Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst

[walm]

Ozzie Osmond said:

A man has equality with a woman but that does not make him a woman. A white man has equality with a black man but that does not turn him into a black man.

Precisely.
You have simply made the point that your own argument is invalid.

Men/women, blacks/whites etc... HAVE EQUALITY.

Yet THE BIG GAY SHOES/heteros DON'T.

[TallbutBuxomly]

Breadvan72 said:

The point is that there should in general be no discrimination on the basis of involuntary attributes. Some exemptions can be made. For example, you can advertise for women only to work as changing room attendants at a female changing room. You can decline to employ a wheelchair user in a role that objectively requires the ability to walk. There is no reasonable basis for denying gay people the same marriage rights as straight people.

Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.

By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.

I am in principle not against gay marriage per say however I have massive concerns about the way it will be applied which is to say very badly much like with equality laws. Look at the couple with the b&b sued because they would not allow a gay couple to share a bed due their Christian beliefs.

There are other B&B's and hotels and in one case the couple offered to help the gay couple find alternate accommodation and had previously asked non married couples not stay because it was against their beliefs .

Now with something like a huge hotel I don't think there could be any religious argument against same sex couples sharing a room but small family owned b&B should be allowed but should also be obliged to make people aware beforehand.

My concern which is just swept aside because its apparently irrational or unfounded is that we will see the same happen here with gay marriage and in the end religious foundations will be forced through constant litigation to allow and possibly carry out same sex marriage against their beliefs.

I believe and I could be wrong that originally churches were not obliged to allow females to become bishops or LGBT individuals to become members etc but were forced through equalities laws and public pressure to allow it go be so causing massive rifts within the church.

[otolith]

TallbutBuxomly said:

otolith said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I see no reason for...

They want it. That's a reason for. Do you have a reason against?

So because someone in a wheelchair wants to become a fireman they should be entitled as its only "fair" to use a ludicrous and extreme example?

If I were to ask you why someone in a wheelchair could not be a fireman, is the only argument you could come up with "I see no reason for it"?

[TallbutBuxomly]

walm said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

A man has equality with a woman but that does not make him a woman. A white man has equality with a black man but that does not turn him into a black man.

Precisely.
You have simply made the point that your own argument is invalid.

Men/women, blacks/whites etc... HAVE EQUALITY.

Yet THE BIG GAY SHOES/heteros DON'T.

YES they do. The only difference is they cannot legally be described as married/ have a piece of paper that says marriage on it.

What they are demanding is the perceived "right" to change the context or meaning of the word marriage to include same sex couples which to the best of my knowledge it never has done.

If I remember the research I did on this for previous thread throughout history the relationship between same sex couples always been described as a union not using the word marriage.

[Pappa Lurve]

Ok, I am going to repeat myself here but it is a simple question....

Saying one objects without a reason is pointless. Those who agree or like me, think that the gay community should decide and we should respect them to make that choice and support it, take a simple view which is that it simply does not have a downside and if the gay community, who are the only ones it really affects want it, then they should be allowed.

Those who object tell us that marriage cannot be same sex or that gay marriage is a bad thing but for reasons that dont appear to be explained in simple plain English!!!

I honestly want to understand the opposing viewpoint beyond a religious or moral objection to homosexuality in general as I personally dont feel either of those are valid arguments as we live in a secular society and I dont see how homosexuals are in anyway immoral simply due to them liking to sleep with people with matching bits!

Really don't mean to sound in anyway confrontational here but I honestly dont understand the views of those who are so against it and I would like to understand them, even if I then choose to disagree with them!

[TallbutBuxomly]

otolith said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

otolith said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I see no reason for...

They want it. That's a reason for. Do you have a reason against?

So because someone in a wheelchair wants to become a fireman they should be entitled as its only "fair" to use a ludicrous and extreme example?

If I were to ask you why someone in a wheelchair could not be a fireman, is the only argument you could come up with "I see no reason for it"?

Obviously not much like my points about gay marriage.

Edited by TallbutBuxomly on Thursday 11th October 16:09

[TallbutBuxomly]

Pappa Lurve said:

Ok, I am going to repeat myself here but it is a simple question....

Saying one objects without a reason is pointless. Those who agree or like me, think that the gay community should decide and we should respect them to make that choice and support it, take a simple view which is that it simply does not have a downside and if the gay community, who are the only ones it really affects want it, then they should be allowed.

Those who object tell us that marriage cannot be same sex or that gay marriage is a bad thing but for reasons that dont appear to be explained in simple plain English!!!

I honestly want to understand the opposing viewpoint beyond a religious or moral objection to homosexuality in general as I personally dont feel either of those are valid arguments as we live in a secular society and I dont see how homosexuals are in anyway immoral simply due to them liking to sleep with people with matching bits!

Really don't mean to sound in anyway confrontational here but I honestly dont understand the views of those who are so against it and I would like to understand them, even if I then choose to disagree with them!

Who says they they are immoral? I thought I had made my reasoning perfectly clear.

[SpeedMattersNot]

Just a little question;

If homosexual marriage is allowed, what effect would this have on the wedding vows?

[ewenm]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Just a little question;

If homosexual marriage is allowed, what effect would this have on the wedding vows?

Isn't the wording of the vows something each couple can decide on themselves anyway?

[otolith]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Just a little question;

If homosexual marriage is allowed, what effect would this have on the wedding vows?

What vows do you imagine the law requires?

[otolith]

ewenm said:

Isn't the wording of the vows something each couple can decide on themselves anyway?

As far as I know, the only mandatory bit is the statement that you "know no lawful impediment...".

[otolith]

TallbutBuxomly said:

otolith said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

otolith said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I see no reason for...

They want it. That's a reason for. Do you have a reason against?

So because someone in a wheelchair wants to become a fireman they should be entitled as its only "fair" to use a ludicrous and extreme example?

If I were to ask you why someone in a wheelchair could not be a fireman, is the only argument you could come up with "I see no reason for it"?

Obviously not much like my points about gay marriage.

In which case your example doesn't really follow the question I asked Ozzie at all.

[Pappa Lurve]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Who says they they are immoral? I thought I had made my reasoning perfectly clear.

Great username BTW :-)

Sorry, I was summing up the views as I have seen them, not referring to anyone persons views in particular and I do think that some people object because of a moral issue around homosexuality.

So basically, you are saying that the situation we have works ok so why change it in essence? My apologies if I am misunderstanding and please know, I am honestly looking to understand and while I may not agree with you even when I do understand, I am certainly not going to attack you over views that may perhaps differ from mine. Just really annoys me when I struggle to understand a viewpoint even if the view is different to my own. Comes from being brought up in a family where we debated everything, often just for the fun of it I guess!

[tubbystu]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Obviously nog much like my points about gay marriage.

Your wheelchair bound firefighter is unable to pass the entrance policy and equally unable to perform the core elements.

Your same sex marriage partners are able to pass the entrance policy, and equally able to perform the core elements - support, care, love, affection, company , sexual satisfaction even, etc.

From you posts you seem not to have any immediate issue with being around those that favour same sex relationships. Why & what are you so worried about ?

Just because some of their ilk may wish to formally call any official relationship the same as that of a MF relationships, and simply be known as married rather than civil'd or partnered.

The civil partnership at least allows them to formalise the relationship and gain the tax benefits in bequethal of a regular marriage, but it is still a bit second class, isn't it ?

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

I know why I was banned from the other thread much as I expect to be banned from this one as I refuse to agree simply to appease or follow the crowd in a discussion or debate no matter how insulting, condescending or hypocritical people on forum may wish to be towards me like yourself.

No, you weren't. Not that it's particularly important here.

So, you've played your "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are gay" card. Brilliant. Where does that leave your argument?

You still seem think the rights of people who are homophobic are more important than those of gay people? In fact you feel so strongly about it you've argued at length on this and other threads that your own brother's (potential) relationship is less than yours.

It seems a little bizarre IMO.

[Derek Smith]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Consider two shoes. A left shoe and a right shoe are very similar to each other, some might say equal to each other, but they are not identical. When you have one of each you have a proper pair of shoes.

If you went into a shop and bought two shoes yet found when you got home that you had two left shoes or two right shoes you would take them back because they are not a pair. They are just two identical shoes and do not fit the concept of a "pair". Neither are they any use for their intended purpose.

Similarly two men or two women cannot IMO make a marriage. They are just two people who do not get to the starting line for the concept of "marriage" and there is nothing they can do to change that.

That's funny. Hilarious in fact. Or else it is something else, for which there is a name.

Did you know that in the 18thC boots and shoes were not handed by the way?

Marriage was nothing to do with the church for the majority of the population for hundreds of years. Two people living together were married. Not virtually married, but in fact married. Indeed, there was the delightfully named clandestine marriage for those who refused to ask permission. The church could 'bless' a marriage, the phrase still being used I believe, but they were married despite what the church said. Divorce was freely available, and the instigator could be the wife, for hundreds of years as well.

The Hardwicke (First Marriage) Act of 1752 or so (memory escapes) gave the role of officially and exclusively, marrying people purely because the Industrial Revolution rendered the old form of recording, people merely remembering in a village, all but useless. The church was a national organisation that was only too pleased to be able to charge for the procedure.

The legislation showed the bigotry of the government as what were Jews and other religions supposed to do? So the church's ownership of marriage is illusory, and was even before registry offices were allowed.

Conveniently forgetting the way they got to have exclusive rights to marriage - despite the fact that the monopoly has long gone - is either a slip of memory or a deliberate lie.

The 'for the procreation of children' is something the church invented. Indeed, there were established norms which meant that a woman must marry her brother-in-law if hubby died, regardless of age, the ability to bear children of no account.

[Bluebarge]

Breadvan72 said:

The point is that there should in general be no discrimination on the basis of involuntary attributes. Some exemptions can be made. For example, you can advertise for women only to work as changing room attendants at a female changing room. You can decline to employ a wheelchair user in a role that objectively requires the ability to walk. There is no reasonable basis for denying gay people the same marriage rights as straight people.

Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.

By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.

Paedophilia is an involuntary attribute. The desire to protect children from paedophiles is a voluntary one. I don't think I want to play your game of Top Trumps.

The fact is that there is one predominant sexual behaviour (heterosexual)and many minority behaviours (homosexuality, paedophilia, incest etc). These are all "natural" and involuntary, but some are frowned on for cultural reasons. Homosexuality was frowned on for centuries in many cultures (including our own) but not all. Paedophilia is still frowned on in most cultures except Radio 1. Homosexuality is now increasingly accepted in most elements of our culture but not all. The objections are not exclusively from a religious dimension and Churches are not "homophobic" - they merely believe that marriage should be a permanent union between a man and a woman and will not perform the marriage ceremony where the couple cannot comply with the solemn vows of the ceremony - which is why divorced couples are not normally allowed to marry in Church - gay couples are still welcome in Church, it's just the Church won't amend their ceremonies to encompass something that is contrary to their teaching - whether that be heterosexual couples who have already broken their marriage vows, or gay couples for whom the ceremony was never intended.

So, the fact that homosexuality is gaining acceptance is not a "rational" development which is opposed by the "irrational", it is merely a change in cultural norms; just as it is now unacceptable for a man to marry a girl of 12 who may be sexually mature from a biological perspective, when once it was the norm (and is still the norm in some countries) because women didn't often survive long past their 30's.

So, stop waving your "rational" and "bigot" cards people. There may be a shift in cultural norms, and I think the fairies are slowly winning, but it will take some time and in the meantime we should share some "peace n'love" (although not that sort, obviously).

FWIW, I think this whole issue would be solved by the separation of Church and State, a la Francaise.

[elster]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The issue here is not same sex relationships it is same sex marriage.

If same sex people want to have a relationship then that's fine by me. If they want a civil partnership to recognise their commitment to each other that's fine by me.

What I see no reason for is same-sex relationships to be categorised together with the heterosexual relationships which reflect the biological reality of human survival and the bedrock of our society.


Let me ask you a question. Do you find either of these objectionable and if so, why?

A. an 18-year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl

B. an 18-year old man having sex with a 16 year old boy

I never had you down as one person who likes to restrict peoples freedoms.

I got the impression you were against restricting person freedom, or do you only say that when it is something that has an impact on yourself?

If you don't like gay marriage, great. Don't get married to another man.

Complaining that one couple can be allowed to have freedom and others shouldn't be allowed. The ultimate reason for this is equal rights for both. There is absolutely no reason not too allow it.

Biology - So you would like to go in and stop all other animals from gay relationships? Use this as they don't have marriages.
Religion - Would be forced on the church... well it isn't in other countries that allow it as part of the ECHR.
Tradition - You mean a modern religious tradition. It was accepted in the Roman empire

At the end of the day it is inevitable that one day this will just be accepted. It is very similar arguments to those that were used against same sex action. That was made legal over 30 years ago.

Gradually as those who grew up merely accepting that this was the norm die off then society will become more tolerant. This has been shown as there is a reduction in religious activity in a country it is becoming more widely accepted. This is a form of discrimination that exists.

If you don't like it, don't do it.

[SpeedMattersNot]

ewenm said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

Just a little question;

If homosexual marriage is allowed, what effect would this have on the wedding vows?

Isn't the wording of the vows something each couple can decide on themselves anyway?

Ah, sorry, speaking in terms of the church marriages.

[otolith]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Ah, sorry, speaking in terms of the church marriages.

That's up to the churches, as is whether they will conduct gay marriages.