• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Gay Marriage Topic!

adsyrah said:
  • This seems like a case of legislation that'll affect only gay people and will make them happier. It's a no-brainer - why would anyone not want to make a minority in society happier?
  • I've not heard one logical argument against the proposed legislation
Click to expand...

Exactly! By supporting gay marriage, how does it affect any straight person's life in ANY WAY? The correct answer is, it doesn't. The only reason for someone to not want gay folk to have the title of "legally married" is either they are just being difficult, they're homophobic, or they are a particularly enthusiastic member of the church (which also implies the first two points).

Just say yes dammit. :p
 
BigT said:
Are you two for real or are you like some kind of comedy left wing act, Jesus I'm sure on the campus your act goes down a storm but in the real world your going to get crucified.
Not everyone has a Phd in English but I think the term rape is quite fitting as anyone would who's ever received a bill for a hotel wedding will agree.
Click to expand...

I'm currently wondering what crucifixion has to do with in this current conversation and why they should even be when they are merely pointing out the flaws in your argument alongside the flippant 'not everyone has a PhD in English'. Apologies but it sounds like an attempt to wriggle free from the discussion to showcase your views as right by saying their views aren't already widely accepted by the community and this is just a passing phase.

As for the term rape I equally disagree with the use because regardless of whether you think it's alright to use a word that defines sexual abuse for the loss of your wallet content, it will always be a very delicate term and it will automatically offend people since such a horrific act occurs every day somewhere in the world with it always standing as a daily threat to some even on this forum.
 
I have a question on practicality. I support the marriage of 2 people no matter what their gender and have signed the various petitions etc.

Here is the scenario. As a heterosexual married man, if me and my wife visit a foreign country, my UK marriage would be recognised in probably any country I could find on a map. Therefore if one of us was to fall ill or have an accident then the other could make decisions on behalf of the injured party.

Now with a gay marriage in a country that didn't recognise that marriage the partner may be denied some rights due to the marriage not being recognised. I am thinking of maybe hospital visiting rights and the like.

I don't know what any answer might be, just wanted to throw the question out as it intrigues me.

Badgy



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
It's simply something we'll have to live with, unfortunately.

The rest of the world often isn't as forward thinking as us on gay rights. Until that day, going abroad beyond Western Europe will always be more risky; socially, culturally and medically, for LGBT people than non-LGBT people.
 
I'm not talking about the actual subject matter here, but this thread is becoming an off-topic farce where moderators should have intervened long ago. Arguing about how words should and should not be used (again I'm talking about the rape thing here not marriage).

You cannot force people to use words in a certain way, even if that is what the dictionary says. Words are offensive when accompanied by malicious intent only, the rape phrase and derivatives from it are widely used in my part of the country to describe financial loss and I can assure you that they aren't thinking about trivialising the crime and people are not offended when they hear it.

Perhaps some people should look up generational language dialect in the same way that those who tried to ban the Sex Pistols album Never Mind The B******* for being offensive when it was simply a working class connotation for 'stop talking nonsense'.

How about actually asking people what they mean by using phrases as opposed to referring to your Oxford English Dictionary definition and immediately jumping down people's throats?
 
I'm not "forcing" anyone. I didn't report BigT's post to any moderators, or call for it to be removed. I just pointed out why I think his use of language is offensive and stupid. This is a discussion forum, so I'm allowed to do that, as long as I don't criticise him directly, just the use of language.

You're implying that people on the forum shouldn't be allowed to criticise other people's language use, on some sort of misguided free speech pretext. If he's free to compare a horrific sexual assault to a hotel bill then I should be free to criticise that. Putting an end to either of those freedoms on the forum would set a dangerous precedent.
 
BigT said:
Now back on topic, I think that you have just proved my point about the current proposals not being enough for a small few.
I will repeat I don't care one way or the other as it doesn't effect me, but it will be a shame if church's close as a result of being forced to do something that they don't agree with.
It's not like it's a minor mention in the bible is it, its in the 10 commandments, which is fundermentel to the christian way of life.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it state that homosexuality is immoral. Most of the commandments focus on important topics like praising God and keeping the sabbath holy, before tailing off with condemning murder, adultery and coveting thy neighbors ox. Being gay is only condemned a few times in the bible, around the same time they ban shellfish and wearing different materials. Christians generally pick and choose what they follow.
 
Sam said:
I'm not "forcing" anyone. I didn't report BigT's post to any moderators, or call for it to be removed. I just pointed out why I think his use of language is offensive and stupid. This is a discussion forum, so I'm allowed to do that, as long as I don't criticise him directly, just the use of language.

You're implying that people on the forum shouldn't be allowed to criticise other people's language use, on some sort of misguided free speech pretext. If he's free to compare a horrific sexual assault to a hotel bill then I should be free to criticise that. Putting an end to either of those freedoms on the forum would set a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

But it appears that you are effectively saying his definition is wrong. Force your view upon him is what I mean. Given that actual subject matter of this thread, it just highlights the issue even more to me.

When people speak to one another it's all about what they mean as opposed to literal definitions of words - hence why there are mistranslations or no translations for words between different languages. You've drawn a negative view of his use of the word without considering that he wasn't trivialising rape at all - the attack was not justified from my point-of-view.

And to clear up the moderator intervention I was talking about, I was referring to the off-topic nature of the thread's direction only. A split where we could debate this issue with a clear conscience (and not continue to hijack the subject matter of the thread) is what I was getting at. I certainly don't believe in censorship of what people put on message boards, barring exceptional circumstances.
 
Tom said:
Sam said:
I'm not "forcing" anyone. I didn't report BigT's post to any moderators, or call for it to be removed. I just pointed out why I think his use of language is offensive and stupid. This is a discussion forum, so I'm allowed to do that, as long as I don't criticise him directly, just the use of language.

You're implying that people on the forum shouldn't be allowed to criticise other people's language use, on some sort of misguided free speech pretext. If he's free to compare a horrific sexual assault to a hotel bill then I should be free to criticise that. Putting an end to either of those freedoms on the forum would set a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

But it appears that you are effectively saying his definition is wrong. Force your view upon him is what I mean. Given that actual subject matter of this thread, it just highlights the issue even more to me.

When people speak to one another it's all about what they mean as opposed to literal definitions of words - hence why there are mistranslations or no translations for words between different languages. You've drawn a negative view of his use of the word without considering that he wasn't trivialising rape at all - the attack was not justified from my point-of-view.
Click to expand...

I THOUGHT this stuff was off-topic?? :-*

Anyway, gay marriage = good for the gays... nothing much to just about anyone else though. Sorted!
 
Wow, what a storm in a tea cup about the use of one word.
I think I have a right to reply about the off topic stuff as is was aimed mostly at me.
How can the word rape be offensive to anyone, it can be used in lots of contexts and doesn't belittle anyone who has suffered a horrific sexual attack, if you look in the dictionary it shows it used in a similar context to how I did as well.
I think some people on here are looking to be offended and scream and shout at anyone who even slightly speaks against what they are saying which is just crazy, think about how guests would view these comments, it wouldn't look a friendly place.
Once again I don't disagree with gay marriage but don't have an opinion on it either way because I believe you can only have a strong opinion on something if it involves you.
Not to belittle the argument or even compare the two but it's like a non driver having an opinion on traffic lights.
Anyways the point I was trying to make was that if churches were forced to stop marriages then some of them would end up closing which I think is a fair and valid point, but after reading some of the sensible posts this doesn't seem to be the case with this piece of legislation.
This being the case I think bear sums it up with his last post. Sorted
;D
 
BigT said:
Wow, what a storm in a tea cup about the use of one word.
Click to expand...

It's not like that word was "banana", or "Denmark". It is a word that has a huge social history, and describes one of the most inhuman, brutal and disgusting crimes in the history of mankind. It is also still an extremely widespread crime worldwide. It is one of few words, other examples being "holocaust" and "genocide", that describes an act so horrific and evocative of pain that its flippant and casual use degrades the seriousness of the crime and its devastating impact on millions of people. Language can be extremely important. This isn't an unimportant matter - your words could be having very real consequences for a rape victim reading this forum.

BigT said:
How can the word rape be offensive to anyone
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're joking...?

BigT said:
it can be used in lots of contexts and doesn't belittle anyone who has suffered a horrific sexual attack, if you look in the dictionary it shows it used in a similar context to how I did as well.
Click to expand...

Either definition of the OED does not match up to your usage of the word at all. Their secondary definition uses an example of widespread destruction and brutalisation of a place. Your wallet is not a decimated forest, nor is it a bombed-out area of Sarajevo.

BigT said:
think about how guests would view these comments, it wouldn't look a friendly place.
Click to expand...

You're right, there's nothing like horrific sexual violence to roll out the welcome mat!

BigT said:
Once again I don't disagree with gay marriage but don't have an opinion on it either way because I believe you can only have a strong opinion on something if it involves you.
Not to belittle the argument or even compare the two but it's like a non driver having an opinion on traffic lights.
Click to expand...

That's such a completely absurd position. So do you believe that non-Jewish people born since 1945 can't have an opinion on Adolf Hitler? Or Europeans can't have an opinion on Bashar al-Assad's war crimes? Surely even you must realise that makes no sense whatsoever?

Anyway, back on topic. Here's some interesting views from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Guardian said:
Williams: Christians need to confront shame and disgust over homosexuality

Christians need to confront feelings of embarrassment, shame and disgust over homosexuality, the archbishop of Canterbury has said.

In one of his strongest interventions yet on an issue that lies at the heart of some of the deepest divisions in the church he leads, Dr Rowan Williams said the church was still "scratching its head" about its position on same-sex marriage.

He was speaking at an event involving Christian teenagers at Lambeth Palace, his official residence in London, which was entitled "Help, my friends think I'm mad" and where some of the discussion focused on how Anglicanism was viewed from without.

Dr Williams also turned to the question of women bishops, which is due to be considered by the Church of England's general synod next week, saying it was another issue that gave the impression that sex was "the only thing the church is interested in".

The Daily Telegraph reported him as saying: "Same with same-sex marriage, where once more we're used to being alongside people who are gay; many of our friends may be – indeed we may be – wrestling with that issue ourselves, and the church is scratching its head and trying to work out where it is on all that, and what to think about it.

"What's frustrating is that we still have Christian people whose feelings about it are so strong, and sometimes so embarrassed and ashamed and disgusted, that that just sends out a message of unwelcome, of lack of understanding, of lack of patience.

"So whatever we think about it, we need, as a church, to be tackling what we feel about it."

The archbishop's comments come after the Church of England was criticised this month by gay rights campaigners for delivering an uncompromising warning to the government against pressing ahead with a controversial proposal to legalise gay marriage.

Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the church claimed in a submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage.

The National Secular Society on Tuesday published a legal opinion it obtained in response to the church's submission. The opinion, which has been written by barrister and human rights expert Dr Ronan McCrea and sent to equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, said the church's failure to distinguish between social, religious and legal institutions of marriage "confuses the issues".

McCrea also takes issue with the claim that a challenge to the prohibition on religious bodies performing same sex marriages may be successfully challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
Click to expand...
 
This debate is descending into a personal argument between a small group of people and it will stop now! Any more off topic debate about the use of words OR personal attacks will be removed and the members posting risk warnings.

Thanks
 
Tom said:
I'm not talking about the actual subject matter here, but this thread is becoming an off-topic farce where moderators should have intervened long ago. Arguing about how words should and should not be used (again I'm talking about the rape thing here not marriage).

You cannot force people to use words in a certain way, even if that is what the dictionary says. Words are offensive when accompanied by malicious intent only, the rape phrase and derivatives from it are widely used in my part of the country to describe financial loss and I can assure you that they aren't thinking about trivialising the crime and people are not offended when they hear it.

Perhaps some people should look up generational language dialect in the same way that those who tried to ban the Sex Pistols album Never Mind The B******* for being offensive when it was simply a working class connotation for 'stop talking nonsense'.

How about actually asking people what they mean by using phrases as opposed to referring to your Oxford English Dictionary definition and immediately jumping down people's throats?
Click to expand...

Equally, it's not up to you to decide what people do and don't find offensive about your words. A little sensitivity towards others never goes amiss in any area of life, and particularly in debates. Stop with the persecution complex, realise that, whatever you mean, your use of language is your own responsibility, and it's therefore for you to recognise when you're being insensitive or offensive.

The 'dictionary definition' argument is total crap. These words are emotive and have strong and unpleasant denotations and connotations. By all means use them in conversation with your friends where you are all in on the alternative meaning, but don't act so surprised when you're using them in a completely different context or when trying to shore up shaky arguments in a debate with a group of strangers and you get a backlash.

The arch rule is that your miscommunication of what you mean is your responsibility, not your reader's or listener's.
 
Seriously stay on topic, if you want to discus the morality of words create a topic to do that...
 
Tom said:
Sam, your drinking fountain analogy is flawed as it relates to physical restriction, obstruction and cattlepenning of humans.

Most of the arguments I've read here are saying that no one is asking to be married in a church - IE they are not interested in any religious connection to a marriage. So with the Civil Unions providing a de facto marriage - that is in everything but name - it still comes across that it is simply a phrase that is being fought for and nothing else.

Once again, I am not opposed to anything people are fighting for - but I like many others would probably fail to understand why this is deemed as such an important issue when there are far more pressing sociological LGBT issues. If you were to hold a national referendum on this, I'd say the turnout would be very low.
Click to expand...

It's not enough just to express that you think an analogy be distinguished from the matter in hand, you really do have to explain the logical reason for your distinction. What you have provided is a reason, but not one based in logic. There was no mention of cattle penning, there were just two identical fountains, one said 'whites only' the other said 'coloureds only'. Now there are two pieces of paper, one says 'gays only' one says 'straights only'. This suggests that two relationships are not, in fact the same or of equal value, no matter what the rights that go along with those two documents are. The water from one fountain came from the same mains, so why should people have complained? The schools followed the same curriculum, so why should people have complained? The bus still went to Montgomery, so why should people have complained?
 
Never really read this topic in detail, not posted my thoughts on the matter yet (though trust me to decide to do so during a very heated debate xD).

I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly support the whole 'equal marriage' thing. I'm a straight guy, who one day hopes to marry his girlfriend; so why should somebody who feels the same love but instead for someone of the same sex be stopped from doing so? Marriage is the ultimate expression of commitment, togetherness and love. Whilst its true meaning may have been diluted over the years due to celebrity weddings and break ups as well as the high divorce rate in this country, it is still the utmost commitment that one human can make to another.

Like someone said above, this ruling would be fantastic for those that are gay, and would change nothing for those who are straight, so why should it matter? I'm for it!
 
Simon, if you want to quote me and engage in debate, I suggest you stop quoting my post posts that were made before the discussion had moved on and my viewpoint altered/softened.

You haven't even quoted them in chronological order, which suggests you're just picking things out randomly and playing devil's advocate. Keep up with the discussion if you want to engage me.

However, despite the warning from above you're continuing to veer of topic over this irrelevant issue (and so am I by posting this), so feel free to start a new thread if you want to debate it properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top