The church and homosexuality

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.

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 practical 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 vitiligo… 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’.

Can you answer the ‘So what?’ bit yet?

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

Still evading the point.
You very nearly passed the Turing test, my robot friend.

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.

*sniggers*

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’.

We’re passed that bit now, if you remember – I said I understood what you were getting at.
I still don’t know why you were getting at it.

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

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

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