Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Blue Oval84 said:
elster said:
Why?
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Go back far enough and it wasn't really an issue as per recently.
Provided churches aren't forced to conduct same-sex marriages, then what's the problem? As has been said, if they dislike civil marriage then they should be protesting registry offices already surely?
Maybe you should all check your history a bit more thoroughly.
Same sex relationships have existed in history for brief periods here and there and in some were given same status as marriage but were not described as such. In certain very few societies it has been known for same sex relationships to happen but it is very much exception and was not marriage.
It is also worth noting that the church dont have overall say on marriage however they have had opposing sex union for longer than any other group has had same sex union.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Screw it bring on the thread ban...
Maybe you should all check your history a bit more thoroughly.
Same sex relationships have existed in history for brief periods here and there and in some were given same status as marriage but were not described as such. In certain very few societies it has been known for same sex relationships to happen but it is very much exception and was not marriage.
It is also worth noting that the church dont have overall say on marriage however they have had opposing sex union for longer than any other group has had same sex union.
How does it affect you in the slightest? Maybe you should all check your history a bit more thoroughly.
Same sex relationships have existed in history for brief periods here and there and in some were given same status as marriage but were not described as such. In certain very few societies it has been known for same sex relationships to happen but it is very much exception and was not marriage.
It is also worth noting that the church dont have overall say on marriage however they have had opposing sex union for longer than any other group has had same sex union.
Oh no. Steve and Bill down the road are getting married. That must mean my marriage is devalued?
How the f
k does that even being to make sense? TallbutBuxomly said:
Blue Oval84 said:
elster said:
Why?
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Gay marriage happened before the church existed.
You mean that growing up in a world full of oppressive religions has lead you to think that the only way is a man and a woman.
Go back far enough and it wasn't really an issue as per recently.
Provided churches aren't forced to conduct same-sex marriages, then what's the problem? As has been said, if they dislike civil marriage then they should be protesting registry offices already surely?
Maybe you should all check your history a bit more thoroughly.
Same sex relationships have existed in history for brief periods here and there and in some were given same status as marriage but were not described as such. In certain very few societies it has been known for same sex relationships to happen but it is very much exception and was not marriage.
It is also worth noting that the church dont have overall say on marriage however they have had opposing sex union for longer than any other group has had same sex union.
Same sex marriage occurred during Roman times. Such as Nero. Maybe this is why the Christians aren't a fan...
Ozzie Osmond said:
So far as I'm concerned if they "happen to be of the same gender" then they don't even make it to the starting line for marriage, the whole concept of which is for many of us one man and one woman.
Well you're entirely within your right not to marry someone of the same gender then. For those who want to, why on earth should that gender combination mean their relationship is governed by a different contract? We don't have gay driving licences, gay council tax or gay income tax, why should marriage be any different? It's a contract between two people and frankly who cares what the church thinks? Weird how they get all pissy and demand equality when a business disallows overt religious symbols in the workplace, yet invoke the self same "but that's our policy!" argument in this instance.
Some of the religious bigots do also object to gay marriages in registry offices. The Strasbourg Court is currently considering the case of a Registrar who was dismissed because she would not perform civil partnership ceremonies. There is also the case of a Relate counsellor who would not provide advice to gay couples.
Leaving aside those who are weak minded enough to take their opinions from Holy Books and the preachings of atavistic religious leaders, quite why anyone secular should give two hoots about the sexual preferences of any other consenting adult is beyond me.
Leaving aside those who are weak minded enough to take their opinions from Holy Books and the preachings of atavistic religious leaders, quite why anyone secular should give two hoots about the sexual preferences of any other consenting adult is beyond me.
I stand by the remark. Bigotry involves irrational opinions. A person who objects to the sexuality of a consenting adult, or wishes gay people to have fewer rights than straight people, is adopting an irrational opinion.
Not all opinions need to be respected. We do not respect racist views. Why should we respect homophobic views?
Not all opinions need to be respected. We do not respect racist views. Why should we respect homophobic views?
TallbutBuxomly said:
Disappointing comments from you breadvan. "bigots"
The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
My experience of most religions is that they are unprepared to live and let live and are, to varying degrees, on a mission to convert non-beleivers or otherwise somehow negate them by derriding them. Clearly, factions of Islam currently take the biscuit but are by no means alone.The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
I'm afraid that of the many Christians I've met, there have been more than a few who seem to use their faith as a shield of smug entitlement and self-righteousness. True 'Christian' acts appear to be something to read, write and sing hynms about for most.
Most organised religion is designed around bigotry and division.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Disappointing comments from you breadvan. "bigots"
The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
Way to go, trying to claim a small hillock of moral high ground in the pit of your homophobia.The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
Carey's the same, claiming the third Reich started with name calling, when the end result was denying rights to groups of society because they were different.
PS you were banned from the other thread for repeatedly stating that aids was a good thing as it controlled the population of Africa. HTH.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Disappointing comments from you breadvan. "bigots"
The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
I can accept your views but not any desire to impose them on people who do not believe as you do. It is this attitude of the church, seeking to impart its will on others, even when it is not being forced to change its opinion or carry out ceremonies against its will which makes, IMHO, the church more bigoted than those campaigning for gay marriage rights. The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Disappointing comments from you breadvan. "bigots"
The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
No. You are free to say that. I am free to call you stupid for saying that. The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
Free speech isn't one way.
Digga said:
My experience of most religions is that they are unprepared to live and let live and are, to varying degrees, on a mission to convert non-beleivers or otherwise somehow negate them by derriding them.
Knock it, most of your religious exposure will have been to the CoE which is the least religious, least *hardcore* organisation known to mankind!! The WI is hardline compared to the CofE!One presumes by convert non-believers you mean by the process of jam buying, scouts and girls meeting in the church hall, tombolo raffles once a month and the young mums coffee mornings.
The CofE is about as religious as me.
Mostly that is true, thanks be to FSM, but the Cof E does have a few hardline nutters.
Carey and Williams (the latter is at lest not a homophobe) have set a worrying trend of being Archbishop of Canterbury whilst also being a believing Christian, a thing unheard of since about the time of Cranmer. It is bad enough that the Popes started being Christians about 100 years ago, and now the Cantuars are following suit. The job of the Archbish is to be a posh bloke in a frock and not to make fuss, but this has been forgotten.
Carey and Williams (the latter is at lest not a homophobe) have set a worrying trend of being Archbishop of Canterbury whilst also being a believing Christian, a thing unheard of since about the time of Cranmer. It is bad enough that the Popes started being Christians about 100 years ago, and now the Cantuars are following suit. The job of the Archbish is to be a posh bloke in a frock and not to make fuss, but this has been forgotten.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Sorry but calling someone a bigot is no different to calling someone a faggot in my opinion. Its a label used to put down those who hold different views or opinions.
No, there's a vast difference between the two that most intelligent people would not conflate unless they're trying desperately to justify their own wrong-headed views.Calling someone a bigot is to point out the bigoted views and discriminatory actions.
Calling someone a faggot is to use a term to denigrate their sexuality; it is a term designed to cause hurt and attach stigma.
Bill said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Disappointing comments from you breadvan. "bigots"
The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
Way to go, trying to claim a small hillock of moral high ground in the pit of your homophobia.The sort of commentary from those who aren't prepared. To accept other peoples views and would rather try give them a negative view and simply put them down.
Carey's the same, claiming the third Reich started with name calling, when the end result was denying rights to groups of society because they were different.
PS you were banned from the other thread for repeatedly stating that aids was a good thing as it controlled the population of Africa. HTH.
Secondly on the other thread I did not "Repeatedly" state that aids was a good thing. I in fact stated that in certain respects it was as the global population is out of control and only once and refused to change my comments just because others were unwilling to accept or consider my statement with any form of reason.
Much like when I tried to discuss Anders Breivik. Just because I didn't join everyone else in claiming him a raving loony monster and instead tried to have an adult discussion about his actions what led to them etc so that we could hopefully learn from them I was accused of being exactly the same as and a supporter of his actions.
Yet again its a case of people being unable to engage in reasonable mature discussion and simply name calling and reading more into comments than they should so they can "react" rather than discuss.
DJRC said:
Digga said:
My experience of most religions is that they are unprepared to live and let live and are, to varying degrees, on a mission to convert non-beleivers or otherwise somehow negate them by derriding them.
Knock it, most of your religious exposure will have been to the CoE which is the least religious, least *hardcore* organisation known to mankind!! The WI is hardline compared to the CofE!One presumes by convert non-believers you mean by the process of jam buying, scouts and girls meeting in the church hall, tombolo raffles once a month and the young mums coffee mornings.
The CofE is about as religious as me.
I have also found certain of these religious nutters to be extremely nasty and distasteful individuals to do business with. They also make vile neighbours - refusing to have anything to do with other neighbours to the point of being rude. As an example, my parent's neighbours had some of these nutters move in and so, to break the ice and try to be neighbourly they took a tray of tea & biscuits around whilst they were moving in. The offer was flatly, rudely, totally rejected; "we don't eat with your sort". Nice.
I find it odd that there is a one-sided presumption that I would (should?) spend my Sundays doing what they do, rather than vice versa.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff