so say it takes 2+ years to put through a combined bill and less than 2 years to put through two separate ones achieving the same thing? why choose the combined option?
Gay People Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
- Status
so say it takes 2+ years to put through a combined bill and less than 2 years to put through two separate ones achieving the same thing? why choose the combined option?
are you?
Yeah I suck at getting my point across. What i was trying to highlight is the fact that religious groups that are exempt from doing gay marriages is no different from them being exempt from giving a bed to anyone for whatever reason in my eyes.
not really words can have different meanings in different contexts.
for instance "sick" means "awesome/very good" at times, and negative at others.
depending on context the sentence "you look sick in that dress" can mean very different things.
I think fag is more for the skinny/wimpy regardless of sexuality, and happily use it to insult people ^_^
Say it takes just 3-6 weeks to make an amendment and the hoohaa surrounding the length of time an amendment would take is all political gambit taking?
Entire legislation has been passed in a matter of weeks using fast-track processes, it isn't that the Government cannot do this, it is that they choose not to do this.
Why choose to pass discriminating legislation to replace discriminative legislation?
Can you give a more detailed etymology? That's the first time I've seen breeding pairs in agriculture cited as the origin of the word 'marriage'.
I do, apart from the Marxism, and I want every child to be raised the same way so that future generations will have a better society to live in.
I'm making two assumptions about the real meaning of your rhetoric:
1) When you are referring to homosexuality being "pushed in its face", you mean that it's done so a fair bit less than heterosexuality is.
2) When you write "male and female identity" you mean "gender" and you've failed to understand the difference.
Something that leaps out from the anti-homosexual speech is how extremely attractive they think homosexuality is. Over and over again, they tell us that if homosexuality is seen as a reasonable thing then most people will be homosexual.
It's wrong to claim that all people who object to homosexuality are actually homosexual themselves, but a lot of them seem very eager to make it seem that way.
I am openly and vehemently anti-feminist. Feminism is sexist to the core and utterly disgusting. It's a dishonest, hypocritical attack on sexual equality by usurping and corrupting it, like a virus infecting a host cell and using it to conceal itself from the host's defences while corrupting it into a factory to produce more more viruses. It's a foul thing, a vile parasite.
I think you're talking crap and I think you're warped. That isn't a feminist position - it's an egalitarian one. I think you're warped because you're advocating brainwashing young children with pointless and harmful rubbish to suit your pointless and harmful authoritarian dictats about how everyone should be and how everyone should live and how everyone should conform to whatever pointless and harmful restricted roles you have decided must be imposed on people on the basis of what type of genitals they have.
So...how about visiting Brighton? Is that enough?
I've got it! If everyone visits Brighton and becomes homosexual, then we can all live happily ever after.
Hmm...we may need to spend a lot of money building far larger transport systems for Brighton. It would take ages to channel 60M people through Brighton with its current road and rail systems. This could be a problem.
That's not the question when marriage has any legal status. Marriage has legal rights and responsibilities attached to it, so it is a matter for the state and, by extension since this is a partial democracy, every individual.
So what you're saying then is that gay people aren't able to handle the responsibility?
I'm sorry, but that argument is absolute horse **** of the highest (or lowest) order.
e: unless you don't actually believe that argument, in which case why are you perpetuating horse **** you don't believe in.
That's a lie. If you did, then you would be opposed to gendered roles and pressures and you wouldn't think in terms of, to quote your own words, "male and female identity".
You are advocating the opposite of what you claim to respect - you deny the differences between people in order to promote your belief that there are no people, only groups.
The people you speak against are advocating the opposite of what you claim they are advocating - they are saying that differences exist on the individual level, that everyone is different.
Your position is either profoundly dishonest or profoundly deluded.
It depends on how you interpret what's written in the Christian bible. So different Christian churches accept different things - some think homosexuality itself is wrong, some think only homosexual sex is wrong (i.e. homosexuals are fine as long as they are celibate), some think that homosexual sex is fine within Christianity. It is possible to interpret the Christian bible that way - the handful of passages referring to homosexual sex might be referring to specfic acts in specific circumstances, not to homosexual sex in general. Or maybe not to homosexuality at all in some verses - modern English bibles translate "arsenokoitai" as "homosexuals" but it's not really known what the word means. 100 years ago they were translating it as "masturbators". There are only a couple of dozen extant uses of the word, all of which come after the biblical use and almost all of which are directly linked to it (e.g. people quoting it).
What the Christian bible says about homosexuality is rather less clear than it's usually made out to be.
Why are you making things up and pretending they have anything to do with me? That's very dishonest of you.
The horse muck is your own. You clean it up. Don't pretend it's mine.
What I said is that laws are the business of the state. That's not a difficult concept to understand and I am telling you now to stop lying about what I said or I'll report you.
I don't have to imagine that - I'm a man, so it has happened to me quite often.
If it's OK to have a business that provides a service only to women, why is it not OK to have a business that provides a service only to heterosexuals? Either discriminating in that way is wrong or it isn't. I think it's wrong and I think it's more wrong to have the hypocrisy of "all groups are equal but some are more equal than others".
Having justifiable exclusionary groups is fine.
Rape support centres for one, gyms or places where a person has to strip off (same logic as changing rooms).
As with everything, I don't think a singular black & white law is sufficient - but overall then I'd agree, but exceptions may always be required.
- Status