Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst

[anonymous-user]

Your attempt to cover your tracks is not very convincing.

[anonymous-user]

Three of my colleagues, two straight, one gay, went to a Soho club. The bouncer waved the two straight ones in, but stopped the gay one and said "you do realise that this is a gay club, Sir?"

Anyway, CSBs apart, a trader can of course refuse to deal with someone on grounds other than those protected by law. A pub can throw out a drunk, but can't throw someone out or bar them on the ground of being black, gay, etc.

[anonymous-user]

[anonymous-user]

If the gay couple at the B and B had been married (if the law had changed already), I do not suppose that the owners would have let them stay. It was pretty plain what they objected to, and I doubt that they had been asking to inspect marriage certificates for straight couples.

[anonymous-user]

From memory, I think he did.

[anonymous-user]

The trouble is that you cannot come up with a singe reasoned objection to allowing every (single) adult who wants to get married to do so. You keep retreating to reliance on how things have been in the past.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 13th October 20:22

[anonymous-user]

There's no reason for them to object. As pointed out above, if tradition was in itself a justification for something, we'd still have bear baiting and rickets.

[anonymous-user]

Please give soem concrete examples of realistic problems that this small change would cause. What sort of silly lawsuits do you have in mind? I think you are raising chimerical problems.

[anonymous-user]

The sky will fall! There will be Earthquakes, tidal waves, and all out Zombie Apocalypses. Worse; we will all get .... the gay!

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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 fk ups occur.

No examples then?

AS those countries are also bound by ECHR, why isnt there a huge queue of cases?

[anonymous-user]

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.

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.

[anonymous-user]

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 fk ups occur.

No examples then?

AS those countries are also bound by ECHR, why isnt there a huge queue of cases?

Honest anser is I have no answer here Steve as I am local to the uk and follow Uk news and "gossip" and other main feature news things like the war in syria the troubles in africa since it is where i am from and so on. I base my belief and theories on what I have seen in the uk as that is where this discussion is relevant as it is the UK who are planning on making gay marriage legal.

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.

Local laws wouldn't over-ride ECHR as we have seen in many cases. As pretty much every country that has same sex marriage, also protect the rights of religions to not perform those ceremonies, IF there were huge objections to that by gay rights campaigners in those EU countries with this law, and have had for a number of years already, you would easily be able to google search those cases.

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.

[anonymous-user]

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......




You like Football?? Really???

Unbelievable.

I fking 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.

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.

Edited by djstevec on Saturday 13th October 23:32

[anonymous-user]

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

[anonymous-user]

If you think that allowing gay people to get married will lead to a decline in moral standards, you must think that there is something immoral about homosexuality. You keep trailing your coat.

[anonymous-user]

Terminator X said:

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.

That analogy is no good. Gay people are not asking for any special privilege. They are asking to be treated the same as straight people. Also, we do limit the freedom of racists in some ways. They can hold and express their views, but they can't act on their views to the detriment of others.

[anonymous-user]

Sticks. said:

Interesting, thanks. It was once the case that the gay rights movement's approach was about being proud to be different. And made it clear that different wasn't lesser, and rightly so.

I completely agree that different does not equal lesser, so why is only a lesser form of a marriage permissible to homosexuals? By your own argument there, redefining marriage to encompass "different but not lesser", is a non issue.

Valuing and embracing diversity is very different from disallowing access to societal institutions solely because of that diversity.

[anonymous-user]

Sticks. said:

djstevec said:

I completely agree that different does not equal lesser, so why is only a lesser form of a marriage permissible to homosexuals?

In what way is it lesser?

Not being able to use the word "Husband" or "Wife" to describe your loved one. Not being able to call yourself married.

Take a moment to read the contracting vows of a civil marriage, then the contracting marriage vow and let me know which one you would rather proclaim to affirm your commitment to your loved one.

Simon Callow is correct in his assessment of the cold, contractual nature of civil partnerships.

[anonymous-user]

Sticks. said:

djstevec said:

Not being able to use the word "Husband" or "Wife" to describe your loved one. Not being able to call yourself married.

Take a moment to read the contracting vows of a civil marriage, then the contracting marriage vow and let me know which one you would rather proclaim to affirm your commitment to your loved one.

Simon Callow is correct in his assessment of the cold, contractual nature of civil partnerships.

If it's about wording of vows then that can be changed, though I quite like them tbh.

The assumption that a gay couple must aspire to the straight version of something to be acceptable is disappointing imho.

Its not an aspiration, its legally being able to affirm those words with the emotional attachment, weight of history and meaning to convey their love for each other.

I think its disappointing that civil partnerships existed in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't be having this repetitious argument.