It's not bigotry though. It's the problem with the left rising again - if you're not with us, you're a bigot/racist/fascist/whatever.
Question Time & This Week
- Thread starter Liam147
- Start date
Google 'separate but equal'.
You're saying gay people should not be allowed to use the same institution as straight people, but have a separate one of their own, so long as it 'equal'.
You're saying gay people should not be allowed to use the same institution as straight people, but have a separate one of their own, so long as it 'equal'.
Honestly, do you not hear yourself? It's all just so laughable.
A few points:
People now choose and pick what to believe from the bible because the bible is one of the most vile pieces of written text on the entire planet. People who want to base law on scripture should be laughed at and ignored by secular society.
Marriage hasn't "survived alongside" modern society, homosexuals have been persecuted against by Christianity for centuries and until fairly recently homosexuality was illegal. Marriage, also, is legal in a few of countries in the developed world.
Uncomfortable. Key word there. Uncomfortable. Sounds pretty homophobic to me.
He has a point. No one believes the old testament. Many people believe the miracles such as walking on water were at least exaggerated. Then you have the bible's teachings. Personally I don't think you should pick and choose, which is why, although I take a lot from Christianity, I don't feel I have the right to call myself a Christian. "Well, I don't go to church, I eat meat on Fridays, but I do believe in 'treat thy neighbour...'
Honestly, do you not hear yourself? It's all just so laughable.
People do pick and choose, whether you want to believe that or not. Although I do think there are few people who believe marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman.
Personally I believe marriage has become a social concept rather than a religious one anyway. People want to 'celebrate their love for each other' with their friends and families (read: get pissed).
Besides, marriage is becoming increasingly temporal. You can get annulments and divorces as and when, which is why I don't really see the point of marriage, and it's why I understand that a lot of gay people don't want gay marriage to be allowed.
Marriage is supposed to be a religious thing, and while it is, the anti-gay marriage bunch will always have an argument - that as said in the bible, it's strictly between a man and a woman.
I have no examples to hand, but can someone tell me other times when rules of the bible have been changed to fit modern society? Allowing gay marriage would be one of those times, but I can't think when it's happened before.
I wish I had more to offer than this:
"liberal bigotry"?
"liberal bigotry"?
You mentioned one earlier in your own post, modern divorce law.
Marriage has always been a social concept. Why are you confusing the history of marriage with Biblical laws on matrimony?
So many things wrong here.
If you truly do ignore the old testament. Jesus said you should treat your neighbor as you treat yourself. Apparently this doesn't count if your neighbor sucks cock.
People don't 'pick and choose' what they want. They go around their everyday life and choose to ignore everything that would paint them in a bad light. If what they pick happens to be unhelpful to some sectors of society, they don't give a shit because they still get to go to heaven themselves.
Marriage has always been a social concept. Not a religious one. If you want marriage to be a religious thing then take it out of the law and make it a social contract people make between themselves.
Here's a full list of the commandments in the bible: http://www.aish.com/h/sh/se/48945081.html
Ah yeah I suppose so. Not much of an argument against it really. That said, it was Henry VIII who started it wasn't it? Wasn't he technically head of the Church of England at the time?
Based on that, I think if anyone has the position to say gay marriage should be allowed, it's not elected politicians in Westminster, it should be the Head of State.
I'm not filled in on it enough to know for certain, but I'd imagine a Catholic ceremony would still be out of the question.
Well, does marriage not require a church and a minister? Otherwise wouldn't it be a civil partnership? I'm talking about the concept of getting married (matrimony), not two people who want to 'be married'.
The Head of State (who is still head of the Church of England) will have to sign any law by giving Royal Assent.
Yeah but imagine her personal views on gay marriage would be to not allow it, and parliament had voted for it, she'd sign it anyway would she not?
Imagine that, parliament votes for gay marriage, and the Queen's having none of it.
Well there you go. That's me told. Where's the issue here then?
Social conservatives resistant to change. It happens pretty much any time society wants to grant another group of people equal rights in some way or another.
The issue here is that people who "aren't bigots or homophobic" feel "uncomfortable" at the thought of gay marriage. To paraphrase Al.
Damn that is just awful logic. Luckily for us the Queen doesn't have the same power Henry VIII did.
Well the monarchy hasn't stood up to the government since 1707 and I don't see why they would over a trivial issue. Even if the Queen decided not to sign, the Privy Council will probably do so in her place.
This is when I assumed marriage was a religious job. In which case I don't think the government should have much power to change; they're not in charge of religion, the Queen is.
She's nominally head of one church amongst many. There are several other churches/religions that have been asking to be able to carry out gay marriages.
I'm fine for the Church not to approve of Gay Marriage. It's their every right but CoE is an established church and an arm of the Government as it currently stands. We'd do best to chop that bit off all round and so we can avoid a number of pointless discussions.
Yeah, and chop off the monarchy too while we're at it, to save on a whole other load of pointless discussions.
Again, if people want to keep paddling the whole religious thing, then surely the only logical solution is to completely take marriage out of the law.
Having different laws for different people, on the other hand, is just fecking backward.
Having different laws for different people, on the other hand, is just fecking backward.
The lefty elite have spoken. There is literally no subject they do not know about.
Care to debate any actual points Al?
How could he, us randomers on the internet are the lefty elite apparently.
Another laughable quote.
Another laughable quote.
Has there ever been an instance of extending civil rights to another group of people where history does not show the progressives to be on the right side of the debate?
The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights movement, legalising homosexuality... why would equal marriage be the one issue where people will look back and think the social conservatives had it right?
