Gay marriage thread

[Mandryka]

Skimming through this depressing thread (as it really does not warrant anything approaching in-depth reading), the impression I take away is of a civilised person (scottycelt) doing battle with moral relativist pygmies.

[amateur51]

Skimming through this depressing thread (as it really does not warrant anything approaching in-depth reading), the impression I take away is of a civilised person (scottycelt) doing battle with moral relativist pygmies.

Social change and the human condition not your bag then, Mandy?

[ahinton]

Skimming through this depressing thread (as it really does not warrant anything approaching in-depth reading), the impression I take away is of a civilised person (scottycelt) doing battle with moral relativist pygmies.

Then I feel sorry for you - or at least I would if I could. No one is seeking to force gay marriage on those who do not want or believe in it. I am not gay but, as such, I recognise that it is not my place to dictate to those who are gay as to what their natural sexual proclivities should or should not be or what they should or should not enable them to do in terms of cementing in law any relationships that they may have; would I expect gay people to tell me that I should want to have a meaningful relationship with - or indeed even marry - someone of my own sex? No. How dare they! My position is identical. I am not seeking to undermine the civilised or otherwise nature of scotty but I do get the impression that his views on this subject are heavily influenced by his Catholicism whereas mine are influenced only by a concern that humans should be honest with themselves and one another about their desired relationships and that the notion that the law should help to encourage the endorsement of such commitments cannot be a bad thing. If that makes me and - and any other person who might think likewise - a "moral relativist pygmy" (whatever on earth that may or may not mean), then presumably so be it.

[ahinton]

Social change and the human condition not your bag then, Mandy?

I shudder to imagine what might be contained within that Mandbag...

[Mandryka]

Then I feel sorry for you - or at least I would if I could. No one is seeking to force gay marriage on those who do not want or believe in it. I am not gay but, as such, I recognise that it is not my place to dictate to those who are gay as to what their natural sexual proclivities should or should not be or what they should or should not enable them to do in terms of cementing in law any relationships that they may have; would I expect gay people to tell me that I should want to have a meaningful relationship with - or indeed even marry - someone of my own sex? No. How dare they! My position is identical. I am not seeking to undermine the civilised or otherwise nature of scotty but I do get the impression that his views on this subject are heavily influenced by his Catholicism whereas mine are influenced only by a concern that humans should be honest with themselves and one another about their desired relationships and that the notion that the law should help to encourage the endorsement of such commitments cannot be a bad thing. If that makes me and - and any other person who might think likewise - a "moral relativist pygmy" (whatever on earth that may or may not mean), then presumably so be it.

My own position is one of agnosticism, as I don't believe in marriage as an institution, full stop. That is my personal belief, though and I have no wish to influence others, either pro-or anti-. But if someone objects to homosexual marriage on religious grounds, then their views should, I think, be respected, even by those who disagree with them (and Peter Tatchell apparently agrees with me).

Yes, scottycelt obviously IS influenced by his Catholic faith: but no more so than Amy 51 and all the other invert and invert-sympathisers on this thread have been influenced by reading dog-eared copies of Oz and One magazine.

[Flosshilde]

But if someone objects to homosexual marriage on religious grounds,

I have absolutely no objection to scotty objecting to same-sex marriage. What I do object to is a) his insistence that the meaning of the word 'marriage' should not, indeed cannot, change when it quite clearly can and has; and b) his & his leader's erroneous belief that the institution of marriage has never changed, when it quite clearly has.

their views should, I think, be respected,

No, because his views are based on a fallacy.

[ahinton]

My own position is one of agnosticism, as I don't believe in marriage as an institution, full stop.

Then in my view it would be better if you said what you've said and then simply shut up about it, as your "position" identifies that you quite clearly have nothing further to add to the debate.

Thank you.

[ahinton]

I have absolutely no objection to scotty objecting to same-sex marriage. What I do object to is a) his insistence that the meaning of the word 'marriage' should not, indeed cannot, change when it quite clearly can and has; and b) his & his leader's erroneous belief that the institution of marriage has never changed, when it quite clearly has.

Agreed.

No, because his views are based on a fallacy.

As indeed they are, sadly.

[Mandryka]

Then in my view it would be better if you said what you've said and then simply shut up about it, as your "position" identifies that you quite clearly have nothing further to add to the debate.

Thank you.

Well, alistair, me old china, you never have anything to say about anything but I have never known anyone use so many words to say precisely nothing!

[Flosshilde]

My own position is one of agnosticism, as I don't believe in marriage as an institution,

Neither do I, but I do recognise, as Peter Tatchell does, that others may believe in marriage and should have the right to be married to the person of their choice, be that someone of the same sex or not; just as I beleive that people who are gay & a practicing Catholic must be bonkers but should have the right to do so.

[MrGongGong]

Skimming through this depressing thread (as it really does not warrant anything approaching in-depth reading), the impression I take away is of a civilised person (scottycelt) doing battle with moral relativist pygmies.

Stop it Mandy i'm going to wet myself

[Ferretfancy]

My own position is one of agnosticism, as I don't believe in marriage as an institution, full stop. That is my personal belief, though and I have no wish to influence others, either pro-or anti-. But if someone objects to homosexual marriage on religious grounds, then their views should, I think, be respected, even by those who disagree with them (and Peter Tatchell apparently agrees with me).

Yes, scottycelt obviously IS influenced by his Catholic faith: but no more so than Amy 51 and all the other invert and invert-sympathisers on this thread have been influenced by reading dog-eared copies of Oz and One magazine.

Mandryka
The dog eared copies of Oz read by Amy 51, myself and other inverts must be dog eared indeed by now, since the magazine ceased publication in 1973. I believe that the term 'invert' was invented by Havelock Ellis in about 1900. If you really want to be gratuitously offensive, you might at least make the effort to be reasonably up to date.

[jean]

That sort of gratuitous offensiveness makes me quite appreciate scotty.

[ahinton]

Well, alistair, me old china, you never have anything to say about anything but I have never known anyone use so many words to say precisely nothing!

I am neither yours, nor am I especially old, nor am I Chinese or made of anything that anyone could reasonably call "china" in the ceramic sense, what I have to say about anything is my business and your opinion thereof is yours and yours alone and, finally and for the record, the portion of my post to which yours is as pathetic a response as anyone could try not to have to hope for comprises a mere 37 words - "so many", indeed! Never mind; back to the topic for those wishing seriously to debate it!

[ahinton]

Deleted quote...

As long as it's not "convert". This is all becoming increasingly non-diverting, by the way - overtly rather than covertly...