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

Kiwi in IE · 30-05-2013 09:06PM

shes_crazy wrote: »

Simulated sacraments are a waste of everyone's time.

Do only Catholic people get married?

Festus · 30-05-2013 10:51PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do only Catholic people get married?

Lord no, not just Catholic people. You can have Cheese and Onion, Egg and onion, melon and ham (serrano, parma, bayonne etc), carrot and orange, pork and apple, bacon and pineapple, duck and plum, duck and orange, gin and tonic, to cite a few examples of "marriage".

Notice anything there - they all involve two different things that when married produce something different to the parts and frequently leading to three or more flavours being sensed.

The following are not marriages - cheese and cheese, particularly if the cheeses are the same variety, egg and egg, melon and melon, duck and duck... you get where I'm going don't you. Neither is gin and gin. With thse "combinations" you only get to taste one thing.

marienbad · 30-05-2013 11:12PM

Festus wrote: »

Lord no, not just Catholic people. You can have Cheese and Onion, Egg and onion, melon and ham (serrano, parma, bayonne etc), carrot and orange, pork and apple, bacon and pineapple, duck and plum, duck and orange, gin and tonic, to cite a few examples of "marriage".

Notice anything there - they all involve two different things that when married produce something different to the parts and frequently leading to three or more flavours being sensed.

The following are not marriages - cheese and cheese, particularly if the cheeses are the same variety, egg and egg, melon and melon, duck and duck... you get where I'm going don't you. Neither is gin and gin. With thse "combinations" you only get to taste one thing.

How about HARD boiled eggs and soft boiled eggs ?

Kiwi in IE · 30-05-2013 11:12PM

Festus wrote: »

Lord no, not just Catholic people. You can have Cheese and Onion, Egg and onion, melon and ham (serrano, parma, bayonne etc), carrot and orange, pork and apple, bacon and pineapple, duck and plum, duck and orange, gin and tonic, to cite a few examples of "marriage".

Notice anything there - they all involve two different things that when married produce something different to the parts and frequently leading to three or more flavours being sensed.

The following are not marriages - cheese and cheese, particularly if the cheeses are the same variety, egg and egg, melon and melon, duck and duck... you get where I'm going don't you. Neither is gin and gin. With thse "combinations" you only get to taste one thing.

Well that's original anyway! The first time I've heard anyone use complimentary food combinations as an analogy to justify prejudice.

Festus · 30-05-2013 11:28PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Well that's original anyway! The first time I've heard anyone use complimentary food combinations as an analogy to justify prejudice.

Prejudice... hmmpf. So you think that anyone who considers that marriage is and should only be a union between a man and a women is prejudiced? That could come across as being somewhat bigoted.

Festus · 30-05-2013 11:31PM

marienbad wrote: »

How about HARD boiled eggs and soft boiled eggs ?

they can be soft or hard but I prefer soft and with hollandaise

1ZRed · 30-05-2013 11:34PM

Festus wrote: »

Prejudice... hmmpf. So you think that anyone who considers that marriage is and should only be a union between a man and a women is prejudiced? That could come across as being somewhat bigoted.

I think you need to look up what bigoted means

NuMarvel · 30-05-2013 11:46PM

Festus wrote: »

Lord no, not just Catholic people. You can have Cheese and Onion, Egg and onion, melon and ham (serrano, parma, bayonne etc), carrot and orange, pork and apple, bacon and pineapple, duck and plum, duck and orange, gin and tonic, to cite a few examples of "marriage".

I notice that every one of those examples is an intermingling of different food stuffs: dairy and vegetable, meat and fruit, fruit and veg. To truly get to marriage in the sense you mean would require mingling of the species: mammal and lizard, fish and birds, and so on.

Festus wrote: »

Notice anything there - they all involve two different things that when married produce something different to the parts and frequently leading to three or more flavours being sensed.

And you're a culinary polygamist too!! :eek: :eek:

Festus · 31-05-2013 12:08AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I notice that every one of those examples is an intermingling of different food stuffs: dairy and vegetable, meat and fruit, fruit and veg. To truly get to marriage in the sense you mean would require mingling of the species: mammal and lizard, fish and birds, and so on.

mammals and lizards are not species. Not even close, neither are fish and birds. (Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:). That said perhaps I should have included surf and turf (beef and sea dwelling crustaceans). Anyway, If it helps, the sense I meant was not the sense you think I meant, or want me to mean.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And you're a culinary polygamist too!! :eek: :eek:

I think it was too subtle for you. Perhaps your palatte is not educated enough.

NuMarvel · 31-05-2013 12:45AM

Festus wrote: »

mammals and lizards are not species. Not even close, neither are fish and birds. (Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:). That said perhaps I should have included surf and turf (beef and sea dwelling crustaceans). Anyway, If it helps, the sense I meant was not the sense you think I meant, or want me to mean.

I think it was too subtle for you. Perhaps your palatte is not educated enough.

You were serious?? Your comparison was so outlandish, I just assumed you were having a laugh and responded in kind.

Festus · 31-05-2013 01:04AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You were serious?? Your comparison was so outlandish, I just assumed you were having a laugh and responded in kind.

Ah, the assumption defence...

Well, yes I was having a laugh and making a point at the same time.

When I read the one about the HARD and Soft eggs I laughed and even though of posting a seggsual pun response but couldn't think of one subtle enough. As it happens Hollandaise is made with eggs ... As is Bearnaise but Hollandaise works better at so many levels. Now take that information and go back a couple of steps.

However, When I read yours I didn't laugh.

If your response was meant to be "in kind" you need more practice.

Have you tried using both hands?

NuMarvel · 31-05-2013 09:14AM

Festus wrote: »

Ah, the assumption defence...

Well, yes I was having a laugh and making a point at the same time.

When I read the one about the HARD and Soft eggs I laughed and even though of posting a seggsual pun response but couldn't think of one subtle enough. As it happens Hollandaise is made with eggs ... As is Bearnaise but Hollandaise works better at so many levels. Now take that information and go back a couple of steps.

However, When I read yours I didn't laugh.

If your response was meant to be "in kind" you need more practice.

Have you tried using both hands?

You're getting very defensive considering my assumption was correct in the first place.

In any case, your comparison is flawed. A marriage isn't the product of gender, it's the product of the individuals themselves, and the experiences and personalities they bring to the marriage.

The only way men and women are universally complementary is in terms the reproductive system. But seeing as how a heterosexual couple's right to marry isn't contingent on their ability, desire or suitability to reproduce, there's no reason for those to be criteria in determining a gay couple's right to marry.

tommy2bad · 31-05-2013 10:48AM

Festus was highlighting the meaning of the word marriage in everyday language. The examples he used are occasions when we often use marriage as a synonym of complimentary.
Nice try.
Their seem to be a trend of defending the ownership of the word rather than admitting that the word marriage means what we say it means and we can redefine that meaning in different contexts.
Marriage two people in a committed relationship recognized by the state, or man and woman in an exclusive relationship recognized by the church they attend, or two or more people in a relationship recognized by both the state and the mosque they attend. Or gin and tonic recognized by all sensible people as a gift of the spirit to be cherished.

Zombrex · 31-05-2013 11:13AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You're getting very defensive considering my assumption was correct in the first place.

I think when you are saying we shouldn't accept gay marriage because cheese and onion are two different "types" of things, I think you have already lost the argument.

We should allow gay marriage because gay people want to get married and the parameters of their relationships are identical to the relationships of heterosexual couples we already allow to get married.

The only people who disagree with that are those who believe a homosexual couple cannot actually be in love with each other in the way heterosexuals can. And I see no reason why the State should sponsor such ignorance and bigotry.

Festus · 31-05-2013 02:10PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I think when you are saying we shouldn't accept gay marriage because cheese and onion are two different "types" of things, I think you have already lost the argument.

Where did I say gay marriage should not be accepted? Reading my post I am saying marriage involves two different things and putting two of the same thing together is not marriage.

If you want to engage in an argument it helps if you respond to what is being said and not what you want to have been said. If you believe there is an implication by all means seek to clarify otherwise your argument comes across as prejudiced.

Zombrex wrote: »

We should allow gay marriage because gay people want to get married and the parameters of their relationships are identical to the relationships of heterosexual couples we already allow to get married.

Should we allow anyone do what they want because they want to?

In what way are the parameters of a same sex relationship the same as a heterosexual relationship?

Zombrex wrote: »

The only people who disagree with that are those who believe a homosexual couple cannot actually be in love with each other in the way heterosexuals can. And I see no reason why the State should sponsor such ignorance and bigotry.

Well, I believe homosexual couples can actually be in love with each other in the same way heterosexuals can. Where does that put me on your ignorant and bigotted front?

Bannasidhe · 31-05-2013 03:01PM

Festus wrote: »

Well, I believe homosexual couples can actually be in love with each other in the same way heterosexuals can. Where does that put me on your ignorant and bigotted front?

You don't see a disconnect between stating 'homosexual couples can actually be in love with each other in the same way heterosexuals can' while at the same time insisting the former should not be treated the same as the latter under the law?

Yet you also insist this is not bigotry? Then what is it?

Festus · 31-05-2013 03:39PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't see a disconnect between stating 'homosexual couples can actually be in love with each other in the same way heterosexuals can' while at the same time insisting the former should not be treated the same as the latter under the law?

Yet you also insist this is not bigotry? Then what is it?

where have I insisted the former should not be treated the same as the latter under the law?

Go on, quote me!

What I have implied is that I consider that marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman.

That is a statement I am entitled to make under the constitutional protections I enjoy as an Irish citizen.

I never realized there were so many supporters of Nick Clegg on this forum.

Bannasidhe · 31-05-2013 03:51PM

Festus wrote: »

where have I insisted the former should not be treated the same as the latter under the law?

Go on, quote me!

What I have implied is that I consider that marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman.

That is a statement I am entitled to make under the constitutional protections I enjoy as an Irish citizen.

I never realized there were so many supporters of Nick Clegg on this forum.

By denying same-sex couples the right to access State sponsored privileges bestowed on opposite-sex couples which form the basis of marriage legislation you are insisting one be treated as lesser than the other. You can dress it up in semantics and constitutional rights all you like. It doesn't disguise that you maintain that xy couple in love can have a,b and c rights but xx or yy cannot.

Since you are so familiar with Constitutional rights perhaps you would quote me the passage that states marriage is only between a man and a woman?

Festus · 31-05-2013 04:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By denying same-sex couples the right to access State sponsored privileges bestowed on opposite-sex couples which form the basis of marriage legislation you are insisting one be treated as lesser than the other.

You can dress it up in semantics and constitutional rights all you like. It doesn't disguise that you maintain that xy couple in love can have a,b and c rights but xx or yy cannot.

Civil partnership is law. What rights are you talking about?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since you are so familiar with Constitutional rights perhaps you would quote me the passage that states marriage is only between a man and a woman?

What's your point?

PopePalpatine · 31-05-2013 04:20PM

Festus wrote: »

Civil partnership is law. What rights are you talking about?

Try here: http://www.marriagequality.ie/learn/civilpartnershipbill.html

Zombrex · 31-05-2013 06:12PM

Festus wrote: »

Where did I say gay marriage should not be accepted? Reading my post I am saying marriage involves two different things and putting two of the same thing together is not marriage.

You mean other than in this actual post?

So your position is that you accept gay marriage you just think that two gay people getting married isn't marriage, ie you don't accept gay marriage.

Slow clap :rolleyes:

Festus wrote: »

Should we allow anyone do what they want because they want to?

No. Why would we do that? That seems utterly irrelevant to what we are talking about. We don't allow heterosexuals to do anything because they want to and yet we still have heterosexual marriage.

We should allow gay marriage because we already allow heterosexual marriage and gay marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage in all areas that we consider relevant for heterosexual marriage.

Festus wrote: »

In what way are the parameters of a same sex relationship the same as a heterosexual relationship?

They are two people who wish that the State recognise this relationship in terms of recognising the implied responsibility that goes along with such a relationship.

Can you name a single way in which the set up is different that actually changes the relationship (ie something which we would recognise with heterosexual relationships which is absent with homosexual ones)

Zombrex · 31-05-2013 06:14PM

Festus wrote: »

where have I insisted the former should not be treated the same as the latter under the law?

Go on, quote me!

What I have implied is that I consider that marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman.

So that is what you consider to be true, but you also recognise that you are wrong.

Slow clap (again)

aloyisious · 02-06-2013 06:28PM

European country's, in the main, have a more enlightened legal view on "Gay" rights. Both of Nigerian Houses of Parliament have passed a bill banning "gay" marriage, with a 14 year prison sentence for those breaking it. It also criminalizes registering "gay" clubs or organisations, as well as "public show of same-sex amorous relationships" (PDA's). It only await's signing by the Nigerian President, Goodluck Johnston, to become law.

cloudatlas · 02-06-2013 09:13PM

I'd actually feel more comfortable if the christians against homosexuality quoted from the bible instead of hiding behind the constitution.

MrPudding · 03-06-2013 09:27AM

cloudatlas wrote: »

I'd actually feel more comfortable if the christians against homosexuality quoted from the bible instead of hiding behind the constitution.

Which is awesome, but the bible should have no place in shaping legislation, which means if christians want to discriminate against a class of person usi g state law, they can't use the bible as justification.

MrP

cloudatlas · 03-06-2013 10:59AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Which is awesome, but the bible should have no place in shaping legislation, which means if christians want to discriminate against a class of person usi g state law, they can't use the bible as justification.

MrP

Yeah awesome, I didn't say it should have any place in shaping legislation but it is at the heart of the matter.

tommy2bad · 03-06-2013 12:30PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yeah awesome, I didn't say it should have any place in shaping legislation but it is at the heart of the matter.

Well not really, all xians are not the same, some guided by the bible, are against homosexuality. full stop. Others for whatever reason think it's ok for people to be gay but not for society to recognize homosexuality as valid. More don't care one way or the other they just have a general unease about change.
A lot like the rest of us tbh.

MrPudding · 03-06-2013 12:38PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yeah awesome, I didn't say it should have any place in shaping legislation but it is at the heart of the matter.

This sentence does not make any sense. You are saying it shouldn't have any place in shaping legislation but it is at the heart of the matter? How can it have no place in the thing it is at the heart of? Bearing in mind, we are talking about marriage equality and legislating for same sex marriage...

MrP

NuMarvel · 03-06-2013 12:54PM

I don't see a problem with Christians who wish to frame their opinions on social issues in secular terms, instead of Biblical. In fact, in this thread, we've often asked Christian posters to do just that. If someone is able to convey their opinion in a manner that applies to everyone, and not just members of a particular faith, then I welcome it.

cloudatlas · 03-06-2013 01:32PM

MrPudding wrote: »

This sentence does not make any sense. You are saying it shouldn't have any place in shaping legislation but it is at the heart of the matter? How can it have no place in the thing it is at the heart of? Bearing in mind, we are talking about marriage equality and legislating for same sex marriage...

MrP

I haven't read through the whole thread. What I said wasn't a reply to anything. You decided to pounce on it and put words into my mouth. Good day to you have an awesome time.

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

Comments