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

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 07:32AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I will never get over seeing people so hell bent on preventing gay people from being together that they'll twist their own definition of marriage into bizarre knots in the hope of contriving an obstruction, sooner than just mind their own business and let them get on with it. It's like throwing dirt over a buffet you have to eat from just to spite a subsequent diner.

You really have to tie definitions into bizarre knots in order to accuse me of preventing gay people from being together.

Why bother even trying to construct a sentence if you can twist words in such a fashion?

And are you 'minding your own business'?

I think that anyone should be able to coexist unmolested with whoever they want. I just don't think that that should bring about any particular privilege or right.

And we should all be equal under the law.

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 07:37AM

murraykil wrote: »

Not any more!

Linguistic terrorism. It will be opposed.

murraykil · 21-05-2013 07:44AM

dadvocate wrote: »

Linguistic terrorism. It will be opposed.

Sorry dude, too late, unless . . .

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 07:44AM

murraykil wrote: »

Nice, I see you have found how we can have a bride in male gay marriage!

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

(Image and link kindly provided by dadvocate)

And now you want to change the meaning of bride. :rolleyes:

Like I said, attack the law, not the language.

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 07:47AM

murraykil wrote: »

Sorry dude, too late, unless . . .

I expected you to change the word 'terrorism' into the term 'freedom fighting'.:cool:

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 07:50AM

Why limit the participants in marriage to two?

If three or four people love each other, have regular group sex and co-habit, then shouldn't they be recognised as a family unit under the law?

Or should they be regarded as something less?

aloyisious · 21-05-2013 08:00AM

dadvocate wrote: »

You really have to tie definitions into bizarre knots in order to accuse me of preventing gay people from being together.

Why bother even trying to construct a sentence if you can twist words in such a fashion?

And are you 'minding your own business'?

I think that anyone should be able to coexist unmolested with whoever they want. I just don't think that that should bring about any particular privilege or right.

And we should all be equal under the law.

Erm.... Particular privilege.... equal under law..... ????????

Isn't the debate about how some citizens of our country are not equal under the law, and that other citizens feel that Civil Marriage law should stay the same as Religious Sacrament law, that male and female homosexuals should NOT be allowed marry within Civil law?

Which law are you talking about?

Edit.... It appear's from your last post above that you are merely stirring the pot and have no intent on real participation in the debate. I was wondering about your choice of using the word unmolested in the post I'm replying-to.

NuMarvel · 21-05-2013 08:02AM

dadvocate wrote: »

Linguistic terrorism. It will be opposed.

Then why did you join a website called Boards.ie where board has always been a long piece of wood?

And how do you feel about the word Web being used to describe the internet, when clearly there are no spiders involved??

And what's this Facebook thing? There is no book of faces!!!!!

Let's not even start on Google...

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2013 08:04AM

dadvocate wrote: »

Why limit the participants in marriage to two?

If three or four people love each other, have regular group sex and co-habit, then shouldn't they be recognised as a family unit under the law?

Or should they be regarded as something less?

Wait for it! The animal argument is coming any minute!

NuMarvel · 21-05-2013 08:34AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Wait for it! The animal argument is coming any minute!

I think incest is before bestiality. I'm sure it's the polygamy argument first, the incest argument after that, then bestiality. Getting married to children used to feature somewhere in there as well, but they've dropped that in recent years. And scattered throughout all that is the usual marriage is about having children, which then gets edited to marriage is about raising children as a mum and dad, which then gets changed again to (deep breath) marriage is about the possibility of, at some point in time maybe perhaps if you wanted, being a mum and dad, but only if you wanted to and it doesn't really matter if you don't or or can't or didn't when you could have.

For a group so vocal about not wanting to change marriage, the anti-equality brigade do a great job of contorting the word to make it fit into their ever changing definition.

Delirium · 21-05-2013 08:36AM

dadvocate wrote: »

Like I said, it is the law that needs to change, not the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage has already changed. It happened 12 years ago when Holland legalised same sex marriage. And it is not an accepted use of the term in many countries around the world.

Corkfeen · 21-05-2013 10:03AM

To give credit to dadvocate, he's consistent even if he is rejecting the legal purposes of marriage altogether. Normally if we asked a person, should the infertile be allowed to marry? They'd say of course but dadvocate appears to reject all marriages without offspring, T'is amusing....

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2013 11:02AM

As someone pointed out earlier in the thead, discrimination based on sexual orientation is very similar to racism. The way sentences start along the lines of 'I have no problem with gay people but..........' is an exact echo of 'I'm not racist but........'.

Although it also infuriates me, and being straight I am able to look at it without subjective experience of discrimination and ludicrous comparisons, I sometimes find this argument completely hilarious. I am unsure if it is my bizarre sense of humour, but I frequently find the anti equal marriage argument funny to the point that I laugh out loud. Particularly when absurd, irrational, illogical 'arguments' such as marrying animals are brought up. The circular content of the argument is comical. We all know exactly which silly comparison is going to come out at what point. The irrational 'reasons' to oppose equal marriage have been refuted with logic and reason repeatedly throughout hundreds of posts, yet still we get 'the only valid purpose of marriage is breeding' and 'if gay marriage is legalised we will have to let people marry their sister/cat/reindeer/goldfish/grandfather/kitchen sink'. How this utter rubbish can be taken seriously in any official capacity is far beyond my understanding. No argument that I have heard yet against equal marriage has the slightest bit of credit. Usually it is not even based in reality. The motivation behind it is plain, simple homophobia and the majority of opposers tie themselves in knots trying to assure people it is not. There is very little point in one thinking they are disguising that by prefixing it with 'I have no problem with gay people but........'.

PopePalpatine · 21-05-2013 12:32PM

dadvocate wrote: »

Why limit the participants in marriage to two?

If three or four people love each other, have regular group sex and co-habit, then shouldn't they be recognised as a family unit under the law?

Or should they be regarded as something less?

Many countries which have Sharia Law have polygamist marriages, and they don't seem very gay-friendly.

Zombrex · 21-05-2013 01:46PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Is there anyone who would defend this movement? If not, what is your objection?

This line of discussion always reminds me of the old argument some Christians used to make that if atheists don't believe in God what stops them from running around murdering people? To which the atheists replies with mild alarm "Is fear of God the only thing that stops you running around murdering people?"

Do you only think we shouldn't have sex with animals simple because that falls outside of the traditional definition of marriage?

I think we shouldn't have sex with animals because it is distressing and abusive to the animal, who is effectively being raped.

I think we shouldn't allow people to marry animals because the whole point of society recognizing marriage is that it recognizes the level of commitment and familiarity between two people (same as you recognizes parent child in context of next of kin). How can a sheep decide to take you off life support, or pick up your kids, or sign a legal document for you?

You will notice neither of these objections apply to homosexual marriage.

Why do you think these things shouldn't be allowed? Is your only object to them literally that they fall outside of the traditional notion of marriage? If so I think the issue is with you Jimi, not with gay rights campaigners.

JimiTime · 21-05-2013 03:27PM

koth wrote: »

How exactly would a marriage official determine that the animal hasn't been coerced into marriage? How would the animal report to the authorities it was been abused by its partner? When a divorce happens, does the human get all possessions and the house? Or does it have to be split 50-50? Would the animal be charged with indecent exposure if it isn't clothed in public? Will animals be given the vote? Will they be allowed claim social welfare?

Zombrex wrote: »

This line of discussion always reminds me of the old argument some Christians used to make that if atheists don't believe in God what stops them from running around murdering people? To which the atheists replies with mild alarm "Is fear of God the only thing that stops you running around murdering people?"

Do you only think we shouldn't have sex with animals simple because that falls outside of the traditional definition of marriage?

I think we shouldn't have sex with animals because it is distressing and abusive to the animal, who is effectively being raped.

I think we shouldn't allow people to marry animals because the whole point of society recognizing marriage is that it recognizes the level of commitment and familiarity between two people (same as you recognizes parent child in context of next of kin). How can a sheep decide to take you off life support, or pick up your kids, or sign a legal document for you?

You will notice neither of these objections apply to homosexual marriage.

Why do you think these things shouldn't be allowed? Is your only object to them literally that they fall outside of the traditional notion of marriage? If so I think the issue is with you Jimi, not with gay rights campaigners.

I didn't mention marriage, I asked those who read the article what they thought (Unfortunately, these megathreads make this happen often, as these topics have many facets). The guy in the article compares 'Zoos' and their position in society to where homosexuals were back in the 50's. A quote that compares their 'plight' is the following".....What's the point of living if we have to hide who we are?....."
So this is not about marriage rights, but rather an acceptance of their behaviour etc. They say they are born this way, ask questions like '..How is it rape if I'm allowing my dog mount me...' We know dogs in heat will mount your leg, so whats wrong with letting them mount one of your orifices?

It seems consent is everyones only issue. So how would you answer the above? Also, how do you answer the claim that the state will allow you kill, slaughter, enslave and eat an animal, but wont allow you 'love' it?

Read the article again without thinking about arguing with me about marriage, and tell me what you think, and if consent is your only beef (pardon the 'murderous' pun).

Corkfeen · 21-05-2013 03:43PM

A dog mounting a person is instinctual behaviour and not consensual so you would still be taking advantage of the animal for your own gratification. It doesn't fall into the category of a concious decision to provide informed consent which a human being is capable of. A human is completely aware of what they're doing while an animal is not Two consenting adult humans engaging in sexual acts are completely different from taking advantage of an animal. Consent isn't very difficult to understand unless you try to the obfuscate the facts. Your logic is entirely twisted and seriously you have a rather weird obsession with bestiality......

JimiTime · 21-05-2013 03:52PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

A dog mounting a person is instinctual behaviour and not consensual so you would still be taking advantage of the animal for your own gratification. It doesn't fall into the category of a concious decision to consent which a human being is capable of. Two consenting adult humans engaging in sexual acts are completely different from taking advantage of an animal.

If this is about consent, and the perspective of the animal, then how is it consistent that you can cage, kill, eat and burden an animal with work?

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 04:05PM

murraykil wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZLB9Y7lPw8

How can a gay wedding be both traditional and a first?

It is no wonder that our kids need to re-learn English as a pre-requisite to getting into university.

What does 'pop idol' mean? According to Simon Cowell it means someone who has yet to perform publicly.

It's a ridiculous use of language.

Benny_Cake · 21-05-2013 04:22PM

dadvocate wrote: »

How can a gay wedding be both traditional and a first?

It is no wonder that our kids need to re-learn English as a pre-requisite to getting into university.

What does 'pop idol' mean? According to Simon Cowell it means someone who has yet to perform publicly.

It's a ridiculous use of language.

The wedding ceremony was traditional in that it was performed in accordance with the customs of the Zulu and Tswana peoples. Many African ethnic groups and tribes distinguish between civil weddings, church weddings and traditional weddings (performed in accordance with tribal customs). I've come across people from places as far apart as Nigeria, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa who would describe their weddings in that way. This is the first traditional wedding (as far as is known) between two people of the same sex anywhere on the African continent.

Simply because we don't use the phrase "traditional" in that way in Ireland doesn't make it's use by people of a different culture ridiculous.

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 04:27PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What are we to take from that article? What do you take from it? That in order to put marriage back to it's 'traditional state' before awful things like women's rights and contraception came into play, we need to go back to women being 'subordinate' to their husbands? I doubt you'd find very many, even devoutly religious, women who would go along with that!

Don't try to move the goalposts or change horse mid-stream.

You, and others, made the claim that marriage was never about procreation and heirs.

You were wrong.

Now, rather than admit that you, and others, simply do not understand what is meant by the word 'marriage', you are trying to attack me for being a traditionalist, which I am not.

So, why don't you break your tradition and deal with the points that have actually been made rather than joining a mud-slinging campaign.

Marriage was designed as an institution between male and female participants in the same way that golf clubs are designed for golfers.

Should we legislate for footballers who want to play football on the ninth green?

Or should footballers play on a football pitch.

The point of posting that article was to demonstrate that you were historically incorrect about marriage, as many of you are and that is done.

Are you now prepared to admit that marriage was designed for heterosexual couples?

Corkfeen · 21-05-2013 04:45PM

dadvocate wrote: »

How can a gay wedding be both traditional and a first?

It is no wonder that our kids need to re-learn English as a pre-requisite to getting into university.

What does 'pop idol' mean? According to Simon Cowell it means someone who has yet to perform publicly.

It's a ridiculous use of language.

I've completed all of my English exams and I expect that I've got a first or a 2.1 in it. So I guess i'm probably more qualified to comment on this than you. :pac:(Never expected to argue from authority on such a silly subject) We constantly adapt the English language. Let's try the word 'conceit', would you it say it means 'vanity' or 'notion'? Because vanity is the modern meaning of it because words change. Cousin means kinsman while silly means innocent. It's called semantics change. As you can see some of the meanings change significantly while others change to a slight degree. Oral languages constantly change, it's not unique to English.

I think you should write an angrily worded letter to both Collins and Oxford. They should revert the meanings of words to whatever period you desire. Which period would you like?

You should also recommend that the Government provide a Henry the 8th test to all potential candidates for marriage. Firstly, they will be asked if they intend on having offspring. If they answer 'yes', they will move to the next stage where their fertility will be tested. If a pregnancy is not achieved within a certain period of time, it will be rendered void. This will be applicable to current marriages too.

The fact is that the legal definition of marriage will always supersede your own. Your grasp of linguistics appears to be far more ridiculous than the average teenager's grasp of it.

JimiTime wrote: »

If this is about consent, and the perspective of the animal, then how is it consistent that you can cage, kill, eat and burden an animal with work?

It's primarily what we consider to be ethical. Plenty of people disagree with all of the above. At this point in time we eat animals, there's a logic to it because they're a fantastic source of nutrients etc. There's even somewhat of an evolutionary basis to it, many of the animals that we kill or exploit would go extinct if humans did not exploit them. They're domesticated. It could indeed be considered exploitative depending on how it is done but however you work this, it's not going to justify your opinion on homosexuality and likening it to zoophilia.

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 04:48PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Erm.... Particular privilege.... equal under law..... ????????

That's is what I meant. Yes! Thank you for clearing that up.

aloyisious wrote: »

Isn't the debate about how some citizens of our country are not equal under the law, and that other citizens feel that Civil Marriage law should stay the same as Religious Sacrament law, that male and female homosexuals should NOT be allowed marry within Civil law?

You may bring that into the debate if you wish.

I'm debating that marriage is about joining an XX chromosome to an XY chromosome and I haven't said repeatedly that in my view this should not automatically confer rights that are unavailable to unmarried couples.

Am I being clear?

aloyisious wrote: »

Which law are you talking about?

Irish law.

Sheesh.:rolleyes:

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit.... It appear's from your last post above that you are merely stirring the pot and have no intent on real participation in the debate. I was wondering about your choice of using the word unmolested in the post I'm replying-to.

Would you like to back up that fatuous claim with some actual data?

I am the one who is most engaged with this debate and you can't change that with unsubstantiated claims concerning my intent.

Am I to take it from your post that you believe that gay couples should be subject to molestation?

I have been quite clear in my view; I think that no gay couple should be subjected to abuse on the basis of their choice of partner.

I hope I won't have to repeat myself again.

Delirium · 21-05-2013 04:49PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't mention marriage, I asked those who read the article what they thought (Unfortunately, these megathreads make this happen often, as these topics have many facets). The guy in the article compares 'Zoos' and their position in society to where homosexuals were back in the 50's. A quote that compares their 'plight' is the following".....What's the point of living if we have to hide who we are?....."
So this is not about marriage rights, but rather an acceptance of their behaviour etc. They say they are born this way, ask questions like '..How is it rape if I'm allowing my dog mount me...' We know dogs in heat will mount your leg, so whats wrong with letting them mount one of your orifices?

The human is consenting to the animal mounting them. How exactly would anyone determine if an animal consented to being mounted by a human? Consent has to be given for something not be considered rape. Animals have no way of communicating their consent, which would make it rape.

It seems consent is everyones only issue. So how would you answer the above? Also, how do you answer the claim that the state will allow you kill, slaughter, enslave and eat an animal, but wont allow you 'love' it?

Meat processing plants generally try to kill the animals in a humane and painless way. They don't take it into a basement and torture it for days/weeks before killing it, so why should we accept the idea of sexually abusing an animal over an extended period of time?

Read the article again without thinking about arguing with me about marriage, and tell me what you think, and if consent is your only beef (pardon the 'murderous' pun).

You say that as if consent isn't a hugely important thing. Rape and murder are considered two of, if not the two, worst acts a person can commit. Both of these acts have the lack of consent of the victim in common.

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 05:12PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Then why did you join a website called Boards.ie where board has always been a long piece of wood?

And how do you feel about the word Web being used to describe the internet, when clearly there are no spiders involved??

And what's this Facebook thing? There is no book of faces!!!!!

Let's not even start on Google...

You are another who should research before showing ignorance. As are all those who were so quick to thank you.

What about notice board, or board and lodgings? Dining tables are boards and a ship can be boarded.

I took 'Boards.ie' to mean 'interactive bulletin board.

Web mean woven fabric. Do you think that spiders were involved in making your clothes?

Facebook suggests a photo album with words to me.

And Google suggests a google of possibilities.

But of course, in order to know any of this, one needs to know what words mean.

However, ignorance does not give the the right and not does it constitute a reason to muddy the waters in regard to the discussion at hand.

(And no, there is no actual mud or water involved.:pac:)

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 05:28PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Wait for it! The animal argument is coming any minute!

This is how you counter facts?

You see marriage as a convenience, a bandwagon onto which anyone should be able to jump and I see it as a solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a club for heterosexuals. It's a bit like how only women are allowed to attend Anne Summers parties.

While we are in the process of redefining tradition why don't we replace 'Just Married' with 'Just Taking Advantage of a Legal Provision'?

Also, if we keep marriage and same sex unions seperate, we could be less ambiguous where divorce rates are concerned and the monogamousness of gay and straight couples could be statistically analysed.

Or do you think that science should forego such a line of questioning, that such information would not be useful in the biological sciences?

(No animals were harmed in the production of this post.:pac:)

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 05:42PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think incest is before bestiality. I'm sure it's the polygamy argument first, the incest argument after that, then bestiality. Getting married to children used to feature somewhere in there as well, but they've dropped that in recent years. And scattered throughout all that is the usual marriage is about having children, which then gets edited to marriage is about raising children as a mum and dad, which then gets changed again to (deep breath) marriage is about the possibility of, at some point in time maybe perhaps if you wanted, being a mum and dad, but only if you wanted to and it doesn't really matter if you don't or or can't or didn't when you could have.

For a group so vocal about not wanting to change marriage, the anti-equality brigade do a great job of contorting the word to make it fit into their ever changing definition.

Oh, it seems that it is necessary for me to re-repeat myself.

The law should not discriminate against gays.

The law should not discriminate against gays.

Am I being clear?

And what have you got against incest? If a brother and sister are in love and want to spend their lives as a couple and he agrees to have a vasectomy, would you object to their getting married and obtaining the rights of married people under the law?

And in what way have I contorted the meaning of 'marriage'?

21-05-2013 05:46PM

dadvocate wrote: »

I see it as a solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.

You realise divorce exists already, right?

dadvocate · 21-05-2013 05:57PM

koth wrote: »

The definition of marriage has already changed. It happened 12 years ago when Holland legalised same sex marriage. And it is not an accepted use of the term in many countries around the world.

Let me paraphrase this in one sentence:

Holland's attempt to change the definition of marriage 12 years ago is not accepted by many countries around the world.

???

Nor is the sale of cannabis. What kind of smorgus board is your morality based on? Is Holland wrong about cannabis? Is Holland the best arbiter of Irish morality?

The funny thing is that you are arguing that the term marriage precluded gays up until twelve years ago whereas most other posters here say that historically, marriage never precluded gays.

Did you notice that?

And they accuse me of linguistic contortion.

Zombrex · 21-05-2013 06:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't mention marriage, I asked those who read the article what they thought (Unfortunately, these megathreads make this happen often, as these topics have many facets).

And you clearly thought that this would be some soft of issue for supporters of gay marriage, as if supporting gay marriage but not supporting bestiality would force someone into a position of hypocrisy. Which again only demonstrates that you yourself don't really have a clear idea why bestiality is wrong.

The reasons bestiality are wrong and not allowed have nothing to do with homosexual marriage or the traditional notion of marriage, nor about accepting homosexual behavior.

Society does not simply accept homosexual behavior under an idea that everyone has the right to do anything they want when ever they want no matter what. We accept it because it is no different to heterosexual sex and between two consenting adults sex (heterosexual or homosexual) is perfectly acceptable.

The idea that this acceptance some how means we must accept bestiality as well is like saying because I'm allowed take down my fence in the back garden I must also be allowed blow up my neighbours house.

JimiTime wrote: »

The guy in the article compares 'Zoos' and their position in society to where homosexuals were back in the 50's. A quote that compares their 'plight' is the following".....What's the point of living if we have to hide who we are?....."
So this is not about marriage rights, but rather an acceptance of their behaviour etc. They say they are born this way, ask questions like '..How is it rape if I'm allowing my dog mount me...' We know dogs in heat will mount your leg, so whats wrong with letting them mount one of your orifices?

So because he uses (unconvincingly) a similar sounding argument to supporters of gay relationships, that must mean supporters of gay relationships have to support him?

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems consent is everyones only issue. So how would you answer the above?

The reason bestiality is wrong is because the animal cannot understand what is happening, nor can there be any genuine way to tell the animal wants the action or is not stressed or harmed by the action.

It is animal abuse, pure and simple, no different to saying that dogs in dog fights are enjoying themselves because they look, to their owners, to be itching for a fight.

It is irrelevant if the owner thinks the animal is having a good time or not, in the same way it is irrelevant if the pedophile thinks the child is enjoying themselves.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, how do you answer the claim that the state will allow you kill, slaughter, enslave and eat an animal, but wont allow you 'love' it?

The state will not allow you to abuse the animal, and having sex with it is abuse. "Love" has got nothing to do with it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Read the article again without thinking about arguing with me about marriage, and tell me what you think, and if consent is your only beef (pardon the 'murderous' pun).

I've already answered these questions (twice now)

You tell me why you think bestality is unacceptable. And I hope your answer is a little bit more involved that "Bible says so"

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

Comments