• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Same-sex marriage races ahead

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Excuse my late post about the above........ I've been slacking!

No! In the UK we do not (tend to) call transexuals or transgenders 'trannies'.
In the UK we have called transvestites 'trannies', and this term has been used for decades to describe male transvestite comedians as well as more dedicated cross-dressers.

Strangely, the regular visitor to the patient next to my wife's bed was a transvestite comedian, visiting his sister, who told me that he had worked with 'Lilly Savage' (I forget the gentleman comedians real-life name), and he referred to his 'lot' as trannies on a few occasions.

I understand that, but "tranny" is used as a slur for transsexuals. If transvestites don't have a problem with the term, that's their right.
 

Shuttlecraft

.Navigator
As I mentioned earlier, I once dated transexual Zoe (a Counsellor Troi lookalike), she used to be a male pipe fitter with British Gas, but we didn't last long because she liked telling me all the nitty-gritty details of the surgical operation to turn her into a woman and it put me off a bit. (think peeling a banana and tucking the flaps up inside). Then she started talking about the electrolysis to remove her beard, so that's when I pulled the plug.
If she HADN'T told me she was a transexual, maybe I'd never had guessed, and we'd still be going strong!
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If gays simply called it "civil union" like they used to, nobody would bat an eye, but by calling it "marriage" they're understandably taking a lot of flak from annoyed straights for hijacking the word marriage..
Sooo... is this a move back to "separate but equal?" Because that's what it sounds like. "Separate but equal" isn't equal. Just... separate.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Sooo... is this a move back to "separate but equal?" Because that's what it sounds like. "Separate but equal" isn't equal. Just... separate.

It's funny...as a supporter of marriage equality, I would represent a 'straight' who is annoyed at the word 'marriage' being hijacked by a bunch of bigots.
 

Shuttlecraft

.Navigator
If a gay/lesbian couple want to live together, why don't they just DO it, instead of bothering to make it a "civil union" or "marriage"?
Does a CU or marriage give them financial benefits or what?
And is a marriage better than a CU in that respect?

After my mate married his girlfriend he said to me later- "Wow, I'm a lot worse off moneywise since I got hitched!", so I should imagine that'd also apply to gay couples, which brings me back to the question- why get married if you're going to be worse off financially?
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Civil unions were tried.
The religious right then failed to give then most of the rights promised.
Blame them for people not being happy with civil unions.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I have to insist on the fact that Ann Coulter is right when she says that most gay men want gay marriage not because they want to get married...but because they naively think that once there is gay marriage, people will respect them

Respecting gays has nothing to do with that. In Spain gay people are respected exactly as they were before gay marriage was legalized.

so...let's be honest: the majority of gay males are promiscuous and will never get married. They want gay marriage just because they think they will gain respect from that.

no...people will go on thinking what they think about homosexuality. And people will go on laughing out loud at jokes about gays
[youtube]Nrr9e5-tHF4[/youtube]
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
If a gay/lesbian couple want to live together, why don't they just DO it, instead of bothering to make it a "civil union" or "marriage"?
If a heterosexual couple want to live together, why don't they just DO it, instead of bothering to make it a "marriage"?

Does a CU or marriage give them financial benefits or what?
And is a marriage better than a CU in that respect?
Well, yes. For starters, homosexuals in a civil partnership cannot legally fill the role of both parents when adopting a child or having their own child through fertility treatment, and instead both parents must individually register to be the child's adopted parent, which can cost them thousands. Couples in a legally recognized marriage do not have to do that.

At least, that's what I've heard from gay couples in the States. I'm not too certain how the law holds up elsewhere.

After my mate married his girlfriend he said to me later- "Wow, I'm a lot worse off moneywise since I got hitched!", so I should imagine that'd also apply to gay couples, which brings me back to the question- why get married if you're going to be worse off financially?
Why should ANYONE get married, in that case? If marriage makes us all worse off financially, doesn't it make sense NOT to ban specific groups from being able to marry, but instead ban marriage itself?

The point is, WHY is marriage being denied to homosexuals?

I have to insist on the fact that Ann Coulter is right when she says that most gay men want gay marriage not because they want to get married...but because they naively think that once there is gay marriage, people will respect them

Respecting gays has nothing to do with that. In Spain gay people are respected exactly as they were before gay marriage was legalized.

so...let's be honest: the majority of gay males are promiscuous and will never get married. They want gay marriage just because they think they will gain respect from that.

no...people will go on thinking what they think about homosexuality. And people will go on laughing out loud at jokes about gays.
This is such a wrong-headed and ignorant thing to say.

Firstly, how many gay couples, or gay individuals, do you know? Because I know several, and they are no more "promiscuous" than anyone else. I know more single heterosexuals than I know single homosexuals. Most are in long-term relationships, and act no different to the heterosexual couples I know in any regard.

Secondly, this isn't about "gaining respect" any more than the civil rights movement was about black people "gaining respect" by working to grant them equal rights. It's such a ridiculous double-standard. What you are saying is functionally no different to saying:

"Why do black people want to be served in the same stores as white people and drink from the same water-fountains? Don't they have their OWN stores and their OWN water fountains? They just think that being able to shop in the same stores and drink from the same fountains as white people, white people will immediately respect them. Let's be honest: the majority of black men are thieves and will never be trusted by white shop owners. They just want to be served by them because they think they will gain respect from that."

Do you HONESTLY believe that that's the issue? If these are your opinions, then you are not only on the wrong side of this debate, but you are actively part of the problem and a proponent of inequality.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
This is such a wrong-headed and ignorant thing to say.

Firstly, how many gay couples, or gay individuals, do you know? Because I know several, and they are no more "promiscuous" than anyone else. I know more single heterosexuals than I know single homosexuals. Most are in long-term relationships, and act no different to the heterosexual couples I know in any regard.


Firstly, I am gay. I assume you are straight...so I guess I met many more gay men than you did, surely. so I do know what I am talking about.
and yes...the majority (I'd say the 75% of gay\bisexual men) are promiscuous and are afraid of stable relationships.
This percentage is not present in the straight world...where people get married even after 2 days they meet. especially in the US

Secondly, this isn't about "gaining respect" any more than the civil rights movement was about black people "gaining respect" by working to grant them equal rights. It's such a ridiculous double-standard. What you are saying is functionally no different to saying:

"Why do black people want to be served in the same stores as white people and drink from the same water-fountains? Don't they have their OWN stores and their OWN water fountains? They just think that being able to shop in the same stores and drink from the same fountains as white people, white people will immediately respect them. Let's be honest: the majority of black men are thieves and will never be trusted by white shop owners. They just want to be served by them because they think they will gain respect from that."

Do you HONESTLY believe that that's the issue? If these are your opinions, then you are not only on the wrong side of this debate, but you are actively part of the problem and a proponent of inequality.

:facepalm: o my God...Ann Coulter was right when she said that people tend to compare civil rights to gay rights.
US (and all European countries) have secular constitutions and consider both race and sexuality unimportant and juridically irrelevant before the law.
so the fact that you are gay is irrelevant. The state doesn't care whether you are straight or gay.
The state protects you if someone discriminates you on the basis of your race or of your sexuality.
so gay people are sufficiently protected by the law.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Firstly, I am gay. I assume you are straight...so I guess I met many more gay men than you did, surely. so I do know what I am talking about.
and yes...the majority (I'd say the 75% of gay\bisexual men) are promiscuous and are afraid of stable relationships.
This percentage is not present in the straight world...where people get married even after 2 days they meet. especially in the US
None of this changes the fact that what you're saying is completely regressive. If you're going to make these statements, please support them with relevant facts, because my experiences absolutely contradict yours.

:facepalm: o my God...Ann Coulter was right when she said that people tend to compare civil rights to gay rights.
Because it's an apt comparison.

US (and all European countries) have secular constitutions and consider both race and sexuality unimportant and juridically irrelevant before the law.
so the fact that you are gay is irrelevant. The state doesn't care whether you are straight or gay.
Except with it comes to marriage, apparently.

Also, you've clearly never been to any of these places:

81 countries where homosexuality is illegal | 76 CRIMES

So to try and frame this as a "gays are equal now so shut up about it" issue is blatantly ignorant of the broader context of this whole debate. The fact that gay people are protected as a minority (only recently, mind) doesn't change what inequalities STILL EXIST. It's like saying "So what if black people are still discriminated against by the police. They can eat in our stores now, so what's the problem?"

Also, you can still be fired for being gay in the majority of US states:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/y...n-workplace-are-piecemeal.html?pagewanted=all

The state protects you if someone discriminates you on the basis of your race or of your sexuality.
so gay people are sufficiently protected by the law.
And yet are denied the right to marriage, and religious groups and institutions who seek to discriminate against homosexuals are often protected by the law, and often successfully campaign to repeal laws that would prevent them from discriminating against people on the basis of sexuality.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the simple fact that there is no good reason whatsoever, other than homophobia, to deny homosexuals the right to marriage.

there must be a reason why lots of gay people are fans of hers
Because gay people can be Conservatives too.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
And yet are denied the right to marriage, and religious groups and institutions who seek to discriminate against homosexuals are often protected by the law, and often successfully campaign to repeal laws that would prevent them from discriminating against people on the basis of sexuality.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the simple fact that there is no good reason whatsoever, other than homophobia, to deny homosexuals the right to marriage.

well...I have to clarify that I am not against gay marriage. But I am not for it either. If gay marriage were legalized in all European countries and American states, I think it would be a positive thing.

It is not something necessary. Because marriage was created by the law to safeguard family rights and heredity rights.
So it was created because a man and a woman make children.

Can two men make a child? They can't
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
well...I have to clarify that I am not against gay marriage. But I am not for it either. If gay marriage were legalized in all European countries and American states, I think it would be a positive thing.
Well, good. Thank you for clarifying your position to me.

It is not something necessary. Because marriage was created by the law to safeguard family rights and heredity rights.
So it was created because a man and a woman make children.

Can two men make a child? They can't
So should infertile heterosexual couples not be legally allowed to marry? What about modern fertility treatments which are just as readily available to homosexual couples as they are to heterosexual couples? What about adoption?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Firstly, I am gay. I assume you are straight...so I guess I met many more gay men than you did, surely. so I do know what I am talking about.
and yes...the majority (I'd say the 75% of gay\bisexual men) are promiscuous and are afraid of stable relationships.
Regardless of the percentage, people who are afraid of stable relationships don't tend to seek marriage, so they're irrelevant to this issue.

:facepalm: o my God...Ann Coulter was right when she said that people tend to compare civil rights to gay rights.
US (and all European countries) have secular constitutions and consider both race and sexuality unimportant and juridically irrelevant before the law.
so the fact that you are gay is irrelevant. The state doesn't care whether you are straight or gay.
The state protects you if someone discriminates you on the basis of your race or of your sexuality.
so gay people are sufficiently protected by the law.
In many questions, they're not. And protecting LGBT rights is a matter of making sexual orientation irrelevant before the law. If someone wants to sponsor their spouse for immigration, it shouldn't matter whether the spouse is a man or a woman. Same if we're talking about inheritance rights, child custody rights, or any of the many other things that same-sex marriage is actually about.

You strike me as young. Have you ever been through the death of a family member? Many of the issues involved in same-sex marriage become very apparent as a person gets sick and then dies while his or her partner tries to deal with all the legal stuff going on at the same time.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You strike me as young. Have you ever been through the death of a family member? Many of the issues involved in same-sex marriage become very apparent as a person gets sick and then dies while his or her partner tries to deal with all the legal stuff going on at the same time.

That's why I am definitely for civil unions
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's why I am definitely for civil unions

But marriage accomplishes everything that civil unions do. Why create a different class of legal relationship?

Civil unions often don't get the same rights and benefits of a marriage even in their own country. Also, some countries recognize foreign marriages (including same-sex marriages) but not civil unions. Why would you expect people to be satisfied with just a civil union?
 

Shuttlecraft

.Navigator
..homosexuals in a civil partnership cannot legally fill the role of both parents when adopting a child or having their own child through fertility treatment, and instead both parents must individually register to be the child's adopted parent, which can cost them thousands. Couples in a legally recognized marriage do not have to do that.
At least, that's what I've heard from gay couples in the States. I'm not too certain how the law holds up elsewhere..

A lot of people think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids anyway, so that's a whole new can of worms..
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I would guarantee the right of adopting to any individual, on the basis of their economic requisites.
so...any gay person should have the right to adopt. But it is irrelevant that this person is in a relationship or not

I didn't ask whether you would grant rights. You said this:

"It is not something necessary. Because marriage was created by the law to safeguard family rights and heredity rights.
So it was created because a man and a woman make children.

Can two men make a child? They can't."


My question is: how is that a basis for saying that gay marriage isn't "necessary" when gay couples have the same access to fertility treatments and adoption as heterosexual couples do, and would you use the same argument against infertile heterosexual couples who want to get married? If you believe that marriage is only "necessary" for the purpose of children, then surely you must also believe it isn't "necessary" to grant the right for infertile couples to marry.

A lot of people think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids anyway, so that's a whole new can of worms..
It certainly is, but do you think it's fair for a couple have a child - adopted or through fertility treatment - and fill the role of both parents, to then have to go through a lengthy and costly official process so that BOTH - rather than just one - of the parents can be officially recognized as the child's legal guardian? Imagine you and your wife had a child, biologically or otherwise, but that YOU were denied the right to be called the child's official parent, despite the child being raised by you, and despite the fact that your neighbours were in exactly the same kind of relationship as you and your wife and had a child in the exact same way, but that both the father and mother were automatically recognized as the child's parent without having any extra due process.

Is that fair?
 
Last edited:
Top