# Another Gay Rant



## Brewing_Brad (7/12/10)

All this gay talk of late has got me thinking and I think best when I write. This forum got me thinking about it, and so I'm posting back to this forum. Read if you want, if not...don't. My brews will taste the same regardless of your opinion 

Cheers
Brad

--Start rant--

"Fuckin' faggots!"

It shocked me. I was quite literally speechless. I was walking with my boyfriend when a car drove past and someone yelled that at us; "fuckin' faggots!" and just as quick and while they were still very much in ear shot, my boyfriend yelled back "that's Miss Faggot to you!"

Regardless of my boyfriend's camp retort, I suddenly found myself in position that I had never been in before and, truth be known, it made me angry....in fact, it made me VERY ******* angry. I mean, who was this dickhead calling me a faggot? Do you know me? Have you met me? Just because I was holding my boyfriend's hand at the time you felt that gave you license to yell obscenities at me?

Well, allow me tell you just a _little_ about myself.

I was born and raised in country NSW. I grew up fishing, shooting and pig hunting. I played football (League _and_ Union), I've ridden bulls in rodeos and I grew up chasing brumbies like the Man from Snowy River. I've slaughtered pigs, sheep and cows (humanely of course, for food). 

Then there's my husband (we had to go overseas to get married..._topic of another rant on another forum_) he's a car nut. He can tell you about every make or model, from Holden to Suzuki. He knows how they work, how to fix 'em and how to drive them. If its car, he knows it.

Together we brew beer & distill moonshine and we're both as blokey as we need to be and blokier than many straight guys we know, but yet, just because we happen to be "same-sex attracted" (aka we both dig guys) we are considered less manly. 

We're, well..."faggots".

But ya know what? Being an open, out there, "out of the closet" homosexual is one of the toughest things anyone can go through (man or woman). Talk about separate the wheat from the chaff! All our lives, the formative years growing up through to the years where we become "aware" of our differences, we are constantly bombarded with messages from the telly, our parents, our sporting heroes and especially our religious leaders, telling us we're "wrong", "disgusting", "going straight to hell" (ha! See the irony there? No one ever goes "gayly to hell" do they?). Society tells us that gays are sick and twisted individuals, and that's exactly how were are made to feel. So for someone to come out and own up to being gay, well, that takes ******* balls. 

But that aside, the thing that shits me most is that the majority of sexual assault cases (male to male and adult to child) are perpetrated by guys who identify as straight. Yet it's us "faggots" who are branded with the sickening label of pervert and pedophile (and let's not bring the whole priest thing into it). 

What? You're questioning the fact that they identify as straight yet commit sexual assault against other men or children? Yeah, I can see your point, but the reality of the fact is, it's not about sex, it's about control. I'm not going to quote facts and figures, if you're interested, look it up. I did.

It's for this very reason that I avoid being alone with my nieces and nephews, or any other children for that matter, just in case of a misunderstanding? Just in case _anything_ could happen that could be misconstrued as predatory behavior or even an assault (sexual or other). ****, even a pat on the head can be read the wrong way and I am left with no recourse simply because I'm gay and therefore automatically (yet _wrongly_) labeled a pervert! Put yourself in my shoes; You can't hold your own neice's hand or pick your nephew up when he falls in case someone complains "that pervert TOUCHED that little child!" How powerful that one word is..."touched". It could _mean_ anything!

This is what I, and many others, face every day of our lives as a gay man. Simply because of the fact that one small aspect of our lives (who we are attracted to) is different from the rest. The rest of our personalities or histories aren't taken into consideration at all. You're a fag therefore you're a pervert.

Homosexuality is not about control, harm or hate – it's just another, different form of love between two human beings yet, sadly, the reaction to this love is commonly outright hatred (how can someone hate love? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?).

So yeah, if you want to call me a faggot, go right ahead; but that's MR Faggot to you.

I'm at peace with who I am. Are you?

--End Rant--


----------



## manticle (7/12/10)

Good rant.

Was the yelling recent? Usually when someone yells at me from a car, I don't get angry, I just want them to come back and repeat what they said because I didn't understand a ******* word. Usually it sounds like 'nyabbitshtiller fnaka' or 'youtbriki'

All people of all types who think it's their business what other people do when it doesn't involve torture, violence, theft etc can go and get fucked as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just glad you don't drink shandies.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/12/10)

Bravo

Well said. It is a shame that people can have such a shallow view of others, just cause they are different...

I can recall a few years ago, I was sitting in a pub near Surry Hills/Kings Cross. I was on a work junket. And the barman was gay, and openly so, and he was a great bloke. Anyway, this group came in and one of the girls sat next to me and ordered a drink, had a bit of a yack, then I had a yack with the barman, and then, the girl goes "Did you know he is gay.. just be carefull I said "Yep, and he is a great bloke.... and I dont give a shit she then gave me a wierd look and walked away..... Maybe she couldnt handle they fact the a bloke from the county could treat an openly gay man as just another person..

One also wonders about those homophobes not caring about lesbians...


----------



## Brewing_Brad (7/12/10)

manticle said:


> I'm just glad you don't drink shandies.



THAT'S the response I was after, Manticle! Thanks for steppin' up to the plate!


----------



## schooey (7/12/10)

Brewing_Brad said:


> All this gay talk of late has got me thinking and I think best when I write. This forum got me thinking about it, and so I'm posting back to this forum. Read if you want, if not...don't. My brews will taste the same regardless of your opinion
> 
> Cheers
> Brad
> ...



Dude... I'm overweight, people drive past me and yell out "Go on a diet ya fat c*%t!"

You think you're special just because you're gay? You could just about substitute words like fat, obese, whale, blah blah everywhere you have written words like gay, faggot and poof... The ignorant will continue to be ignorant and the haters will continue to hate; you're no more special whether you're black white, gay, asian, skinny, bald or short..

...our only hope is to teach the next generation more tolerance


----------



## manticle (7/12/10)

Don't think he thought he was special schooey. He didn't ask for extra benefits from the government or a big plaque erected in his honour in the city square.

I think he'd just like to be able to walk down the street and not get blasted for holding his partner's hand - same as you'd like to be able to hold your wife/girlfriend's hand while shopping/going to the pub etc.

No-one worries about you touching ther kids due to your weight either and being fat wasn't illegal in Tasmania up until a decade or so ago. Fat people can marry other fat people, adopt children and generally do all the things skinny people can do besides sit on flimsy chairs.

Put it this way:

A brewer on this forum just walked down the street. Someone ( a stranger) was an arsehole, unnecessarily. Brewerhood suggests we, as a group say '**** you' to the unknown, non brewing arsehole and offer our brewing brother some beer and support.


----------



## bum (7/12/10)

Might want to make a quick edit, schooey. I received a well deserved quiet word from mod staff in relation to a recent c-bombing.

Serious business.


----------



## schooey (7/12/10)

Wasn't trying to make fat or gay more or less special than the other; just trying to highlight ignorance and intolerance has no boundaries


----------



## Banshee (7/12/10)

It's because you are abnormal. People always pick on the weak or abnormal ones. 
It's a fact of life!

Oh and about he C-bomb it was a quote not directed at anyone so no offence taken here.


----------



## bum (7/12/10)

Poor bears. Why can't someone make them feel special for once?


----------



## Cocko (7/12/10)

Brewing_Brad said:


> So yeah, if you want to call me a faggot, go right ahead




Faggot!  


Just jokes, hopefully obviously!...

Seriously, hopefully an appreciated rant by all, whether they see as eye opening or the obvious...

Very well written BB, makes the reader think - be it a slap in the face or a reminder about what they have realised before.

:icon_cheers:


----------



## kelbygreen (7/12/10)

I think this is a great thread. I hated the first one as it was accusation. I have 2 gay uncles and I am not afraid or and worried of gays, If you love man or women weather you are man or women is up to you, one of my uncles has been gay since he was born he has never thought of women like I have and I dont mind he is a great bloke and his b/f is a great bloke. I been in many gay bars if you say sorry I am not gay they will leave you alone its not like they will try something on you they respect us and we should respect them. They dont go OH you love women your stupid! just because its different its not natural. to be a atheist **** religion if a guy/women wants to marry a guy/women then good on them they are obviously in love **** the world thats how they feel so they should be able to have a normal live.

I am married and I love my wife I just think its fucked that gays are singled out


----------



## Tanga (8/12/10)

Nice post BB. I hear ya on the whole being scared to be alone around kids thing. It is an issue - even for women. I was working as a swimming pool lifeguard in the country and things turned a bit ugly when I was outed - so much so that I was scared to use the women's bathroom and would use the disabled one instead - all it takes is one accusation and that's it - pfft, you're stuffed and your name's mud. Which is stupid really, lesbian molestation cases are very few and far between (I can think of only 2-3 in the last 10 years world wide - and I was paying attention - but were those cases publicised to the shit-house). Nothing like playing to people's prejudices to sell papers, ey.

Good-on you for being out. I like to think it helps - I know seeing visible gay people helped me when I was closeted. Glad you've found a nice bloke - quick witted too - hot!


----------



## zebba (8/12/10)

> Then there's my husband (we had to go overseas to get married...topic of another rant on another forum)


Labor lost my vote over this issue alone.

**** the fundies who think marriage is exclusive to their religion. **** the redneck bigots who think whatever stupid shit they think. (And I say that last one as a redneck myself, just not a dumbshit bigoted one).

I hear people ask why gays can't be happy with a civil union - the same as marriage, just not called marriage. I say to them, why weren't blacks happy sitting at the back of the bus?

I approve of the OP's rant.


----------



## petesbrew (8/12/10)

Awesome rant, Brewing-Brad.

Question, what's your views on the use of the word gay? eg. "geez the frangipani stickers on that car look really gay"
Just that there's a bit of talk about the use of that word all now.


----------



## Dave70 (8/12/10)

What gay men need to do is present a different image as opposed to all this 'light in the loafers' mincing about stereotype we see portrayed constantly.
We now live in a culture that hates masculinity and encourages fopish haired young boys to look like wafish little girls. 
These boys will undoubtedly grow into bitch-titted, effeminate soy product eating hybrids with more estrogen coursing through their veins (from the soy products, you know..) than testosterone. 

The stage is now set for a hyper butch homo coup.

Look at our man here.
Ronnie Cray, Ex -boxer, East End hard man, snappy dresser, psychopath and gay. Try calling him fag within earshot and he would had fucked your shit up with his fists, a gun or any blunt instrument close at hand, then dumped you flaccid body in the Thames. 







Some other great bottom fancier tough guys of note, Alexander The Great ( or has he was know to his friends, Alexander the _fabulous_) and to a lesser extent, Ian Roberts - Just ask Gary jack..
Let's not bother to teach the next generation tolerance, just roll up your sleeves, make a fist and teach them a _lesson._


----------



## peted27 (8/12/10)

Dave70 said:


> Let's not bother to teach the next generation tolerance, just roll up your sleeves, make a fist and teach them a _lesson._




I'm assuming this comment was not meant to be taken seriously, can't see how gays bashing straights is any better than the other way around


----------



## Thirsty Boy (8/12/10)

I am deeply offended by all the hatred being displayed towards shandy drinkers... What the hell is wrong with enjoying a nice shandy every now and then? If i was German and called it a Radler it would be all traditional and earn homebrewer respect points, But do it in an Australian pub and suddenly there's hate campaigns on the internet.....

Straight ones, Gay ones - a pack of damn shandophobic biggots is what you all are.



Nice rant Brad. Thanks


----------



## Pollux (8/12/10)

I definately support all you have said except one part.

Being around kids, trust me it's not easier for straight men. I recently considered going into childcare as I was sick of dealing with degenerate gamblers on a daily basis, I love kids and kids tend to love me. But it's just not worthwhile. All it takes is one small minded parent who thinks that the only reason a man would want to work with children is for some ulterior sexually related motive to make a complaint and your career might as well be over.

I recently read an article on a childcare centre that does actually employ 4 men out of their staff of 15 odd carers, but there are different rules for the men, they must always remain in the sight of a female staff member and aren't permitted to perform tasks like taking children to the toilet or nappy changing (not that I personally enjoy having to perform either of those tasks with my daughter, but you get my point about double standards). If this were occuring in reverse the women's movement would have a field day and cry discrimination, unfair workplace conditions and god knows what else..

I've been considering a career in primary school teaching for the same reasons as above, but even that isn't a safe place. A child falls in the playground and a female teachers hugs them to comfort them and it's okay, but if a male teacher does the same.........And they wonder why they can't get many men into teaching.....And don't even start me on high school, I know of female students at my high school who made accusations of male teachers making sexual advances purely because they got given a shit mark on a paper......

End straight man's rant.


----------



## Tanga (8/12/10)

Hey Dave. ^_^

Humourous post. The whole gender vs sexuality thing is an interesting debate. One Brad highlighted in his post. The assumptions people make can be quite amusing =).


----------



## bum (8/12/10)

Pollux said:


> I've been considering a career in primary school teaching for the same reasons as above, but even that isn't a safe place. A child falls in the playground and a female teachers hugs them to comfort them and it's okay, but if a male teacher does the same.........And they wonder why they can't get many men into teaching.


I was enrolled in a Primary Education program at Monash a long-arsed time ago and even back then I was expressly told to _never_ help a hurt child in the playground once I was working out in the school system - I was to leave the child in a pile under the monkey bars and go get a female teacher. Women are pure and kind and men are horrible monsters. 

I guess it only stands to reason that men who like men are double evil.


----------



## Dave70 (8/12/10)

peted27 said:


> I'm assuming this comment was not meant to be taken seriously, can't see how gays bashing straights is any better than the other way around



Well to be honest, I hope you didn't take _any_ of it seriously - though the players are factual.

However - gay man who's suffered taunting all his life gets called a 'fucken fag' by some yob from a moving car.

Car has to stop at traffic lights.

Gay man run's up to car, grabs hold of yob through window and punches his ******* mouth loose.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.


----------



## Katherine (8/12/10)

Pollux said:


> I definately support all you have said except one part.
> 
> Being around kids, trust me it's not easier for straight men. I recently considered going into childcare as I was sick of dealing with degenerate gamblers on a daily basis, I love kids and kids tend to love me. But it's just not worthwhile. All it takes is one small minded parent who thinks that the only reason a man would want to work with children is for some ulterior sexually related motive to make a complaint and your career might as well be over.
> 
> ...




When my daughter was one I had to choose a child care centre, very hard task for a first time mother. I found one, it was run by a Husband and Wife team they had being in the industry four along time. A couple years later they retired. Till this day it was the best centre either. It never crossed my mind what so ever but I was getting my hair done and talking to the hairdresser as you do and told her where my child goes and she was horrified that I would put my child there. Even though there wasnt even a rumour going around. Its a very sad situation; she was then judging me for my decision. Bizarre. 

But what upsets me the most is that homosexuality and paedophilia gets put in the same basket as one is sexuality and the other is psychiatric disorder there not the same thing. One is beautiful and the other is sick.

But you will find there close minded people just like Shooey was saying. The amount of times I've heard "Shows us your tit and not seductively either but with hate and disregard. Unfortunately there are horrible people in this world. Discrimination comes in all forms, I come across it every day Im in IT its male dominated but I get along ok. When I brewed that was another not so much on the board or my brew friends but when I did go to collect my medal SILVER for my Pale Ale I wore it with pride but some old bloke who also won quite allot when he saw me he laughed and said your got TITS... 

My partner works in a weird situation mainly managed by man but lots of females his finding he is getting discriminated against a bulletin came around about promotions and there was 2 men and the rest were females... Gosh I laughed so hard. Especially when he called it a hen house Im like WTF! Thats coming from the men I love. His in analysis work, females make better analysis's more in the field so they dominate.... but plumbers, butchers, carpenters etc is male dominated. But the horror he even said none of them are very good at there job. I find that hard to believe.


----------



## drew9242 (8/12/10)

You will be alright brad, harden up. Somewhere along the line you must feel that it was an offence. But you are gay so they were yelling the truth. Next time just call them fuckin straights or something.
Like you say it was hard coming out, but now you have come out, being called a faggot shouldn't be that great an offence. If you can't handle being called what you actually are well there is only one person who can change that.


----------



## taj (8/12/10)

You could not have said it better Brad. Thank you. :icon_cheers: 

From an openly gay Professional Brewer


----------



## zebba (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> You will be alright brad, harden up. Somewhere along the line you must feel that it was an offence. But you are gay so they were yelling the truth. Next time just call them fuckin straights or something.
> Like you say it was hard coming out, but now you have come out, being called a faggot shouldn't be that great an offence. If you can't handle being called what you actually are well there is only one person who can change that.


At uni I was friends with a heap of sri lankan guys. We used to play cricket - Australia vs Sri Lanka, and the sledging often included us calling them dirty curry niggers and them calling us filthy white maggots, honkeys, skips, etc. No one cared, cause we were all mates and mates hang shit on each other.

Just cause I was able to call my mate a "dirty curry nigger" doesn't make it OK for other people to do the same, and I would never, EVER do it to someone who wasn't a mate. Whenever some dickhead at a pub started getting lippy and trying it, I was the first guy in line ready to let him know what I thought - ref: Dave70's (awesome) post above...

The words aren't important, it's the feeling behind the words that is. Calling a mate a faggot is one thing, some dickhead yelling it from a car is something else entirely, and whilst offence is a choice, it doesn't mean the people saying it aren't complete and utter wankers deserving of Dave70's post.


----------



## Katherine (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> You will be alright brad, harden up. Somewhere along the line you must feel that it was an offence. But you are gay so they were yelling the truth. Next time just call them fuckin straights or something.
> Like you say it was hard coming out, but now you have come out, being called a faggot shouldn't be that great an offence. If you can't handle being called what you actually are well there is only one person who can change that.



faggot is a bunch of sticks... dickhead...


----------



## drew9242 (8/12/10)

By all means i am not backing up the dickheads in the car. But just curious why you take so much offence.

As i went to a christian school i got abuse if you can call it that all the time. But that was who i am and what i believe so i didn't care. After a while they realised that and wow it stoped.


----------



## earle (8/12/10)

Zebba said:


> The words aren't important, it's the feeling behind the words that is.



+1 on this. Its not the words that are the problem, it is the hate behind them. Be it homophobic, racist, classist whatever - why do the 'people in the car' feel that way towards the people they yell abuse at - one word - ignorance. Now of course the kneejerk reaction towards this problem (and a multitude of societies problems) is to place the responsibility on schools to educate about this but I beleive parents are much more influential. One of the best things we can do is to teach our own kids tolerance and understanding, and hope some of this rubs off on kids whose parents aren't so 'enlightened'.


----------



## peted27 (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> As i went to a christian school i got abuse if you can call it that



its those damn priests, can't keep their hands to themselves.

chin up mate


----------



## drew9242 (8/12/10)

peted27 said:


> its those damn priests, can't keep their hands to themselves.
> 
> chin up mate




Haha true that. Was more talking about other school kids. But i was taught to ignore them as it's more their problem in life then mine.

And we are part of a different church, don't believe in the hierachy.


----------



## MarkBastard (8/12/10)

Great thread mate.

A lot of people I know are homophobic and I do my best to talk them around without making it into a fight or getting on to a high horse. If everyone tried to just do this instead of refusing to acknowledge that homophobics are people too, often just ignorant, then I think the problem would be solved sooner.

I was homophobic for the first part of my life, probably the first 20 years or so in fact if I'm honest. I'd say a lot of people are like that. I saw the light and I think most others are capable of seeing it too. Let's try and help them along instead of righting them off and in particular using other labels and insults back at them.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> You will be alright brad, harden up. Somewhere along the line you must feel that it was an offence. But you are gay so they were yelling the truth. Next time just call them fuckin straights or something.
> Like you say it was hard coming out, but now you have come out, being called a faggot shouldn't be that great an offence. If you can't handle being called what you actually are well there is only one person who can change that.



Hmmm, actually - he is a homosexual man. As katie said, a faggot is a bunch of sticks... And the term is applied to gay men for about the most deeply insulting and demeaning meaning you could imagine.

In the middle of the last millenium, they used to try and burn to death witches and heretics - but when they thought the individual being subjected to this treatment was especially heinous, it was felt that the purifying effect of the flames was too good for them, it might take a bit of the dirt off their souls, and they should be consigned to judgement spiritually covered in filth. So... To make the flames "dirty" enough to burn them and keep them metaphysically unclean - they would toss a gay man or two into the fire as a source of spiritual contaminent. The term faggot as it is applied to gay men... Equates them to nothing more than "a bunch of sticks" to be used as fuel for the fire. It says they should be killed, killed horribly, and are in fact filthy enough to assit in denying a third party any chance of salvation simply by dying in their company.

Insulting enough for you? And just because there is no way that the imbeciles in the car knew that - does it make it any nicer?

"Hey Homos" - now _maybe_ you could argue that that was simply a description that could be taken as an insult, or taken as merely an impolitely delivered observation - but there is just no damn way you can use the term faggot, and have it not be an insult. No more than you could shout nigger at someone from a car and expect them to cop it sweet - because after all, thats what they are.....


----------



## Hatchy (8/12/10)

I'd wondered why gay blokes were called faggots, I had a mate I used to work with who (when drunk) would say "I'm not a faggot, I'm a poofta! a faggot is a bunch of sticks".

This bloke told me one night about some homophobe who called him a faggot. My mate beat the crap out of him & as he walked away said "how do you feel? You just got beaten up by a faggot". I thought that was pretty funny

He was a good fun bloke to drink with, I wonder if I've still got his number.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/12/10)

With regard to male teachers...

My dad was ( retired ) a primary school teacher initially, but for many years as I was growing up, he used to travel from school to school teaching deaf kids. He was known as "The Itinerant Teacher of The Deaf. After doing that for 15 odd years he went back to regular teaching. Then he moved to Queensland and taught in a special school for disabled and imparied kids...

He had been teaching for over 40 yrs dealing with kids under 10, one day one of the dept cockheads noticed that the kids at the disabled school would allways come up and give him a hug, to them it was "you cant touch the kids " to the kids it was like " we love you your the best teacher " to him it was these kids come from brocken and hard families... a bit of love, respect and encouragement wont hurt them.. "

Can you guese the age of the dept cockhead..... yep... under 30......

Oohh... and kids are no longer deaf..... in fact I dont even think you can call them hearing impaired... WTF :angry:


----------



## drew9242 (8/12/10)

Brewing_Brad said:


> (we had to go overseas to get married..._topic of another rant on another forum_)



Just a question, why must you get married? Purely through out time it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together. 

What i am trying to get at is you said it is love just different. Good i can take that you can do your own things and love who you like. But marriage is a instituition for man and women. Has been like that ever since the start of time. But you want us to change this instituition for your special love.

So we are moving forward in times so we must accept everyone for who they are. But clearly a gay marriage is not the same, for example who's last name do you choose. Go ahead and declare your love for each other but keep a sacred institution for what it was created for.


----------



## manticle (8/12/10)

Here's an idea Drew. You marry someone you want to marry who wants to marry you. Brad does the same.

Why must you even care what two other adults do? Will you die if two blokes or two chicks get married? Will the world end if an institution/ritual/custom changes?

Plenty of hetero marriages where the wife chooses to keep her own name rather than take her husband's.

Why does it irk you that a guy you'll possibly never even meet married a bloke you'll probably never meet?

By the way it's vows, not vowels. a,e,i,o and u are vowels.

As another aside- marriage in different cultures is different and carried out with different purpose. It's not one original, unchangeable institution. In some cultures it has been, and still is, acceptable to marry a 12 year old.


----------



## peted27 (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just a question, why must you get married? Purely through out time it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together.
> 
> What i am trying to get at is you said it is love just different. Good i can take that you can do your own things and love who you like. But marriage is a instituition for man and women. Has been like that ever since the start of time. But you want us to change this instituition for your special love.
> 
> So we are moving forward in times so we must accept everyone for who they are. But clearly a gay marriage is not the same, for example who's last name do you choose. Go ahead and declare your love for each other but keep a sacred institution for what it was created for.




whats so sacred about "till death do us part" when the divorce rate is so high. open it up for everyone


----------



## manticle (8/12/10)

Statistical fact: the one thing all divorces have in common is marriage.


----------



## goomboogo (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just a question, why must you get married? Purely through out time it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together.
> 
> What i am trying to get at is you said it is love just different. Good i can take that you can do your own things and love who you like. But marriage is a instituition for man and women. Has been like that ever since the start of time. But you want us to change this instituition for your special love.
> 
> So we are moving forward in times so we must accept everyone for who they are. But clearly a gay marriage is not the same, for example who's last name do you choose. Go ahead and declare your love for each other but keep a sacred institution for what it was created for.



My wife didn't change her name after marriage. Are we less married? I'm quite certain we are even though we didn't have vowels to suit. We preferred consonants.


----------



## bum (8/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just a question, why must you get married? Purely through out time it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together.


I'm staunchly pro-same sex marriage but I do believe it is of equal importance that in granting long overdue rights to one section of the community we don't step on the rights of others. Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process (if you'll allow me to shoe-horn that pun in). In that light I'll not address a great many issues I have with your post, Drew, but I will ask you one serious question and I hope you find the time to answer it in kind:

Why are you talking about marriage like it is a biological function?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/12/10)

Marriage 

How many know that marriage was originally a union of 2 families via the offspring, in order to create a larger entity or "Company 

The union ( marriage ) was proclaimed in public and recorded by a celebrant 

The Church actually refused to have marriage ceremonies held within the church, as they saw this as not a religious ceremony

Marriage is actually a union of people


----------



## Hatchy (8/12/10)

goomboogo said:


> My wife didn't change her name after marriage. Are we less married? I'm quite certain we are even though we didn't have vowels to suit. We preferred consonants.



We used what I feel was an appropriate mix of vowels & consonants. I feel that vowels are very important, lots of my favourite words wouldn't exist without them.


----------



## goomboogo (8/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> We used what I feel was an appropriate mix of vowels & consonants. I feel that vowels are very important, lots of my favourite words wouldn't exist without them.



Jp, jp nd jp.


----------



## Hatchy (8/12/10)

goomboogo said:


> Jp, jp nd jp.



I can't disagree with you, mainly because I've got no idea what that means.


----------



## manticle (8/12/10)

bum said:


> I'm staunchly pro-same sex marriage but I do believe it is of equal importance that in granting long overdue rights to one section of the community we don't step on the rights of others. Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process (if you'll allow me to shoe-horn that pun in).



I agree with this. Various organisations should have the right to hold true to things that make them who they are. That includes membership. As irrelevant as religious organisations are to my life, I believe in their right to set their own ground rules. However that's each organisation and if someone wants to start an organisation that affiliates itself with lutheranism (eg) and allow marriage between humans regardless of gender and sexuality then I have no problem with that either.

I'm not suggesting all churches should be forced to accept the onus to ceremonialise marriage that works against their fundamental beliefs. The more they want to distance themselves from contemporary society, the less relevant they become anyway but that's not the point. I'd be happy for a National socialist white supremacist society to set their own ground rules, provided they paid for and maintained the land on which they set up their community and stayed the **** away from anywhere near me. Cleft palates and haemophilia would no doubt become their friends in a generation or two anyway. As long as these organisations have willing participants in whatever it is they believe then good luck to them.

However marriage is not the exclusive domain of churches or religious bodies. Marriage as a legal state should be recognised between all willing parties, religious organisations should be able to set their own guidelines and people who disagree with said guidelines should have (and do as far as I understand) the right to set up alternate bodies with their own guidelines.


----------



## warra48 (8/12/10)

manticle said:


> The more they want to distance themselves from contemporary society, the less relevant they become anyway but that's not the point.



Your argument is that anyone who wants to distance themselves from contemporary society becomes irrelevant?
Your argument is one put forward quite frequently by various pressure or minority groups to justify their objectives, and to silence objections or counter arguments. 
However, by what rule of logic can it be proposed that comtemporary society always has things correct?
There are numerous instances throughout history where contemporary society had it wrong. 
For example, contemporary society in 1930s Germany moved steadily towards National Socialism (Nazism). 
Distancing from that might just have been a good thing.

I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.
I'm not getting into an argument about the merits or otherwise of the debate put forward in the original post.


----------



## manticle (8/12/10)

Irrelevant to that specific, contemporary society, yes. Seems self explanatory.

I'm not necessarily making a judgement on that irrelevance - as you suggest, in some circumstances it's a good thing. I certainly made no statement in regards to anything being correct one way or the other. There are many parts of me as a reasonably young man that are vastly distant from certain aspects of contemporary society. 

As for relevance to homebrewing - off topic section means it's off topic.

Additionally my argument is not anything like the argument put forward by pressure groups etc - I'm arguing, quite strongly for all groups to have a right to exist and set their own ground rules, on their own terms provided it's within the current legal framework and on their own premises, maintained at their own expense. The groups you're talking of presumably argue against the existence of any group opposed to their ideology. I'm not.


----------



## bum (8/12/10)

warra48 said:


> Your argument is that anyone who wants to distance themselves from contemporary society becomes irrelevant?
> However, by what rule of logic can it be proposed that comtemporary society always has things correct?
> There are numerous instances throughout history where contemporary society had it wrong.


Good points, well made.



warra48 said:


> I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.


In Off Topic? :huh: 

Just wanting to clarify an earlier point of mine - when I said "Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process" the "pain" was in the specific context of this issue and does not reflect my feelings on religion in general. While I have no faith I do have great respect for the faithful and acknowledge that religion has the ability to be of more help to people than it does to harm. 

This is all getting very delicate now, innit?


----------



## petesbrew (8/12/10)

This is the best thread to read, honestly. Especially the fuel fed by Drew.

I honestly have no great input to add to this debate, as I honestly think what goes on between another couple (whatever build you may be) is their own business. I mean if you want to look at it from a "taking away from the sacredness(?) of marriage" point of view compared to "I just ripped 30gb of downloaded movies WOOOOO!" in God's eyes I'm pretty sure a sin's a sin right? One of my old church mates is a now UCA Minister. I'll ask him for his opinion when I see him next.

I have to wonder, Brad, you're into brewing, and you've got HWMBO to help out, so 1. What Country? 2. What was the drinks list like at the reception, and 3. (hugely depending on #2) Why weren't we all invited?
Pete


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/12/10)

petesbrew said:


> This is the best thread to read, honestly. Especially the fuel fed by Drew.
> 
> 
> I have to wonder, Brad, you're into brewing, and you've got HWMBO to help out, so 1. What Country? 2. What was the drinks list like at the reception, and 3. (hugely depending on #2) Why weren't we all invited?
> Pete




Yes ... How come we where not invited to drink what ever was on the drinks lists...Jeeezus... who cares who is getting married, its all about the beer


----------



## petesbrew (8/12/10)

I was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago, and they didn't even top up glasses before toasts. Now if anything is work arguing about, IT'S THAT!!!
Poor form indeed.


----------



## Tanga (8/12/10)

warra48 said:


> I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.
> I'm not getting into an argument about the merits or otherwise of the debate put forward in the original post.



So why come into the 'off topic' forum at all? Why post in this thread?

As for marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution. If two atheists can marry, or a Jew and a Christian, or a Muslim and an atheist, etc then why can't two folks of the same gender? I mean sure, if your religion disagrees, then don't allow us to marry in your church, but why do the religious right get such as strong say in a secular institution which the majority of Australians believe (70% last time I looked) should be offered to same sex couples as well.


----------



## bum (8/12/10)

Tanga said:


> As for marriage...not a religious institution.


Most of your post is semantically sound but I call bullshit on this. Marriage is many things, across many cultures - one cannot definitively say what it is and what it isn't. To deny that there are people who marry "before God" and take that more seriously than the piece of paper you claim marriage to be completely undermines their commitment to each other and is pretty hilarious given the context and your position on it. Ducatiboy's post above about the (European) origins of marriage may very well be accurate (I couldn't say either way but I'm happy to accept it as correct) but I don't see what relevance it has - unless you're arguing about why same-sex marriages should have been acceptable in 25AD, of course. There is a direct and undeniable link between the concept of the modern Western marriage and Christianity.


----------



## manticle (8/12/10)

bum said:


> Most of your post is semantically sound but I call bullshit on this. Marriage is many things, across many cultures - one cannot definitively say what it is and what it isn't. To deny that there are people who marry "before God" and take that more seriously than the piece of paper you claim marriage to be completely undermines their commitment to each other and is pretty hilarious given the context and your position on it. Ducatiboy's post above about the (European) origins of marriage may very well be accurate (I couldn't say either way but I'm happy to accept it as correct) but I don't see what relevance it has - unless you're arguing about why same-sex marriages should have been acceptable in 25AD, of course. There is a direct and undeniable link between the concept of the modern Western marriage and Christianity.




I read it as marriage is not _solely/exclusively_ the domain of religion which I believe is a sound statement.

I think you've extrapolated unnecessarily.


----------



## bum (8/12/10)

That seems a pretty broad interpretation of "marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution" to me. This language is not leaving much wriggle room for including the values of others as I read it.

Perhaps I'm being unfair.


----------



## Tanga (8/12/10)

If, as you say, the past definition that Ducatiboy gave for marriage isn't relevent today, why should other past definitions be relevant? Yes, people's reasons for marrying are many and varied, and many marry 'before god' - but it still remains that marriage is a legal institution in this day and age, and that any marriage 'before god' wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't written on in a court of law if it wasn't licenced, documented, and witnessed.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Tanga said:


> If, as you say, the past definition that Ducatiboy gave for marriage isn't relevent today, why should other past definitions be relevant? Yes, people's reasons for marrying are many and varied, and many marry 'before god' - but it still remains that marriage is a legal institution in this day and age, and that any marriage 'before god' wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't written on in a court of law if it wasn't licenced, documented, and witnessed.


Uh...wait...what? I was clearly talking of the present context of "the modern Western marriage". My whole point is that there's no validity in trying to define today's marriages by yesterday's. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Christian values are done and dusted - this is still very much a society guided by Judaeo-Christian values even if fewer and fewer of us attend church.

As for your second point - well if that's how you feel then the law says same-sex marriages aren't legal and I'm glad we could resolve the matter before bedtime.


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

bum said:


> That seems a pretty broad interpretation of "marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution" to me. This language is not leaving much wriggle room for including the values of others as I read it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm being unfair.




Maybe way you quoted suggested something different. I guess it was the abbreviation - second reading makes a bit more sense of it. If you disagree that marriage is a secular institition, you could have quoted more appropriately .

The suggestion that it is secular though doesn't specifically deny that it has religious associations - just that in contemporary society (specifically legally) it exists outside a religious framework. 

I am an atheist. I can legally marry my agnostic lady friend in Australia, in a forest or barn or backyard as long as I follow certain guidelines. If my lady friend was a bloke/I was a chick, I couldn't: even if we were both believers in some kind of organised religion. That makes it (marriage) secular. It (marriage, the concept, rather than the legality) has long term significance to cultures who operate outside the ideas of organised religion, even if there's a spirituality associated with it. Again that puts it on the side of secularism.

Late, tired, hope it's sense making. As always - prepared to clarify if it ain't.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> Maybe way you quoted suggested something different. I guess it was the abbreviation - second reading makes a bit more sense of it. If you disagree that marriage is a secular institition, you could have quoted more appropriately .
> 
> The suggestion that it is secular though doesn't specifically deny that it has religious associations - just that in contemporary society (specifically legally) it exists outside a religious framework.



But this is exactly why I deleted the part about the secular concept of marriage (which is steeped in Christian tradition anyway, but let's ignore that for now) - my issue is with the exclusive nature of the phrase "not a religious institution". I mean, it quite patently is - even if not for everyone. I don't even understand how this is under question.



manticle said:


> I am an atheist. I can legally marry my agnostic lady friend in Australia, in a forest or barn or backyard as long as I follow certain guidelines. If my lady friend was a bloke/I was a chick, I couldn't: even if we were both believers in some kind of organised religion. That makes it (marriage) secular.


No. That makes marriage certificates secular. Let me give you a personal for instance - I married a lass from another culture. Twice, actually. The first time was a traditional ceremony for her culture involving only our family and friends. No government permission was granted. This is when we declared our commitment to one another in front of those we hold dear and began our life together as one. Are you of the position that we weren't really married until the Department of Births Deaths and Marriages got around to rubber stamping a piece of paper after we got around to having a civil ceremony here 3 months later? Perhaps a more contextually appropriate example would be better. Do you deny Brad the right to refer to his partner as his "husband" when his marriage is a legitimate "secular" marriage? Or are they only committed to each other in New Zealand (or wherever it was - none of my business)? Reducing marriage only to the piece of paper does a disservice to the commitment people have for each other and denying them that does the same.

Yes, I obviously agree completely that people can be committed to each other without a piece of paper but if they want it why shouldn't they have it?



manticle said:


> It (marriage, the concept, rather than the legality) has long term significance to *cultures who operate outside the ideas of organised religion*, even if there's a spirituality associated with it. Again that puts it on the side of secularism.


I'd suggest you'd be very, very hard pressed to find an anthropologist who could name such a culture for you. Unless, you know, you wanna break it down to dubstep or something.

[EDIT: minor clarification added]


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

bum said:


> But this is exactly why I deleted the part about the secular concept of marriage (which is steeped in Christian tradition anyway, but let's ignore that for now) - my issue is with the exclusive nature of the phrase "not a religious institution". I mean, it quite patently is - even if not for everyone. I don't even understand how this is under question.



But if you read it as not _necessarily_ religious (as I did) it is no longer exclusive. I didn't read Tanga as suggesting religion was necessarily excluded from the ceremony of marriage and her later comments suggested that was the case. Obviously if you want to adhere strictly to etymology then religion/regular/ritual and marriage go hand in hand but ritual and ceremony are enough and can be separated from religion as we know it..



> No. That makes marriage certificates secular. Let me give you a personal for instance - I married a lass from another culture. Twice, actually. The first time was a traditional ceremony for her culture involving only our family and friends. No government permission was granted. This is when we declared our commitment to one another in front of those we hold dear and began our life together as one. Are you of the position that we weren't really married until the Department of Births Deaths and Marriages got around to rubber stamping a piece of paper after we got around to having a civil ceremony here 3 months later? Perhaps a more contextual example would be better. Do you deny Brad the right to refer to his partner as his "husband" when his marriage is a legitimate "secular" marriage? Or are they only committed to each other in New Zealand (or wherever it was - none of my business)? Reducing marriage only to the piece of paper does a disservice to the commitment people have for each other and denying them that does the same.



I'm not sure how you read any of that into what I wrote. Keeping it contextual (as you suggested in your first post) marriage in our current western society means what?

A ceremony for certain - a ceremony of commitment which is integral to all, whether christian or non christian, religious or non religious. The argument for gay marriage is not that people of whatever sexuality should have the right to ceremonialise their commitment to each other. That's a given - anyone can do that. There are also legal sanctions and recognitions (the ramifications of which go far beyond a certificate). It's also about recognition of legitimacy as no different or separate from anyone else's legitimacy. 'You're married, I'm married too', not; 'you're married, I'm in a civil union but really it's the same thing'.



> Yes, I obviously agree completely that people can be committed to each other without a piece of paper but if they want it why shouldn't they have it?



No argument from me on that one.



> I'd suggest you'd be very, very hard pressed to find an anthropologist who could name such a culture for you. Unless, you know, you wanna break it down to dubstep or something.



Dependent on how strictly you define 'organised' religion but any animistic culture you'd care to name would fall into this category. I'll leave various forms of buddhism out of the picture for the moment.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> But if you read it as not _necessarily_ religious (as I did) it is no longer exclusive. I didn't read Tanga as suggesting religion was necessarily excluded from the ceremony of marriage and her later comments suggested that was the case.


I'm sure I could have read it as all manner of things but I chose (perhaps foolishly) to take it as written. In regard to her following points I acknowledged their legitimacy when I brought the other statement into question.



manticle said:


> There are also legal sanctions and recognitions (the ramifications of which go far beyond a certificate). It's also about recognition of legitimacy as no different or separate from anyone else's legitimacy.


Argument gets tricky here - as I understand it (and we're getting into law now which is shaky ground so I could very well be missing a very large point somewhere and I'll happily accept correction) same-sex relationships are granted the same legal status as a heterosexual de facto relationship except there is distinct terminology used. Same property division, same property rights in the event of the death of one partner (which I'll admit is only a recently won right), one partner can be declared a dependant. I think most things are the same. 



manticle said:


> Dependent on how strictly you define 'organised' religion but any animistic culture you'd care to name would fall into this category. I'll leave various forms of buddhism out of the picture for the moment.


This one is _very_ tricky and getting well beyond the scope of even a thread in Off Topic. To discuss this properly I think we'd need to draw an accepted line between deistic religion and organised religion. As soon as your religion gets a shaman you're organised, IMO. (Not saying all animistic...erm...branches? have a shaman - just indicating the difficulty in this bit of the discussion (especially when pissed)). Not sure anyone wants to read that anyway (especially when pissed). But the point is even they wouldn't serve a goat milk shandy at a wedding.


----------



## drew9242 (9/12/10)

Hi thanks for all your replies and point of views in this matter. I was just asking the question to see why it was so necassary. Thankfully i believe marriage is christian institution declaring our love for eachother before God. Laugh and ridicule all you want, but that is one of the biggest promises i have made in my life, and i will not take it lightly. And for that i take the "till death do us part" seriously. All i hope is that who ever you are you all take marriage seriously.

I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer. But it was good to see fellow brewers points of view and i will not judge you for it.

Cheers Drew


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Hi thanks for all your replies and point of views in this matter. I was just asking the question to see why it was so necassary. Thankfully i believe marriage is christian institution declaring our love for eachother before God. Laugh and ridicule all you want, but that is one of the biggest promises i have made in my life, and i will not take it lightly. And for that i take the "till death do us part" seriously. All i hope is that who ever you are you all take marriage seriously.
> 
> I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer. But it was good to see fellow brewers points of view and i will not judge you for it.
> 
> Cheers Drew



Hi Drew, I appreciate what marriage means to you and I think it must be good to believe that. I don't personally believe in god and I'm married, but I do believe in marriage and I do believe I'll be married for the rest of my life to the one person.

That said, do you think what you believe marriage to be needs to apply to everyone? For example you can still have marriage be exactly the same thing to you and gays can legally marry and I don't see how anything has changed for you?


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer.


Weak as piss, mate. Mine was a simple question and was asked respectfully.

I say again, weak as piss.


----------



## drew9242 (9/12/10)

bum said:


> Why are you talking about marriage like it is a biological function?



Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.



Sex is for procreation.

EDIT: Don't read into that statement.


----------



## argon (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.




pfft... Marriage has feck all to do with procreation.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.


Ok, I'm sure no one is here to argue the mechanics of reproduction but I'm still not seeing the direct correlation between marriage and the number of distinct sets of genitals. Unless marriage is only the first step towards starting a biologically related family (which it seems you are quite reasonably admitting it isn't above) then I don't see how it comes into it.

Of course I am absolutely not suggesting that homosexuality in not "wrong" under your religion, nor am I saying that your religion shouldn't be allowed an opinion on the matter - that is entirely appropriate even though I do think the opinion is hurtful and quite frankly un-Christian but I'm sure God is a complicated guy and He has His reasons. What I'm questioning is why your first argument against secular acceptance of same-sex marriage starts with counting dirty-parts.

I'm still not sure I understand (which that could easily be a deficiency on my end) but thank you for taking the time to answer my question.


----------



## zebba (9/12/10)

I'm going to lobby government to have all infertile couples marriages annulled.

Oh wait, that is heartless and cruel, and is merely discriminating on people because I think marriage is about procreation and not about expressing love and commitment. Lucky I didn't send that letter yet.

Drew - you don't see why gays want to marry, I ask you this: Why did black people object to having to ride at the back of the bus in America? I mean, they got to use the bus, they got to their destination just as quick as the people at the front. Heck, as a kid I always wanted to sit at the back of the bus? Sounds like they are just trying to push their desires on the rest of us, when clearly the rule was put in for a reason in the first place. I hope you can see how this relates to the gay marriage "issue".


----------



## schooey (9/12/10)

I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:


----------



## Phoney (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.



My dad remarried at age 60, im pretty damn sure he & his wife couldn't procreate even if they tried. Ridiculous argument. If same sex couples want to get married, let em. It's not going to affect you or your marriage is it?


----------



## Supra-Jim (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.



Can't do that either if one or both partners are sterile, by your definition here should hetro partners be required to prove their fertility proir to being approved for marriage?

Do we set a time limit by which hetro married couples must pro-create by, before we annul their union?

Apologies to others who've made quality contributions to this 'debate' for my facetious interpretation of Drew's comments, but i find his arguements laughable.

Cheers SJ


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

schooey said:


> I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:




LOL... good one.

If I ever get married and the sex stops his out on his ass!


----------



## brettprevans (9/12/10)

Zebba said:


> .... Why did black people object to having to ride at the back of the bus in America? I mean, they got to use the bus, they got to their destination just as quick as the people at the front. Heck, as a kid I always wanted to sit at the back of the bus? Sounds like they are just trying to push their desires on the rest of us, when clearly the rule was put in for a reason in the first place. I hope you can see how this relates to the gay marriage "issue".



homosexual thread, riding at the back, pushing desires.... i really feel that there's a non-PC joke to be made here but im buggered (no pun intended) if im the one whose going to make it.

serously thought its a good point Zebs



schooey said:


> I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:



schooey is right. so bringing it back ontopic of an off topic thread..... do gay people make better or worse beer? id guess that on avg they make the same quality beer as any one else. so why the f*ck does it matter whether someone is gay, straight, bent, bisexual, trisexual, asexual?! beer it up fellow brewers!


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

schooey said:


> I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:



I took a look and there's a thread on HSA, botulism, and chinese hops!!!


----------



## drsmurto (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate.



Really?

So how is it that my partner is pregnant?

Miraculous conception? 

We are not married because of people like you who in the 21st century continuing to spew your small minded bigotry. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious artefact and has passed its use by date.

But unlike Brad who started this thread, we are legally allowed to marry. We have a choice and he doesn't. In the 21st century that is quite simply discrimination at its most basic level.

Religion is the root of all evil.


----------



## drew9242 (9/12/10)

I realise no one here will see where i am coming from, and that is why i wasn't going to answer question bum. 

So back to my origanal question. Which by the looks of it marriage is purely for the piece of paper from the government. So the law states that it is for a man and a woman. So now the law doesn't allow it for gays, but because he can do it i should be able to do it. It's not fair they can and i can't. Debating with a question of you can do it so why can't they? Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.


----------



## Supra-Jim (9/12/10)

I think there may be an issue of consent when considering if you can marry a cat. How can you really be sure that's what the cat wants?  

Cheers SJ


----------



## brettprevans (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> I realise no one here will see where i am coming from, and that is why i wasn't going to answer question bum.
> 
> So back to my origanal question. Which by the looks of it marriage is purely for the piece of paper from the government. So the law states that it is for a man and a woman. So now the law doesn't allow it for gays, but because he can do it i should be able to do it. It's not fair they can and i can't. Debating with a question of you can do it so why can't they? Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.


I think people get where your coming from, they just dont agree. same as u get their point but dont agree.

seperation of church and state allows for legal marriage without any religious affiliation. although personally i think church and state should be completely seperate. but moving on...

pets cant consent and that, if for no other reason, is why they cant enter into a legal contract or marriage. fair or not. unles you live in japan where that guy got married to his virtual girlfriend. not really sure how that works. im assuming it was a ceremonial thing only with no legal contract.

edit: article here. and he went to guam not japan. my mistake. still. guam? weird

edit2: beaten by SJ. who wants to marry a a cat?! they ignore you unless they want something, think of themselves, think they are the boss etc.. oh wait maybe im talking about a women  h34r:


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> I realise no one here will see where i am coming from, and that is why i wasn't going to answer question bum.


I doubt very much that I am going to end up siding with you on this one but I am trying to see where you are coming from.



Drew9242 said:


> So back to my origanal question. Which by the looks of it marriage is purely for the piece of paper from the government. So the law states that it is for a man and a woman. So now the law doesn't allow it for gays, but because he can do it i should be able to do it. It's not fair they can and i can't. Debating with a question of you can do it so why can't they?


Well, as far as my own feelings on the issue go (which might be very different to someone who this law directly effects) that is essentially it - perhaps expressed in a slightly more recalcitrant tone than I would have put it but at the end of the day that is my problem with the current state of affairs. Simple equality.



Drew9242 said:


> Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.


I understand this is purely hyperbole on your part but it would be pretty offensive to GLBTs - you're equating them with animals.


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> Really?
> 
> So how is it that my partner is pregnant?
> 
> ...



congratulations...


----------



## Leigh (9/12/10)

Have read this thread with interest...the legal v religious v human right v whatever debates...

From the religious perspective, I see that most people have assumed that marriage leads to procreation...my primitive understanding of christianity suggests that procreation is not allowed outside of marriage, so in one sense, marriage (from a religious perspective) is about "permission" to procreate...

If my understanding is correct, I can understand completely where the religious folk come from...But that is steeped in history, and we are in the now, where the law now takes precedent...but unfortunately the law has taken parts of the religious components, but left out others...

Under the legal marriage, marriage allows a number of rights to the participants of the union, but even that is becoming redundant. Earlier this year I left a defacto relationship of 13 years that produced 2 children. Since the changes in law last year in Victoria, the only difference (according to my lawyer) in rights between a legal marriage (whether in church or civil) and defacto (which also applies to same sex couples) is that a defacto relationship does not need a 12 month separation prior to the legal separation...

What does that mean? According to my lawyer, my ex can't do anything to control my business from the day we separated, however if I were married, the ex could control my business up until the day of unullment after the 12 month separation...

So, if I could ask (from a legal perspective), why would ANYBODY want to get married???

(PS I support the right for same sex couples to marry if they choose)


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> marriage is christian institution



You have now managed to exclude not only homosexuals but every other religion, spirituality or belief system as well as atheists and agnostics with a statement that is blatantly untrue. Marriage wasn't invented by Christians.

You are more than welcome to your beliefs as they pertain to you and your life and to act out the philosophies you believe in within the legal confines of the society in which you live. That doesn't make you worthy of ridicule but I still have no idea why you care what Brad (or anyone else) does or how it affects you.

The argument about pets is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why you made it.


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

Leigh said:


> So, if I could ask (from a legal perspective), why would ANYBODY want to get married???



That's not a bad point. To me my marriage was more akin to something like a birthday or Christmas. Just a one off party you have to signify that you intend to be with that person forever. The reason I got married was to basically partake in the ceremony/party side of it.

In hindsight that could have been done without actually signing anything. Not sure what difference it would have made to be honest. Could still exchange rings, could still change the females last name if she wants etc.

But it's important to note the defacto laws don't apply to homosexuals so this doesn't apply to them.


----------



## zebba (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> The argument about pets is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why you made it.


It's a pretty common argument made by people who don't know why they think gay marriage is wrong but are still damn passionate about it... I'm surprised he didn't mention marrying trees as well. And kids.


----------



## Leigh (9/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> But it's important to note the defacto laws don't apply to homosexuals so this doesn't apply to them.



I guess this depends on what State you are in. As I understand it, since Dec 2008 Victoria has given same sex defacto relationships the same legal status as hetero defacto relationships.


----------



## staggalee (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Soon we will be able to marry our pets because i love my pet and it is not fair that you can get married and i can't.



oh no!!


----------



## earle (9/12/10)

> "She didnt say anything so I took that as a yes."


 Hmmm


----------



## drsmurto (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Just trying to point out that marriage for one instance is to procreate. Can't do that with the same sex organs.



US scientists create mice from two fathers

Q.E.D


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

If men start having babies that's it.... rrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/12/10)

Katie..

I thought that most women would preffer it if the men had the babies... :lol:


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

Katie said:


> If men start having babies that's it.... rrrrrrrrrrrrr



its okay we'll still need you women for cooking and cleaning and that other thing


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Leigh said:


> I guess this depends on what State you are in. As I understand it, since Dec 2008 Victoria has given same sex defacto relationships the same legal status as hetero defacto relationships.


I agree with much of Mark's post and would have given something similar as my own answer to your question (but for a couple of things relating to my next point) but I think you're right here and I'm reasonably certain that there are Federal laws that would override any State laws that were different. I know that when I sponsored my wife's immigration here in 2007 and her permanent residency in 2008 all sets of paperwork (and there were many) always accorded the same rights and responsibilities to prospective married couples, de facto couples and same-sex couples. I understand this doesn't necessarily translate to being equal to marriage rights and responsibilities but I'm sure I had some sort of point when I began this post all that time ago.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> its okay we'll still need you women for cooking and cleaning and that other thing


Yeah, I hate ironing!


----------



## schooey (9/12/10)

At the end of the day, the whole "Homosexuality is dirty/bad/wrong/unnatural {inert other petty reason here}" are ideals that have been indoctrinated in people by religion.





Drew9242 said:


> Just a question, why must you get married? *Purely through out time* it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together.



It was interesting to see you edit this statement, Drew, from what you originally posted as "From the beginning of time.."; Your edit is an indication that even you believe that it came along with religion. If not, I'd like to know why you changed it? There is evidence of Bisexuality, Homosexuality and polygamy before the church came along and decreed that thout shalt not do!

It all comes down to choice (or not being able to choose): People don't choose to be white, they don't choose to be bald, blue eyed, blonde, tall or have freckles... the same as they don't choose to be gay or straight or transexual. It's programmed into them and someone dicatating to them that they can or can't or they are dirty or unnatural is just playing major headfuck with them. 

It's a form of abuse that people have accepted for too long.


----------



## MarkBastard (9/12/10)

bum said:


> Yeah, I hate ironing!



Especially when I'm hormonal and my nipples are lactating everywhere!!!


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> US scientists create mice from two fathers
> 
> Q.E.D


Wow.

Do you know if the study has gone/will go on to test fertility in the resultant offspring and any genetic abnormalities in their offspring?


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

bum said:


> I agree with much of Mark's post and would have given something similar as my own answer to your question (but for a couple of things relating to my next point) but I think you're right here and I'm reasonably certain that there are Federal laws that would override any State laws that were different. I know that when I sponsored my wife's immigration here in 2007 and her permanent residency in 2008 all sets of paperwork (and there were many) always accorded the same rights and responsibilities to prospective married couples, de facto couples and same-sex couples. I understand this doesn't necessarily translate to being equal to marriage rights and responsibilities but I'm sure I had some sort of point when I began this post all that time ago.



I dont iron... 

Men couldnt handle childbirth...


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Especially when I'm hormonal and my nipples are lactating everywhere!!!



lol..... 

exactly where will the milk sit...?


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Katie said:


> I dont iron...


No wonder you're not married!


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

bum said:


> No wonder you're not married!




thats f*cking low Bum...  I do all my other duties very well. 

You know a guy at work said that to me the other day. I said I do all my other required duties very well his jaw dropped. His 5 year old still sleeps in his bed he doesnt get anything LOL. 

wrinkly work shirt

or hard and straight ummm sorry best I could do.


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

Supra-Jim said:


> I think there may be an issue of consent when considering if you can marry a cat. How can you really be sure that's what the cat wants?
> 
> Cheers SJ




Cat always gets exactly what he or she wants mate.

I think it's the gold fish that get the raw end of the stick.


----------



## schooey (9/12/10)

The feral cats that eat my old man's water birds must be sado-masochistic critters then... h34r:


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

Your dad has feral cats as pets?


----------



## schooey (9/12/10)

Nope... 

you said "Cat always gets exactly what he or she wants mate"

you didn't say whose cat..


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

We were talking about pets though. As much as I hate animal cruelty, cats have no place here (AU) outside a domesticated environment.

What kinds of birds does your dad have?


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> We were talking about pets though. As much as I hate animal cruelty, cats have no place here (AU) outside a domesticated environment.
> 
> What kinds of birds does your dad have?



But they are here, oh no look what you have started now.


----------



## schooey (9/12/10)

Well he doesn't 'have' them..

He volunteers with a local wetland group that protects a habitat and also rescues injured native birds. He has a habit of calling them 'his' birds... they get a lot of returning migratory waterfowl etc... anyway; don't want to take the off topic off topic any further off topic.. :blink:


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

Katie said:


> But they are here, oh no look what you have started now.



Note the 'outside domesticated environment bit' Katie.

We brought them here (non indigenous) - that's fine. I love cats to death. I fall in love with almost every cat I see. I have two that are my family (along with my partner). You remember the photo of my feline brewing inspector?

We have a responsibility to the cats and to our surrounding environment not to allow them to get to the point where they are feral. Big distinction between pet cat, well fed, maintained and loved and feral animal destroying as much native wildlife as it likes.

Our fault rather than theirs but cat in the wild in Australia does not belong and we need to take responsibility.




> Well he doesn't 'have' them..
> 
> He volunteers with a local wetland group that protects a habitat and also rescues injured native birds. He has a habit of calling them 'his' birds... they get a lot of returning migratory waterfowl etc... anyway; don't want to take the off topic off topic any further off topic..



I have a thing for ducks is all.

Cats have no place around ducks (unless said duck has been on my dinner plate first).

Gay marriage, marital history and origins, beer, shandies, ducks, cloning, feral cats and religion.

Not a bad effort really. Imagine discussing all that in a taxi.


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> Note the 'outside domesticated environment bit' Katie.
> 
> We brought them here (non indigenous) - that's fine. I love cats to death. I fall in love with almost every cat I see. I have two that are my family (along with my partner). You remember the photo of my feline brewing inspector?
> 
> ...




I have three cats, and Ive always wanted ducks do you think they would get along?


----------



## jonocarroll (9/12/10)

Ah, the off-topic section - where a discussion on homophobia soon digresses into discussing whether or not cats and ducks make good housepets. Good focus, people.

Is this thread over yet?


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

and your problem is...


----------



## manticle (9/12/10)

Katie said:


> I have three cats, and Ive always wanted ducks do you think they would get along?



Apparently chickens and cats can if introduced slowly.

Not sure about ducks - I guess it would depend partly on the pet and partly on how big its damn bell was..

Sorry QB, not quite yet. Admittedly the focus was held for a decent length but thread derailing was always going to happen.

What's your stance on beer brewed by gay cats anyway?


----------



## Katherine (9/12/10)

manticle said:


> Apparently chickens and cats can if introduced slowly.
> 
> Not sure about ducks - I guess it would depend partly on the pet and partly on how big its damn bell was..
> 
> ...




Our female cat is in love with my partner for sure... she dribbles on sight!

Animals can be gay cant they monkeys I think?


----------



## jonocarroll (9/12/10)

I plan to attend a case-swap soon where the entry requirement is that a gay cat must have at least a 20% involvement in the brewing.

Just to add a little humour back to the situation, I give you - ?

: the term being used in reference to the 'camp' meaning of the word, the stereotypical 'flaming' meaning, not the sexual preference in particular. I neither support, condone, nor belittle this definition. I have no opinion on the sexual orientation of any superheroes whatsoever. Superheroes may dress however they feel, but it does seem odd that although they all seem to dress themselves, they all go for the spandex. If it so happened that any or all of the characters portrayed in this parody had sexual orientations that do not conform to narrow-minded views of what 'normal' should be then that is a problem for whoever has those narrow views, not me. Any offense caused to anyone in any dimension at any time is purely accidental and apologies are made.


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Ah, the off-topic section - where a discussion on homophobia soon digresses into discussing whether or not cats and ducks make good housepets. Good focus, people.
> 
> Is this thread over yet?


It looks like the reviews are in so I guess it must be.


----------



## brettprevans (9/12/10)

Monkeys aren't gay but are opportunistic bisexual. They will mate to produce babies and mate for fun with anything. There are only a few animals that have sex for fun. Actually I think it might be dolphins and monkeys only. 

Bum - my missus doesn't do my ironing. I do a better job than her. Although she won't let me iron her clothes as she doesn't like my military ironing approach. 

Personally I thought my gay/brewing comment settled this thread.


----------



## drew9242 (9/12/10)

Leigh said:


> So, if I could ask (from a legal perspective), why would ANYBODY want to get married???



That is a good question. After reading peoples views of marriage i am struggling to comprehend why you would get married.

And i was in no way incinuating that gays were animals. Was Just trying to point out that we got to be careful when we change laws just for self gratification. And that is with any law in my opinion not just picking on the gays.

Schooey: I actually edited it so i didn't sound like i was preaching to you (proably still did).

Thankyou all for spending the time to answer my question it is appreciated.

And thankyou also for pointing out to me that i am pretty useless at spelling and english. You taught me something even if it is small.

PS: if you were going to have a pet wife i reckon a dog would be the go. They are always happy to see you when ever you arrive home from the pub or work late.


----------



## brettprevans (9/12/10)

Well after an experiment I have learned that it doesn't matter whether ur gay or straight... Don't add straight sugar to an actively fermenting cider with Brett c.... It's gets fkn excited. Too excited. Damn shitty fkn mess I have to clean up and get out if the carpet now


----------



## Leigh (9/12/10)

citymorgue2 said:


> Monkeys aren't gay but are opportunistic bisexual. They will mate to produce babies and mate for fun with anything. There are only a few animals that have sex for fun. Actually I think it might be dolphins and monkeys only.
> 
> Bum - my missus doesn't do my ironing. I do a better job than her. Although she won't let me iron her clothes as she doesn't like my military ironing approach.
> 
> Personally I thought my gay/brewing comment settled this thread.



Male penguins practice with each other waiting for the females to open the mating season...

Then there are reports of monogamous gay relationships between penguins...

The notion of hetero only relationships in the animal kingdom has been blown completely out of the water in recent times, with heaps of species being reported as partaking in the activity. And the notion that only primates and dolphins have sex for enjoyment is also beginning to be questioned by the scientific community...


----------



## brettprevans (9/12/10)

Leigh said:


> Male penguins practice with each other waiting for the females to open the mating season...
> 
> Then there are reports of monogamous gay relationships between penguins...
> 
> The notion of hetero only relationships in the animal kingdom has been blown completely out of the water in recent times, with heaps of species being reported as partaking in the activity. And the notion that only primates and dolphins have sex for enjoyment is also beginning to be questioned by the scientific community...


Penguins! How could I forget them?
dont tell me DPI think that grains have sex for fun but only wyyermann grain and that's why it's so expensive.?! Kidding. I really need to get back into science. I miss it.


----------



## Hatchy (9/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Hi thanks for all your replies and point of views in this matter. I was just asking the question to see why it was so necassary. Thankfully i believe *marriage is christian institution* declaring our love for eachother before God. Laugh and ridicule all you want, but that is one of the biggest promises i have made in my life, and i will not take it lightly. And for that i take the "till death do us part" seriously. All i hope is that who ever you are you all take marriage seriously.
> 
> I am not going to get into a debate over this as i'm prefer to talk about beer. But it was good to see fellow brewers points of view and i will not judge you for it.
> 
> Cheers Drew



So I'm not married because our ceremony was on a footy oval instead of in a church? Assuming that God exists then He/She/It doesn't seem to share yr opinion because it was one of the nicest Adelaide days this spring.

I find it odd the number of couples who get married in churches who would otherwise never go to one. To me it seems like the wedding means less because the couple probably don't actually believe what the priest is saying.

I'd also prefer to talk about beer but I must say that I'm impressed with the attitudes of the posters in this thread. I really expected the brewers of Australia to be much less accepting of homosexuality.

Has anyone else noticed that Brad's started an epic thread & then buggered off? (tasteless pun intended)


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> I find it odd the number of couples who get married in churches who would otherwise never go to one. To me it seems like the wedding means less because the couple probably don't actually believe what the priest is saying.


The couples I've known who have done this have done it purely for aesthetic reasons. The photos did look nice so who can argue with that? As long as they are honest about why they are there and are both aware they are going through the motions purely for the photos I don't see how it cheapens anything (uh, apart from the faith of others but they can keep that to themselves and no one gets hurt). Many probably do it to keep their families happy too - which is no small thing.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> So I'm not married because our ceremony was on a footy oval instead of in a church?



Did you make a union in public that was recorded by a celebrant....



One must remember that our Australian law is still tied into the old common laws of England, which still means that marriage is essentially a union of FAMILIES


----------



## bum (9/12/10)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> One must remember that our Australian law is still tied into the old common laws of England, which still means that marriage is essentially a union of FAMILIES


One must also remember that the old common laws of England are directly related to a deeply Christian society and are in no way, shape or form completely removed from religion's influence.


----------



## browndog (9/12/10)

Here's a thought people, how about you all "live an let live" and that means all of you, those who are dissing christian values etc etc. And how about we rejoice with our gay brewing brothers and sisters that we live in a democracy that lets them do their own thing rather than quite a number of countries that would lock them up or kill them for their lifestyles. As for the OP, get over it mate, as Schooey said, you not the only person to cop some bad shit from morons, just be thankfull it was only verbal.


cheers

Browndog


----------



## Tanga (10/12/10)

schooey said:


> I wonder if the off topic section over at www.gaypride.com is full of brewing arguments... :huh:



Brewing discussions.  

I haven't gotten to the end of this thread yet - still reading. Thanks Manticle for trying to clarify my unclear arguement. I _do_ accept that marriage is a religious institution to many. Just saying that in Australia it is a legal institution too, and just because some religions reject our right to marry doesn't mean that the law is justified in doing so. We have seperation of church and state for a reason.

Bum - walking a middle road in these arguements is never easy. You are manageing it with style - respect. Some very good questions raised, I will read further and get back to folks. Maybe. Seems this thread has been hijacked. Sorry Brad.

PS - as for the gay partnership being equal to a defecto relationship in Australia debate: it varies from from state to state. Legislation has been passed in all states as far as I know. SA (my state) was the last to pass this legislations (years ago now) but it has yet to be put into practice (ie it's waiting to be actioned). However in the eyes of centrelink we're equal - I guess that's a start, right =p.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

browndog said:


> Here's a thought people, how about you all "live an let live" and that means all of you, those who are dissing christian values etc etc. And how about we rejoice with our gay brewing brothers and sisters that we live in a democracy that lets them do their own thing rather than quite a number of countries that would lock them up or kill them for their lifestyles. As for the OP, get over it mate, as Schooey said, you not the only person to cop some bad shit from morons, just be thankfull it was only verbal.


Your post isn't unreasonable in the "things could be worse" kind of sense but what you're asking people to do is accept an unfair situation so that those who don't care/aren't interested don't feel confronted or have to change their thinking at all. Also, "do their own thing" is only appropriate if you feel that marriage is "our thing" and they shouldn't be allowed to want it (I'm not saying that this is your point but just that it is the, perhaps unintentional, up-shot of what you say). 

You are absolutely right that those of faith shouldn't be getting slagged off for it.

[EDIT: minor clarification added.]


----------



## drew9242 (10/12/10)

manticle said:


> statement that is blatantly untrue



Not to me. If i didn't belive in it i wouldn't have got married. That was why i asked the question in the first place.


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

bum said:


> You are absolutely right that those of faith shouldn't be getting slagged off for it.


Why not? They want to claim that marriage is a religous institution and "under god", and ignore the long history of secular marriage in Australia, they deserve to be mocked. They want to claim that marriage is between a man and a woman, and ignore the many other varieties of marriage practised around the world, they deserve to be mocked.

Ignorance is not a virtue, but alone it is not cause for mocking. But once you start to weild your ignorance as a tool for oppression, it's game on.

Churches should be free to marry who they please. But they should not be free to claim monopoly on the term.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> Not to me.




You know that the direct inference of that statement is that you consider any romantic relationship not recognised by your church as illegitimate, right? Not the possibly resultant children but the relationship itself. Pretty judgemental statement, brah.

[EDIT: quote added]
[EDIT2: I see that Drew has added more to his post since I responded. None of it changes my post - my point stands.]


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

bum said:


> You know that the direct inference of that statement is that you consider any romantic relationship not recognised by your church as illegitimate, right? Not the possibly resultant children but the relationship itself. Pretty judgemental statement, brah.


Who you responding to there bum?


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> Why not? They want to claim that marriage is a religous institution and "under god", and ignore the long history of secular marriage in Australia, they deserve to be mocked. They want to claim that marriage is between a man and a woman, and ignore the many other varieties of marriage practised around the world, they deserve to be mocked.
> 
> Ignorance is not a virtue, but alone it is not cause for mocking. But once you start to weild your ignorance as a tool for oppression, it's game on.
> 
> Churches should be free to marry who they please. But they should not be free to claim monopoly on the term.


I guess what I'm getting at is what I said to thesunsettree in the thread of his that was (quite rightly) deleted - play the ball, not the man. If we say "you're a dickhead because you believe something different to us" that not only closes up any form of open communication (the only way any of this might change) but also has us acting in the same way as what we're suggesting offends us. By all means ridicule the relevant position but there has been the odd broadside fired against religion as a whole here and I don't think that is entirely justified. Religion has done a lot more good than people seem to want to recognise and the harm people usually claim it has done is always against its core teachings and is clearly man twisting its values for his own reasons.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> Who you responding to there bum?


Sorry, I thought I'd get in before anyone else. I've added Drew's quote to clarify.


----------



## WarmBeer (10/12/10)

This thread TL;DR - gay is okay, not gay is okay, too.


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

bum said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is what I said to thesunsettree in the thread of his that was (quite rightly) deleted - play the ball, not the man. If we say "you're a dickhead because you believe something different to us" that not only closes up any form of open communication (the only way any of this might change) but also has us acting in the same way as what we're suggesting offends us. By all means ridicule the relevant position but there has been the odd broadside fired against religion as a whole here and I don't think that is entirely justified. Religion has done a lot more good than people seem to want to recognise and the harm people usually claim it has done is always against its core teachings and is clearly man twisting its values for his own reasons.


Well that's no fun. We agree.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Yeah. Sorry about that.


----------



## drew9242 (10/12/10)

bum said:


> You know that the direct inference of that statement is that you consider any romantic relationship not recognised by your church as illegitimate, right? Not the possibly resultant children but the relationship itself. Pretty judgemental statement, brah.
> 
> [EDIT: quote added]
> [EDIT2: I see that Drew has added more to his post since I responded. None of it changes my post - my point stands.]



No by all means i respect every romantic relationship. But as we all know you don't need marriage for a romantic relationship. My view of marriage is different to most people here. And for me the romance is an added sweetner. I believe in my custom and was just asking why someone would want to get married to clarify their custom.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> No by all means i respect every romantic relationship. But as we all know you don't need marriage for a romantic relationship. My view of marriage is different to most people here. And for me the romance is an added sweetner. I believe in my custom and was just asking why someone would want to get married to clarify their custom.


Because marriage in your custom is not the only existing representation of marriage in our community and I don't understand how you can make a reasonable statement like the above and still not recognise that.


----------



## drew9242 (10/12/10)

bum said:


> Because marriage in your custom is not the only existing representation of marriage in our community and I don't understand how you can make a reasonable statement like the above and still not recognise that.




I do realise that now and thats why i thanked people for their input. 

And i shouldn't have put that last comment in. It was because i said i believe in this statement but manticle said it was blatantley untrue. But like i said it isn't for me.


----------



## manticle (10/12/10)

For you and your marriage. There's a difference between 'this is how I view marriage' and 'this is what marriage is'. The definition of marriage stands outside the Christian institution and existed well before it (even if you took a completely creationist viewpoint) so to say outright 'marriage is a christian institution' with no qualifier is not a statement of truth.


----------



## drew9242 (10/12/10)

Drew9242 said:


> i believe marriage is christian institution


----------



## manticle (10/12/10)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by quoting back the statement I first took issue with.

Marriage is not solely a christian institution. Sticking 'I believe' in front of an untrue (demonstrably unquestionably untrue) does not make it valid.

I realise you could be taken to be meaning 'marriage is christian but not exclusively' and if that's what you mean then I withdraw what I said. Yes it is Christian among other things - I'm fairly certain you were attaching an exclusivity to that first statement though.

Even 'I believe marriage _should/i] be solely be a Christian institution' would be different - even though I'd disagree for other reasons, I couldn't suggest it was blatantly untrue._


----------



## drsmurto (10/12/10)

bum said:


> Wow.
> 
> Do you know if the study has gone/will go on to test fertility in the resultant offspring and any genetic abnormalities in their offspring?



I suspect that the ethics committee will have a big say on how far these sort of studies go....




browndog said:


> Here's a thought people, how about you all "live an let live" and that means all of you, those who are dissing christian values etc etc. And how about we rejoice with our gay brewing brothers and sisters that we live in a democracy that lets them do their own thing rather than quite a number of countries that would lock them up or kill them for their lifestyles. As for the OP, get over it mate, as Schooey said, you not the only person to cop some bad shit from morons, just be thankfull it was only verbal.
> 
> 
> cheers
> ...



That's no fun mate, dissing christian values is one of my favourite pastimes. I play nice here, my facebook page is a war zone. 



And a few pictures....











And one in very poor taste just because i have a sadistic streak....


----------



## schooey (10/12/10)

I bought my wife a mobile phone. She never answers it. I'm not sure whether it's because we're married, athiest christians and married, if she's gay or because we don't have any ducks...


----------



## brettprevans (10/12/10)

thats gold. pure gold
although i really want to see at least one of python boys in that last pic! 

im thinking there needs to be an AHB gaypride/religious freedom/no chill/HSA/keg-bottle/AG-K&K/sugaz/love-hate Bum (the person not the body part) brew day. that will fix the problem...


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

citymorgue2 said:


> that will fix the problem...


With the possible exception of the last element I think it would go some way to helping. If people would talk to each other about these things instead of us all just sitting on our values I think all of these issues would be less problematic, even if not resolved.


----------



## browndog (10/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> I suspect that the ethics committee will have a big say on how far these sort of studies go....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The great thing is, you can do that and not have a fatwa put on your head Dr


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

schooey said:


> I bought my wife a mobile phone. She never answers it. I'm not sure whether it's because we're married


I'll bet you a cat and a shandy that it is.


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

browndog said:


> The great thing is, you can do that and not have a fatwa put on your head Dr


Are you seriously trying to argue that Christians both historically and today don't kill people for their beliefs?


----------



## drsmurto (10/12/10)

browndog said:


> The great thing is, you can do that and not have a fatwa put on your head Dr



:lol: Some people just have no sense of humour.....

A few more....


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Prejudice is cool.


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)




----------



## manticle (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> Are you seriously trying to argue that Christians both historically and today don't kill people for their beliefs?



Think he's just talking about Australian society currently


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

Im confused about the penquins ... 

dont they only have a mate for the season? then the following season they get another one. Ideal situation really.

I wonder how they recognise each other once the female comes back to feed the chick.


----------



## browndog (10/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> :lol: Some people just have no sense of humour.....
> 
> A few more....
> 
> ...




So I gather that you work though christmas every year Doctor?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/12/10)

There is a movie that is actually a rather truthfull documentry of Christ

Monty Pythons The Life Of Brian


----------



## browndog (10/12/10)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> There is a movie that is actually a rather truthfull documentry of Christ
> 
> Monty Pythons The Life Of Brian




he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

You guys are being very sexist and ignoring my post about penguins...


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

Katie said:


> You guys are being very sexist and ignoring my post about penguins...


We're being sexist? Frankly I found your question offensive. "All penguins look the same" eh? Bigot... 

Beyond that, dunno. I've also heard stories of gay penguin couples stealing eggs from the actual parents.


----------



## schooey (10/12/10)

Do penguins answer their phones?


----------



## Supra-Jim (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> Beyond that, dunno. I've also heard stories of gay penguin couples stealing eggs from the actual parents.



Are you saying gay penguins would not be good parents?  

Cheers SJ


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

Supra-Jim said:


> Are you saying gay penguins would not be good parents?
> 
> Cheers SJ


I think it demonstrates the complete opposite - the hetro penguins are such bad parents they allow their children to be stolen!


----------



## Leigh (10/12/10)

Katie said:


> Im confused about the penquins ...
> 
> dont they only have a mate for the season? then the following season they get another one. Ideal situation really.
> 
> I wonder how they recognise each other once the female comes back to feed the chick.



The Melbourne Aquarium has penguins and I got talking to the keepers who knew each and every penguin...they said some sleep around, while others remain monogamous, there's also been journal articles on this...


----------



## WarmBeer (10/12/10)

Leigh said:


> The Melbourne Aquarium has penguins and I got talking to the keepers who knew each and every penguin..


I envy your life, so much more exciting than mine


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

Leigh said:


> The Melbourne Aquarium has penguins and I got talking to the keepers who knew each and every penguin...they said some sleep around, while others remain monogamous, there's also been journal articles on this...



but I thought they had seasonal partners they change them with the season...


----------



## Leigh (10/12/10)

WarmBeer said:


> I envy your life, so much more exciting than mine



Would you believe that it was a work function too :beer:



Katie said:


> but I thought they had seasonal partners they change them with the season...



...yeah, so did I, but the keepers said differently. I am learning that there are lots of things written in books etc that are assumptions rather than proven facts. Or maybe it is just species dependant?


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

Leigh said:


> Would you believe that it was a work function too :beer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...yeah, so did I, but the keepers said differently. I am learning that there are lots of things written in books etc that are assumptions rather than proven facts. Or maybe it is just species dependant?




Im going by the movie narrated by Morgan Freeman... The March Of The Penguins, such a beautiful love story... I gave it to my dad for fathers day once. I dont think he got why I gave it to him. 

Its heartbreaking watching the male one let go of the egg and it froze.. He looked dumbfounded for awhile then he just wonders off.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/12/10)

So... If we put a Penguin and a Monkey together in a room with some feral cats, do you think there would be some kind of sexual exploration....


----------



## jonocarroll (10/12/10)

Katie said:


> Im going by the movie narrated by Morgan Freeman... The March Of The Penguins


----------



## zebba (10/12/10)

OK, I'm throwing it out there... Am I the only person in the world who thought "The Shawshank Redemption" sucked? And the biggest problem I had was the narration...

Flame away people. I'm sorry, but I can't stand by and hear talk of Morgan Freeman without opening my yap and venting. I just thought it was so... overrated... cliched... etc.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> OK, I'm throwing it out there... Am I the only person in the world who thought "The Shawshank Redemption" sucked? And the biggest problem I had was the narration...
> 
> Flame away people. I'm sorry, but I can't stand by and hear talk of Morgan Freeman without opening my yap and venting. I just thought it was so... overrated... cliched... etc.


Most movies lots of people like are heavy-handed shit - why should this be any different?

Yes, I'm looking at you, Braveheart/Titanic/Avatar/anything Disney-Pixar/Schindler's List/American Beauty/countless others.


----------



## manticle (10/12/10)

Zebba said:


> I just thought it was so... overrated... cliched... etc.




Original story _was_ written by Stephen King, the master of subtlety, king of under-explanation and Arch-duke of leaving the details to the reader's imagination.


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

I like the movie quite alot I think it was well done...

Avatar was pretty but predictable...

Titanic na...


----------



## Pollux (10/12/10)

Now, if my cats and penguins plan to teach kids at a primary school level...........Are they allowed to use Shawshank Redemption as a piece to be studied???


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Pollux said:


> Now, if my cats and penguins plan to teach kids at a primary school level...........Are they allowed to use Shawshank Redemption as a piece to be studied???


Now you're just being silly.

That movie is rated MA.


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

lol


----------



## schooey (10/12/10)

nobody answers the phone anymore ...


----------



## manticle (10/12/10)

I answer the phone every time you ring.


----------



## yardy (10/12/10)

I think I might be lost, is this the shandy thread ?


----------



## Bongchitis (10/12/10)

Tangas Gay???

Shit! I have been working on a game plan for months. h34r:


----------



## Tanga (10/12/10)

Bongchitis said:


> Tangas Gay???
> 
> Shit! I have been working on a game plan for months. h34r:



You manage to get that Dubbel Trubbel brewed and anything might happen. =p


----------



## browndog (10/12/10)

so endeth the thread.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/12/10)

Do Penguins drink shandies...???


----------



## staggalee (12/12/10)

Tanga said:


> Hey Dave. ^_^
> 
> The assumptions people make can be quite amusing =).



For instance......are these blokes gay? It`s hard to tell.


----------



## Tony (12/12/10)

Gay harley riding penguins drink Stu's beer


----------



## bum (12/12/10)

I heard that gay penguins had some influence over his choice of OS too?


----------



## Brewing_Brad (12/12/10)

HOLY CRAP! This rant got way more air time than I expected!

I don't think there's anything I can add that hasn't already been said (except I happily retract that part about gay men and kids, I realise that it's all men who are victims of that particular issue).

Thanks to everyone who got involved in this discussion (for good and bad). It was a brilliant read from start to finish, and I think Bum said in best in post #148; "if people would talk to each other about these things instead of us all just sitting on our values I think all of these issues would be less problematic, even if not resolved. "

I couldn't agree more. We may not all agree with each other, but talking about our differences is a step in the right direction.

So now, let's get back to to talking about beer. After all, we can all (mostly) agree on that 

Cheers
Brad


----------



## schooey (12/12/10)

Brewing_Brad said:


> So now, let's get back to to talking about beer. After all, we can all (mostly) agree on that



..only if you answer your phone...manticle says he does, but check out the missed calls on his yuppy brick <_<


----------



## Jazman (12/12/10)

I personaly dont agree with the term gay being linked with homos or that they like the same sex but thats there business and wont treat them any different than any one else as we are all human and i may not agree with i want treat em diff than any normal person no lets get back to good beer talk


----------



## Cube (12/12/10)

For baby jebus sake, get over you gay self. Get over your black self. Get over your white self, your shit house self indulged self or what ever your personal shitty out look on your self is.

Brew beer, make beer, drink beer. Gay, fag, black, white, dodgy pink be one FFS.

Otherwise you are just one big shit house asshole. MMMMKKKAAAYYYYYYYYY !


----------



## yardy (12/12/10)

Cube said:


> For baby jebus sake, get over you gay self. Get over your black self. Get over your white self, your shit house self indulged self or what ever your personal shitty out look on your self is.
> 
> Brew beer, make beer, drink beer. Gay, fag, black, white, dodgy pink be one FFS.
> 
> Otherwise you are just one big shit house asshole. MMMMKKKAAAYYYYYYYYY !



:lol: 


the ANZACS wouldn't have put up with all this shandy drinkin malarky.


----------



## bum (12/12/10)

What happens in the trenches stays in the trenches.


----------



## Tony (13/12/10)

Cube said:


> For baby jebus sake, get over you gay self. Get over your black self. Get over your white self, your shit house self indulged self or what ever your personal shitty out look on your self is.
> 
> Brew beer, make beer, drink beer. Gay, fag, black, white, dodgy pink be one FFS.
> 
> Otherwise you are just one big shit house asshole. MMMMKKKAAAYYYYYYYYY !



dude.......... you forgot to mention the felchers


----------



## ekul (24/12/10)

Tony said:


> dude.......... you forgot to mention the felchers




And here was me thinking that your avatar had a beard....


----------

