Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
It depresses me that we still live in an age where some people think sexual orientation is a choice. It's so backward and ignorant.

Me too. Straight people don't choose to be straight so why do people think it's any different for gay people?

And as others have said, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. It's not a choice that hurts anyone in any way, so why should they lose rights even if they did make a choice?

While I agree, show me the data.

You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.

That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.

There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.

Yet that seems to be continuously lost on the self righteous SJWs of the world.

It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.

 cincydooley wrote:
While I agree, show me the data.

You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.

It doesn't make you more right any of the time.

Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.

That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.

There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.

Yet that seems to be continuously lost on the self righteous SJWs of the world.

It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.

Huh, have we all sprouted American flags suddenly, in this thread discussing a gay marriage referendum in Ireland, where this thread of conversation was started by several people disagreeing with someone from Eastern Europe?

I'll also note, despite continuing to assert that these rational arguments exist and are simply being dismissed out of hand by evil SJWs, you've still not actually cited one as requested. And you know what, yes, if someone makes arguments against a group of people and those arguments are taken apart piece by piece right in front of that person, yet they still insist the group they were arguing against is somehow wrong/bad/twisted, I am going to assume they're just a bigot who was using those discredited arguments as a cloak for their disgust and/or hatred and/or misdirected self-loathing, because that's a pattern which has been borne out many, many times in history particularly over the course of the 20th century.

We've passed the stage where people can plausibly claim ignorance now; gays don't cause hurricanes, or bring down the wrath of God, or "destroy marriage", or "convert" children, they're just people who deserve the same basic respect and consideration, both from the law and from other people, that everyone else enjoys.

If you actually know a rational argument against that proposition, make it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.

But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.

But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.

So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

Then its (probably) less a problem with homophobia on the part of the individual, and more the collective, organised homophobia of the religious institution. I recognise that people can view their religion as overriding the moral laws of the country; some members of my family hold opinions like that. However, viewed from outside of the institution (i.e. where the teachings of that institution are not viewed as sacrosanct), then it still just looks a lot like organized homophobia.

Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.

However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.

 Haight wrote:
Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.

However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.

Did it not already? It was a majority yes vote.

Its already passed with flying colours, people. There were rainbows in the sky and everything.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

As well, if you were an American (and I know that IC isn't one), and arguing from the point of "America is a Christian nation, founded by good Christian men!", then I can point out with factual, first-hand evidence that this is not true, and therefore, arguing from a position of religious morality is literally building a strawman because there is nothing under that argument to support it.

 cincydooley wrote:
That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.

No, they've been destroyed. There is no credible argument that gay marriage is bad, other than "I don't like it". Every supposedly rational argument against it has been disproved over and over again, to the point that no reasonable and informed person could possibly believe them. So that leaves two categories of people who believe the "rational" arguments against gay marriage:

1) The bigots whose real motives are "I hate gay people" or "eww, gross", and who just want a "scientific" pretense to make it look like their argument isn't just bigotry.

2) People who don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion, but insist on having one anyway.

But feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong, and that there's a legitimate rational argument against gay marriage. Based on the fact that you've just complained about how mean "the left" is instead of providing one the first time I asked I suspect you know you can't provide one.

There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.

Not really, because there's no reasonable justification for that disapproval. If you say "I disapprove of black people" we all know that you're a racist and the only reason you're saying "disapprove" is because you're trying to pretend that what you're saying isn't incredibly offensive.

It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.

No, it's a rallying cry of the American right, because it's a blatant straw man. There are lots of people who disagree with me but don't get a "bigot" label. We can argue all day about taxes/gun control/etc and you'll be wrong, but you (probably) aren't a bigot. But when a person is making an argument that is nothing more than "I don't like you and I don't think you should have the same rights as the rest of us" then yeah, the "bigot" label is appropriate no matter how politely the argument is made.

 cincydooley wrote:
While I agree, show me the data.

You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists.

While the call to find a single gay gene was always far too simplistic given the complexity of gene interactions and the place of pre and post natal environmental conditions, and so there will never be the 'smoking gun' to show to people who refuse to see it, there simply hasn't been an honest case for homosexuality as choice for a decade now.

We know, for instance, that the more brothers you had born before you, the more likely you are to be gay. Homosexuality as biology will tell you that the mother's immune system actually becomes more effective at fighting testosterone as she has more boys, reducing that hormone as she has more boys, increasing the chance of homosexuality. Homosexuality as choice will tell you that if a person sees older brothers around them, then they choose to be gay... which is stupid.

And we know that gay people are more likely to have hair that curls counter-clockwise. That gay men are more likely to be left handed or ambidextrous. That the twin siblings of gay people are much more likely to be gay themselves. That gay men respond subconsciously to male pheromones, while straight men respond to female pheromones.

And even if we ignore all of that, haven't you ever wondered why, if homosexuality is a choice, that not one single therapy has ever managed to make people make a different choice? Not one single person, under all manner of therapies, including some really invasive stuff, has ever gone from absolute homosexual attraction to anything less than that. How in the feth does that reconcile with any kind of sensible belief that homosexuality is a choice.

That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.

No, they've been destroyed. Looking beyond any moral argument, the basic logic of arguments like 'but its special rights for gay people' and 'but it's about the sanctity of the word' have been utterly, completely laid bare as utter tosh. Nonsense. Things believed by people unwilling or incapable of actually thinking about the issue.

There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.

In many ways simple disapproval is worse. With hate at least there's anger and confusion driving it, but dispassionate disapproval - "I have nothing at stake and realise you are harming no-one, but I just think it's important to disapprove for no particular reason at all".... what a gakky way to go about thinking about life.

It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.

This I actually agree with. The left is all too often only really interested in dismissing any alternative argument with a simple moral wave of the hand - say bigot, feel morally superior and move on.

But of course, as much as the left has all too often opted for easy moral judgement... they still won, because the right's arguments against gay equality were just so terrible.

 Haight wrote:
Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.

However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.

Passed by over 60% of the population, only one constituency voted No out of the entire island. It is true that Ireland was extremely socially conservative, but things have changed rapidly in the last 20 years and it is no longer as bad as people think. Gently suggesting you reassess your view because it is likely to piss off a lot of Irish people like myself who are very socially liberal.

I am hopeful that we should have a referendum on abortion soon and it should also pass, though it will be a much, much harder fight. And then the Catholic Church can give up it's grip on our hospitals and schools and I would be satisfied enough to consider moving home again.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.

However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.

Passed by over 60% of the population, only one constituency voted No out of the entire island. It is true that Ireland was extremely socially conservative, but things have changed rapidly in the last 20 years and it is no longer as bad as people think. Gently suggesting you reassess your view because it is likely to piss off a lot of Irish people like myself who are very socially liberal.

I am hopeful that we should have a referendum on abortion soon and it should also pass, though it will be a much, much harder fight. And then the Catholic Church can give up it's grip on our hospitals and schools and I would be satisfied enough to consider moving home again.

I am curious, are you for abortion only when there is a good reason, or for abortion beign legal regardless of the reason?

I am for abortion on demand, I don't think women should have to justify their choices to anyone. I would be happy if we at least liberalised it so that women at medical risk, or who had been raped, or who have a confirmed fatal fetal abnormality, or so on, could abort. The grotesque situations that happen with our current system are a national shame.

Who gets to decide what a good reason is, after all?

I don't particularly want to get into an abortion debate here though, because I'm pretty sure my views on it will just offend everyone, on every side

Meh, I'm similar, but I go by, freely available, but rare. There should be heavy investment in sex-ed which isn't abstinence only, stuff like IUDs covered by insurance, ect.

It's not like abortions are ten a penny in countries where there are liberal abortion laws. It's not a pleasant thing for anyone to go through.

Though yeah, getting the Church out of our schools might help on the sex ed front.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

Just because your religion wants to claim marriage doesn't mean that they have the sole right to the word.

But, IC, in almost all countries (i.e. those who are not theocracies) there is a legal definition of marriage that has nothing to do with religion. It's why aethists, ect can marry, and why marriages don't have to be preformed by a priest. Religious marriage is still the same, nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people, but the non-religious entity that issues marriage licenses to people has to.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

This is indisputably false. Marriage is older than your religion, and has existed outside of your religion for all of known history. The fact that your religion has its own ceremonies and rules involving marriage does not grant your religion ownership of it. Nor does it give you any right to say who may or may not sign a secular legal contract at the local courthouse.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

However for non religious people, that's what it is. I'm all for people having religion, but I don't like them pushing that on others, which is exactly what saying gay people can't get married because MY religion says so is doing. And it's not like things haven't changed with regards to marrige and religion before. Divorce used to be forbidden, are you against that too?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?

You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.

It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

The thing is, it doesn't come from your religion (whichever religion it is). The idea of marriage occurs in -nearly all- religions in the world, and means slightly different things to each religion. If we were to say that secular marriage were non-valid, then we would have to say that religious marriage solemnised by any other faith that 'state endorsed faith x' would be null and void. Which we don't want to do, because that would be mean to most religious people. But if the state is ok to solemnise marriage, then its alright for them to solemnise whatever marriages they like.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I disagree with that definition.
For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals.
The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike.
If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas?

Alternatively; we're allowed to define words however we want. I disagree with the definition of marriage which would not allow same-sex marriages.
For me, marriage is more than just being into the opposite sex.

PS: my religion states that only gay marriages are valid, so I expect the immediate removal of straight marriages. And you can't have any objection to this demand, because you've already established that you believe that "my religion says that marriage is defined this way" is a valid argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: my religion states that only gay marriages are valid, so I expect the immediate removal of straight marriages. And you can't have any objection to this demand, because you've already established that you believe that "my religion says that marriage is defined this way" is a valid argument.

Exactly. You can't write laws and expect to cover all religions, and you can't pick one. Religion should have no bearing on laws and definitely not on people's rights.

 Da Boss wrote:

I don't particularly want to get into an abortion debate here though, because I'm pretty sure my views on it will just offend everyone, on every side

Abortions for some, miniature Irish flags for others!

Fully agree - religious rights are perfectly fine in any context.. right up until they reach the point where they start telling people not of that religion what they can and cannot do.. If you choose to live your life by a set of rules (arbitrary or not, based on magic/voices in your head/some Supreme Deity) then that's your choice...just don't expect everyone else to be obliged to follow them too. Just because something is 'traditional' or 'has always been done that way' doesn't necessarily make it right or just.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism.

Secular marriage has been around longer than all three Abrahamic religions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

Whether or not a given religious institution sanctifies a marriage has no bearing on the privileges accorded as a result of that legal contract. This means both that people can be married in the eyes of the state but not in the eyes of a religious institution, and that people can be married in the eyes of a religious institution but not in the eyes of the state.

Put differently, there is nothing wrong with a religious institution refusing to wed a homosexual couple, the problem comes when people start trying to prevent the state from doing so.

Co'tor Shas wrote:But, IC, in almost all countries (i.e. those who are not theocracies) there is a legal definition of marriage

And in almost all countries this form of marriage is connected to religion.

Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,

They do in the Netherlands

Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.

This is indisputably false. Marriage is older than your religion, and has existed outside of your religion for all of known history. The fact that your religion has its own ceremonies and rules involving marriage does not grant your religion ownership of it. Nor does it give you any right to say who may or may not sign a secular legal contract at the local courthouse.

No, you are indisputably false.
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.

And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.

Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.