Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Pappa Lurve said:
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!
2 I see no good reason to change the meaning of the word marriage to include the union of m/m or f/f since its meaning always has been of m/f even in societies through history where m/m f/f relationships were accepted.
The word marriage definition through history has been m/f if I remember the research I did on this rightly and I see no reason to change it just so some people can have a piece of paper saying marriage on it.
Marriage does not define who you are or your relationship that is down to you as an individual couple in your words and actions all it dies is define the relationship between a man and woman.
TallbutBuxomly said:
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.
They can't get married - as you point out.
Therefore NOT EQUAL.
I am sure you understand English!!
I don't mean to be rude but quite clearly they aren't equal.
They are different.
And as you also point out it's not really that big a deal - it's just a piece of paper.
SO LET THEM HAVE IT.
Just like the view from the front of the bus vs. the view at the back - it isn't that different.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could ALL sit where we like!
Bill said:
Really? Homosexuality is like paedophilia and incest. The church isn't homophobic? Come on!
Ok - heterosexuality is like homosexuality is like paedophilia - all are sexual behaviours, all are "natural attributes" - some are frowned on for cultural reasons, not because they are "unnatural" - happy now?And the Church isn't homophobic - it doesn't hate gays, it just thinks that homosexuals shouldn't practise homosexuality and that marriage is for a man and a woman. Gays are still welcome in Church, and can be ordained as priests, so long as they don't practise homosexuality, which is deemed to be a sin, along with avarice, gluttony etc. Hardly "hating" gays is it?
Bluebarge said:
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.
Love how you want others to stop labelling and name calling then resort to calling homosexuals "fairies".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.
How charming.
Im also quite disturbed by your linking of homosexuality with paedophilia and incest. Without jumping into hysterical waters, paedophilia, incest, necrophilia, bestiality, paraphilia etc are forms sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation or sexual identity. I'm sure Jimmy Savile would still identify as being heterosexual despite his alleged paedophile behaviour.
Now if you are merely expressing that homosexuality was illegal in the same way that those forms of sexual behaviour are are currently, then I would agree with that, and societal change and a concerted campaign by gay rights campaigners brought about the recognition of their orientation and the reversing of the illegality.
But I would strongly disagree and you would be quite wrong, in linking them in ANY other way.
TallbutBuxomly said:
The word marriage definition through history has been m/f if I remember the research I did on this rightly and I see no reason to change it just so some people can have a piece of paper saying marriage on it.
I think you are missing the principle here.IMHO there is an incredibly strong reason to change the definition and to let EVERYONE have that piece of paper.
Right now TODAY - homophobia is a problem. It exists and it is nasty. And I for one would very much prefer to live in a world with no homophobia vs. the world we have today.
I see absolutely no downside whatsoever to letting everyone have that piece of paper.
WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION????
You keep saying it has always been m/f - so what? Tradition isn't a justified reason for anything.
Yet on the flipside there are great benefits to enshrining in law the doctrine that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER (names/pieces of paper etc...) between m/m, f/f and m/f couples.
There would be less homophobia and even less justification for homophobia.
THAT IS A GOOD THING - NO?
tl;dr - no downside to letting everyone having the piece of paper - and significant upside.
So please tell us - why not let everyone have it???
If you really can't see a reason that would mean you think the change would have no impact on tolerance, homophobia etc... and I think history has ably demonstrated that to be false.
Bill said:
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.
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
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.
They can't get married - as you point out.
Therefore NOT EQUAL.
I am sure you understand English!!
I don't mean to be rude but quite clearly they aren't equal.
They are different.
And as you also point out it's not really that big a deal - it's just a piece of paper.
SO LET THEM HAVE IT.
Just like the view from the front of the bus vs. the view at the back - it isn't that different.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could ALL sit where we like!
tE in my opinion. We are all different and unequal that is a simple fact. Equality is a concept dreamt up by idiots with nothing better to do with their time. The same idiots who came up with the bizarre concept of rights. It is now an individuals right to have or do whatever they want. Common sense has no part to play in it at all.Likewise with equality. Common sense has no part to play. Homosexuals are no lesser individuals than straight it does not mean they are unequal if they are not allowed to have a piece of paper describing their union as marriage.
This is like trying to claim it is unequal not to call a bush a tree. It is a descriptive term of the union between man and woman in the same way a civil partnership is a union between m/m f/f there is no equality issue.
Two articles of interest. First the etymology of marriage..
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage
Second I found this quite an interesting read...
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/opp...
Most interesting part being to me anyway...
Benedict XVI picked up these themes in his Regensburg address. You will find no greater defender of right reason today than the Catholic Church. And so the irony of the gay marriage debate is that traditionalists are making arguments based on reason and nature, while secular culture is now largely irrational in spite of its trumpeting of reason, as the severing of faith and reason has led to a nihilism wherein the greatest good is the fulfillment of whatever desires among consenting adults. Is that all reason can really say, that anything one wants goes as long as no one else gets hurt?
These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?
Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason, they should not be discounted.
SO i really cannot see the problem. You are in effect arguing that hetero couple who have a civil ceremony and decid
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
The word marriage definition through history has been m/f if I remember the research I did on this rightly and I see no reason to change it just so some people can have a piece of paper saying marriage on it.
I think you are missing the principle here.IMHO there is an incredibly strong reason to change the definition and to let EVERYONE have that piece of paper.
Right now TODAY - homophobia is a problem. It exists and it is nasty. And I for one would very much prefer to live in a world with no homophobia vs. the world we have today.
I see absolutely no downside whatsoever to letting everyone have that piece of paper.
WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION????
You keep saying it has always been m/f - so what? Tradition isn't a justified reason for anything.
Yet on the flipside there are great benefits to enshrining in law the doctrine that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER (names/pieces of paper etc...) between m/m, f/f and m/f couples.
There would be less homophobia and even less justification for homophobia.
THAT IS A GOOD THING - NO?
tl;dr - no downside to letting everyone having the piece of paper - and significant upside.
So please tell us - why not let everyone have it???
If you really can't see a reason that would mean you think the change would have no impact on tolerance, homophobia etc... and I think history has ably demonstrated that to be false.
Secondly as I have stated in principle I have no issue however my primary concern is that those who make the rules WILL f
k it up and then it will impinge on the rights and beliefs of those who dont believe in gay relationships as they are freely entitled to do.If I turned up at a B and B with a girlfriend and they said I couldnt stay in the same room as her or that I couldnt stay at their hotel as they wont allow unmarried people that really wouldnt bother me I would simply take a second room or stay somewhere where i was welcome.
Its not my loss its their businesses and I respect their beliefs.
Allowing the term marriage to apply to the lgbt community is opening up a HUGE world of legal problems hence I am against it especially since it has in essence historically been defined as man and woman. If the lgbt community are not happy to call their union marriage they are absolutely free to describe it by another definition similar to marriage.
I can guarantee you will not have heterosexuals complaining that its unequal and they should be allowed to use the same definition.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Benedict XVI That was the one who protected paedophiles so the churches reputation wasn't harmed? picked up these themes in his Regensburg address. You will find no greater defender of right reason today than the Catholic Church. And so the irony of the gay marriage debate is that traditionalists are making arguments based on reason and nature, while secular culture is now largely irrational in spite of its trumpeting of reason, as the severing of faith and reason has led to a nihilism wherein the greatest good is the fulfillment of whatever desires among consenting adults. Is that all reason can really say, that anything one wants goes as long as the catholic church doesn't get hurt?
These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?
Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason Sorry, when did that happen? they should not be discounted.
SO i really cannot see the problem. You are in effect arguing that hetero couple who have a civil ceremony and decid
Couldn't help myself.These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?
Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason Sorry, when did that happen? they should not be discounted.
SO i really cannot see the problem. You are in effect arguing that hetero couple who have a civil ceremony and decid
Breadvan72 said:
What legal problems? People get married, people get divorced. Same rules for everyone. Cue annoying Meerkat.
As said breadvan the same as the ones being created by other equalities laws which have led to the suing of B and B's not allowing gay couples to share a room and so on. There will be cracks in the legislation which will cause legal issues. Common sense whether in law or not seems to be escaping us meaning people will get sued and pressuredIn fact the equalities laws will make this a problem.
Once a gay couple are allowed to legally define their relationship as marriage or to apply to get married it will be against the law to discriminate against them based on their gender status meaning if a venue allows hetero marriage but not gay they will be forced to allow it.
Hence I suspect the gov will f
k up the legislation leaving cracks meaning lgbt members will be allowed to take legal action against religious establishments for not allowing the use of or the conducting of gay marriages.I realise it will be argued that the what if does not justify etc but history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Breadvan72 said:
What you mean is that people who wish to discriminate against others on grounds of involuntary status will have problems. That strikes me as a good thing.
Should we have refrained from tackling race discrimination because doing so caused "problems"?
Of course not however I do believe there is a middle ground where people are entitled to their beliefs whether others see them as wrong or not. If you will a live and let live. Should we have refrained from tackling race discrimination because doing so caused "problems"?
It would be like me forcing you to agree with me even if you don't. there is no good reason to do so nor will any good come of it as you would resent me for doing so.
If someone does not like gays and is forced to employ someone gay they will resent those who enforced it and they will resent gay people even more. It is a self perpetuating problem.
It is far better to allow those who hold opposing views to do so and live in ignorance than to force them to live in resentment.
By that logic, someone who does not like black people should face no sanction for refusing to employ them.
Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff