The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > There are no 'gay' people, just people > Comments

There are no 'gay' people, just people : Comments

By Bernard Toutounji, published 27/6/2014

Who we are as people is defined by things much deeper than how we define our sexuality.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
@runner, @Lego
Do you seriously believe homosexuals appropriated the word gay? How is it that a small part of the population got to dictate the language use of the vastly superior straight humans whilst being persecuted by anti-sodomy laws?

Anyone with half a brain engaged would get that gay arose as a derogatory term of which GLBTI had no choice in back then or now. Homosexuals did not even have a right to accommodation at the time let alone language. It is cultural and religious cognitive dissonance.

Why carry on about linguistics that evolved more than 40 years ago? Couldn't possibly miss the opportunity to sink the boot into someone who is already down, despised and bruised?
Posted by Eric G, Saturday, 28 June 2014 1:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,

I think LEGO's point was precisely that, that a flying fish is not a bird.

Ducks and cormorants swim underwater, but that doesn't make them fish either :)

The relatively permanent relationship between one man and one woman, more or less exclusively with each other, has been designated a 'marriage'. Good luck with other forms of relationship, but they still won't be 'marriages', so the people involved can call them something else.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 28 June 2014 2:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

No. LEGO clearly stated that fish can't fly -
so I suggested he Google "flying fish,"
because some do. Just as there's that old
quote that some people use - "God made Adam and
Eve, not Adam and Steve!" To which one needs
to ask - "Then who made Steve?"

As for your definition of what "marriage" is?

Thank You for sharing your opinion.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
and usually as God given as well. Much of the current
concern about the fate of the modern family stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable, and above all, that the family,
like any other social institution, does change through
time, in our own society as in all others.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 28 June 2014 2:36:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Joe/Loudmouth and Lego but you have no choice about the use of the word marriage just as I have no choice but to be called gay and be identified as such. Why did you think you had a choice or that the law change isn't inevitable? Joe it is a bit like you making up points for Lego that they never made.

I view your messages with glee. Within a decade it is highly likely both of you will be invited to a marriage of non-heterosexuals (and that's plenty of time too for a closet door to materialise and break open). Many of us are already celebrating our significant relationships as marriage even when we can't take advantage of another country's laws. I hope it is someone close, not because you will have abused them, but because of the moral dilemma this will present to you. You might even find you are not good enough for your family. Who would've thunk it?
Posted by Eric G, Saturday, 28 June 2014 3:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Eric,

You miss my point, and probably LEGO's as well. I have no objection to unions of any one person and another and I wish them well, and I would defend their rights to such unions, but I suppose I assume a very narrow definition of 'marriage' in a Western society like Australia's. The word's taken, it means what it means, and you're free to find another one.

And Foxy, as an atheist, I don't believe any fanciful yarns about an Adam and an Eve, and neither about any Steve :)

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 28 June 2014 5:08:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't we just drop this never-ending nonsense ? There'll be queers, like or not, nothing anyone can do about it.

why waste so much good discussion time & space on an unwinable subject. Queers should stop being in our faces & we'll leave them alone. Simple !
There are people out there getting hungry & poorer & all some morons can think about is some perverse component of our society.
Acquire some decency & care about deserving people.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 28 June 2014 8:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy