The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Hardy]

Karl Pilkington comes to gaaboard.

[macdanger2]

Karl Pilkington comes to gaaboard.

The pilkingtons were all good hurlers tbf

[cuconnacht]

 8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and  monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry  the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about  300years old now and still not answered even in/by  todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall;  all those years ago.

[muppet]

8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and  monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry  the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about  300years old now and still not answered even in/by  todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall;  all those years ago.

I am cetain Joe would vote for such a marriage but then argue vehemently against it. 

[omaghjoe]

8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and  monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry  the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about  300years old now and still not answered even in/by  todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall;  all those years ago.

I am cetain Joe would vote for such a marriage but then argue vehemently against it. 

Ha muppet. Weirdly enuff that was sort of my stance on the thread subject. I didn't have a vote but I was discussing the pointlessness of the referendum with her as the only thing it could effect was semantics and other immeasurable things like perception. Then she basically told me I would get a warm lug if i didn't vote the way she wanted so that swung me. You could say im a contrarian but I just like to think things thru remain and open minded to all points of view.

[omaghjoe]

8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and  monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry  the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about  300years old now and still not answered even in/by  todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall;  all those years ago.

Hi cuconnacht,

Yeah I sort of stumbled into these ideas myself from two directions. My brother inlaw is a language teacher and I am tying to learn a language. So I was quizzing him on fluency and "thinking in another language" and so on and he said yes  he can think in two languages but either language is only a media for expressing the actual conceptual thought that he is having.

Also I design things and to communicate my idea to others I do it through the media of computer, one of colleagues said to me once we arent actually making anything we are just shifting magnetic pulses which got me thinking about where my design concept comes from. And I was thinkin well its a picture in my mind, but where does that picture come from?

Note I use mind and brain separately as the brain is the first line for converting the concepts of our mind into the physical through an electrical(/chemical?)  pulse/movement.

Which got me thinking and lead me to the conclusion that our entire world as we know it, is all only really a perception in our minds and nothing to do with the actual physical reality of atomic theory. Anyway you are right if I want to explore these ideas more, metaphysics is the route I should head down, is metaphysics considered a science or philosophy? I was never really interested in it b4 I always sort of considered it irrelevant BS TBH.


I never heard of Molyneaux's problem but it is exactly the sort of thing I was on about and according to wikipedia it seems it was solved with an emphatic no! Which sort of backs up my earlier conclusion.

I never heard of the Toland style either it seems I have spent too much of my life and education exploring our perceived reality rather than the actual reality.

[LCohen]

First up I do believe we have a soul so I'm probably biased, but I have a very open mind and I was trying to get to the bottom of what your reasoning that we do not. I don't believe that the soul is physical so it is not physically possible to prove or disprove its existence, (that's convenient you might say ). However some would argue that the soul is a combination of all these nonphysical concepts in a person, so that would be your evidence. I'm not arguing its existence per se I just trying to reason it out.

In highlighting the nonphysical I was trying to make you aware that there are things in this world that are non physical and they have a huge influence in the physical world that we live, in fact you could maybe even argue these non-physical concepts are our perception and influence of the physical. But then thats the other the thing isnt it.. if you break the physical world down to its basic level of floating atoms ( which have never been actually physically proved to exist ie observed, tho the evidence of their existence would appear to be hugely their favour, so only an eejit would deny atomic theory) then did anything in human history actually physically happen at all or was it was just a jumble of atoms?

Also these non physical things do outlive the brain, the most obvious thing being society itself. But also we have expressions, ideas and movements that are passed down through generations.

I not sure if the flow of logic is shockingly awful or entirely absent.

In your "reasoning it our" can you share with us one piece of evidence you used in reaching your belief in the existence of the soul?

The very idea that because the physical world is made of atoms that human history may not have actually happened is absurd in the extreme.

Society lives on when one person dies and their brain rots in the ground. It lives on in the brains of the living not in either a) the decaying brains of the deceased or b) in the soul of the deceased. To confuse the existence of non -physical concepts experienced by the human brain with the existence of soul is a presumably a deliberate debating bluff rather than genuine stupidity of the first rank??

[The Iceman]

I did some more reading on all of this as I genuinely tried to show/have compassion for this cause, to see things from the other side and understand they why, the motivation as AZ asked a few times what would be gained. Here are some findings:

Frank Kameny was a well known gay rights leader who died in 2011. Recognized for his efforts to the "cause" by President Obama in 2009 at a reception hosting 250 gay leaders.
Frank famously wrote in 2008 the following:
"let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults...... if beastiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness...."

Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Taks Force said:
" we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy or to protection from wrong. We have a right, as heterosexuals have already, to see government and society affirm our lives."

Homosexual acts have been and still are called sodomy. The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change - change that affects all of us. For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative.  If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.  If it is standard then it should be enforced?In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.

I find all of this interesting. The rationalization of the act. And where that leads us all as a society. Again, not trying to victimize anyone here - just continuing the conversation and trying to figure out where I stand on it all and why,,,,

[omaghjoe]

First up I do believe we have a soul so I'm probably biased, but I have a very open mind and I was trying to get to the bottom of what your reasoning that we do not. I don't believe that the soul is physical so it is not physically possible to prove or disprove its existence, (that's convenient you might say ). However some would argue that the soul is a combination of all these nonphysical concepts in a person, so that would be your evidence. I'm not arguing its existence per se I just trying to reason it out.

In highlighting the nonphysical I was trying to make you aware that there are things in this world that are non physical and they have a huge influence in the physical world that we live, in fact you could maybe even argue these non-physical concepts are our perception and influence of the physical. But then thats the other the thing isnt it.. if you break the physical world down to its basic level of floating atoms ( which have never been actually physically proved to exist ie observed, tho the evidence of their existence would appear to be hugely their favour, so only an eejit would deny atomic theory) then did anything in human history actually physically happen at all or was it was just a jumble of atoms?

Also these non physical things do outlive the brain, the most obvious thing being society itself. But also we have expressions, ideas and movements that are passed down through generations.

I not sure if the flow of logic is shockingly awful or entirely absent.

In your "reasoning it our" can you share with us one piece of evidence you used in reaching your belief in the existence of the soul?

The very idea that because the physical world is made of atoms that human history may not have actually happened is absurd in the extreme.

Society lives on when one person dies and their brain rots in the ground. It lives on in the brains of the living not in either a) the decaying brains of the deceased or b) in the soul of the deceased. To confuse the existence of non -physical concepts experienced by the human brain with the existence of soul is a presumably a deliberate debating bluff rather than genuine stupidity of the first rank??

As I said there is no physical evidence of the soul, the evidence is in the non-physical in such things as emotions, feelings and ideas. Did you discount those as evidence without saying or did you miss that?
Of course it isnt evidence that souls exist just evidence that they may exist in the non-physical realm kind of like the evidence for atoms (although admittedly not as strong).

I probably phrased that badly about human history but within the context of the paragraph it should have made sense. Human history only happened as a concept in our minds, from how individuals perceived it through their senses and related it to others through the media of language. Each individual that it is related to has to create their own perception of it in their own mind. But in the actual real physical realm it was only a jumble of atoms. Have a look at The Molleanux problem and its answer on wikipedia its interesting it may open your eyes to perception and conception. And if you follow that through to the full physical reality of atomic theory it really gets you thinking as to what reality is and isn't. It also might get you thinking as that we are limited in our perception of the physical by our senses so if we had more or different senses what would our perception of the physical actually be?

Thats fine our brains do rot in the gorund or at least we percieve them to, the atoms of course actally still hang around. As I said before our brains are only the first step for relating a concept into the physical realm, but its our minds produce the concepts in the first place before being made physical by the brain with an electrical/chemical ping. I was trying to demonstrate that nonphysical concepts can survive tho and aren't limited to the person.

I am not trying to prove or disprove anything I just trying to relate a few ideas of the physical and nonphysical and that within the realm of the non physical its at least possible for souls to exist. What are we talking about here anyway, the Western immortal one, the Eastern reincarnation one, or the artist expression type one? I presume its the 3rd as you mentioned fiction writers which is actually the most vague, but you get my point theres not even an agreed definition of what a soul is and what it does, only what it produces (ie the nonphysical).

Also I may have been a bit waffely fair enuff but I am trying to understand your point of view, not have a full on debate, which in this instance would be futile on this subject areas anyway as its non-physical, so please don't confuse with what I am saying as stupidity or illogical. If you arrived at the conclusion that souls dont exist because there is no physical evidence of them and we die and rot in the ground then that is not enough for me as it only deals with the physical.

[muppet]

I did some more reading on all of this as I genuinely tried to show/have compassion for this cause, to see things from the other side and understand they why, the motivation as AZ asked a few times what would be gained. Here are some findings:

Frank Kameny was a well known gay rights leader who died in 2011. Recognized for his efforts to the "cause" by President Obama in 2009 at a reception hosting 250 gay leaders.
Frank famously wrote in 2008 the following:
"let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults...... if beastiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness...."

Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Taks Force said:
" we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy or to protection from wrong. We have a right, as heterosexuals have already, to see government and society affirm our lives."

Homosexual acts have been and still are called sodomy. The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change - change that affects all of us. For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative.  If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.  If it is standard then it should be enforced?In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.

I find all of this interesting. The rationalization of the act. And where that leads us all as a society. Again, not trying to victimize anyone here - just continuing the conversation and trying to figure out where I stand on it all and why,,,,

Why stop there?

If all of the above is rational, then bend over because here comes Tony Fearon!

Or not.

[dferg]

The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change.

There is no need to rationalize it any more than I need to rationalize why you found your wife attractive and where not attracted to some other random person.

For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act.

I am sure they have many goals and don't center there lives on the 'private act of sodomy'. 

If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative. 

It's not a moral act, it's a neutral act between willing participants.

If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.

Yes it should be taught that some people are attracted to people of the same sex and that it is not something to be ashamed of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

If it is standard then it should be enforced?  In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.

Now you are being silly.

[The Iceman]

The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change.

There is no need to rationalize it any more than I need to rationalize why you found your wife attractive and where not attracted to some other random person.

For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act.

I am sure they have many goals and don't center there lives on the 'private act of sodomy'. 

If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative. 

It's not a moral act, it's a neutral act between willing participants.

If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.

Yes it should be taught that some people are attracted to people of the same sex and that it is not something to be ashamed of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

If it is standard then it should be enforced?  In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.

Now you are being silly.

Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.

Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.

[muppet]

Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.

Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.

What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.

[The Iceman]

Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.

Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.

What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.

You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.

[J70]

Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.

Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.

What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.

You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.

What's wrong with it?