[Closed] The church and homosexuality

OK, the law is not discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men.
Thanks for clarifying that.

...so what?

lifer can you translate that for me please? I don't speak posh

OK, the law is not discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men.
Thanks for clarifying that.

...so what?

It was other folks that got upset with the idea. But some folks did and still do think that we are wrong

OK, the law is not [i]technically[/i] discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men [i]but in effect it is working against gay people[/i]
Thanks for clarifying that.
[i]But semantics aside[/i]...so what?

Does that really hurt me? I'm not sure....... You don't seem to care that's for certain. In your eyes I'm just wrong. That may or may not be true, but now your the intolerant one.

Its a pointless debate everyone knows one side gets to say intolerant to the other

We are either intolerant of the religious being allowed to dictate to others who they can marry even though they are not of that faith or we are intolerant of those who wish to marry someone the religious disapprove of.

Whatever way you decide you infringe on someone else choice.

I am not sure whether folk thought you were wrong as to thought it was pointless point as it is highly unlikely a heterosexual will want to marry someone of the same sex [ one per century worldwide?] - I am not aware of any campaigning for this right but they might all just be in the closet. I do know a gay couple who married each other so he could stay in the country [man and woman] - thankfully god and the church approved of that union

OK, the law is not technically discrimination based on sexuality,

I wish you had all said this in the first place instead of spending 3 pages arguing about it

sorry but you don't have the right not to be upset about something that in this case is just offering the same rights to same sex couples that mixed sex couple currently enjoy.
Bandying the term "bigot" about can cause upset and there's a fair bit of confusion about the subject but if you read and understand the for argument and your only counter argument is "but its two men ewww" or "it's just not right" then you're getting pretty close to bigot territory. You don't have to have your own gay marriage or embrace the idea of gay relationships, you just have to allow them the same rights straight people have.

Sorry I think we're arguing two different points. I have no problem with gay partnership. I agree with you, I think they should absolutely have the same rights. I think all religion should respect and bless this union. I haven't ever counter argued that "it's a bit ewww" if that's what you think I've been saying you've not understood my points as I tried very hard to put across. Perhaps your not really reading and actually thinking about my earlier discussions. My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman. To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning. Nothing to do with religion and beardy men.

I don't accept that at all because it's completely fallacious.

Steady on there tiger, At what point did I say I was against anyone getting married? Just because I have a basic grasp of the current law doesn’t mean I agree wholly with it.

Yep fair play to you - I learnt something from your contribution, so thanks.

So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consomethingion will no longer be part of the contract

Couldn't the "act of consomethingion" just be broadened a little to include sexual relations, rather than just "ordinary" sexual intercourse?

Mind you it does seem very odd to have something in law saying "You must shag them or the deal is off" anyway 😕

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman.

Really? Says who?

Mr Woppit - Member

"My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman."

Really? Says who?

Religion and beardy men.

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman.

Not so very long ago marriage was the unique union between a man and woman [i]under God[/i].

Definitions change.

Or has letting atheists marry completely ruined it?

(Personally I was quite glad they dropped that part in time for me to get married, as I didn't want a foundation of my marriage to be based on something I didn't believe in.)

Permanent/semipermanent union as a survival/biological thing does obviously lean towards man + woman (or man + women) as a partnership for rearing young.

Which is all fine, but it's no reason for sticking to that formula in the present day.

Marriage applies to inanimate objects too: The marriage of tomato juice and vodka to create a Bl**dy Mary! It's a commonly used noun used in everyday speech to describe a joining/mixing/union type thing. Nothing deep or meaningful in it's use these days.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women. Your argument holds no water.

Bisexuals.

Next?

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

As opposed to what? Giraffes? Privet hedges?

A straight man could hypothetically want to marry another man for some reason. Can't think of one offhand though. Assuming this to be the case though, what's your point? That a highly unlikely fringe case proves that there's no discrimination?

If you're arguing that neither a gay man nor a straight man can marry another man therefore it's not discrimination based on sexual preference, then it's discrimination based on gender. Women can marry men but men cannot.

Here's an analogy. Let's say interracial marriage was illegal. White men can marry white women and black men can marry black women, but a black man cannot marry a white woman. By your argument, this is absolutely fine as there's no racial discrimination here. Black people and white people can both get married.

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman. To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning.

It [i]expands[/i] the definition to be more inclusive. Its existing meaning doesn't change; ie, the 'between a man and a woman' bit wouldn't change one iota, men and women will still be just as married as they always were. So even assuming you're right, I'm not sure as I understand your objection, other than a desire for exclusivity. Will allowing those gayers to get married somehow diminish the value of your marriage?

Time to wheel out the Feldman quote again 😛

[img] [/img]

If you're arguing that neither a gay man nor a straight man can marry another man therefore it's not discrimination based on sexual preference, then it's discrimination based on gender. Women can marry men but men cannot.

But women can marry people of the other gender and so can men, then the discrimination based on gender disappears. Now who's getting all semantic?

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like 😛 I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Edit. And thank you to those in this thread who refrained from insult and instead used intellect. Appreciated.

Here's an analogy. Let's say interracial marriage was illegal. White men can marry white women and black men can marry black women, but a black man cannot marry a white woman. By your argument, this is absolutely fine as there's no racial discrimination here. Black people and white people can both get married.

I'm trying to draw parallels with the analogy, it demonstrates when you change the ruling, you change it for both groups. Banning inter-racial marriage is a bad thing for both groups. But i think saying that banning same-sex marriage is anti-gay, would be like saying that banning interracial marriage is anti-black. I think, I'm not entirely sure the analogy holds

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.
If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Gayer!

If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

dnftt - Member
If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

fixeder?

and i know it's just a joke, but it just reveals a reductionist view of homsexuality

Permanent/semipermanent union as a survival/biological thing does obviously lean towards man + woman (or man + women) as a partnership for rearing young.

Yeah, we keep coming back to this. Historically, a big reason for marriage was to breed, especially when some religions get involved. Isn't it Catholicism that not only requires consomethingion, but doesn't consider consomethingion valid unless it's performed without birth control? Gotta start squeezing out those true believers as soon as possible, folks.

So then it gets trotted out as an excuse for excluding same-sex partnerships from being able to marry. Gay people can't procreate, see. The problem is that this falls flat for any number of other reasons. Disability and age, as others have mentioned; sexual disfunction (eg, impotence); disinterest; infertility; and that's all before we even consider couples who simply don't want children.

The fact is that an ability to reproduce, or even to have sex, is not a prerequisite for couples to be able to marry. So using as a reason to preclude same-sex marriage is disingenuous.

Now who's getting all semantic?

Fight fire with fire. We can both be ludicrous if you think it'll help.

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

\o/

Thank you.

I haven't ever counter argued that "it's a bit ewww" if that's what you think I've been saying you've not understood my points as I tried very hard to put across

I think all religion should respect and bless this union

To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning

may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Yeah, you can suggest it. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

No Singletracked it means that if two things are not the same then why use the same term.

Lolz at post count being 666

Ruined it now

Fight fire with fire. We can both be ludicrous if you think it'll help

Nevertheless, i did engage with your argument. I don't think my argument was based semantics.

If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

Steady now..... you're getting close to insult. 🙁

No Singletracked it means that if two things are not the same then why use the same term

Then i apologise, i thought you were implying that in gay sex that the bum was used as a proxy vagina. If nothing else this is an unimaginative view

Banning inter-racial marriage is a bad thing for both groups.

Is it? Why? Both groups can get married, so what's the problem?

But i think saying that banning same-sex marriage is anti-gay, would be like saying that banning interracial marriage is anti-black. I think, I'm not entirely sure the analogy holds

They're both forms of prejudice. You may well be right in that "anti-gay" may not be an appropriate term, but a) I don't think anyone (other than you, just then) has actually said it's anti-gay and b) getting the right terminology, or not, doesn't really change the actual problem in hand. Which is that, in both cases people cannot marry the person they love because of some unnecessary, arbitrary discrimination; whether that's anti-somedemographic or not is neither here nor there really.

you do keep bringing love into marriage, it's not an essential or necessary condition

Is it? Why? Both groups can get married, so what's the problem?

I've never said that banning same sex marriage is not a problem, in fact I've said, to specifically to you I think, that i think same-sex marriage should be legal. My point was that it was not discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Initially i was isolated in this but as you can see, a few have eventually seen the logic of this

a few have eventually seen the logic of this

I don't think anyone (other than you, just then) has actually said it's anti-gay

Sorry, I may have misunderstood. Do you then think that the legislation does not work against gay people?

a) I don't think anyone (else) has actually said it's anti-gay

Crap debating by me admittedly but I think singletracked did understand the main point of my argument but was being obtuse/pedantic about it

So, no one really things gays are being hard done by with the current system?

Because there's nothing wrong with discrimination itself, that's about identifying differences and acting accordingly, we do it all the time from buying beer to creating different toilets for people. It's only a bad thing if some one is treated unfairly because of it. In which case it becomes 'anti- '

I think singletracked did understand the main point of my argument but was being obtuse/pedantic about it

sorry, which one?

So, no one really thinks gays are being hard done by with the current system?

Erm.. yes... I do. And so do at least two of our resident gayerists who commented earlier on this thread and whose opinion I would suggest matters the most.

Do you then think that the legislation does not work against gay people?

See, this is a semantic trap.

[img] [/img]

The legislation currently affects gay couples on the whole, yes. Though as you triumphantly pointed out, it could also affect straight people if for some bizarre but as yet undisclosed reason they wanted to enter into a same-sex marriage.

To put it another way; for all [i]practical [/i]purposes it works against gay couples, hence why people are saying it's prejudiced. Or if you like, it's prejudiced against "same-sex couples," rather than "gay people."

Going back to my interracial analogy, the prejudice isn't against a black person or a white person singularly, but against a mixed-race couple. The underlying reason for this might not be, but probably is, racism against black people, even though the net effect affects black and white people equally. You could argue here that it's not racism because white people are also affected, and whilst you might be correct superficially, you're choosing to ignore the real, actual underlying cause because you can get out of it on a technicality.

Ah but Cougar, what if a white person wanted to black-up minstrel-style and marry a black person with [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo ]vitiligo[/url]... what then eh? 😆

It's not a semantic trap, I was just somewhat surprised when you said that no one had said it was 'anti-gay'.

It's not a semantic trap, I was just somewhat surprised when you said that no one had said it was 'anti-gay'.

Going back to my interracial analogy, the prejudice isn't against a black person or a white person singularly, but against a mixed-race couple. The underlying reason for this might not be, but probably is, racism against black people, even though the net effect affects black and white people equally. You could argue here that it's not racism because white people are also affected, and whilst you might be correct superficially, you're choosing to ignore the real, actual underlying cause because you can get out of it on a technicality.

Well, i assumed this was a hypothetical situation and the restriction was context independent.

edit- and of course, in a hypothetical situation, there is no real, actual underlying cause.

Can you answer the 'So what?' bit yet?

erm, you would have to go back to where I first said it and when you first disagreed with it and found it important to prove wrong

GrahamS - Member

"So, no one really thinks gays are being hard done by with the current system?"

Erm.. yes... I do.

+1

Really don't know how you came to that conclusion except for wanting it to be that way.

Really don't know how you came to that conclusion except for wanting it to be that way.

No, it was this line from Cougar

I don't think anyone (other than you, just then) has actually said it's anti-gay

See, this is a semantic trap.

so now this thread can add anti-semanticism to it's list of atrocities 🙄

what have the Jews done wrong exactly..?

what have the Jews done wrong exactly..?

😆 Close enough to a Godwin to close this stupid thread I reckon 😀

>>Can you answer the 'So what?' bit yet?

erm, you would have to go back to where I first said it and when you first disagreed with it and found it important to prove wrong

That'd be the bit where you said:

Oh, this is an interesting point. Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

Which, let's face it, isn't particularly clear.
(the statement that caused you to have your 'interesting point' is a quote you edited and which I can't attribute to anyone)

So, your point was purely the semantics/technicalities, which we have established, aren't the important bits.

Congratulations.

(the interesting point you were refering to contains a quote you edited and which I can't attribute to anyone)

I think it was the line directly above
ah, it was from Grimy

So, your point was purely the semantics/technicalities, which we have established, aren't the important bits.

No

Congratulations.

You were the one who took objection to it

Close enough to a Godwin to close this stupid thread I reckon

George Carey invoked Godwin last week.

I think I've decided that trying to reason with singletracked is either pointless or cruel, but I've not yet decided which, or to who it is cruel.

I think it was the line directly above

Actually, while driving home, I realised there is one benefit that I have that straight married people do not.

If I and He Who Must Be Obeyed were to split we could do so amicably with a 'no-fault' divorce. (And no, I don't know what the stupid-named term is for gay divorce; still ducks, all the way down...!).

Straight couples cannot do this at present, one party has to be at fault.

Though when I rule the world (won't be long now):

All nut-based products will be banned.
To prevent homophobia there will be a gay national service started.
Straight married people can have no-fault divorces.

😀

AdamW - Member

All nut-based products will be banned.

*s****s*

Without reading the previous 20 pages, why on earth would thing that two people who love each other and want to commit to each other could ever be wrong ? Religious propaganda goes to great lengths to tell us how each different franchise is "all about love" So matter what sex,race or colour people are love is love isn't it?

tell me why you took such objection to the point? It seemed important to you. That might help with the 'so what'.

Ultimately, I asked a question some people expressed views, which appear not to have been thought through too well, we discussed those views and some of the assumptions being made, we corrected some misconceptions and as a result those views changed. I think it's called a discussion, they don't always have a point but the help us to think about our beliefs and assumptions. I guess, for me, at the end of the day, you answered my question and helped me clarify my thinking and probably yours, on the issue. At least in the future you will disagree if some thinks the ruling is discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality.

The point, not sure really, just here to help you get your thoughts in order, i guess. No need to thank me. The insight you have gained is thanks enough.

To prevent homophobia there will be a gay national service started.

How does that work: get drafted and spend the next three years being gay?

Seems a tad extreme 😀

tell me why you took such objection to the point? It seemed important to you. That might help with the 'so what'.

GLITCH

tell me why you took such objection to the point? It seemed important to you. That might help with the 'so what'.

We're passed that bit now, if you remember - I said I understood what you were getting at.

perhaps so, but i'd still like an answer

reprint: Ultimately, I asked a question some people expressed views, which appear not to have been thought through too well, we discussed those views and some of the assumptions being made, we corrected some misconceptions and as a result those views changed. I think it's called a discussion, they don't always have a point but the help us to think about our beliefs and assumptions. I guess, for me, at the end of the day, you answered my question and helped me clarify my thinking and probably yours, on the issue. At least in the future you will disagree if some thinks the ruling is discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality.

The point, not sure really, just here to help you get your thoughts in order, i guess. No need to thank me. The insight you have gained is thanks enough.

Re trying to reason logically with singletracked:

I'm still chuckling at Adam and the fun he's had with the 'No thanks, I'm allergic to nuts' thing. 🙂

Well, i assumed this was a hypothetical situation and the restriction was context independent.

edit- and of course, in a hypothetical situation, there is no real, actual underlying cause.

Well, of course it's hypothetical, that's analogies for you. However, if that's problematic then we can pretend we're in the southern US in the 1950s if you like. I'm not sure what that gains though, I still don't seem to be explaining myself very well.

Re trying to reason logically with singletracked:

you mean that after enough recursions you eventually learn something?

Why thank you, most gracious of you

How does that work: get drafted and spend the next three years being gay?

Sounds about right, I hear those army boys are often taking things they shouldn't.

Well, of course it's hypothetical, that's analogies for you. However, if that's problematic then we can pretend we're in the southern US in the 1950s if you like. I'm not sure what that gains though, I still don't seem to be explaining myself very well

Well, if it's hypothetical, we can't say what the real underlying causes are!

No, basing it in the states in the 50s doesn't help.

The underlying reason for this might not be, but probably is, racism against black people

after enough recursions you eventually learn something?

Yes. Thanks to you we've established that in a case which you're yet to substantiate as anything other than massively unusual, the current restrictions could theoretically also apply to people who aren't gay.

Whilst no doubt you score a point for this, I think perhaps lauding it up might be a little premature (for reasons as I've tried to explain).

this would only be true if you chose it to be for your hypothetical situation. You could equally choose any other hypothetical causal mechanism

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Yes. Thanks to you we've established that in a case which you're yet to substantiate as anything other than massively unusual

Why so unusual, men and women cohabit and form long term relationships in many cultures, we've legislated and built taboos around it here that it seems so completely alien to you, but really, there's nothing wrong with it.

this would only be true if you chose it to be for your hypothetical situation. You could equally choose any other hypothetical causal mechanism
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Not at all, you chose a hypothetical situation. No inter-marriage. Then said yeah, but i bet it's because of racism against black people. There is no basis for that at all! It's hypothetical!

The point of the analogy was to aid explanation, not to give you something else to pick apart. No doubt if we tried hard enough we could find an example of a culture which banned interracial marriage for reasons other than prejudice against black people, but I'd expect that it's far and away the most common reason.

Why so unusual, men and women cohabit and form long term relationships in many cultures

The unusual case, which you asserted, was that straight men might want to marry other men, therefore (tada!) banning same-sex marriage isn't prejudiced against gay people.

What you're referring to above all of a sudden, I don't have a scooby.

Well, the analogy was useful until you said that my reasoning was flawed because of your views outside of the situation

What you're referring to above all of a sudden, I don't have a scooby.

What? you mean you know of no cultures or environments where two people of the same sex end up spending their lives together despite being straight?

I miss TJ 🙁

Ok, down the road from me, two women who used to teach together, share a house. One of them was previously married, her husband died many years ago. They each have little other family. they share their lives, socially and domestically. They are straight, as far as anyone knows. when one dies, the other does not automatically get the property, just because they live together.

My Aunt, lived and died in Ireland 20 years ago, spent the last 40 years of her live sharing the house with the woman who used to be her maid. There was no automatic right of inheritance for the ex-maid when my aunt died.

A neighbour when i was kid, took in a lodger, and he stayed for many years, became part of the family. when the wife died the two men carried on living together. They were very close, but nothing formal existed between then such when the older man died, his children inherited everything, because he was of a generation which didn't think about wills and so on. Not such unusual situations i think, and I'm sure if you looked around or thought back you would see or remeber such situations

you mean you know of no cultures or environments where two people of the same sex end up spending their lives together despite being straight?

... and want to get married? Not immediately seeing any. The failing is obviously mine, perhaps you could elaborate?

see above