Another Gay Rant

[Leigh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 **** from morons, just be thankfull it was only verbal.


cheers

Browndog

 

[Tanga]

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]

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 **** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ******** 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]

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]

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

 

[zebba]

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 ******** 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]

Yeah. Sorry about that.

 

[drew9242]

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]

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.