Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Carey is a prick, as I've been telling anyone who'll listen for donkey's years. It's no wonder he's the Daily Mail's go-to guy when they need a quick 500 words on the evils of homosexuality, he's a nasty bigot for a nasty rag. Hopefully Chartres's balls-up of the Occupy thing means he'll never get the top job.
elster said:
The C4M fringe events were quite amusing.
Shame you couldn't watch the heckling and laughing.
The guys on the street at the entrance were also laughed at. I don't think they get the message that they are a tiny tiny minority.
However I did take their free fudge from their stand.
Was their fudge well packed?Shame you couldn't watch the heckling and laughing.
The guys on the street at the entrance were also laughed at. I don't think they get the message that they are a tiny tiny minority.
However I did take their free fudge from their stand.
I do not see what the issue is over gay marriage.
Partnership is a civil matter. Marriage is a religious matter. If you want to be married then you have to do it in accordance with the rules of the church you want to marry you. Does the CofE recognise marriages celebrated by the Mormon Church, or by Hindus or whatever the Shintos do? Whether they do or don't it doesn't matter because it is none of their business.
To the extent that marriage is a civil issue, and it shouldn't be, everyone should be able to do it. Each Church can recognise it or not exactly as they wish.
Could someone therefore please explain to me what all the fuss is about?
Partnership is a civil matter. Marriage is a religious matter. If you want to be married then you have to do it in accordance with the rules of the church you want to marry you. Does the CofE recognise marriages celebrated by the Mormon Church, or by Hindus or whatever the Shintos do? Whether they do or don't it doesn't matter because it is none of their business.
To the extent that marriage is a civil issue, and it shouldn't be, everyone should be able to do it. Each Church can recognise it or not exactly as they wish.
Could someone therefore please explain to me what all the fuss is about?
djstevec said:
Digga said:
Denial of the fundamental existence of homosexuality (not just within our own species) is as daft as the denail of the concept of the earth not being flat.
You would hope, in this day and age, intelligent people had better things to tax their minds with. Clearly not though.
Indeed, with appx 1,500 species having been recorded displaying homosexual behaviour - sexual and non-sexual. It's a shame we're the only one species debating if its natural or not.You would hope, in this day and age, intelligent people had better things to tax their minds with. Clearly not though.
Edited by cardigankid on Wednesday 10th October 18:39
cardigankid said:
I do not see what the issue is over gay marriage.
Partnership is a civil matter. Marriage is a religious matter. If you want to be married then you have to do it in accordance with the rules of the church you want to marry you. Does the CofE recognise marriages celebrated by the Mormon Church, or by Hindus or whatever the Shintos do? Whether they do or don't it doesn't matter because it is none of their business.
To the extent that marriage is a civil issue, and it shouldn't be, everyone should be able to do it. Each Church can recognise it or not exactly as they wish.
Could someone therefore please explain to me what all the fuss is about?
You got it wrong at the "marriage is a religious matter" bit. If that were true then why would we have registry offices?Partnership is a civil matter. Marriage is a religious matter. If you want to be married then you have to do it in accordance with the rules of the church you want to marry you. Does the CofE recognise marriages celebrated by the Mormon Church, or by Hindus or whatever the Shintos do? Whether they do or don't it doesn't matter because it is none of their business.
To the extent that marriage is a civil issue, and it shouldn't be, everyone should be able to do it. Each Church can recognise it or not exactly as they wish.
Could someone therefore please explain to me what all the fuss is about?
Sorry, I put that wrongly. I meant marriage is a fundamentally religious concept which should not have civil implications, and if this were accepted, there should be no problem. In saying that maybe I have answered my own question, and the issue is to what extent is a particular religion enshrined in the law, and should it be? That may be the real issue.
doogz said:
Well, I disagree. I'm in a male-female relationship, and neither of us plan on ever having kids. Does that mean we're not on the same level as a married couple that do have kids? Do we have less of a right to get married, if we choose to, as a result?
You really have to ask that question? Society, much less The Church (whichever one you are talking about) looks down on you as a cpl if you choose not to have children. And knock it off with the blithe "no they dont" answer, Im married and my wife and I always tell ppl we prefer pets to children and we get "the" look on a regular and frequent basis. My mother being the worst culprit on the lot and this summer a cpl we went on holiday + their baby/toddler quite happily said they wanted us to see how lovely having a child was so we would want one also. Another ph'er aswell.Besides, you werent disagreeing with anything, you were answering the 2nd and more valid question that I posed, which makes the first obsolete by providing your answer that said initial question is invalid, not his opinion or argument.
rohrl said:
Carey is a prick, as I've been telling anyone who'll listen for donkey's years. It's no wonder he's the Daily Mail's go-to guy when they need a quick 500 words on the evils of homosexuality, he's a nasty bigot for a nasty rag. Hopefully Chartres's balls-up of the Occupy thing means he'll never get the top job.
You have been telling anybody who would listen that a minor, irrelevent Lord who nobody outside of the House of Lords has ever heard of before is a prick.Im not really shocked you had to preface that with "anyone who'll listen" as I imagine most would have told you to shut up and stop bothering them about nobody of any relevence or importance to their lifes.
otolith said:
Digga said:
TBH I don't quite follow why a gay couple would want a 'marraige' when they already (quite rightly) have the option of civil partnerships.
Same reason, presumably, why a black person would want to sit at the front of the bus when there are perfectly good seats at the back.What he said. Two people who want to legally enshrine their relationship currently have to settle for their own "special" version if they happen to be of the same gender. That's not equality, it's highlighting difference. If the church are THAT concerned about the religious values of marriage being eroded, they ought to be protesting outside registry offices up and down the land, as plenty of completely non-religious people are getting married...
rohrl said:
elster said:
The C4M fringe events were quite amusing.
Shame you couldn't watch the heckling and laughing.
The guys on the street at the entrance were also laughed at. I don't think they get the message that they are a tiny tiny minority.
However I did take their free fudge from their stand.
Was their fudge well packed?Shame you couldn't watch the heckling and laughing.
The guys on the street at the entrance were also laughed at. I don't think they get the message that they are a tiny tiny minority.
However I did take their free fudge from their stand.
DJRC said:
rohrl said:
Carey is a prick, as I've been telling anyone who'll listen for donkey's years.
You have been telling anybody who would listen that a minor, irrelevent Lord who nobody outside of the House of Lords has ever heard of before is a prick.Mr E said:
Except the quote that's been reported (and repeated here) is not quite the same when the full quote is considered in context.
[Lord Carey] rejected suggestions that the true “bigots” were those who advocated gay marriage and would not listen to legitimate concerns of religious groups who disagreed.
“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”
Discussed here;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscienc...
Well, I can see his point. The point, that is, that any group with a non-mainstream view is shouted down/called names. But no-one's interested in what he actually said are they?[Lord Carey] rejected suggestions that the true “bigots” were those who advocated gay marriage and would not listen to legitimate concerns of religious groups who disagreed.
“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”
Discussed here;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscienc...
cardigankid said:
Sorry, I put that wrongly. I meant marriage is a fundamentally religious concept which should not have civil implications, and if this were accepted, there should be no problem. In saying that maybe I have answered my own question, and the issue is to what extent is a particular religion enshrined in the law, and should it be? That may be the real issue.
Marriage is not a fundamentally religious concept though, indeed the church muscled in on it rather late in the day.hornet said:
Two people who want to legally enshrine their relationship currently have to settle for their own "special" version if they happen to be of the same gender. That's not equality.
So far as I'm concerned if they "happen to be of the same gender" then they don't even make it to the starting line for marriage, the whole concept of which is for many of us one man and one woman.We've just had Olympic games with separate Mens and Womens events. By your standards that's not equality. Mind you, they could always have separate Olympic events for gays - both sexes in together for equality.
Ozzie Osmond said:
So far as I'm concerned if they "happen to be of the same gender" then they don't even make it to the starting line for marriage, the whole concept of which is for many of us one man and one woman.
We've just had Olympic games with separate Mens and Womens events. By your standards that's not equality. Mind you, they could always have separate Olympic events for gays - both sexes in together for equality.
Why?We've just had Olympic games with separate Mens and Womens events. By your standards that's not equality. Mind you, they could always have separate Olympic events for gays - both sexes in together for equality.
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
elster said:
Why?
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Go back far enough and it wasn't really an issue as per recently.
Provided churches aren't forced to conduct same-sex marriages, then what's the problem? As has been said, if they dislike civil marriage then they should be protesting registry offices already surely?
AnotherClarkey said:
cardigankid said:
Sorry, I put that wrongly. I meant marriage is a fundamentally religious concept which should not have civil implications, and if this were accepted, there should be no problem. In saying that maybe I have answered my own question, and the issue is to what extent is a particular religion enshrined in the law, and should it be? That may be the real issue.
Marriage is not a fundamentally religious concept though, indeed the church muscled in on it rather late in the day.(Carey? Well you always could drive a coach and horses through anything he had to say...)
Edited by Huff on Wednesday 10th October 23:38
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff