Gay People Against Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sudden said:
Don't mean to put words into their mouths (hands?), but I would have thought that they just mean that generally speaking, people can do what they like if they don't hurt others. Similar to - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Given the context of the threat, it has been said in relation to it.
Click to expand...

I honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about. Aside from the fact that it is condescending to the point of being insulting, it's utterly meaningless in the context of this debate.

Unless the irony of dictating how people of a certain lifestyle can live and then going on about 'rights of swinging your arms' is completely lost on you. In which case, right on brotha.
 
Castiel said:
It retains the civil partnership option but does not extend it to heterosexual couples who may wish to legalise their union without the formal structures associated with marriage.
Click to expand...

Technically it isn't the new bill that is discriminatory but the old bill. :D
 
Theophany said:
Before I say anything, I just want to make clear I get on with both of you chaps and find you as better posters within this wonderful community, however, I do have a bone to pick.

Why is it there is a tendency to add words to the effect of 'as long as nobody gets hurt' when stating support for gay marriage? What does it even mean?

Heterosexual marriage can be an extremely destructive force that consumes more people than just the two engaged in the marriage - should we somehow be against that because it hurts people?

Why is it so difficult to just say; "I'm all for gay marriage" without introducing this allusion to pain and suffering?
Click to expand...

:mad::mad::mad:

Seriously though, it's just an add-on term to distinguish one's views from those that might be within the original statement, but extreme. For instance, being 'all for gay marriage' is quite vague and it could have other meanings to other people, such as making same-sex marriage ceremonies legal and available in all Anglican churches by ordained clergy. Something that would be against that religion's wishes (as far as I'm aware). But, with it being our 'national religion', some might say that it its edifices should welcome the nation's citizens equally. Personally, regardless of my views on gay marriage, I feel that such a step would be too great right now and would cause anger and distress to Anglican Christians. Hence as long as nobody gets hurt.

But I see where you're coming from and, at the end of the day, going forward, it's a game of two halves and people shouldn't band about idioms willy-nilly.
 
Edrof said:
:mad::mad::mad:

Seriously though, it's just an add-on term to distinguish one's views from those that might be within the original statement, but extreme. For instance, being 'all for gay marriage' is quite vague and it could have other meanings to other people, such as making same-sex marriage ceremonies legal and available in all Anglican churches by ordained clergy. Something that would be against that religion's wishes (as far as I'm aware). But, with it being our 'national religion', some might say that it its edifices should welcome the nation's citizens equally. Personally, regardless of my views on gay marriage, I feel that such a step would be too great right now and would cause anger and distress to Anglican Christians. Hence as long as nobody gets hurt.

But I see where you're coming from and, at the end of the day, going forward, it's a game of two halves and people shouldn't band about idioms willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

I did lol at the last bit. :D

I guess I distinguish the two issues, which may explain why I take umbrage with the wording. See, for me the legal right for gay people to marry is one issue, mucking about with an institution run by dinosaurs is another (spoiler alert: I'm being glib, shocker, it's 11 and I'm shattered). By introducing religion into the debate, the waters become muddied for all the wrong reasons. A simple question of legal and moral rights becomes a victim of misdirection and other agendas.

If the Church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, that's their prerogative and they shouldn't be made to do it. Just in the same way that the Amish have the right to choose to live in the dark ages, but they don't get the right to force their backward way of living on other people. Just because they do not wish to perform them doesn't mean that they should have any special say in the long overdue political discourse that finally gets this **** done and dusted. We are a secular state, after all.
 
FoxEye said:
How do they know you're gay?

1. Did you give yourself a gamertag like 'wutwutinthebutt'
2. Did you spray a picture of two guys going at it all over the map?
3. Did you introduce yourself on the server with "lo guys, I'll be your gay CoD player for today'

In short... how in the 9 hells do they know you're gay?

Answer: you couldn't resist bringing it up. No doubt. You wanted to bring it up to prove how 'intolerant' they all were. So you tell all the other players that you're gay, and probably tell them how much you'd like to do Brad Pitt just for good measure. Then you get angry when a few people take the bait, and have a go at you.

Something like that, eh?

I mean, seriously, if you didn't tell them they were gay, how would you get 'persecuted'? And why tell a group of strangers that you're gay? Why?
Click to expand...

I'm not gay?
 
100pc drunk here so excuse any typos. But absolutely in favour of gay marriage. it's not my thing personally but I support the right for any two people, regardless of their orientation to.be together if they love each other.
 
hurfdurf said:
I'm not gay?
Click to expand...

You bumbothering apologist you ;)

One amendment to the bill was to suggest all life partnerships are legally termed as such, civil partnerships for male male male female and female female, and leave marriage to the relams of each church to decide.
Not sure if thats a better alternative or not.
 
RDM said:
Technically it isn't the new bill that is discriminatory but the old bill. :D
Click to expand...

I thought the Police were tackling institutional discrimination...;)

Seriously though, as far as the two pieces of legislation are concerned they are both discriminatory, just from opposing perspectives. The time to tackle any inherent discrimination is before ratifying the legislation, not at some indeterminate point in the future...that was the problem with Civil Partnerships in the first place.
 
hurfdurf said:
I'm not gay?
Click to expand...

And? I don't care either way :)

My sole point was that most times we don't need to know either way. Often times I see gay people making an issue of their sexuality when no one else was.

And sorry, but if they get super upset about someone being called a 'fag' on CoD... then they need grow thicker skin. Take it like a man, so to speak... :p
 
It's still progress. Gay people will be able to get married and hold equal status to straight people. Civil partnerships are a seperate issue and I agree it should be sorted so both can have them.
 
FoxEye said:
And? I don't care either way :)

My sole point was that most times we don't need to know either way. Often times I see gay people making an issue of their sexuality when no one else was.

And sorry, but if they get super upset about someone being called a 'fag' on CoD... then they need grow thicker skin. Take it like a man, so to speak... :p
Click to expand...

Are you a straight white male by any chance?
 
Theophany said:
I honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about. Aside from the fact that it is condescending to the point of being insulting, it's utterly meaningless in the context of this debate.

Unless the irony of dictating how people of a certain lifestyle can live and then going on about 'rights of swinging your arms' is completely lost on you. In which case, right on brotha.
Click to expand...

My point was simply that my understanding of what they had said was that as long as it is not impacting others in a negative way, people are free to do as they please. Which is what my takeaway from that quote has always been. It was not a point specific to this debate but more of a general one.

Didn't particularly mean it to be condescending/insulting so apologies if it came across that way.
 
FoxEye said:
Would that somehow make my opinion less valid?
Click to expand...


"It's just trash-talk! We don't actually hate the gays/women/non-whites/etc! Why shouldn't we be able to use these words that have no meaning to us but years of negative/violent connotations for all those other groups?"

You are so removed, and dare I say privileged, from never having to deal with homophobia/sexism/racism/etc that it's like this little bubble where you can't perceive the impact those words have on some people.
 
neodude said:
To go off on a slight tangent. I have nothing against gay people but... The definition of marriage has always been "man and women". So by definition you can't have gay marriage. By all means have a ceremony/status exactly the same, but call it something different. Gayrriage? ;)

It's like me trying to say a truck should be called a car because it has the right to be called that. Or that Red should have the right to be called Green.

Madness imho.
Click to expand...

Traditionally, or by previous "definition", a man would have paid a dowry for his wife. (Two cows for a corking bit of crumpet sounds good to me!)

Times change - marriage has already been redefined countless times. Get over it and move on.

Also, why stop with queer folk? Shouldn't atheists' also be prohibited from marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom