Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
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.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. 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.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
Breadvan72 said:
By that logic, someone who does not like black people should face no sanction for refusing to employ them.
The argument for same sex marriages is overwhelmingly put there. If anyone suggested that Jews could not marry, blacks could not marry or those with ginger hair then I would assume most would suggest it is fundamentally wrong. There can be no reason to restrict marriage on the basis of sex either. Someone seemed to suggest that there is hetrosexual and there is devient behaviour. This is so wrong. Most of those who abuse children, of whatever age, are hetrosexual. Most peadophiles are hetrosexual. Whether this is greater or lesser proportion than hetrosexuals are compared to those who are gays I do not know but I do know that there is much 'devient' behaviour amongst hetrosexuals.
I was oce involved in 'offences against public decency', that is policing them in public toilets. My recollection is that the vast majority of those arrested would have clled themselves hetrosexual and, indeed, most were married with kids.
It is all a bit more complicated that hanging a label aroudn someone's neck.
I was told during a lesson on sexual offences against children that most of the priests who abused boys would call themselves hetrosexual. Not sure of the veracity of that but from my limited knowledge of offences against kids by all and sundry, it seems logical.
TallbutBuxomly said:
You will find no greater defender of right [and?] reason today than the Catholic Church.
Now that is one hell of a statement. My first thought was: 'fill my boots' but it's too easy. That statement is so far off the wall. A religion based on superstition and control. The only thing I can possibly say in retort is: 'Jesus!'
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:
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.
I'm not an expert either way, but several other people have said things to the contrary, i.e. that marriage hasn't always been m/f. As I say, I'm no expert, but are you sure?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.
TallbutBuxomly said:
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.
I agree, apart from the tax breaks I'm not sure what the advantages of marriage are over "living in sin". I wouldn't need a piece of paper under any circumstances to confirm what I feel about someone.TallbutBuxomly said:
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.
Your second point is based it seems on a simple view that what was, should remain. There are times when that is perfectly correct of course, its called tradition but equally, as a society change occurs. Many words have changed meanings or evolved over time. What I struggle with a little is that you seem to agree that the gay community have the right to marry, and accept fully the idea of civil partnership, and even appear to see that a civil partnership and a marriage are pretty much the same thing. That being the case, then what difference does changing a definition in law make other than to allow the gay community to feel more legally equal.
Your comment about the Pope I would respectfully suggest does not help your views! I mean simply that I suspect the vast majority of people in the UK have precisely no interest in being told by a chap in Rome what to think about anything. Add to that the history of the Catholic Church which is not exactly a sparkling example to many people of social reform, welfare and progress and I think basing any argument, or indeed using it to support an argument generally makes the majority of people in the UK want to do the complete opposite.
So, how about this - let us agree for a moment that the law could be changed in a way that would allow, as is proposed, institutions to not offer gay marriage should they prefer and that the law is well worded and thought out. I hope you agree that is at least possible. So for the sake of argument let us accept that part can be solved and move onto point two. Seems to me it comes down to a simple wish not to change what is certainly a well established tradition? If I understand you correctly and that is the case, then the next obvious question is why not change with the times and the prevailing attitudes of society when there is no likely negative impact on society as a whole. If there is, in your view, a practical negative impact, what is it? I know the question sounds blunt, but not meant to be. Honest question that I possibly could word better if I was not a tad in the tired side!
Oh, and thank you for clarifying, at least to me, your views. I still disagree with that but I think at least I am gaining some understanding of the objections and understanding from different views can only contribute positively to a healthy, respectful and informed discussion.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
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.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. 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.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
elster said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
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.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. 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.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
TallbutBuxomly said:
elster said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
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.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. 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.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
"I "xxxx", take you "xxxx", to be my civil partner under law"
Thats is the contracting vow/phrase in a civil partnership. Would you feel happy, committing to the person you love, for life, using those words?? I mean their just words right?
Or maybe you would want to use the words that carry the depth of feeling, emotion, love and commitment that the word "husband" or "wife" do. Because that is what same sex couples are currently being denied in law.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Yet again what are these "rights" that the LGBT community are being denied in law that the word marriage would change?
The right to be treated the same as straight people. This is not complicated stuff. The law would be simple to draft and apply. The only problems lie with those who wish to cling to atavistic prejudices. Monotheistic religions have bad hang-ups about sex. They particularly hate female sexuality, but don't like gay people either. Polytheisms tend to be more into partying.
TallbutBuxomly said:
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.
I missed you having no issue. Can you re-state?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.You seem obsessed with the fact that one word has an out of date definition and so we shouldn't change it.
Yet you claim no issue?
I can't argue with the legislation probably screwing up. Quite likely. And for all that I find your homophobia offensive you may have a point here. The difference is that I think it is a risk worth taking.
And the reason is because I strongly disagree with what you wrote here...
TallbutBuxomly said:
Firstly your idea that allowing people to define their union as marriage if of same sex will help stop homophobia is sadly laughable no offence meant. They thought that making it illegal to discriminate against blacks would stop racism it hasnt in many cases it has made it worse and pushed it to the side.
Firstly, there is an important difference between "help stop" and "stop"! Don't put up straw men.You are calling me laughable for thinking it would help yet you are claiming that legislation giving equal rights to black people somehow made racism worse? Seriously? We should have left the discriminatory anti-black legislation in place and that would have helped combat racism?
TB you seem like a person who can make a decent argument - so can you clarify?
1. You have no issue with gay people getting married and calling it marriage in principle?
2. Why is it laughable that treating all couples equally will help in some small way battle discrimination?
TallbutBuxomly said:
Yet again what are these "rights" that the LGBT community are being denied in law that the word marriage would change?
Yet again what are the reasons NOT to change it?You keep saying "that's what it has always meant" and putting up some deeply fascinating etymology.
That isn't a reason to keep the word!!
I mean - look how the world fell apart when "gay" people started taking over that word!
Seriously - language and laws are fluid for a reason - they HAVE to change with the times.
Sometimes the law can go too far and you can have a robust debate on upsides and downsides and unintented consequences.
For example, affirmative action and quotas for women on boards of directors seem two good examples.
But the downside to changing the definition of marriage?
You have to offer a reason why it is bad - being a stuck-in-the-mud doesn't count!
You could say:
- It will make marriage even less relevant for m/fs.
- It will put churches under pressure to perform the ceremony for m/m & f/f.
- It will undermine Christianity by enshrining in law that their view on homosexuality is wrong.
But saying it should be changed because of TRADITION? That's just very very weak IMHO.
hornet said:
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...
Exactly this. Either call *all* non-religious legal partnerships a "civil partnership" and let the religious bigots have a monopoly on the word 'marriage', or if the state is able to have a concept of marriage then allow it to define it in terms that are not prejudicial to skin colour, gender or sexual orientation.
I have yet to hear any coherent arguments against gay marriage that were not applied to interracial marriage back when that was the issue of the day.
TallbutBuxomly said:
elster said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
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.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. 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.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
Would you also like to have a system like this
After all it is only a different toilet. Does the same job as rest. No need to use the same one...
Edited by elster on Friday 12th October 10:41
JonRB said:
Oh the irony.
Like silvery and goldy, but not quite. Equal, obviously (some of my best friends are ferrous) but still, not the same. Probably best we don't have that sort of thing around here.
Next thing you know we'll all be murdered in our beds and forced into arranged marriages with manganese.
Justayellowbadge said:
JonRB said:
Oh the irony.
Like silvery and goldy, but not quite. Equal, obviously (some of my best friends are ferrous) but still, not the same. Probably best we don't have that sort of thing around here.
Next thing you know we'll all be murdered in our beds and forced into arranged marriages with manganese.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff