Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Digga said:
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.
They worry it's contagious, some sort of metallurgy.
Bill said:
Digga said:
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.
They worry it's contagious, some sort of metallurgy.
Pappa Lurve said:
To be fair, I do agree with your point about about it being a more complex law to make, especially as it needs to assure the rights of Churches, Mosques etc. Having said that, the law is an incredibly complex thing generally and if we shy away from making new laws or adjusting old ones, nothing will ever change. The crazy situation we have about what can be said legally online compared to on TV or radio for example is an unintended issue based on legislation that became outdated very rapidly. And the courts and legislators will, one hopes, correct that. Same here, difficult, yes, but hardly impossible. However, I do accept that there is a concern in this area/ I just feel it can be overcome.
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.
If the law could be applied properly then then I would be fine with it. My point is it won't be and the problem here is due to that people and institutions are going to be negatively affected by this out of nothing less than spite and I think that's wrong.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.
To use a dumb analogy . If I don't like the taste of peas you can't and won't "make" me like it by forcing me to eat it.My parents tried for years to do so and I still dislike them.
Its utterly basic human psychology. Carrying on from that I may not like Peas but if someone else wants to eat them in front of me I really couldn't care less each to their own. Then bring in a law saying all veg are peas I could then be sued if I didn't eat peas. The law may be well intentioned but people who have no issue with peas get sued.
It won't change their opinion.
Sadly that's the best way I can describe my argument.
CommanderJameson said:
TBB: your analogies are ace.
Mental and wrong, but ace.
Gays as peas.
Genius.
So more condescension good to see the holier than thou brigade are in force throwing around words like homophobe or bigot as if you actually understand what they mean.Mental and wrong, but ace.
Gays as peas.
Genius.
So let me clear this up for you...again. I have a problem in that the LAW will be BADLY APPLIED meaning that people that shouldn't be affected due to their faith or personal beliefs WILL BE. The law change will be used out of SPITE by members of the LGBT community something which i severely dislike much like we have seen with sex and race equality laws.
If someone does not like gay people then walk away and let them live in ignorance as you will not change their beliefs by suing them out of spite or through trying to force them to like gays.
IF the law could be properly applied then I, ME THE FORUM MEMBER KNOWN AS TBB would have NO ISSUE WITH GAY MARRIAGE from a PERSONAL VIEWPOINT.
I really have no idea how to say it any clearer.
If you wish for me to respond to any further posts by yourself CJ then I would try be less condescending and rude otherwise I simply won't respond.
You ca
Edited by TallbutBuxomly on Friday 12th October 15:24
TallbutBuxomly said:
The law change will be used out of SPITE by members of the LGBT community something which i severely dislike much like we have seen with sex and race equality laws.
I can cope with you not liking homosexuality.But what on earth are you talking about?
Are you angry that those spiteful black people are allowed to sit anywhere on the bus now?
That women have the vote?
Please give an example of where sex and race equality laws have been passed that you don't like.
Then some of us might be able to understand your fear because the analogy would be clear.
Right now I am genuinely confused??!
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
The law change will be used out of SPITE by members of the LGBT community something which i severely dislike much like we have seen with sex and race equality laws.
I can cope with you not liking homosexuality.But what on earth are you talking about?
Are you angry that those spiteful black people are allowed to sit anywhere on the bus now?
That women have the vote?
Please give an example of where sex and race equality laws have been passed that you don't like.
Then some of us might be able to understand your fear because the analogy would be clear.
Right now I am genuinely confused??!
Homosexuals want equality out of spite??
You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
ETA
Please also show example where there has been a demonstrably detrimental affect to society in the 18 or so countries where same sex marriage is legal. The plummeting of the either the opposite sex marriage rates, huge divorce increases, or a sudden plunge in birth rates after same sex marriage became legal in those countries.
Considering many of those countries consistently appear above the UK in various tables of "the nicest places to live" type indices that weigh social factors etc, I find the hyperbole and unfounded claims of the "the end of society" by the church and other posters on here to be ridiculous.
You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
ETA
Please also show example where there has been a demonstrably detrimental affect to society in the 18 or so countries where same sex marriage is legal. The plummeting of the either the opposite sex marriage rates, huge divorce increases, or a sudden plunge in birth rates after same sex marriage became legal in those countries.
Considering many of those countries consistently appear above the UK in various tables of "the nicest places to live" type indices that weigh social factors etc, I find the hyperbole and unfounded claims of the "the end of society" by the church and other posters on here to be ridiculous.
Edited by djstevec on Friday 12th October 15:49
TallbutBuxomly said:
Walm I am bored of repeating myself to you and the rest of the holier than thou brigade on here. I have stated quite clearly numerous times that I have no problem with people being gay. I won't respond to any further condescending posts.
I didn't mean to be condescending. Sorry.Ignore my first sentence.
I am genuinely interested in the analogy with other equality laws - that's all.
Fair enough if you have had enough.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Walm I am bored of repeating myself to you and the rest of the holier than thou brigade on here. I have stated quite clearly numerous times that I have no problem with people being gay. I won't respond to any further condescending posts.
By definition, you're the one with the "holier than thou" attitude because you keep bringing religion into this. And every time, both on this thread and on the previous, that someone asks you to address the interracial marriage issue, you won't answer it head on. You refuse to because you know that it is indefensible - if you say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites then you are a racist, and if you say that it is ok for them to marry but not for gays then you're a homophobe.
djstevec said:
Homosexuals want equality out of spite??
You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
Show me where I stated they want equality out of spite. Please do me a favour and highlight that exact statement as I have re read my post and don't see that statement at all.You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
What I said was that the LGBT community will use the law change against people out of spite.
Maybe I should be clearer for all the hard of understanding on here.
I will cite the only case I can think of right now of the Christian B and B owners who had a gay couple book a room and didn't know at the time of taking the booking. When the couple arrived they were denied accommodation however the b and b owners were very apologetic and offered to find them alternative accommodation.
The gay couple sued and won damages. They sued out of nothing less than Spite. The Christian couple were nothing but nice but rather than ACCEPTING and RESPECTING their beliefs the gay couple sued them as thanks.
People are unwilling to accept and respect each others differences in thoughts and beliefs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff