Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/08/gay-mar...
Lord Carey
Hates all fairies
So he says
Stuff that's scary
E J Thribb 17 3/4
Lord Carey
Hates all fairies
So he says
Stuff that's scary
E J Thribb 17 3/4
Digga said:
otolith 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.
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.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.
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
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?
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.
Ozzie Osmond said:
The issue here is not same sex relationships it is same sex marriage.
If same sex people want to have a relationship then that's fine by me. If they want a civil partnership to recognise their commitment to each other that's fine by me.
What I see no reason for is same-sex relationships to be categorised together with the heterosexual relationships which reflect the biological reality of human survival and the bedrock of our society.
Let me ask you a question. Do you find either of these objectionable and if so, why?
A. an 18-year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl
B. an 18-year old man having sex with a 16 year old boy
Bedrock on the basis of what? Religion? Tradition? Why have a special word for one set of relationships but not the other? If same sex people want to have a relationship then that's fine by me. If they want a civil partnership to recognise their commitment to each other that's fine by me.
What I see no reason for is same-sex relationships to be categorised together with the heterosexual relationships which reflect the biological reality of human survival and the bedrock of our society.
Let me ask you a question. Do you find either of these objectionable and if so, why?
A. an 18-year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl
B. an 18-year old man having sex with a 16 year old boy
As for your questions, A. is illegal and rightly so, in my view. B. is only illegal if the 18 year old has a position of trust vis a vis the 16 year old. Otherwise, fine. We have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to sexual consent, as much discussed in recent threads about the teacher and the runaway schoolgirl.
That is just saying "because because". Your personal view of marriage (based, I strongly suspect, on homophobia), confines marriage to male-female couples, but there is no reason other than tradition for this to be the case. We have moved on. Also, people are not shoes, and the analogy is plain silly.
The point is that there should in general be no discrimination on the basis of involuntary attributes. Some exemptions can be made. For example, you can advertise for women only to work as changing room attendants at a female changing room. You can decline to employ a wheelchair user in a role that objectively requires the ability to walk. There is no reasonable basis for denying gay people the same marriage rights as straight people.
Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.
By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.
Religion is a voluntary attribute (albeit one often influenced by family choice in childhood). The involuntary attribute trumps the voluntary one.
By the way, some gay people choose to be religious, but their churches will not give them the same rights as they give to their straight members. It is odd that gay people remain members of homophobic churches, but they do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff