Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
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.
Ok, that is your opinion. At what point does that opinion become so important that it justifies barring people who do not share it from doing something that neither affects you or denies you your right to hold your opinion?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.
Breadvan72 said:
Also, naughty God keeps creating gay people and then telling all the straighties to hate them. WTF, eh, God?
He's a cheeky little tinker eh? Creating gay people who want to be treated the same in law and creating small minded homophobes to get all shirty about it.I think god just likes drama.
It is a great shame that the "pro" lobby have no arguments at all and are just left trying to claim the obviously impossible, namely that m+m or w+w can ever = m+w
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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
Ozzie Osmond said:
It is a great shame that the "pro" lobby have no arguments at all and are just left trying to claim the obviously impossible, namely that m+m or w+w can ever = m+w
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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
In your opinion.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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
If some people were born with, literally, two left feet, would it really be a big deal that they might refer to what they wear on them as "a pair of shoes"? Would people be saying "well, he can't call them a pair of shoes, because that's the category my footwear fall into, and I feel that using that language devalues the institution of having pairs of left and right shoes and damages my ability to feel superior to him in the matter of footwear"?
Ozzie Osmond said:
It is a great shame that the "pro" lobby have no arguments at all and are just left trying to claim the obviously impossible, namely that m+m or w+w can ever = m+w
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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
You do get that you sound absolutely no different to those who espoused 'no darkies' or 'no votes for women'. don't you? 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. Homosexuals can have a relationship, a civil partnership or whatever but they simply dont qualify for marriage.
You're a bloody dinosaur. Pathetic, and you don't even see it.
I pity you more than anything else.
Justayellowbadge said:
You do get that you sound absolutely no different to those who espoused 'no darkies' or 'no votes for women'. don't you?
You're a bloody dinosaur. Pathetic, and you don't even see it.
I pity you more than anything else.
Indeed. Take solace though JAYB, these threads are quite useful. They allow us to identify the irrational homophobes amongst us and also demonstrate that the majority of people don't care if gays are allowed to marry.You're a bloody dinosaur. Pathetic, and you don't even see it.
I pity you more than anything else.
Win-win
TallbutBuxomly said:
otolith said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I see no reason for...
They want it. That's a reason for. Do you have a reason against?Ozzie Osmond said:
You no doubt consider your insults very entertaining but they add nothing to the debate.
No one is debating. You are stating your position that marriage MUST be between a man and a woman. Others disagree. There is no debate as no-one is going to have their opinion changed.I'm anti-discrimination. Having a separate set of legislation for same-sex couples seems needlessly discriminatory to me, in fact it enshrines that discrimination in law. If discrimination is bad, then have one set of legislation for all couples.
TallbutBuxomly said:
So because someone in a wheelchair wants to become a fireman they should be entitled as its only "fair" to use a ludicrous and extreme example?
That only works if you believe "marriage" MUST be between Man and Woman, which is the whole point under discussion.The wheelchair user would have to pass the same tests as a non-wheelchair user (to be non-discriminatory to both) to become a fireman. If they fail, they can't have the job. With marriage, the entire discussion here is whether it is correct for one of those "tests" to be "are you a heterosexual couple?".
The point is that there should in general be no discrimination on the basis of involuntary attributes. Some exemptions can be made. For example, you can advertise for women only to work as changing room attendants at a female changing room. You can decline to employ a wheelchair user in a role that objectively requires the ability to walk. There is no reasonable basis for denying gay people the same marriage rights as straight people.
Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.
By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.
Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.
By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.
Bill said:
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?
At no point did I say I agreed with Anders Breivik or his actions I merely tried to have an adult debate which seems impossible on ph these days.
As above you know nothing me or my life. The fact that my little brother who is the greatest guy I know is gay as is a cousin of mine apparently means I am a homophobe.
The fact that I have been to many gay nightclubs with my little brother, been chatted and felt up by gay guys (which personally I found somewhat flattering) makes me a homophobe.
Go away have a sit and a think and and be honest with yourself and decide who here is a homophobe and bigot as so many are won't to accuse rather than engage in adult debate.
Here is the splendid Lord Justice Laws in McFarlane v Relate:-
"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
As I have shown Lord Carey's statement also contains a plea for a special court. I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest."
"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
As I have shown Lord Carey's statement also contains a plea for a special court. I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff