U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[SteeleJoe]

No takers?

I still have yet to hear a single reasonable argument as to how this negatively impacts heterosexual marriage.

I've asked 4 times already. Nary an attempt at answering.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period...People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

Bravo.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[endure]

It seems that the posters are split into two camps (sorry)

1. Those who are occupied by the rights of their fellow citizens

2. Those are occupied by the genitalia of their fellow citizens

[Scott]

A factually incorrect post has been deleted. If you are going to try and discuss the causes of homosexuality, you might want to read something written later than the 1950's.

Stay on the topic, please.

[thaicbr]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

And that's part of the objection. Equal civil rights. Period.

You don't stop. You always find something else. So then it would be the right to have biological children etc etc. You have admitted that by using equal rights. Period.

[thaicbr]

" No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated "

" Research generally suggests "

Hardly conclusive is it????

Because there are more causes: http://discovermagaz...07/jun/born-gay

It is also becoming increasingly clear that gay genes are not the only biological factor that influences homosexuality. Some homosexual men appear to have their sexuality oriented not by their DNA but by the environment they experienced in the womb.

So it has nothing to do with choice.

so in fact.. environment can make you gay.. right? or am i reading this wrong?

Yes, you (and phuketjock) are reading what you want to read.

the environment they experienced in the womb. This is before you are born and can make any choices.

No I was asking a question. But it does ask another question.

If environment in the womb can make you gay. Why can't environment out of the womb make you gay?

[SteeleJoe]

No I was asking a question. But it does ask another question.

If environment in the womb can make you gay. Why can't environment out of the womb make you gay?

Just curious: Do you actually not recognize a distinction between prenatal environment - in which the very formation of the person takes place - and the environment after birth?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

And that's part of the objection. Equal civil rights. Period.

You don't stop. You always find something else. So then it would be the right to have biological children etc etc. You have admitted that by using equal rights. Period.

Interesting. I think that's the first time you or anyone has explicitly stated that you object to equal rights. (Not sure how biological children would work)

By the way, I thought you were finished with this...back to say bye again?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 14, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[thaicbr]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

And that's part of the objection. Equal civil rights. Period.

You don't stop. You always find something else. So then it would be the right to have biological children etc etc. You have admitted that by using equal rights. Period.

Interesting. I think that's the first time you or anyone has explicitly stated that you object to equal rights. (Not sure how biological children would work)

By the way, I thought you were finished with this...back to say bye again?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Said bye yesterday. This is a new day . New information.

[thaicbr]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

And that's part of the objection. Equal civil rights. Period.

You don't stop. You always find something else. So then it would be the right to have biological children etc etc. You have admitted that by using equal rights. Period.

Interesting. I think that's the first time you or anyone has explicitly stated that you object to equal rights. (Not sure how biological children would work)

By the way, I thought you were finished with this...back to say bye again?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I just do not understand how homosexuals can have equal rights in the absolute sense that Jing is advocating.

Biological can mean one partner uses sperm to impregnate a donated egg ( possibly from a lesbian!!)

[SteeleJoe]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

And that's part of the objection. Equal civil rights. Period.

You don't stop. You always find something else. So then it would be the right to have biological children etc etc. You have admitted that by using equal rights. Period.

Interesting. I think that's the first time you or anyone has explicitly stated that you object to equal rights. (Not sure how biological children would work)

By the way, I thought you were finished with this...back to say bye again?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I just do not understand how homosexuals can have equal rights in the absolute sense that Jing is advocating.

Biological can mean one partner uses sperm to impregnate a donated egg ( possibly from a lesbian!!)

Well, you called it an objection. Just a matter of semantics?

It seems obvious from all you've written that it's not a problem of UNDERSTANDING equal rights - there's nothing difficult about it and you don't strike me as unintelligent - it's a matter of ACCEPTING them.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 14, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Chicog]

So to summarise the thread:

Anti: It's not right!

Pro: Why not?

Anti:They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: And this hurts you how?

Anti: It's not right! They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: And this damages heterosexual marriage how?

Anti: It's not right! They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: Yawn.

[Mosha]

My god, is this thread still alive?? Someone get me a 12 guage so i can put it out of its misery.

back when, it was slavery.

Then womens right to vote.

After that the civil rights movement.

then the feminst movememnt.

Lots of bumps along the way.

More bumps to follow.....

As a mild homophobe, i understand. But it will happen. Humanity is moving towards a place where people are accepted for who they are, and not where our narrow minds wants to put them. Maybe JT is right and that a few more of the old guard holding on to their beliefs needs to die off, and more of the younger generation needs to take control.

But it will happen. You must see that, cant you?

If not today, tomorrow. if not by you, by your kids.

Agree 100% with your 1st line

[Goldieinkathu]

I very much doubt anyone has been suspended for being "Anti" more like they broke forum rules.

I would just like to wish everyone in a Civil Partnership ( for now) or who is lucky enough to be "married" a very happy Valentines day.

Back to the OP :Thanks to all the MP's who backed same sex marriage.

[thaicbr]

I very much doubt anyone has been suspended for being "Anti" more like they broke forum rules.

I would just like to wish everyone in a Civil Partnership ( for now) or who is lucky enough to be "married" a very happy Valentines day.

Back to the OP :Thanks to all the MP's who backed same sex marriage.

Which funny enough the suspended posters told you all. But then it was. Why can't you post blah blah.

Amazing!

Any way happy Valentine's too.

[Goldieinkathu]

Sorry, apart from your last line i didn't understand a word of that.

[thaicbr]

Seems to be the norm on this thread

[Chicog]

So to summarise the thread:

Anti: It's not right!

Pro: Why not?

Anti:They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: And this hurts you how?

Anti: It's not right! They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: And this damages heterosexual marriage how?

Anti: It's not right! They're deviants/perverts/abnormal. It's not right!

Pro: Yawn.

So to summarize this poster.

The church is bad. The church I's evil. Blah blah

Yawn.

Seeing as how some anti's have been suspended. You have the thread to yourself.

And your welcome to it.

And despite your umpteenth post, you still have not answered either question. Don't forget to close the door on your way out.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Chicog

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[Chicog]

That was not an answer and I do not believe that "the moderators have made it absolutely clear that gay marriage is the topic" precludes you answering the question(s):

(1) How does gay marriage harm you?

(2) How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

Unless the mods say otherwise, I'd assume that is on topic.

Are you going to answer or flounce again?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Chicog

[Potosi]

No takers?

I still have yet to hear a single reasonable argument as to how this negatively impacts heterosexual marriage.

Bernard Russel wrote “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex….It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That institution, of course, is marriage, opposite-sex marriage.

Both parents are responsible for their children. In a homosexual marriage, I guess that's only the case when children are adopted by both, husbands or wives. If one of them sires a kid with a person of the opposite sex, that's not the case.

So yes, I think the heterosexual marriage could suffers because gay marriage offers the same privileges, but fewer responsibilities. Male gay marriages will remain childless in 99% of the cases, for them it's a way to save some taxes, but they still violate the multigenerational contract which is to bring up kids who would care for them when the gays grow old. Children are the means by which a society continues to exist.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental, human or whatever right either. Real fundamental rights have foundations in history, traditions, practises, there have to be precedents.

[Jingthing]

If you are going to make entering marriages based on capability, intention, or actual proven breeding, then you must also not allow heterosexuals enter marriage who are not capable of or who do not intend to breed. If they claim the intention and fail, of course their marriages would be voided. If society can tolerate childless heterosexual marriages, it is only fair they also tolerate childless homosexual ones.

Bertrand Russell was basically arguing that the social value of marrying is for breeding. Otherwise, there is no point in marrying. Hardly a conservative point of view. More like a RADICAL point of view. If you agree with that, and that is fine, then DO NOT MARRY unless you are breeding! Well, people do marry for all kind of reasons, not only breeding, so just because you've got a quote from a famous atheist, doesn't follow that it is consistent to use the out of context remarks of a RADICAL to support an anti-gay civil rights agenda. He was not making a conservative argument in any way imaginable. Since Russell do NOT comment on gay marriage, how do you KNOW he would be against legal gay marriages for those gay people with children? Again, his views are interesting but not very relevant as marriage LAWS do in fact have no requirement for breeding.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental, human or whatever right either. Real fundamental rights have foundations in history, traditions, practises, there have to be precedents.

There are precedents now in a number of nations in different regions of the world. Problem solved. Edited February 14, 2013 by Jingthing

[Potosi]

I'm not a conservative, but socialist. Gay marriage isn't really a political issue, it crosses all sorts of fault lines. I'm mostly against gay marriage because I'm so hacked off by gay issues. I don't care what you do in your bedrooms, or how much you love another man, but the most detailed knowledge has been forced upon me and people like me for I don't know how many years. It's you people who drag your proclivities into the spotlight, while they should remain private. You dominate the news far more then your percentage of the population would call for. Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking. Please realize that not only homosexuality is based in nature, but also homophobia. It's a reaction you can't do anything about, not a choice. Many heterosexual men really get goosebumps or worse when approached or flirted with by a gay.

[SteeleJoe]

I'm not a conservative, but socialist. Gay marriage isn't really a political issue, it crosses all sorts of fault lines. I'm mostly against gay marriage because I'm so hacked off by gay issues. I don't care what you do in your bedrooms, or how much you love another man, but the most detailed knowledge has been forced upon me and people like me for I don't know how many years. It's you people who drag your proclivities into the spotlight, while they should remain private. You dominate the news far more then your percentage of the population would call for. Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking. Please realize that not only homosexuality is based in nature, but also homophobia. It's a reaction you can't do anything about, not a choice. Many heterosexual men really get goosebumps or worse when approached or flirted with by a gay.

Wow.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Jingthing]

I'm not a conservative, but socialist. Gay marriage isn't really a political issue, it crosses all sorts of fault lines. I'm mostly against gay marriage because I'm so hacked off by gay issues. I don't care what you do in your bedrooms, or how much you love another man, but the most detailed knowledge has been forced upon me and people like me for I don't know how many years. It's you people who drag your proclivities into the spotlight, while they should remain private. You dominate the news far more then your percentage of the population would call for. Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking. Please realize that not only homosexuality is based in nature, but also homophobia. It's a reaction you can't do anything about, not a choice. Many heterosexual men really get goosebumps or worse when approached or flirted with by a gay.

I reckon racism is natural too like homophobia as you describe it. Really. Also something that although "natural" should be fought against at every turn. I do think homophobia levels and severity varies a lot across societies. So much is about social conditioning.

I actually agree with you, (shock and horror) that support or opposition for gay legal equality can come from different parts of the political spectrum.

Your rallying cry that homosexuals should go back and hide in the closet is ... QUAINT.

File that under the wait for the oldies to die and we surely will achieve equality! Great news for young gays. Not so great for gay oldies.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking.

Out of interest, do you turn away if you see a couple of cute lezzers going at it?

[transam]

Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking.

Out of interest, do you turn away if you see a couple of cute lezzers going at it?

Not if l am in the wardrobe.

[Goldieinkathu]

I'm not a conservative, but socialist. Gay marriage isn't really a political issue, it crosses all sorts of fault lines. I'm mostly against gay marriage because I'm so hacked off by gay issues. I don't care what you do in your bedrooms, or how much you love another man, but the most detailed knowledge has been forced upon me and people like me for I don't know how many years. It's you people who drag your proclivities into the spotlight, while they should remain private. You dominate the news far more then your percentage of the population would call for. Yes I look the other way and feel embarassed when I watch a gay couple kissing in public or holding hands while walking. Please realize that not only homosexuality is based in nature, but also homophobia. It's a reaction you can't do anything about, not a choice. Many heterosexual men really get goosebumps or worse when approached or flirted with by a gay.

All my life i've had heterosexual lifestyles shoved down my throat too - i know just how you feel. I don't care either what you do in your bedroom, in fact thinking about it , it never crosses my mind what anyone else does in their bedroom.

I've never kissed anyone in public, and i am embarassed too if another couple kisses infront of me, gay or straight.

Can't say i've ever got goosebumps when a bloke has tried to pick me up either. From my experience most gays only flirt with someone they think they might stand a chance with - they don't want to be turned down or made a fool of - they must be picking something up from you.

[Goldieinkathu]

No takers?

I still have yet to hear a single reasonable argument as to how this negatively impacts heterosexual marriage.

Bernard Russel wrote “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex….It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That institution, of course, is marriage, opposite-sex marriage.

Both parents are responsible for their children. In a homosexual marriage, I guess that's only the case when children are adopted by both, husbands or wives. If one of them sires a kid with a person of the opposite sex, that's not the case.

So yes, I think the heterosexual marriage could suffers because gay marriage offers the same privileges, but fewer responsibilities. Male gay marriages will remain childless in 99% of the cases, for them it's a way to save some taxes, but they still violate the multigenerational contract which is to bring up kids who would care for them when the gays grow old. Children are the means by which a society continues to exist.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental, human or whatever right either. Real fundamental rights have foundations in history, traditions, practises, there have to be precedents.

Are we seriously to believe that anyone gets married to save some taxes?

I love my partner more than anyone else in the world, taxes were the last thing on our minds when we made our commitment.

I have many friends who are married and have chosen not to have children, i have some friends who are single and are past the age of having children, are they causing heterosexual marriages to suffer too?

If as you say the percentage of gays in the population is so low how can us being able to marry possibly make any difference .

You need to free your mind.

[FritsSikkink]

Please realize that not only homosexuality is based in nature, but also homophobia. It's a reaction you can't do anything about, not a choice.

Yes you can, it is called education.

Homophobia based in nature ?? Maybe time to read a few books (the bible not included).