mind saying what you have done to seek the heart of God on this?

Prayed (because if I'm wrong on something I'd like to be pointed in the right direction), read a bit about the relevant passages and the world in which they were written. I've seen quite a few same sex couples whose live lives of integrity and love - witnessing God's love and being a blessing to those who they encounter. I think that this is old ground anyway, I don't expect everyone to feel the same. Sincere people of good will can come to different conclusions, including those who pray to the same God.

JimiTime · 08-05-2013 06:24PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

In fairness, I have my doubts just as much as anyone else, and I'm probably not as religious as Jimi is.

I wouldn't consider myself religious at all actually

Jimi is asking that I be open to having my mind changed on this I think, I'd ask the same of him!

Actually, as you are a professing Christian, and thus representing Christianity, I'm asking you to ask the pertinent question, I.E. What is Gods view.

I just don't see why my gay friends, or LGBT people everywhere, should have to struggle so hard simply to have the same level of recognition accorded to their committed monogamous relationships as anyone else. It's one of the big civil rights issues of our times and I'm encouraged that there are Christian voices supporting this struggle, and others who are at least willing to consider their position on the issue. Of course there are a great many figures in the across the churches, many of them quite powerful, who feel differently.

And as a Christian, our job is not to seek our heart or the hearts of others (however powerful) but to seek the heart of God. Think about the consequences in this country alone of following religious leaders, rather than the light of Christ.

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 07:05PM

JimiTime wrote: »

And as a Christian, our job is not to seek our heart or the hearts of others (however powerful) but to seek the heart of God. Think about the consequences in this country alone of following religious leaders, rather than the light of Christ.

The implication from that is that you are seeking the heart of God, and Benny isn't.

What makes you confident that your views on this matter are in line with the will of God, other than your own personal distaste towards homosexual practice?

Links234 · 08-05-2013 07:43PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I do believe that in the years to come though, we'll suffer the consequences of undermining marriage.

What consequences would those be?

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 08:16PM

Links234 wrote: »

What consequences would those be?

Dogs marrying cats, stones rolling up hills, you know the usual

NuMarvel · 08-05-2013 09:31PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Dogs marrying cats, stones rolling up hills, you know the usual

You mean, like all those other times we let minorities marry whoever they wanted? The world must be RAMPANT with incestuous and polygamous marriages by now, so who'd notice a few more after we let gay people marry?

Sonics2k · 10-05-2013 03:35PM

Links234 wrote: »

What consequences would those be?

The same ones when divorce was legalized.

Nothing.

aloyisious · 17-05-2013 11:22AM

This post is, initially, going to seem slightly offtrack from the marriage issue. I was looking at another thread here, the abortion thread, and saw the bit about "Women Hurt" a group of women who've regretted having abortions and were talking to Oireachtas members on their changed points of view on the issue. I looked up the US case of Roe V Wade, as some time back it was reported that the woman Roe had changed her point of view on that issue. I "googled" the case and came across this in passing:..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQqQIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fjurisprudence%2F2013%2F05%2Fjustice_ginsburg_and_roe_v_wade_caution_for_gay_marriage.html&ei=Qf-VUdThJsbE7AbM94H4DA&usg=AFQjCNGNsi9lQF9PUzs8cnUN5vYA7txsCA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.ZGU

JimiTime · 17-05-2013 08:07PM

aloyisious wrote: »

This post is, initially, going to seem slightly offtrack from the marriage issue. I was looking at another thread here, the abortion thread, and saw the bit about "Women Hurt" a group of women who've regretted having abortions and were talking to Oireachtas members on their changed points of view on the issue. I looked up the US case of Roe V Wade, as some time back it was reported that the woman Roe had changed her point of view on that issue. I "googled" the case and came across this in passing:..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQqQIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fjurisprudence%2F2013%2F05%2Fjustice_ginsburg_and_roe_v_wade_caution_for_gay_marriage.html&ei=Qf-VUdThJsbE7AbM94H4DA&usg=AFQjCNGNsi9lQF9PUzs8cnUN5vYA7txsCA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.ZGU

She's right. A slow burning insidious plot is a lot more effective. Then its about knowing that the plot has worked and that you have infiltrated enough peoples mindsets before you enter endgame. In terms of redefining marriage, I think they've timed it well.

NuMarvel · 17-05-2013 08:31PM

JimiTime wrote: »

She's right. A slow burning insidious plot is a lot more effective. Then its about knowing that the plot has worked and that you have infiltrated enough peoples mindsets before you enter endgame. In terms of redefining marriage, I think they've timed it well.

You have a very low opinion of people if you think they're not able to make up their own minds on this matter.

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

Comments