Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The sky will fall! There will be Earthquakes, tidal waves, and all out Zombie Apocalypses. Worse; we will all get .... the gay!
I think the concern is that it will be the state defining what religion can believe, which historically has not ended well. It's a fine line between being told how to behave and how to think.Not a problem as long as you agree with whoever's in charge of course.
Sticks. said:
Breadvan72 said:
The sky will fall! There will be Earthquakes, tidal waves, and all out Zombie Apocalypses. Worse; we will all get .... the gay!
I think the concern is that it will be the state defining what religion can believe, which historically has not ended well. It's a fine line between being told how to behave and how to think.Not a problem as long as you agree with whoever's in charge of course.
Sticks. said:
I think the concern is that it will be the state defining what religion can believe, which historically has not ended well. It's a fine line between being told how to behave and how to think.
Not a problem as long as you agree with whoever's in charge of course.
But you're overlooking the fact that marriage pre-dates the Church. It's something they have appropriated and assimilated, in much the same way as they did the Pagan festivals that were re-branded to Christmas. Then Coca Cola came along and gave us the image of Santa Claus in the red suit with white fur trimming. Not a problem as long as you agree with whoever's in charge of course.
So, no, the State is not telling the Church what it believes. It is saying that they can call their brand of marriage a "religious marriage" if they need to differentiate it, much in the same way as we are being forced to say "gay marriage" in this debate.
I'm very much in favour of the idea of "civil marriage" and "religious marriage". We no longer need the Church to record births, marriages and deaths, which is the reason they got the gig in the first place as someone pointed out previously.
I'm very happy for churches to do what they wish. So long as it is behind closed doors, and isn't talked about, and nobody rubs my face in it.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Really? I have said that I cannot see a reason to change the centuries of tradition of a potentially short term trend toward homosexuals being accepted by society since if you look back through history being gay has come and gone in social acceptability in various societies.
In our society it has not been long. For men homosexual activity was illegal until 1967 in England and Wales, 1981 in Scotland and 1982 in N Ireland. Conversely, lesbians were never acknowledged or targeted by legislation, making it never illegal. (Popular myth suggests that Queen Victoria couldn't imagine two women in a relationship and had any reference to lesbianism expunged from the relevant act.)This country promotes itself to the world as a bastion of free speech, freedom of choice and equality for all. As the world didn't apparently stop turning following the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2005 this is simply the next step of natural progression toward a more equal society.
Personally, if I were gay and wanted to formalise my domestic arrangements a Civil Partnership would probably suffice I've not needed to inspect the details), but it is different (if only in words) from a CIVIL marriage and that is seen as discriminatory by some.
I understand, indeed support, the religious exemption. It is no different for divorced straight couples in that they are unable to have a religious marriage, and that has not led to high profile court cases and legal challenges.
If,and I concur it is an ask, that the law is written suitably robustly, specifically ensuring the protecting of the religious and religious properties exemptions then its hard to argue against. Isn't it ?
tubbystu said:
In our society it has not been long. For men homosexual activity was illegal until 1967 in England and Wales, 1981 in Scotland and 1982 in N Ireland. Conversely, lesbians were never acknowledged or targeted by legislation, making it never illegal. (Popular myth suggests that Queen Victoria couldn't imagine two women in a relationship and had any reference to lesbianism expunged from the relevant act.)
This country promotes itself to the world as a bastion of free speech, freedom of choice and equality for all. As the world didn't apparently stop turning following the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2005 this is simply the next step of natural progression toward a more equal society.
Personally, if I were gay and wanted to formalise my domestic arrangements a Civil Partnership would probably suffice I've not needed to inspect the details), but it is different (if only in words) from a CIVIL marriage and that is seen as discriminatory by some.
I understand, indeed support, the religious exemption. It is no different for divorced straight couples in that they are unable to have a religious marriage, and that has not led to high profile court cases and legal challenges.
If,and I concur it is an ask, that the law is written suitably robustly, specifically ensuring the protecting of the religious and religious properties exemptions then its hard to argue against. Isn't it ?
It is indeed. I wont deny personally that the idea of gay "marriage" still doesn't sit right with me I think because quite frankly marriage has always been m/f but I don't see that as being a reason to deny it to the lgbt community it certainly wont change my life in any way and quite frankly is an advantage to my little bro should he ever wish to take get married. This country promotes itself to the world as a bastion of free speech, freedom of choice and equality for all. As the world didn't apparently stop turning following the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2005 this is simply the next step of natural progression toward a more equal society.
Personally, if I were gay and wanted to formalise my domestic arrangements a Civil Partnership would probably suffice I've not needed to inspect the details), but it is different (if only in words) from a CIVIL marriage and that is seen as discriminatory by some.
I understand, indeed support, the religious exemption. It is no different for divorced straight couples in that they are unable to have a religious marriage, and that has not led to high profile court cases and legal challenges.
If,and I concur it is an ask, that the law is written suitably robustly, specifically ensuring the protecting of the religious and religious properties exemptions then its hard to argue against. Isn't it ?
As has been said definitions of words have changed and do change. Actually thinking about it what does it matter. IF homosexuality is a fade in fade out trend then if it in years to come becomes seen yet again as unacceptable the word can always be reclaimed as it were.
To be honest my views are quite open and seen as extreme as I try to live by a logic and live and let live attitude. I have given the whole homosexual issue a great deal of thought to come up with my own conclusions on whether its merely some sort of illness or whether it is simply a case that it is the way people are.
In my opinion it is just the way people are born. I look at a woman and feel attracted to her my brother has the same response to men and not woman. He can see the attraction of woman but doesn't find them physically as attractive as men. I can look at a guy and see what woman would find as attractive in them I mean come on Brad Pitt/Chris Hemsworth?? I would probably for the right amount of money.
djstevec said:
I have already asked for examples from those EU countries with same sex marriages of cases pending, or cases completed, where religions have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.
Several pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
There is EU law and local law. Between the two fSeveral pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
k ups occur. TallbutBuxomly said:
djstevec said:
I have already asked for examples from those EU countries with same sex marriages of cases pending, or cases completed, where religions have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.
Several pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
There is EU law and local law. Between the two fSeveral pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
k ups occur. AS those countries are also bound by ECHR, why isnt there a huge queue of cases?
IainT said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
potentially short term trend toward homosexuals being accepted by society
No, you're clearly not homophobic at all.t about they would stop making fk off stupid mistakes that could quite easily have been avoided.If you look into the history of homosexuality you would find the reasoning behind my comments which may come as a shock to you since you wish to bandy around the word homophobe as if you actualy understand its meaning or depth.
As a final point may I ask If anyone commenting on this thread is gay/lesbian or has a close relative or relatives who are ? Any of those such as yourself glibly accusing myself and others of being homophobic?
Edited by TallbutBuxomly on Saturday 13th October 23:06
djstevec said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
djstevec said:
I have already asked for examples from those EU countries with same sex marriages of cases pending, or cases completed, where religions have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.
Several pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
There is EU law and local law. Between the two fSeveral pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
k ups occur. AS those countries are also bound by ECHR, why isnt there a huge queue of cases?
We cannot realistically therefore compare the UK to other countries as their laws and societies are somewhat different to the UK. I also dont speak any other european languages so cant really search for cases where gay marriage will have caused issues in europe because you also have the issue that in many cases it becomes small local news rather than being national.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Instead what I do is when looking a subject I look at all aspects including the HISTORY of said subject. History is a wonderful thing which if only people gave a st about they would stop making fk off stupid mistakes that could quite easily have been avoided.
If you look into the history of homosexuality you would find the reasoning behind my comments which may come as a shock to you since you wish to bandy around the word homophobe as if you actualy understand its meaning or depth.
As a final point may I ask If anyone commenting on this thread is gay/lesbian or has a close relative or relatives who are?
Yes I'm homosexual. But I wouldnt say gay per se, as "gay" these days has much more of a media/stereotyping that clouds what homosexuality actually means.t about they would stop making fk off stupid mistakes that could quite easily have been avoided.If you look into the history of homosexuality you would find the reasoning behind my comments which may come as a shock to you since you wish to bandy around the word homophobe as if you actualy understand its meaning or depth.
As a final point may I ask If anyone commenting on this thread is gay/lesbian or has a close relative or relatives who are?
For a start, I'll be at the TVR Tunnel run tonight, unfortunately in the eurbox as my Cerb is off the road while Im restoring the engine and chassis, very "un-gay" activities. I love football, cricket, golf & F1, also quite "un-gay". Cant stand the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, East Enders, or any otehr form of no brain lowest common denominator tv, nor the "gay scene" in general and have no intention of becoming civil partnered or married.
Not every gay man fits in to the stereotype people have in mind on here.
TallbutBuxomly said:
djstevec said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
djstevec said:
I have already asked for examples from those EU countries with same sex marriages of cases pending, or cases completed, where religions have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.
Several pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
There is EU law and local law. Between the two fSeveral pages later I'm still waiting and several pages later Im still reading the same paranoia.
k ups occur. AS those countries are also bound by ECHR, why isnt there a huge queue of cases?
We cannot realistically therefore compare the UK to other countries as their laws and societies are somewhat different to the UK. I also dont speak any other european languages so cant really search for cases where gay marriage will have caused issues in europe because you also have the issue that in many cases it becomes small local news rather than being national.
As ECHR courts, lawyers, experts etc have specifically stayed away from these cases, and stated they feel it sufficient that individual states can set their own laws in line with their own country's "norms", and so long as Article 9 is not materially breached or the rights of churches to oppose are not disregarded in the individual state law, which is the UK proposal too, then the chance that the UK version would in turn be used to force religions into same sex ceremonies is miniscule.
djstevec said:
Yes I'm homosexual. But I wouldnt say gay per se, as "gay" these days has much more of a media/stereotyping that clouds what homosexuality actually means.
For a start, I'll be at the TVR Tunnel run tonight, unfortunately in the eurbox as my Cerb is off the road while Im restoring the engine and chassis, very "un-gay" activities. I love football, cricket, golf & F1, also quite "un-gay". Cant stand the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, East Enders, or any otehr form of no brain lowest common denominator tv, nor the "gay scene" in general and have no intention of becoming civil partnered or married.
Not every gay man fits in to the stereotype people have in mind on here.
Well youve just gone down in my estimation. Way waaay down......For a start, I'll be at the TVR Tunnel run tonight, unfortunately in the eurbox as my Cerb is off the road while Im restoring the engine and chassis, very "un-gay" activities. I love football, cricket, golf & F1, also quite "un-gay". Cant stand the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, East Enders, or any otehr form of no brain lowest common denominator tv, nor the "gay scene" in general and have no intention of becoming civil partnered or married.
Not every gay man fits in to the stereotype people have in mind on here.
You like Football?? Really???
Unbelieveable.
I f
king hate football. Stupid game where over paid actors run around a field randomly falling down and pretending to have suffered a fatal wound in an attempt to gain their team an advantage.Annoyingly rugby is going the same way.
Sport is being ruined by money.
TallbutBuxomly said:
djstevec said:
Yes I'm homosexual. But I wouldnt say gay per se, as "gay" these days has much more of a media/stereotyping that clouds what homosexuality actually means.
For a start, I'll be at the TVR Tunnel run tonight, unfortunately in the eurbox as my Cerb is off the road while Im restoring the engine and chassis, very "un-gay" activities. I love football, cricket, golf & F1, also quite "un-gay". Cant stand the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, East Enders, or any otehr form of no brain lowest common denominator tv, nor the "gay scene" in general and have no intention of becoming civil partnered or married.
Not every gay man fits in to the stereotype people have in mind on here.
Well youve just gone down in my estimation. Way waaay down......For a start, I'll be at the TVR Tunnel run tonight, unfortunately in the eurbox as my Cerb is off the road while Im restoring the engine and chassis, very "un-gay" activities. I love football, cricket, golf & F1, also quite "un-gay". Cant stand the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, East Enders, or any otehr form of no brain lowest common denominator tv, nor the "gay scene" in general and have no intention of becoming civil partnered or married.
Not every gay man fits in to the stereotype people have in mind on here.
You like Football?? Really???
Unbelievable.
I f
king hate football. Stupid game where over paid actors run around a field randomly falling down and pretending to have suffered a fatal wound in an attempt to gain their team an advantage.Annoyingly rugby is going the same way.
Sport is being ruined by money.
ETA.
Probably the saddest experience of my football watching was at an England game. First game of the new Wembley, England v Brazil.
Jermaine Jenas played, every time he had some involvement in the game 4 or 5 blokes directly behind me yelled "POOF"...."YOU f
kING POOF"....."fk OF GAY BOY".....police, stewards, did nothing. This was a player playing for England and they were "fans" in England shirts. That is what I despair of in society, not that I have any idea if he is or isnt gay, is that just because he looked a bit gay, it was open season for the abuse.
Racist chanting and behaviour is all the news, and rightly so, legislation is sometimes needed to increase the rate of change in society or to re-inforce it.
Edited by djstevec on Saturday 13th October 23:32
Breadvan72 said:
A substantial number of people in this country are racist. Does that means that we mustn't do anything that might upset them?
They remain the minority by a significant margin I suggest. Whilst we might not like it you let them get on with it don't you, freedom of speech and all that. What we don't do is change the Law to make it legal for them to hang black people from trees ...TX.
djstevec said:
I like football...not footballers acting. Big difference!!
ETA.
Probably the saddest experience of my football watching was at an England game. First game of the new Wembley, England v Brazil.
Jermaine Jenas played, every time he had some involvement in the game 4 or 5 blokes directly behind me yelled "POOF"...."YOU fkING POOF"....."fk OF GAY BOY".....police, stewards, did nothing. This was a player playing for England and they were "fans" in England shirts.
That is what I despair of in society, not that I have any idea if he is or isnt gay, is that just because he looked a bit gay, it was open season for the abuse.
Racist chanting and behaviour is all the news, and rightly so, legislation is sometimes needed to increase the rate of change in society or to re-inforce it.
I take issue with people using anything sex, race, religion or anything else as a form of personal attack. However in the case of people like that I see making law to try stop them making comments on those lines to try annoy or upset someone directly targeted is pointless.ETA.
Probably the saddest experience of my football watching was at an England game. First game of the new Wembley, England v Brazil.
Jermaine Jenas played, every time he had some involvement in the game 4 or 5 blokes directly behind me yelled "POOF"...."YOU f
kING POOF"....."fk OF GAY BOY".....police, stewards, did nothing. This was a player playing for England and they were "fans" in England shirts. That is what I despair of in society, not that I have any idea if he is or isnt gay, is that just because he looked a bit gay, it was open season for the abuse.
Racist chanting and behaviour is all the news, and rightly so, legislation is sometimes needed to increase the rate of change in society or to re-inforce it.
Edited by djstevec on Saturday 13th October 23:32
Legislating to make it criminally punishable will only make it worse. If you simply punish people they will learn and earn nothing more than that they were justified in their ignorance. Take the time to try educate them and you may well be able to change their views and beliefs.
Likewise when someone tries to start a fight with me unless they decide to get physical my response is simply to try reason and if that fails walk away and leave them to their stupidity.
Justayellowbadge said:
Well, we'd still have slavery. The feudal system. The absolute power of the papist church. The Romans, if ypu want to go back far enough.
To be honest, path of least resistance is invairably bks.
I don't see the relevance of any of that as the world is a far different place today vs 100's of years ago. This is hardly comparable to slavery either, ffs just stay out of the churches.To be honest, path of least resistance is invairably b
ks.TX.
TallbutBuxomly said:
If you simply punish people they will learn and earn nothing more than that they were justified in their ignorance. Take the time to try educate them and you may well be able to change their views and beliefs.
You do realise the irony of how applicable that is to the likes of Lord Carey.Edited by djstevec on Saturday 13th October 23:53
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff