Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Mostly that is true, thanks be to FSM, but the Cof E does have a few hardline nutters.
Carey and Williams (the latter is at lest not a homophobe) have set a worrying trend of being Archbishop of Canterbury whilst also being a believing Christian, a thing unheard of since about the time of Cranmer. It is bad enough that the Popes started being Christians about 100 years ago, and now the Cantuars are following suit. The job of the Archbish is to be a posh bloke in a frock and not to make fuss, but this has been forgotten.
Amen to that.....;)Carey and Williams (the latter is at lest not a homophobe) have set a worrying trend of being Archbishop of Canterbury whilst also being a believing Christian, a thing unheard of since about the time of Cranmer. It is bad enough that the Popes started being Christians about 100 years ago, and now the Cantuars are following suit. The job of the Archbish is to be a posh bloke in a frock and not to make fuss, but this has been forgotten.
I get heartily sick of seeing beardy Williams given airtime to tell us all what's wrong with today's society when he does his level best to keep himself apart from it.
Breadvan72 said:
OK, give us some reasoned basis for your apparent disapproval of same sex relationships. Saying, "the Bible says so", or "it makes me feel icky" don't count.
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
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.
That would be the bedrock of our society that roughly half of which end in failure, yes? Maybe people should worry less about other groups of people wanting to get married and worry more about why so many marriages fail.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.
I don't see the need for two sets of identical legislation with different names. Call them both marriage and throw away one set of legislation.
ewenm said:
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.
That would be the bedrock of our society that roughly half of which end in failure, yes? Maybe people should worry less about other groups of people wanting to get married and worry more about why so many marriages fail.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.
I don't see the need for two sets of identical legislation with different names. Call them both marriage and throw away one set of legislation.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Firstly calling me homophobic shows just how little minded you are and how you know nothing about me butters it acceptable to label me.
Secondly on the other thread I did not "Repeatedly" state that aids was a good thing. I in fact stated that in certain respects it was as the global population is out of control and only once and refused to change my comments just because others were unwilling to accept or consider my statement with any form of reason.
Much like when I tried to discuss Anders Breivik. Just because I didn't join everyone else in claiming him a raving loony monster and instead tried to have an adult discussion about his actions what led to them etc so that we could hopefully learn from them I was accused of being exactly the same as and a supporter of his actions.
Yet again its a case of people being unable to engage in reasonable mature discussion and simply name calling and reading more into comments than they should so they can "react" rather than discuss.
You are homophobic because you would deny gay people equality.Secondly on the other thread I did not "Repeatedly" state that aids was a good thing. I in fact stated that in certain respects it was as the global population is out of control and only once and refused to change my comments just because others were unwilling to accept or consider my statement with any form of reason.
Much like when I tried to discuss Anders Breivik. Just because I didn't join everyone else in claiming him a raving loony monster and instead tried to have an adult discussion about his actions what led to them etc so that we could hopefully learn from them I was accused of being exactly the same as and a supporter of his actions.
Yet again its a case of people being unable to engage in reasonable mature discussion and simply name calling and reading more into comments than they should so they can "react" rather than discuss.
By repeatedly I do mean restated and refused to concede that perhaps having millions die a horrible death wasn't actual an acceptable form of population control. Either way, my point was it wasn't your position on gay marriage that got you banned.
Re Breivik: if you don't think a mass murderer is a monster and everyone else does, perhaps you should review your opinion.
Now, please can we get back on thread?
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
Bedrock on the basis of what? Religion? Tradition? Why have a special word for one set of relationships but not the other? 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
As for your questions, A. is illegal and rightly so, in my view. B. is only illegal if the 18 year old has a position of trust vis a vis the 16 year old. Otherwise, fine. We have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to sexual consent, as much discussed in recent threads about the teacher and the runaway schoolgirl.
I find it mind boggeling anyone actually cares about this issue! Let me explain...
I think that the vast majority of people could not care less what kind of relationship one is in as long as it does no external harm (so a relationship with a 12 year old for example). I often read how much damage same sex relationships, especially marriage will do to society but it is never exactly explained why this is so harmful so until someone explains, clearly, with evidence, that same sex marriage will be a significant negative in society, I simply don't see an argument against them.
The argument for is much easier. With the simple condition of not forcing religious institutions to marry same sex couples then I see no reason why any couple should not have the right to marry regardless of the nature of the bits they wish to bump! I do think that religious institutions exclusion from this law is correct as they should have freedom to decide as well. Would anyone have an issue with a church refusing to marry a Muslim or Jewish couple for example? No, of course not!
So if the gay community feel that they would like this legislation, and considering it makes no difference to anyone else, I fail to see the slightest issue. I have lots of gay mates, male and female, some in steady relationships, some not and frankly, their relationships make no more or less of an impact on my life than straight couples so I can't see why it would to anyone else.
Now, considering we live in a largely secular society, and considering that the vast majority of people in the UK are not observant anything, could someone who objects to gay marriage please explain, without resorting to religion or any personal sense of discomfort (I just dont like it for example), why it makes the slightest difference to you, your community and society at large. Not a loaded question, I am genuinely interested as I tend to be able to understand both sides of an argument, even if I totally disagree but in this one, I do not understand any objection beyond the religious one and as we dont live in a religious country in practise, that has very little weight.
However, should anyone answer m question clearly, I would hope that people would discuss it reasonably without making the person or people with those views feel attacked or sneered at because if that is the case, we wont be able to have a healthy debate and share views, including views that some people will of course disagree with.
I think that the vast majority of people could not care less what kind of relationship one is in as long as it does no external harm (so a relationship with a 12 year old for example). I often read how much damage same sex relationships, especially marriage will do to society but it is never exactly explained why this is so harmful so until someone explains, clearly, with evidence, that same sex marriage will be a significant negative in society, I simply don't see an argument against them.
The argument for is much easier. With the simple condition of not forcing religious institutions to marry same sex couples then I see no reason why any couple should not have the right to marry regardless of the nature of the bits they wish to bump! I do think that religious institutions exclusion from this law is correct as they should have freedom to decide as well. Would anyone have an issue with a church refusing to marry a Muslim or Jewish couple for example? No, of course not!
So if the gay community feel that they would like this legislation, and considering it makes no difference to anyone else, I fail to see the slightest issue. I have lots of gay mates, male and female, some in steady relationships, some not and frankly, their relationships make no more or less of an impact on my life than straight couples so I can't see why it would to anyone else.
Now, considering we live in a largely secular society, and considering that the vast majority of people in the UK are not observant anything, could someone who objects to gay marriage please explain, without resorting to religion or any personal sense of discomfort (I just dont like it for example), why it makes the slightest difference to you, your community and society at large. Not a loaded question, I am genuinely interested as I tend to be able to understand both sides of an argument, even if I totally disagree but in this one, I do not understand any objection beyond the religious one and as we dont live in a religious country in practise, that has very little weight.
However, should anyone answer m question clearly, I would hope that people would discuss it reasonably without making the person or people with those views feel attacked or sneered at because if that is the case, we wont be able to have a healthy debate and share views, including views that some people will of course disagree with.
Ozzie Osmond said:
What I see is no reason for 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.
The reason to categorise them together is to reduce discrimination. It's called equality.As long as the relationships have a different categorisation it lets homophobes feel justified.
"Look, the gays are different - it says so in our laws..."
The biology issue has been addressed already:
1. Menopause.
2. Blank firing.
3. Choose not to have kids.
4. Homosexuals.
None are going to help human survival (not that it needs help - quite the opposite) but 1-3 can marry and 4 can't.
Why?
"Bedrock of society" - this one really raises my ire.
Let's look a a couple of exactly similar arguments regarding this infamous "bedrock":
Ozzie Osmond said:
What I see is no reason for blacks to be categorised together with whites who reflect the bedrock of our society.
Ozzie Osmond said:
What I see is no reason for women to be categorised together with men who reflect the bedrock of our society.
Ozzie Osmond said:
What I see is no reason for old people to be categorised together with younger people who reflect the bedrock of our society.
And just because he started it...Lord 
said:
said: What I see is no reason for Jews to be categorised together with non-Jews who reflect the bedrock of our society.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
OK, give us some reasoned basis for your apparent disapproval of same sex relationships. Saying, "the Bible says so", or "it makes me feel icky" don't count.
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
Teens do what teens do. Its part of growing up.
Maybe instead of attacking people he doesn't like, in this case the gay community, as a christian clergyman he should simply forgive them .
I know, i know, that's crazy talk and far too close to the doctrines he alledgedly subscibes to as part of the christian faith but still. Im sure theres a part about forgivness somewhere in his bumper book of fairy tales. Maybe its near the back and he hasnt got that far yet.
I know, i know, that's crazy talk and far too close to the doctrines he alledgedly subscibes to as part of the christian faith but still. Im sure theres a part about forgivness somewhere in his bumper book of fairy tales. Maybe its near the back and he hasnt got that far yet.
neilr said:
Maybe instead of attacking people he doesn't like, in this case the gay community, as a christian clergyman he should simply forgive them .
I know, i know, that's crazy talk and far too close to the doctrines he alledgedly subscibes to as part of the christian faith but still. Im sure theres a part about forgivness somewhere in his bumper book of fairy tales. Maybe its near the back and he hasnt got that far yet.
It'll never catch on.I know, i know, that's crazy talk and far too close to the doctrines he alledgedly subscibes to as part of the christian faith but still. Im sure theres a part about forgivness somewhere in his bumper book of fairy tales. Maybe its near the back and he hasnt got that far yet.
It's far more fun casting the first st.. wait, they're not supposed to do that, either.
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.
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.
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.
Gays as shoes. Really?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.
A new low.
That is just saying "because because". Your personal view of marriage (based, I strongly suspect, on homophobia), confines marriage to male-female couples, but there is no reason other than tradition for this to be the case. We have moved on. Also, people are not shoes, and the analogy is plain silly.
Oh, give over.
We do lots of completely un-natural things all the time, like argue on the internet, go fishing with dynamite, make models of the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks, pretend to be other people then film it then have lots of other people watch us pretending to be other people whilst eating heated maize kernels in big dark rooms, live way beyond our natural lifespans, etc etc. The "un-natural" argument is simply dead in the water. It has ceased to live. It is an ex-argument.
Marriage is simply a contract between two* people who love each other and have decided to commit themselves to each other on a permanent basis.
If you want to deny that to some people, then that's a bity.
Look, if you don't agree with gay marriage, stop marrying gays.
We do lots of completely un-natural things all the time, like argue on the internet, go fishing with dynamite, make models of the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks, pretend to be other people then film it then have lots of other people watch us pretending to be other people whilst eating heated maize kernels in big dark rooms, live way beyond our natural lifespans, etc etc. The "un-natural" argument is simply dead in the water. It has ceased to live. It is an ex-argument.
Marriage is simply a contract between two* people who love each other and have decided to commit themselves to each other on a permanent basis.
If you want to deny that to some people, then that's a bit
y.Look, if you don't agree with gay marriage, stop marrying gays.
*Or more; however, our legal system is geared up for two people. If there were a massive demand for polygamy/andry then we'd hopefully accommodate it.
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.
Except that there is no "you" buying the shoes in the case of marriage, it's just the shoes being together independently and not impacting any other pairs of shoes (LL, LR or RR).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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff