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.

 Smacks wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Well clearly it does. If being gay was just about sex, then why are gay people asking for the right to get married? Clearly they feel their love transcends just sex. Some gay people would also like to marry in religious ceremonies before God, that sounds to me like the very definition of 'divine eros'.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.

 Manchu wrote:
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.

If this is a question of semantics. Some sources (like the Wikipedia article) define homosexuality as including romantic attraction, not just explicitly sexual attraction. In either case, engaging in sex is not a perquisite, and gay identity cannot be all encompassed by some clinical definition of homosexuality.

I dispute the existence of "the gay (or straight) identity," which seems to me purely ideological, oppressive, and more trouble than its worth.

 Manchu wrote:
I dispute the existence of "the gay (or straight) identity," which seems to me purely ideological, oppressive, and more trouble than its worth.

Well you are entitled to your 'opinion', but I'm sure it won't stop millions of people from self identifying as gay.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 Smacks wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I dispute the existence of "the gay (or straight) identity," which seems to me purely ideological, oppressive, and more trouble than its worth.

Well you are entitled to your 'opinion', but I'm sure it won't stop millions of people from self identifying as gay.

I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"

Sorry I am hyper hammered and Iam sure I'll be banned but let me be honest. This is worth being banned. If I can risk being excoummunicated from church for stopping this bs iun my church I can risk it here and not care.

As I have said to my kids my beautiful daughter who is bright and worthy of god and loves all not like me:
OK as a dad of someone who might be gay, and who can count several of his children's friends who are gay.

1. There is no difference in how you treat them or how you expect them to act. Period. Act with honor. treat my children well or I will kill you as they are the only thing left to me now.

2. To those who oppose them. feth you. I'll meet you in an open field on any morning. Bring steel. I will. Call me. I'll be ther you fether. I'll enjoy it. I've lived long enough.

3. I am a Christian. Jesus would wouldn't cotton to you sorry feths so feth off. Jesus was about peace and loving those who were abused by society. Those who hate gays hey fethers who do you think jesus would be sheltering? You? feth you no the poor the oppressed and yes gays. You need to seriously rethink your mindset and if you're against Jesus again feth you.

4. I welcome gays to Christ's familuy. Act with honor. Stand against evil and protect your family. Remember Jesus's words. Love others like you would love yourselves. Don't be a dick and lift upn your kids so they will live life better than you.

5. There ar ethose, like myself who care, who will give all to raise you up. We'll take out the world so you can fly.

Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

Exalted Fraz. I couldn't have said it better (though I no longer espouse to necessarily be a Christian, two tours in Iraq having altered me in ways that are still becoming apparent).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"

If you would be kind enough to elaborate and define what you think the difference is for us, that would make them much easier to discuss. However...

My original hypothetical example is:
Dumbledore considers himself gay, because he has romantic feelings towards other men. He also (perhaps coincidentally) enjoys the homoerotic photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.

I disagree:
That he must engage in sex with other men to qualify as homosexual, and that the words 'homosexual' and 'gay' are completely interchangeable and void of any subtle difference in meaning.

If that is disagreeable to you then please say so, however I'm not going to enter into a semantic argument based on what is likely equivocation of the word 'identity'.

 Frazzled wrote:
Jesus would wouldn't cotton to you sorry feths so feth off.

Amen!

You tell 'em wiener hating cranks what's what!!!

On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?

The simple answer is there isn't a non-religious argument against it. As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.

And as such there can be no argument made in favour of it. Anymore than on religious grounds one can argue in favour of eating shellfish, pork, or women wearing trousers.

Of course one might then object on the grounds of equality - which appears to be what is going on - in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?

But now I am really eating bacon sandwiches outside the synagogue door... and exposing the hypocrisy of the 'equality' agenda.

 Wilytank wrote:
On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?

"Eww, gross."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marielle wrote:
As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.

It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.

in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?

Because they aren't? Unless you're talking about cases where "civil partnership" is just a lesser version of marriage, and the only reason you'd ever have a civil partnership is because you're not allowed to have a marriage? But in that case it's a nonsense argument, like whining that you're forbidden to be paid $10 because you have to be paid $20 instead.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?

"Eww, gross."


IN essence yes. Suck it I say. life is gross. Do gays not hate? Do they not love? Do they not hope and dream like any one else? Do they not bleed? Do they not seek revenge? They ar ehuman. Humans are gross, Deal or feth off.

Leave them be.

Let me see, two people who can care for each other and manage to not have the prejudice of looking for that person only in the opposite sex.

Some issues with procreation but there are many opportunities for adoption in the world.

Argument against: I suppose we can look in many old books to do with religious texts or some old laws laid down when women would be fined for wearing a skirt and riding a bike.

The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.

It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.

 Frazzled wrote:
IN essence yes. Suck it I say. life is gross. Do gays not hate? Do they not love? Do they not hope and dream like any one else? Do they not bleed? Do they not seek revenge? They ar ehuman. Humans are gross, Deal or feth off.

Leave them be.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The laws in question were utterly wrong, and it's a very good thing that they've been thrown out in most countries. I was just saying that the reason for those laws was nothing more than "eww gross, I don't like it". There was never any reason besides a desire to impose personal opinions on everyone else.

 Talizvar wrote:

The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.

It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.

My friend who is gay says gay culture is the worst. You are forced into certain types of "Archetypes" Like the bears, effeminate that kinda stuff. It can get even more marginalizing in their culture, being forced to conform, with certain archetypes looking down on others. If yu are Bi-sexual it is even worse. My lesbian friend said it is really bad, with many lesbians forcing conformity(Social Progressive, Activist, Liberal) onto other lesbians, or else you are not a lesbian

It is obvious that someone can consider themselves [gay/straight] without having actually engaged in [homosexual/heterosexual] sex acts. It should be equally obvious that a person can engage in sex acts that do not correspond to what they consider to be their orientation. It is (comparatively) easy to categorize a given sex act as homo- or heterosexual (this conversation seems to assume normative gender categories) but much harder to characterize orientation. The former deals with organs while the latter deals with people. Speaking of orientation as "either X or Y" reduces the complex reality of an entirely personal characteristic to a label, which ends up obscuring the person. This is also true of fictional characters. Instead of talking about Dumbledore, we end up talking about Dumbdore's gayness.

 Peregrine wrote:


It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.

Yes, marriage is a sacrament. Not everyone recognizes that, but it doesn't make it less of a sacrament to Catholics.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.

Yes, marriage is a sacrament. Not everyone recognizes that, but it doesn't make it less of a sacrament to Catholics.

I think his issue is that people are saying 'marriage is a sacrament' instead of 'in some religions, marriage is a sacrament', which I think, to peregrine, makes it seem like people are saying 'it's only a sacrament, and nothing else to anybody else'. So its more crossed-communications than anything.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that there's a world of difference between someone self-identifying as gay from a "gay identity"

If you would be kind enough to elaborate and define what you think the difference is for us, that would make them much easier to discuss. However...

A decent enough example off the top of my head:

I self identify as a rugby player. Most people wouldnt know this unless I either tell them, or am wearing rugby kit of some sort (whether it's a simple t-shirt, practice/supporter jersey, or the full team kit getting ready for a match)

When I'm actually wearing my kit/participating in Rugby activities, there are certain characteristics that I quite obviously share with those who are also participating in the same activity. It's basically, there are certain common denominators that could be attributed to any particular group of people (NASCAR fans have mullets, Italians love food, Irish are drunks, etc) that are easily distinguishable to outsiders from that group.

In this way, there isn't so much a "if, then" type situation for gay people. Certainly many gay men like to be well dressed; but there are plenty of straight men who are as well. Many gay men may like/love interior design, but there are also plenty of straight men who do as well, etc. etc.

Well, we (Catholics) are not saying "marriage is only a sacrament to us" either; i.e., as Peregrine would say, that it is our opinion that marriage is sacramental. It's no more of a matter of opinion than photosynthesis (although it is also not the same kind of fact as photosynthesis). For us, the state cannot determine what is and is not marriage. I mean, I for one am all for the state recognizing a marriage between any two consenting adults (questions of affinity aside). But as I understand it, that's not the definition of sacramental marriage.

The idea of gay people makes me feel uncomfortable so I don't want any laws to support them and what they do.

I think that is the argument against gay marriage.

 Manchu wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I am saying platonic love has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Well clearly it does. If being gay was just about sex, then why are gay people asking for the right to get married? Clearly they feel their love transcends just sex. Some gay people would also like to marry in religious ceremonies before God, that sounds to me like the very definition of 'divine eros'.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are words that describe with which gender one prefers to have sexual relations. Beyond that point, any comment about being gay (or straight) is a stereotype.

I would've said it is about what gender someone falls in love with.

This debate is just so... over. After going through a page of this, I started to feel like I was turning up to a battlefield a day late to bayonet the wounded. Anyone else get that feeling?

 RiTides wrote:
Exactly, Derek.

And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.

I'm used to people failing to read my comments and giving responses to what they're pretending I'd say, but this would have to be the first time that someone has failed to read their own comment.

Here's what you said;
"As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself."

To which I responded;
"It really isn't. Plenty of friends of mine had non-religious ceremonies, and they're not any less married than I am. And religious people I know don't consider those people who got non-religious ceremonies any less married."

Now, if you'll read your comment and mine you'll learn that you were claiming marriage was purely religious, that is to say, that a marriage that isn't religious isn't a marriage at all. I corrected this, by explaining that there's a whole lot of marriages out there that had no religious trappings at all, and no-one, neither the state nor the general population, ever considered those marriages as anything other that full marriages.

Get it now? I mean do you see how your original claim was actually pretty silly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?

The other part of the tax breaks is that otherwise the system provides a disincentive towards marriage. If a couple live together but remain 'single' then the partner who stays home with the kids will likely be able to claim welfare for her zero income, or at the very least rental assistance (and legality of it will in many cases be grey, and even where it is black and white illegal it's very difficult to detect). But if the couple legally recognize their marriage then the stay at home partner will no longer be able to claim benefits.

Having people choose not to marry because of the negative financial hit is not desirable, and one practical way of avoiding that is to give tax benefits to marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.

No, it makes you a moralistic prude, who wants to deny basic legal systems from other people based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like it.

I quite agree that the term bigot isn't an exacting definition, but given the overlap between moralistic prudes and bigots, its probably a good enough for most of these conversations.

Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?

Because there is no means of administering consumption taxes without making them flat taxes. And attempting a purely flat tax system is a shambolic nonsense that, where attempted, led to bankruptcy at a truly remarkable speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.

In my experience, when someone is attempting to argue that morality is subjective to defend the views of some other party, they are attempting some kind of tolerant world view. If someone was to say "I don't agree with his opinion, but I think he has a right to hold and express his point of view", then they'd be arguing from a position of tolerance.

On the other hand, when someone is attempting to invoke subjective morality to defend their own point of view, then all they're really doing is attempting to avoid actually defending their position. People attempting this are ultimately saying something along the lines of "You should stop challenging my position and poking logical or factual holes in it because that's intolerant." Which is, you know, pretty obviously weak as piss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

That was completely awesome mate. It made skimming through the rest of this thread worthwhile.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

The only time I find anything to do with gay people strange is when enough people make them feel uncomfortable they have to retreat into "gay culture" to have a place to belong. It is like forcing a "culture" that really does not need to be there.

It is sad when they cannot be just another citizen and not be questioned on their choices.

My friend who is gay says gay culture is the worst. You are forced into certain types of "Archetypes" Like the bears, effeminate that kinda stuff. It can get even more marginalizing in their culture, being forced to conform, with certain archetypes looking down on others. If yu are Bi-sexual it is even worse. My lesbian friend said it is really bad, with many lesbians forcing conformity(Social Progressive, Activist, Liberal) onto other lesbians, or else you are not a lesbian

You'll find groups do that every where. I've developed an effective counter strategy.
"blah blah blah"
Frazzled: Belch. Scratch belly. Walk away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I self identify as a rugby player. Most people wouldnt know this unless I either tell them, or am wearing rugby kit of some sort (whether it's a simple t-shirt, practice/supporter jersey, or the full team kit getting ready for a match).

Oh we'd notice. Your lack of teeth and inability to not drink massive amounts of beer gives you away.

Unless of course you're in Canada in which case we'd think you're a hockey player, or anywhere else in which case we'll think you're Australian.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

That was completely awesome mate. It made skimming through the rest of this thread worthwhile.

Sorry I get a little protective about the subject. A bottle of rum just makes everything all spinny the next day...

 sebster wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.

No, it makes you a moralistic prude, who wants to deny basic legal systems from other people based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like it.

2 points..

A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards. Only 3.5% of the US population do not engage in this kind of relations. 96.5% is beyond the normal prevailing standards? 60% of the US public currently finds homosexuality to be immoral. By comparison, 63% find the death penalty moral (where i am a minority). So you might be able to argue that i'm morally prudish when it comes to the death penalty, but with regards to homosexuality, i'm most certainly not.

As for the part i highlighted.. If you had taken my comments in context, you would realize that I am not opposed to gay marriage. If homosexuals want to get married, great. It doesn't matter if I believe what they are doing is immoral. Regardless of how I feel, the state should not be regulating marriage in any way shape or form. 2 consenting individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to share rights and assets without interference. The government's job is to keep records, authenticate validity and settle disputes with regards to the terms of the contract. If the government can grant the right to marriage then they can take that right away. What happens in a couple years when we have a new attorney general?

The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won. Too many people have beliefs that are opposed to it. The only battle that needs to be fought is one where there are no strawmen. On a civil rights basis, marriage should not be controlled by the state. You win that victory and there is some real progress.

Getting rid of state-sanctioned marriage will be the death of any benefits private industries give to married couples.

 d-usa wrote:
Getting rid of state-sanctioned marriage will be the death of any benefits private industries give to married couples.

To which I ask.. Why is that a bad thing? Why should married couples get preferential treatment?

dereksatkinson wrote:

To which I ask.. Why is that a bad thing? Why should married couples get preferential treatment?

Short answer is, they shouldnt really. But the deal is that there are certain products that people buy that become more palatable to purchase when done as a couple.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

To which I ask.. Why is that a bad thing? Why should married couples get preferential treatment?

Short answer is, they shouldnt really. But the deal is that there are certain products that people buy that become more palatable to purchase when done as a couple.

There are many benefits and products that are provided at a discount to married couples. Sometimes this is just the result of marketing, but quite often it results from the fact that married people behave differently.

Marital status has a proven statistical impact on behavior, and married people statistically often act more responsibly. Insurance is one product that takes marital status into account and offers a discount because you are less of a risk for them if you are married. Health insurance provides a discount on family plans over individual plans, and if there is no certification of marriage then anybody can claim that they are married and get that discount. Even mundane things like gym-memberships are affected by that.

On a larger scale are such things as visiting sick relatives, and making decisions for them when they can no longer speak to themselves. If there is no standard certification of marriage anymore, then letting the "spouse" decide will simply become a liability for the hospital and they will take the path of least risk and cut the spouse out of the decision making process.

I know the hip libertarian answer will be "just get a living-will and advanced directives", but that can be an added expense that you don't have with marriage licenses and the forms are usually not valid out-of-state. So unless you pay $$$ to a lawyer to have a custom LW/AD made out you still run the risk of falling ill on vacation and not having any proof that you are married. A marriage license is honored in every state.

Issuing a marriage license costs a state pennies to spend on paper and filing. It doesn't cost them anything to hire a clerk that already exists and it doesn't cost them anything on a judge that already has a job anyway. Marriage licenses are probably one of the few areas where the state makes a couple of bucks. People like to advocate that we get rid of a single solitary piece of paper and replace it with a hand-out to private industry by requiring people who want to get married to get a lawyer to draft individual contracts to cover everything marriage and family law currently covers and risk a highly fragmented legal status with no uniformity of any kind that can have very damaging impact on families and corporations for no other reason than "Government is bad, mkay".

Are there areas of family law that need fixing? Hell yes. Is it going to destroy the United States to say "two legal adults can marry" instead of "two legal adults (one man and one woman) can marry"? Feth no.

I swear, this country is going to be destroyed by the two camps of "the government is useless, burn it to the ground" and "we need more government, build more more more".