But don't you find it odd that it's those that are part of the majority deciding things for the minority?
Also.. I think race vs sexuality are different. Race is not a perceived moral issue, it's not a fair comparison.
President Obama Endorses Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
But don't you find it odd that it's those that are part of the majority deciding things for the minority?
Also.. I think race vs sexuality are different. Race is not a perceived moral issue, it's not a fair comparison.
Part and parcel of voting democraticaly.
Again if you don't like it you can put up with it, try and get another vote with a better persuasive argument or move.
But let's use your hetrosexuality argument for a moment.
Right now homosexuals (minority) is getting the issues forced on the hetrosexuals (majority) how is that fair?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I believe it to be hypocritical and another reason as to why I can't fathom Americans out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
How are the rights of people opposed to gay marriage being infringed by allowing it? Rights have physical outcomes, which is why gay people being allowed to marry would grant them rights.
Having an opinion that you don't like something, doesn't mean that it is your 'right' to have it banned/not made legal.
I oppose fox hunting but would never argue that if it were re-introduced my rights were being infringed (although I would argue the fox's were).
In the UK they can, thanks to good ol Henry the 8th (who also changed the definition of marriage to include re-marriage after divorce which was unheard of an not recognized as 'marriage' before but he changed attitudes and now we accept it).
Dunno, ask Henry 8th why is legalised cousin marriage and why all subsequent governments have not reversed it. Or a better question would if cousin marriage has been legal in the UK for nearly 400 years, why hasn't British society exploded?
You do realise that marriage and Christianity are mutally exclusive things don't you? You do understand that the only reason Christian Churches can hold marriage ceremonies is because they are licensed to do so by the state.
I'll say it again, marriages are legal entities "owned" by the state, the church has no more claim to own or run them than my local garage does.
Last edited:
I did read your post, the part about Iceland was completely irrelevant. You either don't understand the point I am making, or you are ignoring it because you have no means of arguing against it.
How is anything being forced on to you? What differences to your rights will be made by allowing gays to marry?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why are you making the presupposition that all heterosexuals are against gay marriage?
I did but it is you who ignores it.
I have giving you an example of how letting the people vote works, all you do is come with opinions that mean little.
We aren't deciding what the minority have to do. We are merely giving them the equal rights for them to decide for themselves.
It's not a moral issue for me, maybe for you. But then again white nationalists consider the white vs black debate as a moral issue too, they see blacks as inferior. To me denying rights to a homosexual is no different than denying rights to a black person.
Nothing is being forced upon heterosexuals. If 2 homosexuals get married it doesn't affect anyone else.
Democratic voting isn't the only thing that defines our country though.
In fact we're not even a democracy. We're democratic, yes... We're a parliamentary democracy. We're a constitutional monarchy. We have universal suffrage..
There are a great deal of things that define our country, you can't just select one of them and demand we use it to oppress a minority, and ignore the other defining aspects of our country that would oppose it.
I already said.
Seriously I wish you would read all of the post instead of the first line.
There is more important issues that need to be discussed and implemented than gay marriage such as preventing austerity measures, fixing the NHS, job losses ect
Other than a general political rights topic I don't actually think it is a big issue, very few gay people get married in countries where it is allowed, and below a certain age grouping there just isn't the same stability of relationships.
It's pretty much an issue that has been championed by a few vocal groups, with the support of a few political groups with their own agendas but who happen to be seeking a common platform.
I'm not saying that the gay majority aren't a little pee'd off with the discrimination, just that most of them have more important things to worry about than marriage rights.
I think the assumption is that society isn't as accepting of differences in orientation as they hoped it would be.
Oh god... You can't be this stupid. You offered an example of a people voting on an economic issue, that of whether Iceland should be liable for the money citizens in other countries lost when the Icelandic banking system crashed, due to their government's experiment in deregulation.
I am telling you that in a democracy, you cannot extend a right to a majority of the population, and then refuse it to a minority, due to their sexual orientation. Your point about Iceland is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
The majority do not get to dictate to minorities, what rights they are allowed. That is not democratic.
Most of them are, and everyone who is against it is affraid to let people vote.
Infact most of the world is against it.
Personally I don't care what people get up to but everyone should have a vote.
No instead we allow them to oppress the majority.
Citation needed.
Damn you're dumb.
I am illustrating that the populace were given a vote on something and the government followed through.
If the government truly served the people then we should have our vote and then they follow through.
Either way I'm done with you.
I don't know what to say... You something truly unique.
^^^ Come now chaps, no need to get personal 
For me, I would say it's a moral conumdrum (for lack of a better term). My 'morals' conflict with what I think. I certainly have no desire to crush the happiness of someone.
I can only put it in such terms that I believe in the family and that the main couple should be having kids (that's a REALLY simplistic way to put it). That's a core part of me, and I don't think it will change. If my daughter were to decide she were a Lesbian (or anything but straight), I would be distraught about it, but I would love her and it's her decision and would support her in that decision. (Like I would with anyone else).
For me, I would say it's a moral conumdrum (for lack of a better term). My 'morals' conflict with what I think. I certainly have no desire to crush the happiness of someone.
I can only put it in such terms that I believe in the family and that the main couple should be having kids (that's a REALLY simplistic way to put it). That's a core part of me, and I don't think it will change. If my daughter were to decide she were a Lesbian (or anything but straight), I would be distraught about it, but I would love her and it's her decision and would support her in that decision. (Like I would with anyone else).
Last edited: