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

robp · 15-08-2014 09:03AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And yeah I know were all sinners and sinful but this is a definite prejudice as it not based on behavior but nature.

Behaviour and nature are completely entangled. We can try to distinguish the two but its very arguable as to how much agency we have. None of us can say with certainty x behaviour is a choice while y behaviour is simply nature.

robp · 15-08-2014 09:05AM

riveratom wrote: »

How do you think homosexual people should express their love for one another?

That's the one and only question I would love you to answer.

It's not about stereotyping. It's just about what your response to that specific question and (real) issue might be.

Something is serious wrong if you think sex is needed to express love.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 09:07AM

robp wrote: »

Something is serious wrong if you think sex is needed to express love.

so you don't think that sex is part of a relationship?

robp · 15-08-2014 09:12AM

SW wrote: »

so you don't think that sex is part of a relationship?

In a healthy married heterosexual person most of the love is going to be outside their marriage expressed in many platonic ways.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 09:14AM

robp wrote: »

In a healthy married heterosexual person most of the love is going to be outside their marriage expressed in many platonic ways.

that's not an answer. Do you think that sex is part of a relationship?

robp · 15-08-2014 09:18AM

SW wrote: »

that's not an answer. Do you think that sex is part of a relationship?

It can be but to imply it is just incorrect. Typical sex obsessed superficial 21st view.

tommy2bad · 15-08-2014 09:21AM

SW wrote: »

so you don't think that sex is part of a relationship?

Isn't this the nub of the issue. Sex is not part of all relationships, it's restricted to certain relationships. In the morals of the time it moves from one set of relationships to another depending on the status given those relationships. It's always seen as right and proper in a marriage relationship, and allowable in monogamous opposite sex relationships, polygamist relationships, slave master relationships and so on depending on the morals of the time.
Nowadays we see sex as OK in any consenting adult relationship.
Homosexual relationships seem to be the last taboo for Christianity as far as sex is concerned. We might say sex other than in a monogamous married opposite sex relationship is the only sex authorized by God but we don't seek to have this model set into the law of the land. Yet once it's same sex marriage we do, claiming it's marriage we are defending.

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 09:21AM

robp wrote: »

It can be but to imply it is just incorrect. Typical sex obsessed superficial 21st view.

So what would be your position on a heterosexual marriage where the couple had never and would never have sex?

MrP

robp · 15-08-2014 09:30AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Isn't this the nub of the issue. Sex is not part of all relationships, it's restricted to certain relationships. In the morals of the time it moves from one set of relationships to another depending on the status given those relationships. It's always seen as right and proper in a marriage relationship, and allowable in monogamous opposite sex relationships, polygamist relationships, slave master relationships and so on depending on the morals of the time.
Nowadays we see sex as OK in any consenting adult relationship.
Homosexual relationships seem to be the last taboo for Christianity as far as sex is concerned. We might say sex other than in a monogamous married opposite sex relationship is the only sex authorized by God but we don't seek to have this model set into the law of the land. Yet once it's same sex marriage we do, claiming it's marriage we are defending.

You are creating a double standard here by implying restriction on polygamous marriage is the standard of our time while objections to same sex legal unions are are based on religious concerns. The reality is their are secular and religious objections to both.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 09:40AM

robp wrote: »

It can be but to imply it is just incorrect. Typical sex obsessed superficial 21st view.

When talking about a large group of people, it isn't incorrect at all. In much the same why it would be okay to say that sex matters to heterosexual couples. Sex is important in some relationships and not in others.

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 09:41AM

robp wrote: »

You are creating a double standard here by implying restriction on polygamous marriage is the standard of our time while objections to same sex legal unions are are based on religious concerns. The reality is their are secular and religious objections to both.

I have asked this question many, many times, as have others. What, exactly, are the secular reasons against same sec marriage?

MrP

robp · 15-08-2014 09:46AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I have asked this question many, many times, as have others. What, exactly, are the secular reasons against same sec marriage?

MrP

Just because you don't accept these objections does not mean they don't exist.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 09:49AM

robp wrote: »

Just because you don't accept these objections does not mean they don't exist.

I'd like to know how MrP did that before being told what they are

robp · 15-08-2014 09:50AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I have asked this question many, many times, as have others. What, exactly, are the secular reasons against same sec marriage?

MrP

Its bad form to insist you can pigeon-hole and define those who dare to challenge your views.

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 09:50AM

robp wrote: »

Just because you don't accept these objections does not mean they don't exist.

So, for clarification, please detail these secular objections again.

MrP

robp · 15-08-2014 09:51AM

SW wrote: »

I'd like to know how MrP did that before being told what they are

Quite an astounding response.

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 09:52AM

robp wrote: »

Its bad form to insist you can pigeon-hole and define those who dare to challenge your views.

You said there were secular reasons against same sd marriage. I asked you what they were. How does that pigeon-hole you?

MrP

robp · 15-08-2014 09:53AM

MrPudding wrote: »

So, for clarification, please detail these secular objections again.

MrP

Post here on this gay thread every other day and you incredulously claim you have never heard secular based arguments.

robp · 15-08-2014 09:54AM

MrPudding wrote: »

You said there were secular reasons against same sd marriage. I asked you what they were. How does that pigeon-hole you?

MrP

You are trying very hard to pigeon hole by stating all objections against the concept of gay marriage are religious based.

15-08-2014 09:56AM

robp wrote: »

You are trying very hard to pigeon hole by stating all objections against the concept of gay marriage are religious based.

What are the secular reasons? (as a casual reader of these forums)

I asked before but the answer was a semi-jokey one and I didn't bring it up again.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 09:56AM

robp wrote: »

Quite an astounding response.

someone asked for a list of secular reasons for objecting to SSM. you then saying that just because they "reject the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist". The reasons have yet to be provided.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-08-2014 10:06AM

robp wrote: »

You are trying very hard to pigeon hole by stating all objections against the concept of gay marriage are religious based.

I too am a casual reader of this thread. I mistakenly had thought that the objections to SSM on the Christianity forum were based in Christianity. I would have my consciousness raised, and I would be much obliged to you sir, if you outline some of the secular objections to SSM.

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 10:21AM

robp wrote: »

You are trying very hard to pigeon hole by stating all objections against the concept of gay marriage are religious based.

Ok, I will clarify my position on this. We all see the religious, moralistic reasons against same sex marriage. These are perfectly valid for people that beleive this particular reasons, but cannot and should not be used as a basis for continuing discrimination against people that may not share those beliefs. This view, that religious beliefs should not be used to discriminate against people is a view that various courts around the world also hold. As a result, those seeking to continue to discriminate against a particular group of people had to change tactics. 'But <INSERT YOUR GOD HERE> thinks it's icky' didn't work anymore.

The new tactic was 'secular' reasons for continuing the discrimination. They put a lot of effort into this. Some quite eminent legal minds wrote papers. They even paid 'scientists' to write biased studied and put quite a bit of effort into missenterpreting otherwise valid studies. On the surface these secular reasons had some strength, but just scrape away the surface and you can see them for what they are. Rubbish.

Now, I have laid out my position, but I am also happy for you to provide your secular reasons for continuing discrimination against same-sex couples. I am genuinely interested. You may have some reasons I have not yet come across, or perhaps some reasoning that I was not previously aware of.

This is not an appeal to authority, I am no authority, but I wrote a dissertation on this subject and had to objectively analyse be arguments against same-sex marriage. They genuinely were lacking. My dissertation is finished now, but I would be genuinely interested in secular reasons you beleive have strength. I am reworking my dissertation for publication and would be grateful for any new arguments that I might not already be aware of.

MrP

robp · 15-08-2014 10:23AM

SW wrote: »

someone asked for a list of secular reasons for objecting to SSM. you then saying that just because they "reject the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist". The reasons have yet to be provided.

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

robp · 15-08-2014 10:25AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I too am a casual reader of this thread. I mistakenly had thought that the objections to SSM on the Christianity forum were based in Christianity. I would have my consciousness raised, and I would be much obliged to you sir, if you outline some of the secular objections to SSM.

Its impossible to interested in the topic and not be aware of these arguments.

Nick Park · 15-08-2014 10:36AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nowadays we see sex as OK in any consenting adult relationship.
Homosexual relationships seem to be the last taboo for Christianity as far as sex is concerned. We might say sex other than in a monogamous married opposite sex relationship is the only sex authorized by God but we don't seek to have this model set into the law of the land. Yet once it's same sex marriage we do, claiming it's marriage we are defending.

I think this is inaccurate on several levels.

1. Homosexual relationships are certainly not the 'last taboo for Christianity as far as sex is concerned'. Incest would be a much greater taboo. I have yet to hear any sensible secular argument as to why, for example, a brother and sister should not be allowed to get married.

2. Most Christians that I know have no wish to see any laws restricting sexual activity between non-familial consenting adults being part of the law of the land (maybe because I live in Ireland rather than Uganda, thank God!). In this respect their views on same sex partnerships would be the same as toward non-monogamous relationships - that they should not be subject to any legal restraint but do not actually constitute marriage and should not be legally recognised as such).

(Disclaimer - to avoid getting dragged into an argument I don't even believe in, I should state that my own personal views are different from that of most Christians I know, in that I do not believe the State should place any barriers in the way of same sex marriage. My own view is that the State should not legislate marriage at all.)

Nick Park · 15-08-2014 10:40AM

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not an appeal to authority, I am no authority, but I wrote a dissertation on this subject and had to objectively analyse be arguments against same-sex marriage. They genuinely were lacking. My dissertation is finished now, but I would be genuinely interested in secular reasons you beleive have strength. I am reworking my dissertation for publication and would be grateful for any new arguments that I might not already be aware of.

MrP

I would be very interested in reading that dissertation.

Did you address the situation in China? Given that the State there is opposed to same sex marriage, and that being an atheist is a prerequisite for holding any governmental position in that State, I would be interested in how that fits in with your thesis.

Delirium · 15-08-2014 10:49AM

robp wrote: »

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

We don't bar infertile couples from marrying so marriage doesn't require the ability to reproduce.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

This argument also applies to infertile couples.

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

same-sex marriage is unethical?

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex marriage doesn't have insurmountable obstacles either. All it requires is for the population to vote to allow for it.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Are you suggesting that people can choose not to be gay?

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

How's it an attack on the natural order? Homosexual couples exist. If SSM is an attack on the natural order then you'd have to say that homosexual couples are too. Are you suggesting we make homosexuality illegal to protect the "natural order"?

MrPudding · 15-08-2014 10:50AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I would be very interested in reading that dissertation.

Did you address the situation in China? Given that the State there is opposed to same sex marriage, and that being an atheist is a prerequisite for holding any governmental position in that State, I would be interested in how that fits in with your thesis.

I was looking specifically at the proposition 8 cases in California, and looking at that from a Rawlisan 'Public Reason' perspective. If you are still interested I would be happy to send it to you. Please remember, however, it is a lowly undergrad dissertation that needs quite a bit of polishing before it might be ready for publication. I am currently in France, but if you PM me your email address I will send it to you once I have wifi.

MrP

Nick Park · 15-08-2014 10:57AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I was looking specifically at the proposition 8 cases in California, and looking at that from a Rawlisan 'Public Reason' perspective. If you are still interested I would be happy to send it to you. Please remember, however, it is a lowly undergrad dissertation that needs quite a bit of polishing before it might be ready for publication. I am currently in France, but if you PM me your email address I will send it to you once I have wifi.

MrP

I'll send my email on to you as a PM.

If your study was limited to one particular geographical area (part of one of the most religious countries in the world) but didn't address the same issue as it occurs in overtly non-religious countries, do you see the dangers in using that study to make generalisations about opposition to same sex marriage in general?

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

Comments