Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Digga said:
But why in a church when religion is so openly homophobic? For the purpose of disambiguation I am not saying they shouldn't, more that I'm a little surprised many would wish to.
There is no proposal to force churches to marry gay people. The CoE and Rome wish to block civil marriage for gay people.Justayellowbadge said:
Loving the suggestion that the right to gay marriage is, in fact, a restriction of freedom.
Idiot.
Gay marriage only becomes a restriction on freedom if you force groups who do not believe in it to conduct the ceremonies. Provided the law moves forward as planned where religious groups are not required to conduct such marriages, there should be no problem.Idiot.
otolith said:
Digga said:
But why in a church when religion is so openly homophobic? For the purpose of disambiguation I am not saying they shouldn't, more that I'm a little surprised many would wish to.
There is no proposal to force churches to marry gay people. The CoE and Rome wish to block civil marriage for gay people.That being the case (every day a school day on PH) the chruch of England and any other religious disorganisation can GFTO.
otolith said:
Same reason, presumably, why a black person would want to sit at the front of the bus when there are perfectly good seats at the back.
Not quite. A gay person already has the right to get married. Just not to someone of the same sex.I don't see the big deal, either way. I'm not a huge advocate of marriage for anyone.
WRumbled said:
Not quite. A gay person already has the right to get married. Just not to someone of the same sex.
I don't see the big deal, either way. I'm not a huge advocate of marriage for anyone.
In which case you must admit that your position is unlikely to be based on a great deal of insight or empathy.I don't see the big deal, either way. I'm not a huge advocate of marriage for anyone.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Digga said:
TBH I don't quite follow why a gay couple would want a 'marraige' when they already (quite rightly) have the option of civil partnerships.
They want us to think they are normal, that's why. Perhaps a new class of "real marriage of one man and one woman" is needed.
doogz said:
He added: "Same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level."
I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
If you take the view that the *norm* is man + woman and that male/female bondings are for the procreation of the species then he is correct. Its a fairly logical and easy position to assume.I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
The wider debate is on why a modern society cannot accept abnormal relationships, which by and large it does. The amusing irony of this to me however, is that given the ranting of large parts of ph on the chavs out breeding the nice middle classes, then technically the 95% of ph that is rabid on such matters should therefore be supporting his position.
Which to me is rather amusing. For the record I care little either way, on both points.
Edited by DJRC on Wednesday 10th October 15:58
Digga said:
Denial of the fundamental existence of homosexuality (not just within our own species) is as daft as the denail of the concept of the earth not being flat.
You would hope, in this day and age, intelligent people had better things to tax their minds with. Clearly not though.
Indeed, with appx 1,500 species having been recorded displaying homosexual behaviour - sexual and non-sexual. It's a shame we're the only one species debating if its natural or not.You would hope, in this day and age, intelligent people had better things to tax their minds with. Clearly not though.
Edited by djstevec on Wednesday 10th October 14:45
doogz said:
He added: "Same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level."
I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
I'm not sure whether there is an 'official' line but one of the lines used by a number of objectors to homosexuals having the same rights on marriage as everyone else was that they can't have children. It was pointed out that to continue this analogy then any women into the menopause should also be banned from marrying. Also any man firing blanks should also be confined to civil partnerships.I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
There was no answer.
I actually think churches should be obliged to marry sames sex couples. If they refuse then they should have their chartiable status removed and be taxed just like any other business.
doogz said:
DJRC said:
doogz said:
He added: "Same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level."
I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
If you take the view that the *norm* is man + woman and that male/female bondings are for the proceation of the species then he is correct. Its a fairly logical and easy position to assume.I just don't get this. How can this statement rationally be justified? We need to hear this idiot explain this, and how he came to this conclusion.
It's the "should not be put on the same level" that is completely unjustifiable IMO.
From that point of view it is justifiable. Quite easily actually.
Its whether or not that view is valid that is the more important question.
DJRC said:
It is when you take into account the 2nd half of that statement "...and that male/female bondings are for the procreation of the species".
From that point of view it is justifiable. Quite easily actually.
Its whether or not that view is valid that is the more important question.
If that is the case, presumably the church would also disapprove of (or even wish to prevent) childless marriages too.From that point of view it is justifiable. Quite easily actually.
Its whether or not that view is valid that is the more important question.
This is all just the chap trying to claim marriage for the church when it is something owned by society. He feels marginalised so is trying to muscle in where he isn't wanted or needed.
doogz said:
Well, I disagree. I'm in a male-female relationship, and neither of us plan on ever having kids. Does that mean we're not on the same level as a married couple that do have kids? Do we have less of a right to get married, if we choose to, as a result?
As this is PH, I suppose the relevant line of enquiry from here is; do you take her up the Oxo Tower?Rhetorical. No offence implied or answer required.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff