Thread: Gay Marriage - a unbiased debate

Originally Posted by ENT

So you were being sarcastic in replying sincerely to looper's comments?

This is tedious.
No ENT, I was using sarcasm in referring to you as esteemed.
You didn't get that. As usual, you don't understand written English.

If I have dialogue with you, I will need to adjust my words as if I'm writing to a ten year old child.
Noted.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Originally Posted by ENT

You refered to me as the esteemed member, fer fwk's sake!
Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? I doubt it..
Ok,ok..... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that instance, you were actually being sincere

Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.

That's not sarcasm, it's irony, you foppish criticaster (<-that's sarcasm... situations can be ironic, but only people can be sarcastic, i.e.: caustic)

It was sarcasm.
'the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say' - Cambridge Dictionary.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by UrbanMan

This thread is a representative microcosm.

jumble the syntax a little bit and you could be the winner of this week's "post like jeff" competition.

Say it ain't so. Please.

Originally Posted by tomcat

not trying to persuade folks in any way: merely trying to light a candle to dispel the darkness...though the constant wind is always a threat...

Originally Posted by cyrille

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Originally Posted by ENT

You refered to me as the esteemed member, fer fwk's sake!
Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? I doubt it..
Ok,ok..... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that instance, you were actually being sincere

Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.

That's not sarcasm, it's irony, you foppish criticaster (<-that's sarcasm... situations can be ironic, but only people can be sarcastic, i.e.: caustic)

It was sarcasm.
'the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say' - Cambridge Dictionary.

So you reckon Manfan was being sarcastic?

There was nothing tongue in cheek about it, he was trying to be clever, which he aint, and continued to waffle on as though he was making sense, which he wasn't.
Aping or mirroring another is a method of saying ,"Oh, you, me, look, same same." just to get another onside.

Latindacer does the same kind of thing, lathering on a tone of genteel superiority when he thinks he's got a good idea to show off to those he fears or admires.
He doesn't call me or Willy or some others "esteemed" or intelligent, unless it was followed by a rolfer or sarky face emoticon, he curses the very air we breath, let alone the ground we stand on, as does Manfan, who would have followed "esteemed" with an explanation of why has to do so.

My response to him was sarcasm, as sarcastic as I could get,

Basically, the dweeb was trying to creep up Looper's arse, for approval and looper clipped his ears for it, as the dialogue went like this;

Maanaam (Talking to me)
Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
Looper
This position is part of the problem with this debate. The intolerance of opposing points of view and the creakingly dull declaration that any opposition to any part of the gay political agenda must be rooted in closet homosexuality or religious bafflegab.
Maanaam
I was referring to the esteemed member, not generalising about all anti-gay marriage people, and besides, if it was a generalisation, it would probably be a fair one. Generalisation, not an absolute.

The "esteemed member" in this case was me, whom Manfan was slagging to the nines right up till then, when he was suddenly hauled up by Looper's (whom he generally respects) criticism of his presumptuousness in trying his luck to bring me down with a persistent insistence that I answer his totally illogical double headed leading question to his liking, the soft shit.
He didn't refer to me as "That twat bENT" in his defensive reply,...or some such as is his custom, but tried to slither out of the way of further criticism from Looper, by putting on an air of gentility, which he failed miserably to pull off.

So,it goes.

The twat still hasn't learned his lesson, so further coaching and goading from his rat pack of pals, all identifiable as birds of a feather, right down to singing off the same song sheet as conducted by Ants Khnobrotson behind his buttons.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Who do you exclude from "marriage"?

It is not my right to exclude any consenting adults from marriage..

.


Funny you should say that, as when a couple get married, the cleric specifically asks if anybody present at the ceremony knows of any impediment to the union, ie, if one or the other party to the union is ineligible for some until then unknown reason.

There are, it seems, several such impediments, one of which is to be drunk or drugged while participating in the ceremony, or being of unsound mind.

Originally Posted by ENT

the cleric specifically asks

it's none of the cleric's business...marry the couple and get back to Jebus...

If it's not the cleric, then it's the registrar who'll ask the question.

Originally Posted by tomcat

It is not my right to exclude any consenting adults from marriage...

The traditional definition of marriage goes back thousands of years and nobody is excluded from it. If you are gay then you would not be interested in traditional marriage. Presumably you would want to have a pair-bond relationship with another person of the same sex legally recognised and solemnised. The 2 solutions to this are either change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman to any 2 people or else create a new legal structure and ceremony similar to marriage but for people of the same sex. I think in the ineterests of respect for cultural tradition that the second option is preferable but I accept that there are reasonable arguments for the first option too. It would be nice of the gay lobby explicitly recognised that what they are asking for involves substantial change to age old cutural custom rather than trying to stifle debate and railroad the legislative changes without proper public consultation which is what it feels like in the current climate around the debate.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You brought it up...

below is what I brought up...not inter-racial dating, which is irrelevant...

Originally Posted by tomcat

separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

"nature at work" involves all kinds of malfunctions at either extreme of the bell curve of variations. Any inference that these small minority variations are somehow equal and equivalent to the norm is misrepresentation of what is by definition "sexual deviancy" (if it can even be described as "sexual")

irrelevant...

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

As I said before, this is about a minority trying to appropriate an institution because of the legitimacy they think it confers

misapprehension: this is about citizens (in the US anyway) demanding rights that are given to others...and the resistance to change from some others...it's as simple as that...

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Who do you exclude from "marriage"?

It is not my right to exclude any consenting adults from marriage...

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You seem to be the one in pain - desperate to fight a cause and avoid an underlying fundamental problem with it by misrepresenting it and opposition to it.

no pain here..only victory as the Supreme Court (US) now says gay marriages are legal throughout the land...all fundamental problems resolved (legally anyway) and the usual anti-equal rights misrepresentations swept away...is this your first butt hurt?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

It's an odd way to try and win people over.

not trying to persuade folks in any way: merely trying to light a candle to dispel the darkness...though the constant wind is always a threat...

TL;DR

but I'm guessing it goes something like this:

"I'm right, you're wrong; and you're a bummer"? Am I right?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by cyrille

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Originally Posted by ENT

You refered to me as the esteemed member, fer fwk's sake!
Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? I doubt it..
Ok,ok..... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that instance, you were actually being sincere

Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.

That's not sarcasm, it's irony, you foppish criticaster (<-that's sarcasm... situations can be ironic, but only people can be sarcastic, i.e.: caustic)

It was sarcasm.
'the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say' - Cambridge Dictionary.

buttons.

The Cambridge dictionary is incorrect. They have a habit of retrofitting meaning to words, so now they want us to agree that "literally" literally doesn't mean "literally"; nope.
Irony is remarks and situations that mean the opposite of what they say; sarcasm is caustic remarks, that may or may not use irony; but irony is not a subset of sarcasm or vice versa: sarcasm is a vehicle by which steaming clods or a cargo of irony may be delivered.
Like I said, you can't have a sarcastic situation; but you can have an ironic situation and ironic language. Sarcasm is a description of category of remark that is caustic or cutting, which may or may not use irony as a mechanism, along with other rhetorical mechanisms.

Honestly, go and get stuck into actual rhetoric and logic, don't just use a lame dictionary written by halfwits who've never touched a book on classics or philosophy.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by ENT

the cleric specifically asks

it's none of the cleric's business...marry the couple and get back to Jebus...

Couple? are you polygamaphobic? incestophobic? friendmarriageaphobic? Or you just have a hard on for quancum mantanglement?

Originally Posted by Looper

The traditional definition of marriage goes back thousands of years and nobody is excluded from it

patently wrong: gays have been and continue to be (in many Western cultural areas) excluded from traditional marriage...

Originally Posted by Looper

Presumably you would want to have a pair-bond relationship with another person of the same sex legally recognised and solemnised

yes...and I want it to be called marriage, not pair-bonding for gays...

Originally Posted by Looper

I accept that there are reasonable arguments for the first option too

good: let's go with those...

Originally Posted by Looper

It would be nice of the gay lobby explicitly recognised that what they are asking for involves substantial change to age old cultural custom

I hereby acknowledge that, traditionally, gays were not allowed to marry and breeders were satisfied with that...I further acknowledge that all of that tradition is tied to breeder exclusivity and that it has now, thankfully, fallen by the wayside...Finally, inclusivity concerning marriage rights is the future (in the US at least) and that's the way a culture should be (imo): welcoming in diversity, not constantly fearful of the "other"...

Originally Posted by Looper

rather than trying to stifle debate and railroad the legislative changes without proper public consultation which is what it feels like in the current climate around the debate.

In the States, legalization of equal marriage rights took decades and started as a state-by-state struggle...US citizens have had ample opportunity to discuss it to death...your feeling is, therefore, uninformed...

If Carlsberg did gay 'weddings'...

Oh go on then...

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You brought it up...

below is what I brought up...not inter-racial dating, which is irrelevant...

Originally Posted by tomcat

separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind

Fine, but how is it relevant? This is not a civil rights issue, it's a cultural appropriation issue, with implications for power and control over religious cultural and material assets. Rights are not conferred by labels, like "marriage"... if you want the rights, leave religion out of it. Trying to force a religion to change it's values so you can seize it's assets and influence is the trojan horse here. Let those who want rights form their own religion, and leave others in peace.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

"nature at work" involves all kinds of malfunctions at either extreme of the bell curve of variations. Any inference that these small minority variations are somehow equal and equivalent to the norm is misrepresentation of what is by definition "sexual deviancy" (if it can even be described as "sexual")

irrelevant...

Bollocks
You deployed the term, as a justification for "equality", but it doesn't work, because there is no instrinsic equality - it's an extrinsic mutable overlayed by a culture on top of what is instrinsic and (effectively) immutable; it seems you've abandoned that notion as part of whatever reasoning you were presenting.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

As I said before, this is about a minority trying to appropriate an institution because of the legitimacy they think it confers

misapprehension: this is about citizens (in the US anyway) demanding rights that are given to others...and the resistance to change from some others...it's as simple as that...

Bollocks
It's about the appropriation of a word; not the rights. If it was about the rights, then why not accept the rights without the word?
Some things it's right to resist change on... age of consent, for example, you sounds like you think all resistence to all change in this area is "misapprehension"?

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Who do you exclude from "marriage"?

It is not my right to exclude any consenting adults from marriage...

Bollocks So polygamy? friends, siblings, parents, any permutation, you approve of them all having equal access to marriage? Like hypothetically, a thousand moonies in a football stadium, call marry each other in a giant polygamal matrix marriage? Just so we're clear...
Is your case that all adults, in all permutations, should have access to all permutations of partnership rights? including those mentioned, like polygamy?

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You seem to be the one in pain - desperate to fight a cause and avoid an underlying fundamental problem with it by misrepresenting it and opposition to it.

no pain here..only victory as the Supreme Court (US) now says gay marriages are legal throughout the land...all fundamental problems resolved (legally anyway) and the usual anti-equal rights misrepresentations swept away...is this your first butt hurt?

I don't know what a "butt hurt" is, is like apple pie and hot dogs or summat? I'm not really into Americana - that Wal-Mart ruined ASDA.

You can make all manner of abominable acts legal, as is the case in many parts of the world... why not just answer the question about the fundamental concepts instead of tergiversating about some law in some third world backwater that has no bearing on anywhere else?

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

It's an odd way to try and win people over.

not trying to persuade folks in any way: merely trying to light a candle to dispel the darkness...though the constant wind is always a threat...

Well stop eating beans and sprouts then, you preening pungent fadge.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by Looper

The traditional definition of marriage goes back thousands of years and nobody is excluded from it

patently wrong: gays have been and continue to be (in many Western cultural areas) excluded from traditional marriage...

Why don't they make their own thing, called garraige? or summat? why do they have to co-opt marriage? why can't they be tolerant of tradition?

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by Looper

Presumably you would want to have a pair-bond relationship with another person of the same sex legally recognised and solemnised

yes...and I want it to be called marriage, not pair-bonding for gays...

Why do you want it to be called "marriage"? Why should they "steal" or appropriate marriage? Why can't they make their own thing? Why can't they be tolerant of tradition?
...and why only pairs?

Originally Posted by tomcat

tradition is tied to breeder exclusivity and that it has now, thankfully, fallen by the wayside...

That seems a rather frightening remark - do you really understand what you're saying?

Originally Posted by tomcat

Finally, inclusivity concerning marriage rights is the future (in the US at least) and that's the way a culture should be (imo): welcoming in diversity, not constantly fearful of the "other"...

this doesn't seem like diversity, or inclusivity, this looks like cultural appropriation; it looks like the hijacking of an institution because of the cultural and political capital it has accrued - it doesn't seem to be about rights; but about power.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by Looper

rather than trying to stifle debate and railroad the legislative changes without proper public consultation which is what it feels like in the current climate around the debate.

In the States, legalization of equal marriage rights took decades and started as a state-by-state struggle...US citizens have had ample opportunity to discuss it to death...your feeling is, therefore, uninformed...

It has been discussed, rejected, discussed, rejected, and railroaded, hasn't it?... are the discussions are ever sincere? Forcing culture or a world view on people, especially when there are deep unresolved and unresolvable conceptual flaws with it is the antithesis of all the things you claim it to be.

What looks like anti-scientific politicisation of the APA and effects on the DSM since the 70s is concerning. Notions of "discussed to death" and "uninformed" seem rather Orwellian...
In science the discussion is surely never over; but in politics, the discussion (i.e.: science) can be shut down, and bigotry take over, and disguise itself as the fight against bigotry - in true Orwellian style.
Perhaps you will reject this, but you will struggle to find any grants or research into anything that questions the fundamentals that your notion of "equality" depends on. People need to be able to ask those inconvenient, uncomfortable, and sensitive questions... for the moment, they are taboo... this is part of what looks like a lefty religion... and we've seen how violent they get when their religion get rejected by the rest of society.

What Looper said ... adding a number of the retorts from Caption Nemo et al.

Me? I wrote the OP.

Why? ... because I'm sick and tired of being told by a combination of Politicians, activists, social commentators and the like what my opinion of a subject should be.

If you want my opinion ... ASK ME ... DON'T TELL ME.

You are only 'telling' me my opinion because you want to control it, own it for your personal agenda.

FFS ... at least when the Jehovah's come a knocking, a few polite words and they are on their way.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by Looper

This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority

that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...

I don't really buy the comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage (which is frequently used in these discussions - even though you are talking about simple segregation).

Yes there was opposition to interracial marriage when it first became a phenomenon. There was an instinctive sense that something was not right about this to some predjudiced minds based on ignorance about the degree of commonality between the human 'races', but it did not stand up to analysis. Science (and indeed simple day to day experience) shows us that interracial differences are in fact insignificant and that the male and female behaviour and psychlogy of different races respectively has far more in common than it has different.

Interracial marriage does not conflict with the basic definition of marriage. Interracial marriage simply did not occur until recently due to the recent advent of mass transglobal migration.

The definition of marriage as it is commonly understood requires no redefinition in any way for interracial marriage to be accomodated. It simply requires the dismantling of groundless prejudice.

For the definition of marriage to accomodate gay couples on the other hand the definition does require a fundamental change from 'man and woman' to 'two people'. There have always been gays in society and they have generally been swept under the carpet and not accomoadted by society's social mores and traditions. Now gays have been socially liberated and we accept that gay couples are expressing a seemingly naturally occurring sexual orientation.

However this recent social development does not make it incumbent on society to redefine our tradition of marriage to accomodate gay pair-bonding. It is true that there are significant similarities between gay and straight pair bonding but there is also much that is different. This follows from the fact that men and women are significantly different creatures. They have far less in common with each other than 2 males or 2 females of different ethnic backgrounds, so the inter-racial marriage parallel does not work argumentationally.

Redefining marriage is certainly one possible solution to the pair bonding needs of gays but I think it would be quite generous of mainstream society to allow what is one of the oldest and most important cultural traditions of the species to be changed so radically. I am not 100% opposed to the redefinition but I think it should recognised as a radical redefinition by the gay-marriage lobby and the political factions involved in the debate instead of them trying to railroad the issue without any debate.

Another solution is that gay pair-bonding rituals and laws could be instituted separately. It is not bigotry to a suggest this; it is recognition of the evolved fundamental differences between men and women as creatures.

