Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst

[dodgyviper]

Caulkhead said:

dodgyviper said:

The owners entered into a legal contract to provide a service to the couple. If they're going to turn people away then they're in the wrong business.

You cannot hide bigotry behind a religous belief - to allow such is to validate every minority supremecy group on the planet - for they all BELIEVE they are supreme.

I presume you'll be at the forefront of the campaign to force muslim run curry houses and Jewish delis to serve pork curry and bacon sandwiches then?

To use your analogy, the gay couple would have to be walking into the b&b and asking for a conference room for 100 delegates.

To use the real life scenario, the gay couple have walked into your curry house, asked for an item on the menu and been refused because they're gay.

Did you even think about what you wrote?

[TallbutBuxomly]

Bill said:

Your objections get ever more nebulous.

You are entitled to that belief. Simple fact is this is not the simple black and white simple issue many on here perceive it to be.

If yourself and others wish to respond in the way legislators and politicians do that is up to you. Personally I prefer to look at the issue in a much wider context of the pros and cons rather than simply pandering to public opinion or a badly thought out knee jerk reaction.


ETA: I prefer to do and get things right with as minimal negative aspect as possible from the start rather than simply react and worry about the problems later.

[anonymous-user]

The trouble is that you cannot come up with a singe reasoned objection to allowing every (single) adult who wants to get married to do so. You keep retreating to reliance on how things have been in the past.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 13th October 20:22

[Sticks.]

Bill said:

Sticks. said:

It was posted a couple of pages back, if it helps.

So if there are equal rights for married couple and partners, is it just the name of it?

Yep. It makes the objections seem even more daft, doesn't it?

Or it makes all the hot air for little gain. I can see both arguments tbh.

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

You are entitled to that belief. Simple fact is this is not the simple black and white simple issue many on here perceive it to be.

If yourself and others wish to respond in the way legislators and politicians do that is up to you. Personally I prefer to look at the issue in a much wider context of the pros and cons rather than simply pandering to public opinion or a badly thought out knee jerk reaction.

Pros: gay people are treated equally.

Cons: people who don't like gay people have their noses mildly put out of joint.

I can't see a downside tbh.

[Sticks.]

Breadvan72 said:

The trouble is that you cannot come up with a singe reasoned objection to allowing every single adult who wants to get married. You keep retreating to reliance on how things have been in the past.

'How things have been in the past' is aka the accepted definition. I think it's changing that accepted definition for a minority is what a lot of people don't like afaik.

[TallbutBuxomly]

Breadvan72 said:

The trouble is that you cannot come up with a singe reasoned objection to allowing every single adult who wants to get married. You keep retreating to reliance on how things have been in the past.

Really? I have said that I cannot see a reason to change the centuries of tradition of a potentially short term trend toward homosexuals being accepted by society since if you look back through history being gay has come and gone in social acceptability in various societies.

I have also stated however that if the government could legislate correctly I would have no issue with it.

In other words breadvan I have no issue with the lgbt community being granted permission to get married IF legislation could be done sensibly and properly however I know you know and so does everyone else that the gov will fk things up and we will continue down the road pouring money into bank accounts of lawyers and potentially ruining lives on both sides.

[anonymous-user]

There's no reason for them to object. As pointed out above, if tradition was in itself a justification for something, we'd still have bear baiting and rickets.

[tubbystu]

TallbutBuxomly said:

If they could get married it would mean that anywhere that a straight couple can have a marriage ceremony a gay couple could too.

I'm very confused over your varying posts. Could you clarify whether;

Your main concern is that gay couples will demand the right to be married anywhere that straight couples can ? Giving ALL religions many obvious issues and problems ?

It has clearly been stated that religious organisations WILL NOT be forced to carry out same-sex marriages.

Home Office website said:

Equal civil marriage consultation

This consultation is now closed.

This consultation sets out the government's proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.

The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content

individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.

Linky


Or are you worried that if (at some point in the future) you say you are married, and others might be confused and not know if you are straight or gay by the simple statement that you are married ?

[TallbutBuxomly]

Bill said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

You are entitled to that belief. Simple fact is this is not the simple black and white simple issue many on here perceive it to be.

If yourself and others wish to respond in the way legislators and politicians do that is up to you. Personally I prefer to look at the issue in a much wider context of the pros and cons rather than simply pandering to public opinion or a badly thought out knee jerk reaction.

Pros: gay people are treated equally.

Cons: people who don't like gay people have their noses mildly put out of joint.

I can't see a downside tbh.

Exactly the point of my post. QUite clearly you aren't thinking in a wider context. To you its "those mean homophobes are trying to keep the homosexuals down" rather than what could the actual negative effect be of bringing in badly though out legislation.

Ie lgbt couple seeing it as a way to get compo suing for utterly frivolous reasons and losing vast sums of money when they lose their cases and wasting huge amounts of court and police time or the flipside potentially decent individuals being taken to the cleaners by homosexuals or gov equality depts going utterly overboard about the stupidest things due to the law being badly worded or applied.

That is merely a small corner of my thinking.

[anonymous-user]

Please give soem concrete examples of realistic problems that this small change would cause. What sort of silly lawsuits do you have in mind? I think you are raising chimerical problems.

[TallbutBuxomly]

tubbystu said:

Linky


Or are you worried that if (at some point in the future) you say you are married, and others might be confused and not know if you are straight or gay by the simple statement that you are married ?

Ah yes the home office bastion of accuracy in law. Just because the inept gov think they will apply the law in such a way that religious institutions will not get sued does not mean that is or will be the case.

How many times in fact have we heard a gov dept state they are going to bring in a law or simply do something people have said it will cause a certain thing to happen the dept flatly deny there are any cracks and once its applied it turns out the gov dept were in fact hopelessly wrong?

Put it very simply I don't trust the gov to get it right. I strongly suspect that the lawyers working for the church are probably right in believing the law will be applied badly meaning the church will end up being forced into either performing gay marriages or allowing them within church buildings.

[Bill]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Exactly the point of my post. QUite clearly you aren't thinking in a wider context. To you its "those mean homophobes are trying to keep the homosexuals down" rather than what could the actual negative effect be of bringing in badly though out legislation.

Ie lgbt couple seeing it as a way to get compo suing for utterly frivolous reasons and losing vast sums of money when they lose their cases and wasting huge amounts of court and police time or the flipside potentially decent individuals being taken to the cleaners by homosexuals or gov equality depts going utterly overboard about the stupidest things due to the law being badly worded or applied.

That is merely a small corner of my thinking.

So what could be a "negative effect" of calling civil partnerships marriage? Churches won't be forced to marry gay people, but will be allowed if that's what they want.

Er, what other bad things will happen?

[anonymous-user]

The sky will fall! There will be Earthquakes, tidal waves, and all out Zombie Apocalypses. Worse; we will all get .... the gay!

[Bill]

Btw have a read of your post that I've quoted above and tell me how the "homosexuals" vs "decent people" bit isn't derogatory.

[JonRB]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Really? I have said that I cannot see a reason to change the centuries of tradition of a potentially short term trend toward homosexuals being accepted by society since if you look back through history being gay has come and gone in social acceptability in various societies.p and we will continue down the road pouring money into bank accounts of lawyers and potentially ruining lives on both sides.

The trouble is that there aren't centuries of tradition. The definition of marriage has been constantly changing. It is only comparatively recently that interracial marriages have been allowed. Go back a little further and women were not allowed to own property; it had to be in their husband's name. Go back a little further and women were themselves all but property and had very little say in who they married.

Your "golden age" of centuries of a fixed definition of marriage just doesn't exist.

[JonRB]

tubbystu said:

Home Office website said:

Equal civil marriage consultation

This consultation is now closed.

This consultation sets out the government's proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.

The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content

individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.

Linky

There we go. Ideal. Let's call them "civil marriages" and "religious marriages". Then the religious nutcases can be happy that the only "proper" marriage is a religious one. And quite frankly they are welcome to it.

[Bill]

Breadvan72 said:

The sky will fall! There will be Earthquakes, tidal waves, and all out Zombie Apocalypses. Worse; we will all get .... the gay!

Not to mention the pretty boys at F1.

[TallbutBuxomly]

JonRB said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

Really? I have said that I cannot see a reason to change the centuries of tradition of a potentially short term trend toward homosexuals being accepted by society since if you look back through history being gay has come and gone in social acceptability in various societies.p and we will continue down the road pouring money into bank accounts of lawyers and potentially ruining lives on both sides.

The trouble is that there aren't centuries of tradition. The definition of marriage has been constantly changing. It is only comparatively recently that interracial marriages have been allowed. Go back a little further and women were not allowed to own property; it had to be in their husband's name. Go back a little further and women were themselves all but property and had very little say in who they married.

Your "golden age" of centuries of a fixed definition of marriage just doesn't exist.

In fact you will find that if you look at your response you will find the answer. Yes marriage has been shifting in inclusion constantly for centuries however it has always been applied to male/female.

[TallbutBuxomly]

JonRB said:

tubbystu said:

Home Office website said:

Equal civil marriage consultation

This consultation is now closed.

This consultation sets out the government's proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.

The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content

individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.

Linky

There we go. Ideal. Let's call them "civil marriages" and "religious marriages". Then the religious nutcases can be happy that the only "proper" marriage is a religious one. And quite frankly they are welcome to it.

Jon that's a perfectly reasonable and sensible response which in theory means the church is properly protected.