Gay Marriage

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

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? Of course it opens the argument of why should a couple “in love” qualify for special legal status when a platonic couple cannot – inequality?

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 any 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?

You really miss TJ to goad and react dont you

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 rational (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 must 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 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.

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 not 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’m not sure how this would achieve special benefit or could be abused. The point is simple. There is no easy civil legal form for the joint ownership of property without being married. The concept of a civil partnership should IMHO be about two or more people forming an agreement to take joint responsibility in law for something or other, no more, no less. So for example a student let. Generally the agreements will be between one individual and the owner, not with the complete group. If there is a problem the owner goes after the lead name, not the entire group. It’s then down to the lead name to sort it out with the members of the group. If you try to buy a house likewise, generally there will be a lead name on the documents. The idea is that in a partnership you are jointly and severally liable for whatever it might be. This is not a one way transaction though, as it makes it easier and more equitable for people to enter into a project together. That is all, there are no undertones to it. As I say the problem is the concept has been used for something that it shouldn’t be, and as can clearly be seen can’t be discussed without getting into ludicrous accusations.

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 plenty of justifications why they regard homosexuality as “bad”.

Including, but not limited to, the good old “the invisible sky fairy said so” 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 “hate the sin not the sinner” 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 Devil’s Saint’s 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: 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 : click

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.

oh ninfan

your god is dead and no one cares

your god is dead and no one cares noticed

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.

Yeah, just like they’ve obeyed various Popes’ instructions to not have sex before marriage, remain faithful in marriage, love their neighbour…

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.