The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights movement, legalising homosexuality... why would equal marriage be the one issue where people will look back and think the social conservatives had it right?
Are you sure you're not on RAWK? I mean, since you're a victim and all.
The wrath of god will come down on us Mike, you'll see.
The problem you have is that you're making this an academic debate when it doesn't have to be, and indeed, shouldn't be.
I've said it a million times - there are people in this country who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. They deserve to be listened to, and not labelled homophobic, as Peter Hitchens intimated, which was where this argument started. This isn't black and white.
Your comments about 'progressives' don't do you much credit. They just make you sound incredibly arrogant and pretentious.
How are they not being listened to? They're contributing to the debate in the country as much as anybody else. When someone is making bigoted or discriminatory points, then they can be labelled as such. We've listened to the homophobes, and they don't seem to have any good points.
Regarding the comments about progressives, can you give an example where extending civil rights to more people was not the correct thing to do in hindsight? It's a genuine question.
I'm referring to this thread where they are being referred to as bigots. They're not.
Your question is loaded and unintelligent. Gay marriage is not remotely equitable to the suffragette movement. The link is tenuous at best. Describing yourself as 'progressive' is frankly ludicrous.
Some people, myself included, consider the belief that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people to be bigoted.
Both gay marriage and the suffragette movement are about changing the law to include people in a social and political institution from which they were previously excluded. To me it seems a relatively decent analogy.
I only mean it as a contrast to social conservatism - pro-change as opposed to change-resistant.
Can you not see how absurd your argument is Al? You're arguing that the right of someone to hold an opinion (which, by the way, we all defend) trumps the right of people to be seen as equal in law. People disliking gay marriage and gay marriage can co-exist, don't forget most of the people who find gay marriage uncomfortable will also find gays uncomfortable, should we also make homosexuality illegal?
And yes, someone having a homophobic opinion does in fact make them homophobic. It's pretty simple.
Also, if judging people by the opinion they hold somehow makes people bigoted then everyone is a bigot, so I don't understand how this so called "liberal bigotry" can even exist. You big conservative bigot! See how that works? It's a ridiculous assertion and if you weren't so far up Hitchens arse you would see that.
And yes, someone having a homophobic opinion does in fact make them homophobic. It's pretty simple.
Also, if judging people by the opinion they hold somehow makes people bigoted then everyone is a bigot, so I don't understand how this so called "liberal bigotry" can even exist. You big conservative bigot! See how that works? It's a ridiculous assertion and if you weren't so far up Hitchens arse you would see that.
Al, when you're accepting that your position is incoherent, that's surely a good time to step back and wonder whether it's valid.
If you are in the mood for doing that, I think you'll find Mike's point about conservatism and social change is the key one. When it comes to areas like economics, consensus has shifted historically between right and left. For instance, the consensus today favours free markets and few nationalised industries, but also regulation of markets, worker protections and a minimum wage. A Labour government (albeit a centrist one) even gave independence to the central bank.
When it comes to social and civil rights issues, on the other hand, it's hard to think of one where conservatives haven't eventually come to accept that liberals were right. Whether it's slavery, laws against Catholics, universal suffrage, inter-racial marriage, legalisation of homosexuality, whatever, the faction representing the status quo - that is, conservatives - turned out to be wrong, and progressives right (at least as almost everyone sees it today).
Now in every case there were some conservatives who argued the point not on the basis of hatred, but on the basis that making a change kind of felt wrong, and implementing it would be too upsetting for some people, and in the interests of civility and keeping the peace they must be placated. And in each case that was a load of bollocks.
If marriage equality really was such a divisive issue that legislating it was likely to cause serious social conflict, then it might be worth thinking about. (Because I don't think equality trumps all other values in all situations.) But that's clearly not the case here - the worst that will happen is that the Daily Mail will publish fulminating editorials and letters from irate retired colonels.
That last point isn't completely frivolous though. For instance, if democracies continue to expand the circle of those who they consider worth treating well - which is the process at the heart of all these changes - then I reckon in the future the consensus will be that it's wrong to experiment on animals, eat farmed meat and generally use animals' bodies for our own ends. But any government that tried to ban meat now would face immediate dismissal or, if they refused to back down, basically civil war. So here I find the argument that what's morally right (by my lights) should be ignored, and those who are wrong should be appeased, to be persuasive.
Well you can get a secular marriage in this country. Loads of people do. So why not let gay people marry?
I'm not sure anyone, in this thread at least, is arguing that religious institutions should be forced to marry gay people.
so long as what someone does, does not infringe on the rights of another individual, they should be allowed to do it.
... I accept their existence.You have to accept they are descriminating based on convenient sections of an ancient tome.
On the panel this evening:
Ed Davey
Lord Prescott
Nadine Dorris
John Bird
Camilla Cavendish
Ed Davey
Lord Prescott
Nadine Dorris
John Bird
Camilla Cavendish
Sounded like Presoctt was being told some home truths on benefits by that young woman in the audience.
A further line being why tax people only then to give the money back to them in benefits.
A further line being why tax people only then to give the money back to them in benefits.
The young women in the audience was also talking a lot of bollocks. The money that was thrown as she kept shouting as such was a few pounds here and there not live changing sums. I do agree with the fact that the benefits actually ended up sustaining people in low level pay and only benefited the shareholders. I also agree with the why tax just to give it back as well.
I'm also sick and tired of the constant blaming in politics and no one working together to protect and reform and move forward.
Not that it matters we're fecked financially as a country anyway. Our government happily jumping over the cliff with more borrowing.