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

JimiTime wrote: »

They do make up their own minds, its that people have been bombarded with propaganda without knowing it. Thats what makes it effective. Like the woman in the article gets at, do something explicitly, and it needs to go through a persons filters and be reasoned going into the mind. Insidiously hatch an agenda over the course of years, and it implicitly makes its way into the psyche, so that people think that the opinions they have, have actually be born in themselves. I saw it with the Jehovahs Witnesses, and see how effective it is.

Fair play Jimi for displaying yet again your staggering lack of any sense of irony. You've simply outlined the methodology of religious indoctrination above yet decry it's use when you see it used elsewhere. It would be funny if it weren't so...insidious

NuMarvel wrote: »

If the removal of the law against interracial marriages didn't redefine marriage, then similarly the removal of the law against same sex marriage won't redefine marriage. And if the issues are nothing alike, then it's astonishing that the arguments are identical, namely:

• It's unnatural.
• It will be bad for the children.
• It will lead to incestuous marriages.
• It will lead to polygamous marriages.

And so on.

You're not going to change people's minds about our "insidious plot" and "propaganda" by using the same arguments as racists and bigots. Unless...

Unless our agenda has infiltrated your mindset too, and you are subconsciously doing our bidding. Advancing our agenda, post by post...

It's all part of our endgame Jimi. You've been our patsy the whole time. :eek: :eek:

Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia allowed polygamous marriages and that's not a very gay-friendly place.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Last time I checked the Bible was in favour of polygamous marriages so I can't understand why those who insist on a Biblical definition of marriage aren't out protesting that they can have only one wife (a woman having two husbands seems to be a big no-no). After all, the notion of a monogamous marriage is itself a re-definition.

If society was going to follow Biblical guidelines for how a society should function than Saudi Arabia is not too far removed from how that society would look.

Show how far they have come in 2000 years, those Saudis.:p
Actually polygamy is a good example of how marriage is traditionally based on 'bloodlines' and the relationships of the couple being dependent on the children more than any recognition of love between the couple. Objecting to polygamy is a bit stupid as it's the best example of what traditional marriage is based on. i.e what is being defended by the proponents of traditional marriage. Never mind that that particular definition went the way of the Dodo a couple of centuries ago.

StudentDad wrote: »

France just signed gay marriage into law. Good thing as far as I'm concerned. I'm curious to know if a gay couple got married in France and settled in here, would their marriage be recognised in this member state?

It could be very embarrassing if it isn't

SD

As far as I know it gets down-graded to a civil partnership.

We used to recognize divorces so why not marriages?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage in Ireland. Legally it doesn't exist therefore one cannot be recognised as having done it. Civil Partnership does exist so that is what it is considered equal too.

A couple of EU citizens get married in a member state of of the European Union and Ireland turns around and denies the validity of that marriage?

Yes Irish national law may deny the existence of same sex marriage. I'm curious to know what the European courts would say on that matter, on equality grounds and on the right to a family life. A civil partnership as far as I know isn't the same thing as a marriage.

Interesting times ahead.

SD

hfallada wrote: »

I find it interesting that the EU is all for equal rights eg putting pressure on the government to decriminalise being gay in 1993. But yet same sex marriage they wont get involved in.

You are quite right. One of the core tenants of the EU is a reduction in discrimination. You can see this in much of the legislation that it has passed.

The problem is, whilst it is keen to reduce discrimination, which barring same-sex couples from civil marriage is, as SD points out, it does need to be very careful. Whilst it can pass legislation on a number of topics within those topic it allows a "margin of appreciation." There are a number of reasons behind this. First, the EU appreciates that in some areas the states may be better places to fill in the fine detail of legislation, or, better placed to know what exceptions need to be in place for that particular state.

Secondly, even though they signed up for it, some states don't like the EU "butting" in, just look at the right wing media, and some conservatives in the UK and their conniptions over the HRA. For this reason the EU will often shy away from areas where they feel there could be a lot of controversy.

Thirdly, they are concerned that if they do start making waves in these controversial areas it could lead to serious political problems.

So, whilst the EU does try to promote a sense of anti-discrimination, it will only go so far. What we have seen so far is that it is likely that they support same-sex marriage in principle, but they are not yet willing to push it in states where it does not exist. Whilst this is not ideal it does mean that, where a country does legislate for same-sex marriage the EU will step in if for some reason same-sex couples are having difficulty getting married and also, once same-sex marriage is legislated for it will, I think, vigorously oppose any future attempts to remove it.

hfallada wrote: »

Maybe they will put a directive in place like the recent divorce directive that means if you get divorced in one country in the EU its valid across the EU. Likewise if you get married in x country, its valid throughout the EU. Like Italians because of red tape wait up to tens years for divorce can get a quicky divorce in Romania and be divorced in only 6 months.

Recognition is a tricky one. If a same-sex couple got married elsewhere and moved to a state that did not have same-sex marriage then their marriage would be "downgraded" to whatever that state happened to have in place. I don't think this is ideal, but I suspect the same principle applies and the EU are being very careful with how far they go.

MrP

StudentDad wrote: »

At the end of the day this boils down to good old fashioned prejudice. It's discrimination of the highest order and frankly it's embarrassing that Irelands core law blatently discriminates against gay people.

SD

I don't disagree with you, merely pointing out how it is and why. And it should be noted that this is not just Ireland's law blatantly discriminating, it is most EU states. I expect that most of the states will bring it in themselves, once the balance starts to tip it will be interesting to see if that does cause a change in how far they are willing to go. It seems likely that it will, but I would expect that Ireland will have legalised same-sex marriage before the EU gets round to forcing it.

MrP

lmaopml wrote: »

That's it exactly NuMarvel - The Church doesn't oppose any union of love between a bride and groom who want to be 'married' according to certain values of the Gospel. However, the 'vow' one takes should ( if it means anything ) accept that children may result when it is conducted in a Christian context -

....and, not that one who decides to have a Catholic ceremony, because they feel entitled to it - and already decided that children whether they can have them or no - is quite simply not for them. That's really very hypocritical.





Of course. There are registrars who will marry a couple, any number of ways to have a legal wedding - one doesn't have to choose to marry in a Catholic church and also decide before they take their vow that the vow means very little from the outset as regards their 'choice' of offspring..That is quite simply not Catholic.





No I am not, not every person merely decides to get married in the Catholic Church and take a vow as regards future children for granted - it's part and parcel of the union - whether a person chose to have the bells and frills is besides the point, because they 'like' the white wedding etc. and so on..... if they didn't look at the vow towards each other in respect for each other, and the union they will share, that indeed they have shared publicly with those they love too - than what does it mean, if it never meant what it was meant to mean from day one.

I am saying if one chooses to make a vow towards another than it should not be conducted 'till you piss me off' - that's not the basis - it should be until death do us part - and 'that' my friend is the difference!

I think we're having two different discussions, because none of this applies the questions I asked. To be clear, I am talking about civil marriage, not marriage within the Christian church. As things stand, civil marriage for heterosexual couples does not place any requirement to have, or even want to have, children. It doesn't apply any criteria on how couples have children, and nor does it place any pre-judgement on the capability of the couple to be parents, except where a child is already in the care of the State. What civil marriage does do is put legal protections in place for the relationship between all members of the family created through marriage, be that relationship be between two adults, or a child and his/her parents when a couple become parents. While civil partnership takes some steps to protect the relationship between the adults, it leaves the hundreds of children with same sex parents in a legal limbo. In order to address these inequalities, civil marriage rights must be extended to same sex couples.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If the removal of the law against interracial marriages didn't redefine marriage, then similarly the removal of the law against same sex marriage won't redefine marriage. And if the issues are nothing alike, then it's astonishing that the arguments are identical, namely:

• It's unnatural.
• It will be bad for the children.
• It will lead to incestuous marriages.
• It will lead to polygamous marriages.

And so on.

You're not going to change people's minds about our "insidious plot" and "propaganda" by using the same arguments as racists and bigots. Unless...

Unless our agenda has infiltrated your mindset too, and you are subconsciously doing our bidding. Advancing our agenda, post by post...

It's all part of our endgame Jimi. You've been our patsy the whole time. :eek: :eek:

TBH, Jehovahs Witnesses can't be talked around neither. All you can do is lay out the situation, and someday there may be a realisation in some. And everyone moaning about the 'plot', should read 'After the Ball'.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all. There needed to be a move to stop men and women of different races being married. There needs to be a move to redefine MARRIAGE ITSELF in order to make it a genderless commitment between two people.

I take it you meant to word your post "some people thought there needed to be a move to stop men and women of different races being married" rather than the way it appeared .

I like your idea of Marriage being redefined if you refer to Civil Marriage as a registry office ceremony alone, with full recognition by all to it of all the rights and obligations in it. That, after all is what most of those pushing for "Gay" marriage want.

It should also allow for transgender people who've had their changed status recognized by the state to marry here, and allow for foreign same-sex marriages to be recognized in law here. That would still allow those who wish for both a Religious Ceremony and a registering of it by Civil Authority to have their happiness unaffected.

I'd still hold on to any current Civil Marriage age and sensibility rules attached to that, reference "adult and/or capable" decisions made to enter such an agreement and it's obligations, to prevent anyone being coerced to sign into a Civil Marriage agreement. The usual bars would apply when there is/are extant marriage/s in existence involving any of the partners (to a third party) in any proposed Civil Marriage.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The opponents of interracial marriage very much saw it as redefining marriage. That was one of the arguments used by them in the day because most US States banned interracial marriages from their founding. The real and everyday application of marriage was that race was a component of the definition. It had to be, otherwise it wouldn't have taken more than 150 years for a court challenge to finally be successful. And there were plenty of court challenges before the successful one.

I may have not been clear enough, but the difference is they needed to move to CLOSE THE DOOR on people of different race's marrying each other, as marriage itself allowed for it. In terms of making marriage genderless, a move needs to be made to OPEN THE DOOR, as marriage itself doesn't allow for it. And thats not even dealing with the difference between someone simply having something as arbitrary as a certain skin pigment, compared to something behavioural and an agenda that looks to redefine something as fundamental as marriage and parenthood. Not to mention the gender side of the agenda.
But sure, the fact that you associate the two is part of the agenda. No doubt someone somewhere is probably calling us Nazi's too

From the point of view of people against interracial marriage, you're the victim of a slow burning insidious plot. Your mindset has been infiltrated, bombarded with propaganda without knowing it. The pro-marriage faction has insidiously hatched an agenda over the course of years, and it implicitly makes its way into the psyche, so that you think that the opinions you have, have actually been born in yourself.


Of course, that's completely silly. But so far every argument you've put forward against same sex marriage parallels those used against interracial marriage. You can't expect people to listen to you or to realise "the truth" when the last group of people to use those arguments have been shown to be very very wrong.

You can keep saying its the same, and your gallery will surely agree, but you'd still be wrong

You should seriously read 'After The Ball'. Its written by two gay men, and sets out the agenda. Its amazing how its been put into action (Even on an academic level. It prompts many questions as to how we are influenced and manipulated etc by the media. Quite fascinating, and a wee bit scary too). Below is a link to a very brief description. Its a completely pro-homosexual book btw, in case you think its written by an opponent. It just may enlighten you to what has actually happened in society, and why I would call it an insidious slow burner.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1147428/posts

Corkfeen wrote: »

You're the largest contributor to this thread yet still have no understanding of the arguments, astonishing. How many times have you brought bestiality into this topic? Two adults engaging in a homosexual relationship is consensual and there should be no issue. An animal is incapable of consent so it is entirely unacceptable for a person to engage in a sexual relationship with them and an act of cruelty towards the animal. Due to the lack of consent, you don't even to consider any other issues.

The only association is the one which you and some particular nasty objectors to homosexuality like to draw. There is no reasoning in your contrast. You should know this by now because this point of yours has been refuted numerous times. Are you still having trouble proving that being gay is an illness btw?

'Nasty objectors' If you only knew. Anyway, did you read the article? If so, I gather that your objection is simply the consent issue correct?