Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 9:29 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

That's because, in the past, homosexuality was often considered to be unnatural or undesirable. It was even considered to be a form of mental illness at one point. We now know that homosexual behaviour may be observed in any number of different species, and that it is anything other than 'unnatural'. Similarly, there isn't a (competent) psychologist or psychiatrist alive today who would recognise being gay as a psychological disorder. So as our understanding of homosexuality as a perfectly normal part of human variation has improved, so, quite rightly, has our collective desire to ensure that people who happen to be born that way are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

This isn't the first time you've trotted out this irrelevant nonsense, and it doesn't get any more sensible for being repeated. It may surprise you to learn that humans are somewhat different to other species. Marriage itself is purely a construct of human society, and, as such, has no parallels within the animal kingdom. That aside, if we judged ourselves by the same standards as those in the animal kingdom, theft, rape, murder and a whole host of other undesirable behaviours would be considered perfectly acceptable.

Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 11:22 pm  

Dally wrote:

Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority.

how simply you conflate usual and normal

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 7:47 am  

Dally wrote:

Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority.

No, you need to decide what you mean by normal or natural ... and why.
We hear people like you saying that homosexuality is not natural ... but zoology shows us that to be untrue because we see it in other species, that is to say "in nature" i.e. natural.
When this is pointed out, the best you can come up with is that it is not "normal" because it is only observed in a minority.
By your logic, any human with minority characteristics such as, say, blonde hair isn't "normal".

However, "normality" is not the issue.
The issue is whether two humans of the same sex should be allowed the same rights to marriage as two humans of different sexes.
Marriage through history has varied between an agreement to care for progeny or to protect property ownership or just as a public declaration of joining together, it is certainly not patented by any religion.
In the past, society has had periods of time where homosexuality was shunned and / or punishable but we are now more enlightened and we recognise that love and /or the desire to raise a family is not solely restricted to heterosexuals.
No-one is forcing Christians to recognise gay marriage as a Christian marriage, on the contrary exemptions are proposed so that they can continue with their superstition- based practices.
In short, if you think that same-sex marriage affects the status of your own marriage, your problem is probably closer to home.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 7:54 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

In short, if you think that same-sex marriage affects the status of your own marriage, your problem is probably closer to home.

I think the answer is much simpler than that, I think there is a group of Christians who believe that they have bought into a superior product, below them lay Registry Office marriages and below that civil partnerships - I liken it to the outcry you'd hear if Bang and Olufsen started selling mini hi-fi's for £79.99 in Argos.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 8:14 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I think the answer is much simpler than that, I think there is a group of Christians who believe that they have bought into a superior product, below them lay Registry Office marriages and below that civil partnerships - I liken it to the outcry you'd hear if Bang and Olufsen started selling mini hi-fi's for £79.99 in Argos.

I think you're absolutely right.
Also, religions see it as an erosion of their role as the (historically dubious) arbiters of morality.

p.s. it's a Register Office.
Even the BBC get that wrong.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 8:40 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

... No-one is forcing Christians to recognise gay marriage as a Christian marriage, on the contrary exemptions are proposed so that they can continue with their superstition- based practices...

Although for the sake of clarity, some Christians - and some Christian groups - are perfectly happy with the idea of equal marriage. The Quakers are one. They don't seem to think it demeans their own marriages or offends their god.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 9:00 am  

Mintball wrote:

Although for the sake of clarity, some Christians - and some Christian groups - are perfectly happy with the idea of equal marriage. The Quakers are one. They don't seem to think it demeans their own marriages or offends their god.

You don't have to be a Christian, or even believe in a deity, to be a Quaker.
Which probably illustrates their open-mindedness.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 9:15 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

You don't have to be a Christian, or even believe in a deity, to be a Quaker.
Which probably illustrates their open-mindedness.

Really? Well, (not that I know anything about Quakers) everyday's a school day.

Is it just about liking porridge and wearing a tri corn hat then?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 9:19 am  

Dally wrote: Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. Interesting appraisal. Perhaps you could be more specific about which bits you consider to be 'bizarre'. Dally wrote: In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . As has already been pointed out to you by several other posters, 'normal' and 'usual' are not the same thing. For example, around 2-6% of people of 'western' origin have red hair. This is a broadly similar figure to the percentage of the UK population who don't identify themselves as heterosexual. Having red hair is perfectly 'normal' and 'natural', but it is no more prevalent than being gay, bisexual or 'other'. Dally wrote: Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Read it again. I never once said that humans don't commit crimes, what I said was that if we judged ourselves by the standards of the animal kingdom, these crimes wouldn't be crimes at all. So it's really not a contradiction to argue that homosexuality is observed in species other than humans (i.e. it is 'natural'), whilst also adopting the position that it's utterly stupid to state that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring capable of reproducing. Dally wrote: Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority. I'm struggling to see your point here. We judge a type of behaviour on the impact of that behaviour, not on its prevalence. We have rightly legislated against rape, murder and theft in our societies because each of those actions has the capacity to cause harm to other people. Homosexuality between consenting adults has no such capacity, and the only people who would seek to deny equal rights to LGBT people are narrow-minded wankers. No exceptions.

Dally wrote: Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. Interesting appraisal. Perhaps you could be more specific about which bits you consider to be 'bizarre'. Dally wrote: In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . As has already been pointed out to you by several other posters, 'normal' and 'usual' are not the same thing. For example, around 2-6% of people of 'western' origin have red hair. This is a broadly similar figure to the percentage of the UK population who don't identify themselves as heterosexual. Having red hair is perfectly 'normal' and 'natural', but it is no more prevalent than being gay, bisexual or 'other'. Dally wrote: Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Read it again. I never once said that humans don't commit crimes, what I said was that if we judged ourselves by the standards of the animal kingdom, these crimes wouldn't be crimes at all. So it's really not a contradiction to argue that homosexuality is observed in species other than humans (i.e. it is 'natural'), whilst also adopting the position that it's utterly stupid to state that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring capable of reproducing. Dally wrote: Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority. I'm struggling to see your point here. We judge a type of behaviour on the impact of that behaviour, not on its prevalence. We have rightly legislated against rape, murder and theft in our societies because each of those actions has the capacity to cause harm to other people. Homosexuality between consenting adults has no such capacity, and the only people who would seek to deny equal rights to LGBT people are narrow-minded wankers. No exceptions.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 30, 2013 9:25 am  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

Really? Well, (not that I know anything about Quakers) everyday's a school day.

Is it just about liking porridge and wearing a tri corn hat then?

Even belief in porridge isn't compulsory.
I'd imagine that the Quakers appeal more to deists than atheists though.