|
Breadvan72
Original Poster
10,494 posts
33 months
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
111 months
|
Irrelevant old fart is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
Original Poster
10,494 posts
33 months
|
Oops, my bad, meant Godwin, typed Goodwin.
|
|
|
dazren
21,771 posts
131 months
|
Breadvan72 said: Oops, my bad, meant Godwin, typed Goodwin. sorted.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
Original Poster
10,494 posts
33 months
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
|
|
Justayellowbadge
29,850 posts
112 months
|
Loving the suggestion that the right to gay marriage is, in fact, a restriction of freedom.
Idiot.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
111 months
|
Justayellowbadge said: Loving the suggestion that the right to gay marriage is, in fact, a restriction of freedom.
Idiot. Trying to apply logic to the religious is like trying to collect water in a colander. Frustrating and pointless.
|
|
|
shakotan
5,762 posts
66 months
|
Religion has no place in Government.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
111 months
|
shakotan said: Religion has no place in the world. EFA
|
|
|
IainT
8,105 posts
108 months
|
Had to explain Godwin's law to SWMBO last night after she read out his foolish comments.
Still, it's nice of the pointless old never-was to concede the argument before it really got going.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
Original Poster
10,494 posts
33 months
|
The Archbigot wishes to enhance the freedom to be ignorant and fearful by reference to the arbitrary rulings of his imaginary friend.
|
|
|
MycroftWard
2,694 posts
83 months
|
Marf said: Trying to apply logic to the religious is like trying to collect water in a colander. Frustrating and pointless. Hear hear.
|
|
|
otolith
19,780 posts
74 months
|
Because disagreeing with a religious viewpoint is a more Nazi-esque thing to do that trying to restrict the civil rights of gay people?
Another example of why Lords reform is needed.
|
|
|
Digga
10,942 posts
153 months
|
Marf said: Justayellowbadge said: Loving the suggestion that the right to gay marriage is, in fact, a restriction of freedom.
Idiot. Trying to apply logic to the religious is like trying to collect water in a colander. Frustrating and pointless. 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. Surely the established religions are generally homophobes and, I guess, will remain so for some time, so why the desire to be a part of that crap?
|
|
|
Mr E
14,185 posts
129 months
|
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...
|
|
|
otolith
19,780 posts
74 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
Original Poster
10,494 posts
33 months
|
Still pretty Godwintastic, though.
|
|
|
Digga
10,942 posts
153 months
|
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. But why in a church when religion is so openly homophobic? For the purpose of disambiguation I am not saying they shouldn't, more that I'm a little surprised many would wish to.
|
|
|
djstevec
2,113 posts
44 months
|
Digga said: 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. But why in a church when religion is so openly homophobic? For the purpose of disambiguation I am not saying they shouldn't, more that I'm a little surprised many would wish to. The current proposal is for civil marriage of homosexuals only - Council buildings, registrar offices etc. nothing at all to do with the Church.
|
|
