Religion, gay artists and homophobia

It is a strange world when those who express their opinions feel no one else should do so unless they agree with theirs.

Okay, I give up.

I won't express MY opinion on this subject ever again.

End of story.

blueturando wrote:

There must be fears in America that homosexuality could cause the basic fabric of society to break down should it be allowed to become widespread

Polyglide....What is the fabric of society in America? And does that 'Fabric of society include: Race hate, Guns, Religious bigotry, a massive wealth divide, illegal wars and torture, inacarceration without trial ect?

Excellent rebuttal Blue!

Shirina, love - that one was meant for me but I think Blue has changed his veiw.

Perhaps, but it was me he quoted, so I assumed it was directed toward me.

Shirina wrote:

Shirina, love - that one was meant for me but I think Blue has changed his veiw.

Perhaps, but it was me he quoted, so I assumed it was directed toward me.

Fair enough. Chin up chic! Sorry, I just had to say that god-awful sexist phrase!

God’s grace in gay marriage: bishops

Senior bishops and clergy call today on the Church of England to “rejoice” at the prospect of gay marriage, rather than to condemn or disdain it. In a challenge to the next Archbishop of Canterbury, influential Anglicans say in a letter to The Times that “God’s grace” is at .................

Acknowledgement to the TIMES newspaper letter 'column'.

The fabric of society is that which holds it together.

The more of society that think along the same lines and also agree to differ without predudice or rancour on those that they do not, then the better for all concerned.

As for marriage between same gender couples, why on earth not call such a union something else ?.

It has always been accepted that marriage meant, regarding people, a union between a man and a woman

Surely the homosexuals can think of a suitable name to use, that does not offend anyone and is acceptable to them.

trevorw2539 wrote:God’s grace in gay marriage: bishops

Senior bishops and clergy call today on the Church of England to “rejoice” at the prospect of gay marriage, rather than to condemn or disdain it. In a challenge to the next Archbishop of Canterbury, influential Anglicans say in a letter to The Times that “God’s grace” is at .................

Acknowledgement to the TIMES newspaper letter 'column'.

Trevor

Thanks for this post, but sorry as I do not subscribe to the Times - although I do read the Sunday edition.

It's good news whatever it is. Personally, nothing the church ever says about gay issues has ever filled me with gratitude.

polyglide. What holds a society together is fairness and greater equality than what we have now in the UK. If people feel that they have a stake in society, and that society cares about them when they’re old, sick, disabled or unemployed, they’re more likely to accept and support it. Research has shown that the more equality there is in a country, the lower the crime rate.

Lots of things were accepted for long periods of time – slavery, feudalism, ducking witches, for example – but one thing which distinguishes us from animals is that we can change and develop. No doubt it would have suited people from Cameron’s background if things had never changed and if farm labourers still lost their jobs (and therefore homes) if their sons forget to doff their caps to the vicar or the squire. Cameron may be trying to take us back to those days, as an article in yesterday’s ‘Guardian’ suggests, but he will have an uphill struggle.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/david-cameron-real-discipline?CMP=twt_gu

Words can have more than one meaning and sometimes change their meanings. Humanism was something different in the 16th century from what it is today. A ‘gay’ was a prostitute in Victorian England. In times when homosexuality was illegal, marriage could only have been a union between a man and a woman, but that's no longer the case. This definition of marriage seems to be all-embracing: “A social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically, and emotionally.”
http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/g/marriage.htm
Why should homosexuals use a different word? Wanting them to be treated differently is just another form of discrimination.

Why does any of this matter? I couldn't give a damn what consenting adults do in private (as long as it doesn't involve children or animals), and I couldn't care less whether they get married or have civil partnerships, whatever makes them happy. For some reason, certain people concern themselves about a matter which doesn't affect them yet offends them. Too bad. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, so why try to please bigots?

As for marriage between same gender couples, why on earth not call such a union something else ?.

Hello, Polyglide ...

Marriage is a de facto right in this country, and as long as both parties are of the age of consent and not directly related (i.e. daughter and father), there are no prohibitions on who can marry whom - except gays. Adulterers can marry, spouse murderers can marry, rapists can marry. But not gays. The fact that gays are almost surgically excluded from marriage indicates (strongly) that a high level of bigotry and fear exists. I'm not directing this at you, personally, but it is an indictment I lodge against society as a whole. Marriage is a right because it operates like a right. A privilege - which is how many view marriage - is more stringently controlled. If you compare a real privilege, say obtaining a drivers license, with that of marriage, you can see the obvious differences. Obtaining a drivers license requires you to pass written and physical exams as well as a road test. Marriage does not require these exams. A drivers license can be denied to you for failing to pass these exams. Marriage cannot be denied to you for any reason unless you're in an incestuous, pedophilia or homosexual relationship. And here's the big one: The government can revoke your drivers license for breaking rules or if you become physically unable to drive safely. The government, to my knowledge, has NEVER revoked a marriage license no matter what crimes or immoral behavior a married person has engaged in. This is the cornerstone of what a "right" is - something that cannot be taken away from you by the government, at least not legally. Thus denying the right for gays to marry better have a very strong argument - which it does not have. There is not one argument against gay marriage that I cannot thoroughly debunk with simple logic.

As for calling it something other than marriage, there is a big problem. In the USA at least, we have a legal precedent called Brown v. Board of Education which implicitly states in legal terms that there is no such thing as "separate but equal." This is a major legal precedent, one that all kids learn in school - it is that important. If we say that marriage is for straights and civil unions are for gays, we are setting up a system whereby room is left for inherent inequalities to exist. Anti-gay lawmakers can very easily enact legislation that grants marriage certain benefits that civil unions are not entitled to. In fact, civil unions can be hamstrung by said lawmakers simply by amending existing marriage laws so that those laws apply only to marriage - but not civil unions. All of the privileges marriage brings, such as tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, family insurance coverage, and inheritance rights, can be denied to civil unions, making such a "marriage" worthless except in name.

Another issue in the USA is that many (if not all) of the state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage also make provisions which ban anything resembling marriage - including civil unions. This means that gays cannot gain the right to marry simply by calling it something other than marriage. Therefore, it is not merely a question of allowing gays to be "married." A gay couple cannot be legally recognized in any capacity whatsoever. This is another damning indictment of bigotry against our society. It proves beyond a doubt that this isn't about what gays call their union, it is about making sure gays can't have a union - of any type or by any name.

It has always been accepted that marriage meant, regarding people, a union between a man and a woman

That is true, but if you look at marriage, it has constantly evolved and changed over the years. Again, in the USA, it was once considered a crime for different races to marry. Somehow, we managed to get over that prejudice, at least in a legal sense. Now different races can freely marry each other. Even in the West, there was a time when most marriages were arranged by the parents. No longer is that true. We managed to get through that without the "fabric of society" unraveling. There was also a time, here in the West, when girls as young as 9 could be taken as brides by men in their 40's and 50's, but again, no longer is that true. Now, it would be a crime to do such a thing. And we managed to survive it. The point is that marriage has never been a stagnant, unchanging institution; there is always room for change.

That sounds totally normal and wonderful to me! x

Only in the divorce of heterosexual couples is there rarely any dispute about who shall have what from the wardrobe.

Mrs Hornby keeps her pot of saved £2 coins in her wardrobe and I would definitely make a bid for custody...

You're not concerned about retrieving that bundle of love-letters, tied with a pink ribbon?

Adele Carlyon wrote:That sounds totally normal and wonderful to me! x

Appreciated greatly!
[b]

oftenwrong wrote:Only in the divorce of heterosexual couples is there rarely any dispute about who shall have what from the wardrobe.

I hereby award you the trophy for the wisest missive of the week!

Marriage is the triumph of optimism over empirical observation.

"Watch me carefully, and then you too will be able to make doughnuts like Fanny's tee hee tee hee hee"
Johnny Craddock. seminal TV, don't make 'em like that now!

"You're not concerned about retrieving that bundle of love-letters, tied with a pink ribbon?"

There were far too many to be held in a mere wardrobe...

"Oh Phil - you're married! "

Yes but, nonetheless, I have always looked this old...

I am pleased to hear you have been happy for 27 years there are not many people at the present time could honestly say the same.

That, however, is not the point.

If you start changing the accepted meaning of a word [and I mean by the majoroty of people] where do you stop?.

Words are meant to convey to another that which they wish the other to become aware of, therefore you cannot start chopping and changing to suit ones own interpretation.

I cannot see why the homosexuals would not prefer to have their commitments registered in a way of their own and be proud of it rather than cause the problems it is presently doing.

Even were it made legal to call homosexual commitments marriage it would not in any way change anything else, in fact it may make more people hostile towards them.

A rose by any other name ....

Marriage has in the past been referred to as licenced prostitution.

If you start changing the accepted meaning of a word [and I mean by the majoroty of people] where do you stop?.

So ... it's all about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? Where does the tyranny of the majority stop?

Words are meant to convey to another that which they wish the other to become aware of, therefore you cannot start chopping and changing to suit ones own interpretation.

Why not? If we didn't do exactly that, we would still be grunting and pointing.

I cannot see why the homosexuals would not prefer to have their commitments registered in a way of their own and be proud of it rather than cause the problems it is presently doing.

I've explained this already and you haven't even tried to refute it. Thanks for the ad nauseum fallacy response, but asking the same question twice will not result in two different answers.

If you start changing the general accepted meaning of words then the whole concept of communication becomes distorted.

The very reason we do not grunt and point is exactly because we have devised a method of forming words that we all understand the meaning of and if not all accept the genarally accepted meaning of words then we would not be able to communicate.

Of course a word could, at a later date, vary in it's meaning to include that which actually fitted the original intention but not to change it.

As for marriage, there are many types of marriages as in a broad sense there are many things joined together that could be called a marriage of sorts.

But there is no way in which the marriage of a man and a woman and that between two people of the same gender can possibly be called the same because they are not and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than it is not the SAME.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marriage?view=uk


marriage





Pronunciation: /ˈmarɪdʒ/


noun

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage


[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage


(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.


2 a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

From OW's link, thank you sir



adjective (gayer, gayest)

1(of a person, especially a man) homosexual.


relating to or used by homosexuals: a gay bar


2 dated light-hearted and carefree: Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face


3 dated brightly coloured; showy: a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas


4 informal not impressive, stylish, or attractive: he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay



noun

a homosexual, especially a man.





Derivatives



gayness
noun


Origin:

Middle English (in gay (sense 2 of the adjective)): from Old French gai, of unknown origin



Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive.Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men (lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women.

The letters I put in bold explain exactly that the language DOES get distorted.

Of course words get distorted and the word Gay has been adopted by the homosexuals but that actually changes nothing, a once word used to signify happiness etc; is now immediately associated with homosexuals and perversion, it does not change anything else only the fact that no one will now use it for it's original meaning.

Oh dear

Indeed...

He should be called polyversion...

But there is no way in which the marriage of a man and a woman and that between two people of the same gender can possibly be called the same

Yes there is. Either example is a union of, or contract between, two people, which confers legal rights over matters such as property and even pensions.

Of course words get distorted and the word Gay has been adopted by the homosexuals but that actually changes nothing, a once word used to signify happiness etc is now immediately associated with homosexuals and perversion

polyglide. That's unacceptable on this forum and may even be close to breaking the law. Please keep such prejudices to yourself.

Words can change their meanings, as this cartoon from 'Punch' in 1857 illustrates. 'Gay' is being used as a euphemism for a prostitute. One woman says to the other: "How long have you been gay?" The poster on the wall is for 'La Traviata', an opera about a courtesan:-

Just remember that, even though Polyglide is flirting dangerously with what is acceptable behavior in terms of being disrespectful, those rules apply to everyone. Let's not get carried away by insulting Polyglide in return.

Sorry but fed-up with being called a pervert!

Bye all!

AwfulTruth wrote:Sorry but fed-up with being called a pervert!

Bye all!

Please don't leave! There is nothing for you to feel ashamed about. I don't know what you said, but I expect that polyglide probably got under your skin, which says more about him than you. Hold your head up and stay! xxx

I have a question actually? Is it acceptable for someone to be nasty about someones sexuality, to the extent that the person leaves the forum? Coz I just don't think that's right or decent. And if he can come out with shite like that and not get banned, then what's the point of the moderation on here?

Just for the record, don't ever waste your bigotted breath by talking or replying to me Polyglide, as I won't be wasting my time ever replying to you!

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Polyglide was warned by Ivan and I made a general warning to essentially not start a flame war. No one is defending Polyglide. In fact, just the opposite. But as deputy admin and global moderator, I can't pick sides. Awfultruth knows full well that I support him 100% ... I know he's read my posts. But when it comes to enforcing board rules, as I said, I have to remain impartial.

Personally, I had no idea that Polyglide bothered Awfultruth to this extent. There were no "official" complaints made, and often I will not take direct action unless I know for certain that the negativity is truly making a person angry enough to even want official action. It was never my intention to swing the ban hammer this way and that over the slightest infraction. I don't think that is the kind of board any of us wants. We even had discussions over why the use of "pervert" was unacceptable, and while I did perceive Awfultruth to be annoyed, I had no idea just how angry he had become.

Awfultruth, if you're reading, I would hope you don't leave the forum over this. Surely you understand that I wanted to avoid an escalation between you and Polyglide. I wasn't taking Polyglide's side on his views of homosexuality. Far from it. As I said, I think you know my position on that, and you have always had my support. You did not have to delete your messages since they were not bad enough to warrant that, but part of my job is preventing an escalation. I felt that Ivan's warning to Polyglide was sufficient, so I wanted to make sure that people understood that Ivan's warning was not a permission slip for anyone to start attacking Polyglide in the same fashion Polyglide attacked others.

I hope you understand my reasoning and the fact that I have a job to do despite my personal feelings on the topics being discussed. I do not want to see you leave as I enjoy reading your posts and think you're a wonderful contributor to this place ... a place that needs people like you to keep things going. Please reconsider, and we will make sure that usage of offensive words like "pervert" are not allowed. Now that I know how truly offended you were, we can take action against it.

I'm not having a go at you Shirina, please don't think that I was. I've only been here for a short time, but I get a bad feeling everytime I see his name, I can understand 100% why AT feels upset by his use of words. He comes across as a homophobe bully. And I think he means to do just that too. Right, I've had my say on the matter...I really hope that you stay AF, I'd love to get to know you better! please stick around! x