If men and women are fundmentally different types of creature (emotionally and psychologically and in their evolved and culturally tradional roles) then 2 men pair-bonding is fundamentally different to a man and woman pair-bonding. This is not true of inter-racial marriage so I don't agree that the comparison between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage is valid.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...

This position is part of the problem with this debate. The intolerance of opposing points of view and the creakingly dull declaration that any opposition to any part of the gay politcal agenda must be rooted in closet homosexuality or religious bafflegab.

It is quite possible to have a rational and reasonable opposition to some parts of the gay political agenda even while supporting gays in much of their right and reasonable quest for acceptance and respect in a modern and progressive society.

Changing the definition of marriage from 'between a man and a woman' (which it has been for tens of thousands of years and accross all cultures in the world) to 'between any two people' regardless of gender is a radical redefinition. If the gay agenda lobbyists were at least willing to accept this truth then I for one would be less opposed to their quest. Instead they claim it is a simple matter of 'equality' and should not even be subject to public debate.

The proposed public referendum in Australia is being opposed by the gay lobby on the basis that the mere discussion of the idea will allow 'hate speech'. I find this suppression of discussion by the liberal lobby quite frightening.

I am in favour of gays being supported in their desire to have their unions legally and ceremonially recognised. I think there are significant similarities between a gay couple committing for life and a heterosexual couple committing for life. However I think there are also significant differences. On the basis of the differences and the cultural heritage of the institution of marriage I would suggest that redefining marriage is not the only option. I think that the term marriage can reasonably be confined to its original definition and that new legal and cultural terms can be instituted to cover pair-bonding commitments between same-sex and inter-sex couples. This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority but simply to recognise the cultural significance of marriage as it is traditionally defined and has been for countless millenia.

Like all mammals we are a sexual species (male and female). Like some mammals we are a pair-bonding species (due to the evolved interests in a male in investing parentally in his offspring). Marriage is the ceremonial recognition of our species's evolved sexually complimentary pair-bonding behaviour. This makes it a cultural institution of great significance and timeless heritage.

The details of how marriage works and is defined (polygyny, property rights, female sexual autonomy) have evolved over the centuries but at its core is the simple and defining concept that it is a committed pair-bonding between a man and a woman.

Redefining such an institution to mean any 2 human beings instead of a man and a woman is a radical redefinition by any measure. One solution to meeting the pair-bonding needs of gays is to redefine marriage. Another solution is to leave marriage with its original definition and create new legal structures and cultural ceremonies to recognise these newly accepted pair-bondings. There is nothing morally wrong with making a distinction between 2 similar but different cultural events. Different does not mean inferior.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Wal-Mart ruined ASDA

now I understand what produced such a windy response...

Originally Posted by David48atTD

at least when the Jehovah's come a knocking, a few polite words and they are on their way.

you'd rather have gay couples with pamphlets at your door?
Text, pics or live enactment?

The local dogs would smell the HIV and chase any gays away

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Barry Manilow is married and is.....coming out.

Barry Manilow Reveals Why He Didn’t Come Out for Decades: I Thought I Would ‘Disappoint’ Fans If They Knew I Was Gay

Barry Manilow Didn't Come Out for Decades, Feared Disappointing Fans

Changing the definition of marriage is not a matter of equal rights. Equal rights is to be allowed to live in a society where all are equal under the law where no one is disadvantaged. This of course is a utopia that the PC lobbyists aspire to. IMHO gay lobbyists wish to be considered "part of the norm" and believe redefining the word marriage is going to help in this. Like redefining the word "Gay". Changing the meaning of words is meant to change how we think. This ministry of truth is trying define how we perceive ourselves and others in a narrow one dimensional way that excludes free thought and expression. Anyone who deviates from this is shouted down as a bigot a rascist a mysogynist or any other word meant to silence the free thinking individual by the pernicious PC. This Utopia they seek is flawed. When everyone has accepted the herd mentality as the ultimate truth all free thinking will be crushed and the demise of the human race will be nigh. Then the arbiters of this PC will truly be able to say without contradiction, "War is peace. Love is hate". 2084