Forum menu
You know it is a hard life being gay. Every day - every SINGLE day - I have to work my utmost to bring about the destruction of morality.
Your marriage destroys the sanctity of Elizabeth Taylor's marriages! ALL OF THEM!
I'm still baffled that Catholic cardinals see fit to comment on relationships and family. They're [i]celibate[/i]. It's like being lectured on the best way to cook a steak by a life-long vegan, only more ridiculous.
OH FFS toast leave the vegans out of this we are a terribly persected minority and you need to take our rights seriously
Al vegan children are happier, live longer, and have better outcomes than meat eaters. The only draw back, if you can call it that, is they are prone to making stuff up on the internet to justify their diet like their parents 😀
So, Junkyard, in terms of well being of the children we now have:
Good: united heterosexual parentsNot so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven't yet divorced, same-sex parents.
Deary me read the link
[b]many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents[/b]
its the samegroup – there has not been the acceptance of gays to do a proper longitudinal study unless you know different.Even then it would seem obvious they experience worse treatment CONFLICT [ peer and society in general] than married heterosexuals.
You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but [b]taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents.[/b]
No it clearly says they do best with HAPPILY married heterosexual parents – being heterosexual , unhappily marries and having conflict wont help your kids...so we know whatever the reason is for the good outcome it is not due to the opposite genders of the people on the marriage certificate. It is down to parenting, wealth, happiness and a variety of other factors. The marriage certificate gives no magical powers that make you a better parent that someone who does not have one.- perhaps we should work out what these things are and try and help everyone achieve it even the gays?
I could start to divide same-sex couples up into stable/conflictual/happy/unhappy etc. but it would simply reveal subtrends within the overall trend - which says that on this point at least, the Cardinal has a point.
Which is what? they are the same as some heterosexuals, better than some and worse than some. That point would stop almost all of us having kids.
In my opinion trends aren't justification enough to discriminate against entire groups which brings us to issues such as should gays have the right to adopt; I said something earlier about each case on its merits.
Doubt anyone disagrees [cardinal aside] as long as we agree in principle if they are good enough their sexuality is irrelevant ...the same view we have over marriage?
I don't see the irony BTW, just a clumsy attempt to mock me.
You were being hypocritical you give the anecdote of a teacher and then mention research as well.
My view is happily married people have more money and less conflict than divorced people. I see no reason in principle why homosexual people cannot also achieve this happiness, wealth and lack of conflict. Well apart form the fact they cannot be married and [many of]the same people who will not let them get married dislike them so much it means they [ parents and the children] tend to face some conflict that heterosexual people don’t.
The reason marriage is good is not because you are married it is because you are happier and wealthier generally. it is not because of your gender or you marriage status per se - ie they are not casual or all married heterosexuals would be better than all single parents or all gay parents...clearly this is not the case.
This article reviews the current research on the effects of marital conflict, parental adjustment, custody, and access on children following divorce. Evidence from research demonstrates that significantly more adjustment problems confront children, especially boys, of divorced parents compared to those in never-divorced families. However; when assessed in years following the divorce, these children are functioning in normal limits and do not appear “disturbed, “ although the media report the opposite. The article discusses an important British study finding that marital conflict and not the divorce affect children and that divorce may mitigate some of the more destructive effects.
As a result of this multivariate approach, it is no longer possible to make simplistic statements about children’s postdivorce adjustment. Contradictory findings and more complex results have forced a more thoughtful and integrative approach to divorce and adjustment issues.
That was my initial point btw.
Adam I so want to be glamorous but I am a scruffy hetty [ you can call me a married breeder if you like as long as you accept I am better than you because of this] with poor dress sense [ I sometimes wear lycra on a mountain bike for example] can your group help me?
Tesco ...disappointing what sort of boutique is that 😉
Hypocritial now too am I. Sorry, I fail to see why.
What you call an anecdote was enough of an issue for enough teachers and headmasters to make it into the things discussed on the PGCE course. Just because nobody was brave enough to publish on such a sensitive issue doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't exist. The world has become so politically sensitive/correct that objective discussion of things concerning race, culture, gender, religion ... doesn't happen. Try it on this forum and someone will be along to insult and ridicule.
Bye for now.
The world has become so politically sensitive/correct that objective discussion of things concerning race, culture, gender, religion ... doesn't happen.
I call troll. Surely?
Where does children fit into it anyway? Did nobody tell the drag queen that gay couples in a civil partnership already have the same rights to adopt (or otherwise have kids) anyway. Is there not actually an argument that children of gay couples may do better in a "genuine marriage" rather than an "almost marriage" which the homophobic part of society can look down its nose at?
tonyd - I'd agree that getting married for tax reasons is odd; but it is equally odd that a gay couple can gain the rights of marriage by basically signing a form, when you have to go though an elaborate song and dance. Someone has already highlighted the issue with medical consent / next of kin (and even the right to bury your dead partner!). But there are other issues too - some of them quite significant for couples with children. Not all cohabiting fathers automatically have legal responsibility for their children. Pensions are affected. Inheritance Tax is possibly the most significant tax difference - its probably not something a "young" couple have even considered. And if you should split up or she runs off with the postman then it could really matter.
tonyd - Member
emsz - from your internet persona you don't seem the kind of person that would be overly bothered either way. Maybe apathy isn't the right attitude but surely I'm not the only person who has other things to worry about?!
You've managed to get the fact she's apathetic about equal treatment for homosexuals? Okay. Can't say I'd agree mind you.
The problem is that the issue IS polarised (talking about one of your other comments). If you are not for equality then you're against it sadly. Sitting on the fence and being apathetic means you're against equality. I don't understand why people care about the use of the word marriage when it comes to two people getting hitched seeing as we're already over the hurdle of legal equality.
I've yet to hear of anyone come up with a coherent argument about why that word should only be used for straight people that doesn't involve evasion, muddying of the water or plain old homophobia (not accusing anyone here of the latter). Apathy is not a reason to deprive people of their given right to equality (some would say God given, no?).
Most people don't know or care enough about this issue to even have an opinion (in my opinion).
Probably the most factually accurate post of the whole thread.
Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" ...
Still going strong this am...
... good job this isn't stw.us.com
Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" ...
The sad thing is, I think you might actually believe that.
It's got chuff all to do with what we're [i]"supposed"[/i] agree with to be [i]"politically correct"[/i] and everything to do with respect, equality, freedom, and not standing in the way of people who simply want the same right to express their love that we have.
Wrong. So you're for equality but think because I may be apathetic on the subject I'm against it? What about the person that is actively against equality, surely they'll think my apathy means I'm for it?If you are not for equality then you're against it sadly. Sitting on the fence and being apathetic means you're against equality.
That's just the kind of statement people use to force a reaction from others. It's my basic human right to not really give a sh!t either way, are you arguing that I must have an opinion? Good luck with that one.
For the record I am in favour of equality (of any kind), I just choose not to protest it at every given opportunity.
It's my basic human right to not really give a sh!t either way, are you arguing that I must have an opinion?
No. Not at all. However it's not like we have some sort of new alien species that's arrived and we're debating whether to give them citizenship. In that case, yes, no, dunno are valid answers. But when the discussion is "Should we allow homosexuals EXACTLY the same rights as the rest of us?" there is already a "No" pencilled in next to that. So it doesn't matter whether you are against it actively or just passively ignoring it, not being FOR equality means nothing will change and therefore the equality we're discussing may not become reality. To take your example, if there's someone actively against it, it doesn't matter to them whether you are just stepping away from the issue because they just want to maintain the current situation not change it. Your non-participation is not stopping them keeping the word marriage "sacred/only for straight people". However, to be my own devil's advocate, if there was an open vote on the issue with the majority winning, then yes, they may view it as the same thing.
Whilst I don't like "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric for the most part, there are some basic human rights which demand it and freedom and equality are some of those. It's the same reason that despite the fact I utterly disagree with bigots, I support their right to spout their claptrap (up until they break the law) because we have a right to free speech irrespective how intellectually or morally suspect it is.
OK, point taken. So the problem those of you who actively support equality have is how to motivate the apathetic to have an opinion and voice it. This comes back to my earlier point that I just don't think you will have much success because it doesn't affect enough people and they all have other concerns that take priority. We are selfish by our very nature - "If your issue doesn't affect me why would I care?"
IMO Cardinal wotsit does a far better job of promoting your cause than all the bleeding hearts in the media, I would hope that the vast majority of the population who take any notice of the headlines he's generated would take the complete opposite view that he is espousing.
Just to add:
What if I'm passively supporting it? I may not be waving placards or lobbying parliament, but I'd argue that by ignoring the opinions of those who are against equality I'm actually helping your cause?So it doesn't matter whether you are against it actively or just passively ignoring it, not being FOR equality means nothing will change and therefore the equality we're discussing may not become reality
For instance, I consider a same sex couple who are in a civil partnership to be married and would refer to them as such. I may be breaking the law but I won't get arrested and the more I do this the more widespread and accepted it becomes until eventually the activists on either side are wondering what the hell they're arguing about because the rest of society has moved on.
This is quite probably already happening right under our noses so while from a legal standpoint you're not winning, peoples apathy is actually working for you, not against you.
"If your issue doesn't affect me why would I care?"
Sounds like a line from Martin Niemoller's poem... 🙄
Tonyd. Most things are fine, honestly it's cool. I run up against the occasional ****, and the fact that sometimes you have to careful when you grab a handful of tit* is a bit of a pain, but mostly most people couldn't give a shit about whether your gay straight or whatever.
But, when u come up against this sort of obvious "let's give the gays something thats nearly marriage but not quite" it just makes it so obvious that there are sections of our society that not only couldn't care less but actually want to make our lives different, and that hurts. I've done nothing wrong, but they don't want to let me get married. How shitty is that?
Btw I didn't know you get points for turning !!
*goes to get sharking hat*
* only kidding, I'd get a slap if I did that lol
Emsz, the real question is this: who'd wear dresses at the wedding**, and what would they be like? I mean, 2 big meringue dresses might be a bit OTT, and fitting in the wedding car might be a bit tricky. And who gives the ring first in the service, which surname do you adopt (double-barrelled - which name comes first).....practical considerations like this are waaaaay more important than whether an out-of-touch bloke from Vatican Kiddyfiddlers Inc approves or doesn't.
Oh - and we're all invited, right?
**That's how it's seen, and [i]de facto[/i], that's what it is.
I do understand how you feel (as much as is possible without actually being in your position), but if you're in a civil partnership then to me you're married. Who really gives a sh!t what some bloke in a pointy hat cares? If people want to foam at the mouth and tell you that you're not married, so what? You're not going to change their views no matter how loudly you shout, same as they're not going to make you straight by refusing to accept that you're gay.How shitty is that?
To the majority of people you are married, and as has already been stated you get all the same legal rights. At the end of the day it's just a word to me, I realise this may not be the case for you but getting angry about something that will take decades to change won't help you.
You can't fight the machine, but you can very quietly give it the finger.
I think you should make all the guests wear dresses.
Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" .
This is a sad line trotted out by people who tend to mean I think like alf garnett/Jim Davidson and I am not happy that I cannot say these things publicly without being challenged for my views.
Its an appeal to some sort of pointless emotional angle that PC and respect somehow prevents us debating issues of race and equality
The irony is these comments are almost always posted when we are 5 pages into a debate on gender issues, sexuality and race. It does not stifle debate
Edukator there is tons odf research out there on the issues you mention
Why do girls out perform boys
Why do Chinese kids perform the best
Why do afro-Caribbean boys perform so poorly
Racial elements to IQ tests v Cultural bias
"PC ness "does not stifle the debate IME it is a lazy slur/complaint thrown out by people who don’t like having their views challenged.
but if you're in a civil partnership then to me you're married. Who really gives a sh!t what some bloke in a pointy hat cares? If people want to foam at the mouth and tell you that you're not married, so what? You're not going to change their views no matter how loudly you shout,
Yes WE are going to change their views and lets all shout very VERY ****ing loud till we deafen their voices and gay people have the same rights and the same ceremony as straights
Then shout away, but bear in mind that shouting so loudly that you end up shoving your agenda into the faces of the apathetic might be counter productive to your cause.
hey they need to turn the other cheek according to their book not me
In reality you need to speak loudly and forcibly to win the argument
No point or sense in just accepting injustice due to the views of the pointy hatted dude and his sky fairy
hey they need to turn the other cheek
Wasn't it that kind of action that got the gays into sin in the first place... 😉
No point or sense in just accepting injustice due to the views of the pointy hatted dude and his sky fairy
Particularly when it is a civil matter that has chuff all to do with religion in the first place.
There have been some good,decent arguments put forward, but when the same people who argue for tolerance and equality intersperse this with mocking abuse and derogatory comments about someone because he is different to them, they only weaken their own position.
Why not attack the argument rather than the person?
Why not attack the argument rather than the person?
Because this is STW. 🙄
[i]Yes WE are going to change their views and lets all shout very VERY **** loud till we deafen their voices and gay people have the same rights and the same ceremony as straights [/i]
But a Civil Partnership does give you the same rights and the ceremony, if you choose to have one, as a hetero-civil marriage. Some religions may choose not to allow that ceremony to be performed under their auspices, but, frankly, that's their right; it's the rules of their club.
As has been said, it's ridiculous that all this fuss is basically not over what it is, because we (those of us who believe that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples) have what we want, but what it's called. And what it's called is more about what people call it than what's written in the statute book. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
For instance, I consider a same sex couple who are in a civil partnership to be married and would refer to them as such. I may be breaking the law but I won't get arrested and the more I do this the more widespread and accepted it becomes until eventually the activists on either side are wondering what the hell they're arguing about because the rest of society has moved on.This is quite probably already happening right under our noses so while from a legal standpoint you're not winning, peoples apathy is actually working for you, not against you.
Exactly.
Oh, and for what it's worth, if I don't get to be a page boy in a sailor suit at emsz's wedding, there'll be hell to pay 🙂
Junkyard - MemberOH FFS toast leave the vegans out of this we are a terribly persected minority and you need to take our rights seriously
So should Vegans be allowed to get married?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Then insist it is a goose or possibly a swan with a sore throat.
But definitely not a duck. Not a real one anyway. Not like proper ponds have.
I can see why that would upset rivers, lakes and other alternative waterways...
Arguable. What clearly should be law is that you're not allowed to ride a Tandem unless married to eachother - think of the scandal otherwise!
So should Vegans be allowed to get married?
Only to Muslamic swans
if my experience is anything to go by NO
have you read the Bible?
Have you Edukator?
The same book in the bible which says homosexuality is immoral is the same book which says you can't eat pork... Deuteronomy by the way.
Edukator I'm also not suggesting that your are saying it's immoral. I am saying that it is amazing how Christianity can pick and choose what it wishes to believe and ignore.
We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ... I know what she means LOL
You should both have a suit and a dress and change at half time 🙂
[i]We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing[/i]
But you have decided on sailor suits for the page boys, right?
My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ...
Tell her you're dressing the page boys as the Village People 😀
😆
We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ... I know what she means LOL
My mam was forever telling my sister that her hair/clothes/posture made her look "dykey". Turns out that it was being a lesbian that made her look dykey.
My mam was forever telling my sister that her hair/clothes/posture made her look "dykey". Turns out that it was being a lesbian that made her look dykey.
My mom only objects to lesbian weddings if they both wear dresses, because that makes a mockery of marriage and, well, [i]"one of them has to be the man!"[/i]. My mother also once said that all gays "wear leather caps, it's part of their uniform". And meant it.
I love her to bits despite the fact she's racist and socially inept, but she wasn't really much of a role model...
BBC News reporting that a few more religious types have been pushing the boundaries of (im)morality
Sounds similar to my mum. She's retired now but for years she had a friend at work who was/is a lesbian, she was very proud of their friendship and always referred to her as her 'lesbian friend'. And yes, she reads the Daily Mail.I love her to bits despite the fact she's racist and socially inept
So - do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?
You be the sailor TJ, I'll be the cowboy, tonyd can be the construction worker.
(genuinely without wanting to hi-jack the thread and so please don't think I am, but just want to clear this up a bit....)
Have you Edukator?The same book in the bible which says homosexuality is immoral is the same book which says you can't eat pork... Deuteronomy by the way.
Edukator I'm also not suggesting that your are saying it's immoral. I am saying that it is amazing how Christianity can pick and choose what it wishes to believe and ignore.
This point has been raised a few times and to be fair is an extremely understandable comment - just wanted to try and very briefly clear this up a touch. The Old Testament laws as laid down in Leviticus etc were laws set out for the nation of Israel at that time, i.e. they are basically the Jewish laws. In the New Testament, when Jesus came, he basically put in place a New covenant with the world that replaced the majority of those laws. Essentially, the Old Testament was written for and about Israel, the New Testament for everyone, whether Jewish or not. Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.
Sorry for the mild hi-jack, hope that makes sense. Not meant to impart anything either way, just wanted to clear it up. Some great debate points in this thread - let's keep it like that.
Indian one for me please. I want to bag racist and homophobic when I "black up" for the role and mince - iirc he was the only gay one anyway
speed12: the trouble comes that not every Christian sees it like that (including the Cardinal it seems).
Leviticus and Deuteronomy are commonly used by the extremist Christian homophobes, as is the Old Testament tale of Soddom and Gomorrah. Though obviously such groups tend to conveniently ignore all the other Old Testament laws and stories that don't fit their prejudices.
But fair point, and let's not get into a big religious debate. The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.
So - do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?
I think you should go as Sailor Moon!
[img] 
[/img]
Which rather topically was censored from the original Japanese anime for the American release - Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune were depicted as cousins, rather than as lovers, and Zoisite was given a female voice actress despite originally being a male character to make his relationship with Kunzite less... well, gay.
Yay equality! o/
Christianity is NOT about obeying laws.
It shouldn't be.
Dont worry Grum it is fine god is love and
Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.
I can only assume from this at judgement he will show us all the love god has and treat us all the same after all ...its not about following gods rules or anything
A i dont follow gods rules nonetheless god will love me the same as the Pope and yet treat us both so very differently...mmm wonders why
Is god a bit mean despite loving me?
Just heard the Muslim view of this mentioned on R4.
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality [/url]
Makes Catholicism look like a liberal hippy festival by comparison.
I haven't read all the Bible but enough to quote some gems. In Luke 19 you'll find Jesus has little regard for some of the ten commandements. He tells his followers to bring his ennemies (those who didn't want Jesus to be king) before him and kill them, then he sends a couple of disciples to steal a donkey for him to ride into town on, threatens to stone people on the ride, enters the town and squats the temple.
Imagine how the Cardinal would react if a bunch of revolutionaries did that in his church!
The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.
This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I've heard have been similar: "this shouldn't be allowed in church". Nobody is asking for that.
Essentially, all that's being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.
ie giving non-denominational gay people the exact same rights as non-denominational hetero people. So still can't get married in church (unless you get an amenable vicar - but there again I bet there's a lot of vicars who would marry atheist heteros but only a few who would marry a gay couple) but can get [i]married[/i] not just civilly unionised.Essentially, all that's being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.
Speed12 what was Jesus's view on pork?
I'm presuming he didn't eat it himself but I seriously doubt he preached about it's wickedness or I'd never have experienced the taste sensation that is a bacon buttie when I was a kid.
Did he mention any thing about homosexuality?
If the answers are no and no then why are the various churches still hung up about same sex couples but not bothering to boycott danepak?
The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.
This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I've heard have been similar: "this shouldn't be allowed in church". Nobody is asking for that.
On a superficial level this is a persuasive argument - it's their chuch / club / belief system - they can retain whatever rules they please within that system...
However, as many theologians are currently arguing re female bishops, the chuch cannot stand isolated from societal values.
They look frankly absurd and out of date in insisting that only men can be bishops, and rightly so.
It is exactly the same mentality re same sex marriages.
Would it be acceptable for them to require their "club members" to be white, blond, blue eyed and fine physical specimens? Would we still be ok with the opinion that it's their club so they can do what they please?
Of course not.
I'd love to believe that the churches will become the victim of Darwinism - slow extinction through failing to adapt and evolve...
Unfortunately I suspect that their are too many ignorant people around for that to happen anytime soon 🙄
bit of a tricky one really, religions do seem to be able to ignore the discriminatory rules that apply to other "clubs" but discrimination is at the centre of many religionsWould we still be ok with the opinion that it's their club so they can do what they please?
Speedy 12 has just shot down most of the reasons I can dislike the church. Why has that been kept secret from even it seems all the church goers. Would it be best to publish a bible with just the new bit?
I've not read the new bit is it all nice and loving?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/07/muslim-african-nations-un-gay-rights?
Religion. An appalling load of sh1te.
No, the new bit isn't all nice and loving, Zippykona, check my last post. Jesus endorsed the rules Moses had set down in Leviticus so some church people consider Jesus was against homosexuality even though you won't find a direct condemnation from him in the New Testament. It's down to interpretation. Google something like "Jesus on homosexuality".