Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
I am not quite sure what Motorvator wants me to respond on.
It would take two seconds to change extant law so as to make divorce law the same regardless of the gender mix of the married couple. There is no complexity here.
As for TallbutBuxomly's comment that religious teachings do not deal with race, I can only observe that he apparently hasn't read the Bible much.
It would take two seconds to change extant law so as to make divorce law the same regardless of the gender mix of the married couple. There is no complexity here.
As for TallbutBuxomly's comment that religious teachings do not deal with race, I can only observe that he apparently hasn't read the Bible much.
JonRB said:
Mrs Wilkinson said: "We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
No, luv, it's not your own roof; you are running a business. It's not your home any more, it is a Bed & Breakfast hotel. If you want to refuse people from staying under your roof then don't run a B&B. Then you can deny access to blacks, Jews and the Irish too.
What about gingers?No, luv, it's not your own roof; you are running a business. It's not your home any more, it is a Bed & Breakfast hotel. If you want to refuse people from staying under your roof then don't run a B&B. Then you can deny access to blacks, Jews and the Irish too.
TallbutBuxomly said:
A shame gary I had always thought you were more mature and intelligent than to call people names because you disagree with their opinion.
Clearly not.
Oh come on. You'll be looking down the back of the sofa next for a reason to be outraged by the 'gays'. I'd say bigot was an apt description rather than name calling.Clearly not.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
Enlighten us, please. What is wrong with this judgment? Saying "I don't like it" is not an answer.
Breadvan its right there in front of you. Go on read it. The court awarded then £1800 EACH ie seperately. Had it been a m/f couple the court would have most likely jointly awarded 3200 pounds correct?TallbutBuxomly said:
[
.... from my very little understanding of the legal system the courts normally award couples jointly even if unmarried yet in this case the court awarded seperate as if actions by two seperate people.
...
Your understanding is very little indeed. The court never awards damages to couples, only to individuals. Please take the trouble to inform yourself before expressing opinions. .... from my very little understanding of the legal system the courts normally award couples jointly even if unmarried yet in this case the court awarded seperate as if actions by two seperate people.
...
Derek Smith said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Derek seems to think I would be offended to be aligned with homosexuals. I felt the need to prove him wrong.
Feel reassured that your posts show a consistency when commenting on homosexuals which cannot be changed by a rather silly name change.Whilst waiting for TBB to accept that his ignorance led him to misconstrue the B and B ruling, here's something else to make him froth:-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-19999222
Mariage and civil partnership are to all intents and purposes equivalent. The use of the term civil partnership was a sop to the religious lobby. The Government wanted to use the term marriage. That concession to the religious is now under pressure. There is no rational basis for any distinction between the marriage of a gay couple and the marriage of a straight couple. Just as gay people don't want gay driving licences, gay income tax, gay passports etc, they don't want gay marriage either. They want marriage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff