[Closed] Gay Marriage

Why would you suggest your concept of equality is far superior to the concept of equality say in other part of the world?

People are held equal, or they aren't. It's a fairly straight forward definition, n'est-ce pas? Not much wiggle room.

No no it's OK people, I understand completely. It's all to do with our western understanding of equality, which we shouldn't assume is the correct one. You know, like how people can be a little bit pregnant.

Isn't that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

The western world might have the concept of equality but the rest of the world might interpret equality differently from yours so does that mean they are wrong and out of order?

Why would you suggest your concept of equality is far superior to the concept of equality say in other part of the world?

Chewkw: you are Kaesae and I claim my £5!

David Cameron was on the radio this morning, saying how he 'respects' those who oppose Gay marriage. So, he's publicly stated he respects those who are homophobic and don't believe in equality. As simple as that.

If we lived in a truly civilised society, we wouldn't even be having this debate. It's nonsense.

I assume you mean Radio 4 and much as I hate all Tories his message was more about how he respects all aspects of the Tory party but he was proud to have brought in this legislation. It was an olive branch or him reaching out to his party - what else can he do ?

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia.

FFS I defended Cameron, Now I feel dirty

FFS I defended Cameron, Now I feel dirty

Ha Ha!

So, he's publicly stated he respects those who are homophobic and don't believe in equality. As simple as that.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Many of the "against" campaign have their own reasons, and while I don't agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as "homophobic".

GrahamS - Member
Many of the "against" campaign have their own reasons, and while I don't agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as "homophobic".

+1.

Plus this latest vote was interesting in that it was billed as a vote of conscience and hence a free vote. Does this make any difference to the idea of whether you are voting for your conscience or for your perception of the conscience of your constituents?

But there is a lot of nonesense talked about equality. The kneejerk reaction is to conclude that equality is naturally and always good when it patently is not. Of course, the legal system is often presented as working towards the goal of equality in terms of "having the same status, rights or opportunities" etc. But equally the system also works to defend inequality where this is "deemed" appropriate or beneficial. Women in the armed forces for example.

In some cases, equality can also infringe on liberty and freedom - so which is more important? IMO, the answer is rarely clear cut.

In the case of gay marriage, it is easy for those not directly involved (like myself) to dismiss the matter as unimportant/semantics or not as important as other matters that governments could or should be focused on. But that ignores the distress and harm that the perceived/real discrimination has on other people. Equally as others and CMD have said, I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

This is where I think Cameron deserves credit. When I saw the draft legislation a few months ago it seemed to contain a very sensible balance. If I recall correctly, the discrimination against gay couples was correctly (IMO) removed and the institution of marriage made available to them. At the same time, the position of (orthodox) religions was protected by statute with the burden to opt-in, rather than opt-out *. The position of the CoE was made very explicit, so I fail to understand why people are so against the legislation. IMO, the interests of both sides have been represented and protected. Isn't this one example of "win-win" legislation?

* edit: re church "gay" weddings. If an institution is opposed, indeed outwardly hostile to one's choice of sexuality and lifestyle, why would you want to have such an important occasion held in their places of worship? Surely, these are the last institutions that you would want to be involved?

I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

How is it imposing anything on them? No-one's asking them to have a gay marriage - it's none of their sodding business.

This is where I think Cameron deserves credit.

Agreed.

* edit: re church "gay" weddings. If an institution is opposed, indeed outwardly hostile to one's choice of sexuality and lifestyle, why would you want to have such an important occasion held in their places of worship? Surely, these are the last institutions that you would want to be involved?

How about, rather than you guessing what hypothetical gay people think, we let them get married in church, if the church is happy to perform the ceremony, and no-one else gets to have a say because its nothing to do with them?

At the same time, the position of (orthodox) religions was protected by statute with the burden to opt-in, rather than opt-out

Well grum, you and I may not agree with them, but why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That's double standards. People have strong belief about the definition of marriage, couldn't I also say that it is none of my "sodding business" to change their views too.

Hence, that adds more to the idea that Cameron is introducing what looks like a pretty decent compromise to a difficult issue.

Dave is starting to wear the brow-beaten, despairing, defeated look - all caused by your supposed allies - of a certain former prime minister...

[img] [/img]

How about, rather than you guessing what hypothetical gay people think, we let them get married in church, if the church is happy to perform the ceremony, and no-one else gets to have a say because its nothing to do with them?

That is why I am asking the question! But this is a view already expressed by a person directly affected earlier so not exactly guessing!

The reason why I think the legislation appears a good compromise is that I agree with you later point. If a church wishes to perform the ceremony it can do so (I think). Equally, if it isn't, it cannot be forced. So both parties have a solution that works.

D0NK - Member
religions being overly upset with something that doesn't concern them

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

I see no reason to dismiss the views of those who feel that (1) marriage is an institution that should be reserved to a man and a woman or (2) that have reasons to oppose homosexuality on religious or other grounds. I disagree with both views but who am I/who are we to impose our beliefs and moral judgements on them?

I think the question is who are they to impose their views on marriage on others - they are telling other people what they can do ebven though we may not follow their religion. We are simply saying you cannot do this.

why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That's double standards.

it is also worth noting that the religious have exemption form anti discrimination law and can legally still discriminate on the grounds of sexuality...would they let us legally discriminate on the grounds of religions ...again whose double standards?

Oh and lets not turn it into a religion thread please

EDIT:

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

well they would certainly like to claim it as their but it pre-dates religion by some distance. Religious involvement in the ceremony is a relatively recent phenomena- marriage exists and it has little to do with religion IMHO. you may as well claim birth [ baptism or death[ funeral] is a religious issue but they would still exist with or without it

 

Well grum, you and I may not agree with them, but why does that mean that they have to accept our views? That's double standards. People have strong belief about the definition of marriage, couldn't I also say that it is none of my "sodding business" to change their views too.

That's some weird twisting of logic even by your standards. I'm not asking them to change their views or imposing anything on them, just asking them not to impose their views on others.

- 'Imposing my views' on them makes absolutely no difference to them other than something happens they don't like.
- Them imposing their views on others means people are not being allowed to do something they really want to do, something that harms no-one.

The two are not equivalent.

Odd, I thought marriage was very much a concern of religions?

Wasn't the concept of marriage around before the Christian church? I don't see why they think they should get to have control over it.

Obviously if you want to get married in one of their establishments you have to agree to their rules, which is fair enough I guess.

Do you reckon you'd be allowed to take over a disused church, and get a marriage license for civil ceremonies? Could be a good money-spinner I reckon. 🙂

JY, Grum and Donk - do we not agree on the ends, if not the means?

Junkyard - lazarus
I think the question is who are they {and who are we] to impose their {our] views on marriage on others...they {we] are telling other people what they can do ebven though we may not follow their religion {our ideas}....

Whats the expression, FTFY?

..We are [I am] simply saying you cannot do this....

grum - Member
That's some weird twisting of logic even by your standards.

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Yes, but within a legal and ethical framework. It's also your duty to uphold the rights of all your constituants and not favour one group over another, if doing so impinges on the freedom and rights of others.

Many of the "against" campaign have their own reasons, and while I don't agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as "homophobic".

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it's not homophobia, what is it?

Simple solution would be to remove the privilege of all religious institutions to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and require that all marriages can only be fully legal if performed in a civil non-denominational secular 'ceremony'. By all means, get 'married' in a church etc, but that would have no legal weight. You'd still need to register the marriage at a civil level. This would equalise all marriages under law. Then, the Church of whatever can be free to hold ceremonies for whomever they choose, but everyone would still have the right to be 'maried'.

Cougar - Moderator

People are held equal, or they aren't. It's a fairly straight forward definition, n'est-ce pas? Not much wiggle room.

Is that your universal assumption for mankind ... I mean ... you know what I mean the little crawling thing?

So does that mean if they do not comply with your definition, you have the right to liberate their mind? i.e. help them understand and educate them in your "image"?

AdamW - Member

Chewkw: you are Kaesae and I claim my £5!

Are you trying to downgrade the status of Dear Leader?

Junkyard - lazarus

Isn't that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

What telling them how to act is telling them how to think? we make people think murder is wrong raoe is wrong - it is basically what laws do tell people right from wrong and impose it on the
Yes I do think it is very similar but what in earth is your point?

In certain countries they cut off the head of murders or they hang drug traffickers is that wrong? You might call that state murder ... I like the words "state murder" big word that ... 😀

My point is that your view is yours but when you try to educate others in your view aren't you like the guy who says everyone is created in my image? 🙄

JY, Grum and Donk - do we not agree on the ends, if not the means?

Whether the church invented the word marriage (monogamy was around long before most current religions I believe) and the state pinched it, I'm not sure but either way it's not definitively religious anymore. Religions AFAIK aren't trying to claw back civil marriage and claim them null and void, they aren't demonstrating outside registry offices complaining about a couple of divorcees getting remarried citing it shouldn't be allowed as it's against god's laws. They're just trying to prevent a minority getting the same benefit that others have.

Do you reckon you'd be allowed to take over a disused church, and get a marriage license for civil ceremonies?

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn't stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons.

In addition to the rather hateful homophobia that some MPs have spouted, there has also been an inordinate amount of religious privilige in the debate has been astonishing. Having an MP who is heavily involved with the CofE complaining that it might end up with Pagan weddings was ridiculous. Why he thinks christianity is worthy of more respect than paganism is frankly beyond me.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn't stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons

Yes, you (and I) respect the RIGHT for them to have a "misguided, racist, swivel eyed" view. That doesn't mean you respect the view itself.

In the UK, it wasn’t until 1753 that a wedding [i]had[/i] to be held in a religious setting in order to be legally valid. Civil weddings were re-introduced in 1836.

I wonder if people complained back then that allowing civil, non-religious weddings would devalue the entire institution? The Church of England in particular has no right to grumble, it was set up by a man just so he could a) divorce his first wife, b) remarry five times and c) executed one of his wives. I think that takes a few more liberties with what I consider to be the value of marriage (lifelong commitment to a partner) than teh gays.

Could be a good money-spinner I reckon

Whats the expression, FTFY?

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it's not homophobia, what is it?

Well you're asking me to expand on viewpoints and arguments that I don't believe, but okay...

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don't think this will happen but worry that it somehow "dilutes" the definition of "marriage" (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other - they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

I'm sure someone could explain some of the other arguments against if you were really interested.

So much of this is a joke,

I personally don't think churches/businesses should be forced into marrying anyone the don't want to, irrelevant of sexual orientation, religion etc. But the institute of marriage should be open.

I know a few gay guys who's main comment on the CofE is Why would anyone want to get married somewhere that they don't feel welcome or have any interest in. I think that's a fair point, look at how many straight couples who get married in hotels etc.

On the other hand, I have a gay friends who's very much CofE and just views their official position as being out of touch with much of the membership and he's working to change it from within.

they argue that marriage is for procreation and for children so therefore you need to be different genders
It denies a child a father and a mother
The majority have rights - ie we can impose on minorities
Slippery slope - what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike
Some ill defined human nature /nature/natural order of things is for marriage and between genders

They are all pretty weak tbh and not my view

I think the law on gay marriage should be you don't have to marry a gay person if you don't want to

In the majority of civilisations, for as long as we have evidence, marriage has [b]not[/b] been between one man and one woman, exclusively for the procreation of children.

It's actually quite a modern idea - the majority of societies throughout history have been a lot more flexible. 😀

Same sex/gender marriage is as old as the idea of marriage itself.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase 'I'm not a racist, but.....'.
They don't actually want people to be happy.
They're just scared & insecure.

Happiness is massively underated.

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don't think this will happen but worry that it somehow "dilutes" the definition of "marriage" (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other - they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

Homophobia then.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

So why aren't they making a fuss about 'straight' marriages of convenience then? Bogus argument.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase 'I'm not a racist, but.....'.
They don't actually want people to be happy.
They're just scared & insecure.

It's all about power and control. Certain organisations (like the CofE) want to retain as much societal control as possible, to serve their own ends. This is ultimately divisive, unjust and against any notion of true equality. Why should those who choose (for, unlike a person's sexuality, their religion is a choice) to follow a particular religion get to dictate what everyone else can and cannot do?

Slippery slope - what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike

What a load of bollocks.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

You know this argument puzzles me because as far as I can tell this option already exists, provided the flatmates are of different genders so I can't see the problem with extending it to flatmates of the same gender.

the pink pew.

Just cleaning the tea off my keyboard. Defo favourite phrase of the week.

allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes

Actually, this is the bit that really boiled my wee when they did the fudge over the civil partnership. I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business. It is absolutely commonplace to see people sharing property and signing up to legally binding agreements, but there isn't any real legal basis for it, so it always ends up being one or other being liable for whatever it is. Most especially now that most people have figured out that the religious structures are an utter crock and don't bother with getting married. Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO. The current debate is the right one for them IMHO and generally I'm in favour of it.

Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO.

As far as I can see only the religious are telling others what they can and cannot do.

There must be an atheist somewhere opposing this but the vocal opposition is religious. It is still a deep irony that they want to tell others what to do and when we say they cannot we are "discriminating"

I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business

Homophobia then.

🙄 No, not really.

Some religions don't eat pork. That doesn't mean they are swinophobic.

(You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at. I'd suggest that coaxing other people to recite arguments that they themselves don't believe in just to give you someone to shout at is perhaps not the right answer)

You know this argument puzzles me..

Indeed - it is a fairly crap argument. I guess they would argue that just because a loophole already exists doesn't mean the next step should be allow better access to that loophole.

But I'm with Berm Bandit there. Why shouldn't platonic relationships be able to benefit in the same was a married partners. In fact, why should married people get [i]any[/i] special benefits?

Junkyard - lazarus
so either engage or dont engage

Sorry, did I miss the bit where you have become the arbiter on who can and cannot engage? The same yesterday with telling another poster that, "no one agrees or finds you funny"? Has this become JYWorld? What happened to tolerance - or is the underlying intolerance of alternative views becoming exposed?

There really is no need for "Rolls eyes...you are bright enough....engage or dont engage...you seem to chose what exactly." We both agree that gay people shpuld not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. We appear to disagree on how to deal with those who disagree with this point. As made clear, I will chose to disagree but be happy to let them have their views if that is OK with you. And to be clear, for that reason I will repeat that the current legislation appears to get the balance broadly correct in allowing respect and tolerance for different views. So for that, at least, well done Cameron.

SS - good point {see grum, its not me "just guessing!"]

GrahamS - Member
(You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at. I'd suggest that coaxing other people to recite arguments that they themselves don't believe in just to give you someone to shout at is perhaps not the right answer)

+1

No, not really.

So what is it then, that forms a rational basis for the objection to Gay marriage, if not homophobia? If the principle of Occam's Razor is applied, I can't see anything but homophobia ultimately, personally. The argument about 'procreation' is null and void as it's not an obligation under religion or law to do so. So stripped right down, the argument against comes back to homophobia.

You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at

Not really; I'm just challenging anyone who believes there is a justification to oppose the right of Gay people (or indeed anyone) to get married and have equal rights in society, to come forward and do so. So far, no-one has. Ergo, we in a so-called 'civilized' society shouldn't even be having this debate.

THM you do a fair bit of claiming that people are playing you and not the ball- what would you call this?
Still your consistency is one of your many charms

or is the underlying intolerance of alternative views becoming exposed?

Chewkw: Apologies.

After keeping hearing you talk about 'Dear Leader' (I guess that's David Cameron? Very odd phrase) I amend my comment:

You are Nigel Farage, and I claim my £5!

JY - you are doing the goading and I am asking you to stop. Simple and consistent. No more reaction from this end required as to coin a phrase, "you are bright enough".

😀
I am not TJ but nice try

So what is it then, that forms a rational basis for the objection to Gay marriage, if not homophobia?

Why does it have to be rational? Plenty of religious beliefs aren't [i]rational[/i] (see pork) - that doesn't make it phobic.

If the principle of Occam's Razor is applied, I can't see anything but homophobia ultimately, personally.

Well if you apply Occam's Razor then anyone who isn't actually a practising homosexual [i]must[/i] be homophobic - since they are dismissing it as an option 😆

anyone who isn't actually a practising homosexual must be homophobic -

So how the hell do you practice being Homosexual,with a mirror lots of pink and mens fitness magazine on the bed.

Then what sort of award do you get if you qualify.

Edited. Can't be bothered getting into a pointless argument.

Perfectly 'rational' therefore to considerpork an 'unclean' meat andto forbid it's consumption

Doesn't exactly apply in today's society though does it?

See also: no women allowed in when they are on the blob, no cutting your beard, no fish on a Sunday, no foreskins allowed, etc etc etc

Religions are full of [i]irrational[/i] beliefs and rules - some of which may have once been rational and some of which are just there because their chosen deity "said so" (the most irrational belief of all).

So it is probably the wrong place to look for rationality. That doesn't mean they are homophobic though.

So one's sexuality is an 'option' now, is it? What a stupid thing to say.

Of course it is stupid - that was rather my point!

The fact that I don't find men attractive is [i]not[/i] rational. It's just the way I am. That doesn't make me a homophobe.

Y'see?

Edited. Can't be bothered getting into a pointless argument.

Fair enough. But you came here obviously spoiling for one.

I'm glad to have sated your lust 😉

AdamW - Member

Chewkw: Apologies.

After keeping hearing you talk about 'Dear Leader' (I guess that's David Cameron? Very odd phrase) I amend my comment:

You are Nigel Farage, and I claim my £5!

You shall not claim £5 ! (in the tone of LOTR ... you shall not pass ...)

Are you trying to downgrade Dear Leader to maggots kind?

The status of Dear Leader is even higher than Vlad the Impaler.

🙄 <- not the one as described by some maggots as swivel-eyed loons.

The debate was always about about allowing a union[ marriage or civil partnership] between same sex people they never changed it -it was not a campaign to allow your "healthy idea" that got stolen by gays

What I actually said was that the civil partnership thing was a fudge and not the real issue, it was actually about "gay marriage" which is where we are now. Thus the very sensible idea of being able to form a legal entity to deal with joint ownership of property became waylaid by that argument.

i.e. civil partnership is in reality a non gender issue of some value, which was used by the politicos to fudge the larger issue of gay marriage, which is where we are, (quite rightly IMHO), now.

So thank you very much for putting me right, but please keep your accusations of homophobia to yourself.

been mentioned on here by several people, thinking about it it's possibly not a bad shout, tho I think there would be a lot of opposition. Too much scope for abuse?

But I'm with Berm Bandit there. Why shouldn't platonic relationships be able to benefit in the same was a married partners. In fact, why should married people get any special benefits?

I could be wrong, I have scanned it quite quickly, but I find it most amusing that this topic has so far run for 7 PAGES without any fundamental differences in opinion. Yeah there has been some discussions on semantics, but I have failed to spot a single poster who has come out and put across an honestly held argument opposing gay marriage. (I'm actually somewhat reassured, yet disappointed at the same time).

What IS amusingly ironic, is that some of the earliest points made were along the lines of 'its obviously the right thing to happen; why waste the time debating it...' 😀

v8ninety - Member

I could be wrong, I have scanned it quite quickly, but I find it most amusing that this topic has so far run for 7 PAGES without any fundamental differences in opinion. Yeah there has been some discussions on semantics, but I have failed to spot a single poster who has come out and put across an honestly held argument opposing gay marriage. (I'm actually somewhat reassured, yet disappointed at the same time).

What IS amusingly ironic, is that some of the earliest points made were along the lines of 'its obviously the right thing to happen; why waste the time debating it...'

Yup.

The last time we did this, the swivel eyed religious loons(tm) were out in force.

They'll be polishing their warheads (sic) & praying for out souls as we speak.

...praying for out souls...

I see what you did there. 😉

Has anyone bothered to ask the old bloke who lives in Rome for his opinion, and no matter what his opinion, all his brainwshed followers will obey.

Doesn't exactly apply in today's society though does it?

Of course it does. How ignorant. For example, millions of Muslims live in areas with poor sanitation, lack of electricity for refrigerations, an where the production and storage of pork wouldn't be advisable on health grounds. So, still rather relveant to an awful lot of people.

Religions are full of irrational beliefs and rules - some of which may have once been rational and some of which are just there because their chosen deity "said so" (the most irrational belief of all).

So it is probably the wrong place to look for rationality. That doesn't mean they are homophobic though.

Your first point is correct; there's a load of nonsense wrapped up in religion (as well as plenty of good stuff). But certainly the main Abrahamic religions do forbid homosexuality, with no historical or current justification. Ergo, they are inherently homophobic. And anyone using such religious doctrine to oppose Gay marriage is espousing homophobic ideology.

Fair enough. But you came here obviously spoiling for one.

Seems that I'm simply correcting your mistakes, is all.

But certainly the main Abrahamic religions do forbid homosexuality, with no historical or current justification.

IIRC they all have [i]plenty[/i] of justifications why they regard homosexuality as "bad".

Including, but not limited to, the good old [i]"the invisible sky fairy said so"[/i] one.

Ergo, they are inherently homophobic.

No, sorry, but someone can regard homosexuality as a sin without being a homophobe.

Just like they can regard eating pork as a sin without being a swinophobe.

Or the may regard adultery as a sin, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have an irrational hatred of adulterers.

That's the whole [i]"hate the sin not the sinner"[/i] thing.

As I say, it's not a viewpoint that I agree with, or have anything in common with. Nor is it one that I wish to defend any further, even as a [s]Devil's[/s] [i]Saint's[/i] Advocate.

But I do think that you greatly diminish your own argument by pointing a great big "Homophobia" foam-finger at anyone that disagrees, rather than listening to their concerns.

(also you are clearly still spoiling for an argument amongst people who largely agree with you - so I'm out)

IIRC they all have plenty of justifications why they regard homosexuality as "bad".

They may think they do. The law states otherwise:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work
in education
as a consumer
when using public services
when buying or renting property
as a member or guest of a private club or association
You are legally protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.

You’re also protected from discrimination if:

you’re associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, eg a family member or friend
you’ve complained about discrimination or supported someone else’s claim

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination

I notice religious organisations appear to be missing from places where your rights are protected.

No, sorry, but someone can regard homosexuality as a sin without being a homophobe.

So, if they are prejudiced against homosexuals, they aren't homophobic? Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. Homosexuality is a fact. Beleiving homosexuality is a 'sin' is a fiction.

But I do think that you greatly diminish your own argument by pointing a great big "Homophobia" foam-finger at anyone that disagrees, rather than listening to their concerns.

What 'concerns' are these? I've yet to hear anything that makes any real sense.

Or the may regard adultery as a sin, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have an irrational hatred of adulterers.

Not quite the same though, is it? Adultery is a choice that, although a consenting act between two people, is a betrayal that causes considerable emotional harm to a third. Homosexuality is an innate part of a person that they're born with, that in itself harms no-one.

A more accurate analogy would probably be, "One might think of black people as being less than white people, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have an irrational hatred of black people". Which is plainly cobblers.

quartz - Member

So, if they are prejudiced against homosexuals, they aren't homophobic?

You are assuming that anyone who is opposed to the legalisation of same-sex marriage is "homophobic". And yet it is an established fact that there is some opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage from within the gay community.

As clearly these people are unlikely to be "homophobic", can you not accept that there might be reasons other than homophobia for someone's opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage ?

"it is an established fact that there is some opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage from within the gay community."
Is it ?

As an aside to Ernesto's comment, here's a website that keeps a log of homophobic homosexuals: [url= http://gayhomophobe.com/ ]gayhomophobe.com[/url]. Usually deeply closeted religious types.

Of my gay friends the vast majority want marriage equality, a few really don't give a toss and the remainder hate religion with such vehemence that they don't want their happiness to be in any way even remotely indirectly affected by god squadders.

EDIT:

I do recall 10 o'clock Live last year when there was someone gay arguing with Boy George that he hated being gay, but he was a very religious catholic. Bit sad really. Life is great if you accept yourself!

Is it ?

Yes, but I'm guessing you probably haven't heard.

No in fairness I have not heard any group in the gay community speaking out against equality of marriage rights .

I didn't mention anything about "groups", I said "there is some opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage from within the gay community."

There you go, fill your pockets : [url= http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=12&gs_id=rk&xhr=t&q=gays+opposed+to+gay+marriage&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=gays+opposed&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.bGE&fp=ba64e33975863f3&biw=1024&bih=607 ]click[/url]

Well, that didn't take long did it?

Despite the assurances that the new law would would not attempt to force the church to perform gay marriages:

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/gay-dads-sue-church-of-england

Good.

Despite the assurances that the new law would would not attempt to force the church to perform gay marriages

It doesn't, however they may be able to (or at least attempt to) demonstrate that the church "opt out" of equality laws infringes many obvious rights. And unfortunately they will lose.

However I look forward to a time when religious organisations have the power to perform legal functions in society removed.

[img] [/img]

oh ninfan

your god is dead and no one cares

your god is dead and no one [s]cares[/s] [b]noticed[/b]

FIFY

Has anyone bothered to ask the old bloke who lives in Rome for his opinion, and no matter what his opinion, all his brainwshed followers will obey.

its a reference to a nin song:

He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see
He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity
He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity

Your God is dead and no one cares
If there is a Hell I will see you there

He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion atrocities done in his name

Your God is dead and no one cares
Drowning in his own hypocrisy
If there is a Hell I will see you there
Burning with your god in humility
Will you die for this?

http://www.ninwiki.com/heresy

It's interesting how some people don't want religious organisations to interfere in their affairs in any way. But are nevertheless very determined that they should be allowed to interfere in the affairs of religious organisations.

The absurdity of it all appears lost on them.

Jeez, is this thread still rumbling on?

Seems to me there's precious little love in the world, so it should be celebrated wherever it's found.