I'm not actually "arguing" anything Shadow , whether you like it or not I find the sex acts performed on each other by blokes fuckin abhorrent , as I said I know a few gays , I would imagine most blokes know a gay, I don't think about their sex life and then think "I wonder if he's happy , I don't think about lesbians much either , I am simply saying it's not a natural thing ,a natural thing by definition would be the most popular or prolific thing. when I post I say as I see without favour , I don't consider the gay persons general demeanour any more than I'd consider a.n.others across the street
I don't know. I am so nonplussed that it has occurred to me that our Phill here is a world-class troll, the likes of which I haven't seen for quite a few years now. The alternative is that he genuinely feels that his opinion is an absolute, rock-solid, 24-carat fact - with no interpretation required. Neither explanation seems plausible to me hence my confusion. Mind you, I remember a conversation I once had with my granddad. He was in his early eighties and somewhat stuck in his ways and he literally could not see that what he was saying was based purely upon his beliefs and not on provable facts. I'm getting the same sensation here in this thread. Incredibly brave of Phill to come out and fight his corner. His beliefs are clearly strongly held - but that's all they are, beliefs. They are no more facts than any other expressed opinions are facts. People in the thread have argued why gay marriage should be legal, actual logical reasons - whether they are right or wrong is up for discussion. That Phill cannot logically justify his belief to others except in terms of "that's the way it's always been", etc, means that he is not going to persuade anyone who doesn't already share his thoughts on the matter. Equally, he cannot be persuaded by logical arguments against his stance as he isn't basing his beliefs upon logic. Nope, what we are doing here is like arguing whether redheads are beautiful or not. If you like redheads, then they are beautiful - if not, they aren't. Now, if anyone wants to step up and provide a logical argument against gay marriage, have at it. Let's not waste anymore time arguing the colour cerise with a blind man. PLEASE NOTE - I am NOT in favour of forcing churches to marry gay couples. I am against this. I do support the proposed law that civil marriage can be between same-sex and hetero couples alike, with no legal distinction between the two types.
i dont necessarily agree with peters view but I respect it. and I dont label him as im sure shadow will. I dont care what gays get upto. the more the better.. then theres more available clunge for straight men
I get that and see where you're coming from. I'm reading into it that you don't have a problem with them being married though, just don't want to be exposed to the physicality of their relationships?
I'd be in favour of not allowing a blanket opt out by religious groups, individual priests, imams, rabbis etc can make up their own mind but allowing the organisation to effectively operate a process of apartheid simply perpetuates the discrimination.
I disagree, he's not argued his case at all. He's trying to play the wounded hero routine when all he's done is spout his unthinking opinions as fact and refused to engage in the discussion or even answer direct questions. I'd go more down the path of your first assessment.
of course thats all they are - my beliefs im not telling others to think the same - simply stating my strongly held views and its my rigjt to do so. I stated clearly that it is between a man and a woman and ibthink it should be distinguished as always being the case..no more explanation needed. I stated clearly earlier what marraige means to me. I guess the church of england are bigots too as by not agreeing to the act. they are infact not agreeing to conduct the act
I have stated why I guess discussions are welcome on this site as you agree with others and not state your honest opinions
I never suggested Phill argued his case - he hasn't. He's simply stood there and re-iterated his beliefs in the face of various kinds of attempt to get him to explain his beliefs, to see where he's coming from. Maybe I think it was brave because I feel a little bad for him - he hasn't thought about the matter and he seems immune to any attempt to get him to do so. Phill, you may be offended by what I have said just there, but it's my opinion. I don't mean it maliciously, but I do mean it.
no offence taken I see all sides of the argument and i don't see need for change to allow this. I dont go around branding others with tags because I dont agree with them. I dont think there is any more mileage in me harping on about my thoughs we may well havento agree to disagree but what is incredible are some of the initial schoolboy borderline homophobic comments on the first pages what are glazed over but instead unfairly target me as a bigot because of my genuine view re the sanctity of marraige as I see it and hell if you want to call me a bigot then I guess most of the religions in the world are bigotted as are Many politicians and other ordinary people whos views differ from you
I think that's a fair point (or points). And yes, I think that religions are bigoted, in fact I'm sure they are. Partly they don't like you marrying into a different religion - how bigoted is that? And I think they are also bigoted against gays, by and large, and certainly don't treat women on an equal footing with men. But as I've said, if you want to make up a club, you should be able to define the rules, and if that club excludes certain people, then I would hope that that behaviour will only hasten the demise of the club. If the whole premise of a religion is that the universe is governed by a pot of orange marmalade, then it seems fairly pointless to insist that there have to be some raspberry bits in it too.
I find the debate around this quite interesting. I think that modern society, as a whole, has struggled against the true origins, values, and subsequently found it difficult in sustaining and internalising the purposes of marriage. Marriage has always meant to be a deeply personal commitment between husband, wife, and [drumroll please..] God. [cue chortles!] Marriage itself was originally purposed and designed in the context of a spiritual faith (predominantly Judao-Christianity, and in a similar way Islam etc), and it was only in the late 20th century that the notion of 'civil marriage' came to be as a convenient substitution attempting to 'legalise' the committed personal bonds - and legal benefits found in society - otherwise secured through a spiritually defined commitment and trust between husband and wife. I highlight Loz' comments above because the modern problem is highlighted by societies attempts to logically etch into law the stronger personal commitments otherwise designed to have been forged between God, man, and woman. And without getting into an eschatological discussion, I think most here are aware of the perennial challenges brought about between law vs faith. Crikey, that topic in itself is the topic between the old vs new testaments! The issue of gay marriage is merely another convenient extrapolation of the concept of legalising civil marriage. The reasons for legalising it are wholly extradited and apart from the original spiritual reasons for marriage. And therein lies the problem. It becomes a difficult topic to discuss with people who do not share the same personal beliefs (whether they spiritually believe or not, most actually reflect some basic irrefutable tenets of the physical dynamics between man and woman) (ref. Descartes discussion and exposition on Dispossessed Princes and Princesses). The vocal minority in favour of legalising gay marriage talk about 'happiness' when in fact the origins of marriage is not solely about pursuing happiness, but about pursuing the well-being/support/love, and commitment towards ones opposite-sex-spouse with God - after which happiness is meant to be an outcome, but not the objective in itself. One only need read the marriage vows to understand this. Of course, divorce is something many have experienced and it is the ultimate expression of refuting the vows once made to one's spouse. Gay couples who wish to get married in church fundamentally fail to understand or accept either a) marriage, or b) the spiritual values of the church they wish to get married in. 'Happiness' itself is not a sufficient justification by itself, and to think it is is to undermine and ridicule the beliefs of the church and marriage itself. I suspect gays may desire the church setting as the ultimate way to self-justify their 'marriage' despite a fundamental rejection of everything Christianity purports about marriage. And what Christianity has to say about gays should have everything to do with it, otherwise why get married in a church at all? Just my $0.02.
So those who dont agree with the clique are bigots and have to explain to the point of exhaustion, and convincing those who will not be convinced, to change their ways otherwise they are not founded in fact and are trolls or bigots or blind or whatever other insults are used? What utter tosh. And here are plenty of trolls on here Loz, you being one of them at times. Its really very simple; no one has the right to impose his views on another and therefore tell them they are wrong. They can give an opinion the others opinion is wrong, but nothing more. Its called free will and free thought, and although there are plenty who don't like it, my grandad, his freinds and countless other old family died for me to excerise that right of freedom. Some of you may wish to give it up...well never fear, the gvt removes more and more free speech by the day. So enjoy. And if we are going to draw grossly exaggerated links, then just as a homosexual doesnt have a choice in their sexual preferences or attractions, nor do those attracted to children. There are parts of society, Africa, Holland, India etc, where a pre pubescent child is fair game. That acceptable and ok to change the law on to? I'd suggest not, and also think it a wild example to use but no different to the one being used for race v gay marraige and while I dont agree its an evil or depraved act for one guy or girl to have their fun with another of the same sex, its not for me to tell others they have to accept it too. so some need to take a step back, realise their are many maps of this world, over 6 billon actually, and no one elses is exactly the same as yours. Peace and love, brother
Interesting post from Mr Parts there. When I offer my support of gay marriage being given equal weight in law with hetero civil marriage, my motivation is simply this: the rights and privileges, social, economic and judicial that accrue to traditional married couples should also apply to gay married couples. To do otherwise is discriminatory. I am not arguing that we have to "allow gay marriage" so that we all accept that gay couples love each other and that they are no different to any other couple. That's not the important issue for me. No. To illustrate - currently and as far as I know, a spouse cannot be made to testify in a court of law against his or her wife/husband. This is not the case with gay couples in a civil partnership, as far as I know. Other examples concern the issue of pensions, probably certain types of death benefit - I've even heard of issues regarding visitation rights in hospitals, where the blood relations of a gay patient will bar access by the partner to that patient. There must be other situations of this ilk. If the gay couple are legally married, these issues disappear. These are real, concrete reasons, logical reasons, to "legalise" gay marriage. If you are against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you have to understand this.
On December 5, 2005, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into effect in the UK, allowing couples of the same sex to have legal recognition of their relationship. Any couples who enter into a civil partnership obtain the new legal status of “Civil Partners”, instead of the traditional husband and wife status. Benefits & Rights In comparison with a civil marriage, civil partnerships will have the following equal rights, and responsibilities Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment Tax, including inheritance taxBenefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy Domestic violence protection Access to compensation of fatal accidents Succeed to rights of tenancy The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration Hospital visiting rights as next of kin Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment pardon the cutting and pasting but that negates your arguments
Ok I'll add more of my thoughts ---- I personally don't care wether they can marry or not , you have to be religious to believe in a church sanctified marriage , I'm not although I was christened Cof E (my mothers choice) my father was a catholic, I was married in a C of E church as my mother held sway as far as religion went , forcing me into Sunday school and confirmation . i married in church to keep the peace and christened my first child ,again out of respect for my mothers beliefs. my second child is now 17 and is not christened, nor will she be unless she wants to. religion should not be forced down anyone's throat , pity I held too much respect for my mothers views when I was a young man and not enough for my own. live and let live I say just abide by the law and keep your sexual persuasions behind closed doors.
Thanks for that Phill. Where exactly did you find it? It seems include quite a number of the "benefits" that arise from traditional marriage. As far as I can tell, the list you supplied doesn't mention Spousal Privilege (spouse cannot be compelled to testify against spouse in a court of law), D'oh! I cannot read tonight, it's there! Also, the mention of "Benefits that arise Pension and Employment" - does that specifically count the state pension that is paid by virtue of the spouse's contributions?
