Yes boss, right away! How shall we ride our bikes, boss? Sensibly, or like we stole 'em? :biggrin: LOL
Hilarious! No sooner does David Cameron deny that Tory backwoodsmen are swivel-eyed loons than Norman Tebbit climbs out of his coffin to demonstrate otherwise. That one made my day. Cameron must be praying that Tebbit will declare for the UKIP really soon.
well that is true for many things in life. im all right with prisons just so long as they dont build one on my step. im all right with drug users so long as they do it indoors like holland and goto work and dont leave needles about. you here it every day. again ealrier someone made reference to the gay sex act of having sex and said it repulsed them. thats fine thats there take on it. we dont all have to accept what others do or in that case - be polite about it. free will and free speech.. for all you know their opinion could be formed on being abused or witnessing something against their values or beliefs or anything else what has affected or repulsed them and its there right to state that. to say one dosent like someone because they are black or gay is wrong I think you are way off the mark to suggest a general prejudice there. your really gonna have to state what the "blah blah blah" is
"Exempt" is an understatement. The Church of England (only) is to be specifically forbidden from conducting same-sex marriages. Other religions are neither forbidden from nor compelled to conduct them. This is because other religions are never compelled to conduct a marriage or any other ceremony for anyone, whereas the Church of England uniquely is obliged to provide such services to parishioners. The question of whether the chapel in the undercroft beneath parliament should remain exclusively Church of England or be opened to other faiths has indeed been raised, but that has nothing to do with the marriage equality legislation (except in the confused mind of some journalist).
I think you will find it is a sole politician who has raised the point of the chapel. but also isnt that picking and choosing by the government. lets take arranged marriage. they legislate against that for two people who may not be indigenous but arrive on our shores....and quite right and on this subject lets presume one day gay marriage will be allowed in a religious place ...isnt it an element of selectiveness to not include other faiths established in the uk to abide by our laws..its a deliberate ommision I think. I think it js selective because the government dont have the stomach for a fight with faiths such as muslims / indigenous muslims that are born and bred here. I agree this argument is extreme... but can you imagine 2 gay muslims gojng to a mosque demanding to be married whenever gay marraige legislation may come and shouting equality and quite rightly so if that day ever comes. why shouldnt they be protected in law as anyone else re equality and equal rights
They'd be fine, because a bloke up there ^ living in the middle east says they are far more accepting and liberal and less bigoted (I'm paraphrasing) so will no doubt open their doors to all those who have a lifestyle not suited to a traditional Muslim land
Agreed so far. This is always the danger when discussing issues with people you don't know. Stating your case sensitively and listening to what the other person is actually saying goes a long way towards preventling upsets arising from issues of abuse. There will always be disagreements though. And I view someone who is repulsed by a sexual act because of their "faith" or "personal beliefs" in a slightly different light from someone who has suffered abuse. I don't mean that I will rag on the former, but I feel that when they express their personal distaste for the act in question, they are fair game for discussion and "a lively exchange of views". With the abuse victim though, I feel it's not my place to argue the rights and wrongs of an issue that they have such a reason to feel very deeply about - unless such discussion has been invited by the abused individual. Whilst it is that person's right to dislike someone gay, or of a different colour, the way in which they express those feelings is subject to scrutiny (in the legal sense). I prefer not to listen to someone preaching hate, and have no problem telling them so. Actually, I am spot-on here. Your objection to same-sex marriage is based not upon the merits of each individual case, but on an idea already in place ... that it is wrong, that hetero- marriage is the only real marriage. That is the very definition of prejudice. OK. Blah blah blah can include but is not limited to: I'm OK with gay people being gay, just as long as they don't ... "kiss in the street". I'm OK with gay people being gay, just as long as they don't ... "teach about being gay in schools". I'm OK with gay people being gay, just as long as they don't ... "want to adopt kids". I'm OK with gay people being gay, just as long as they don't ... "want to get married". These are all reservations that people with prejudice do not apply to hetero couples, but which are often raised in discussions regarding homosexuality. If you are not OK about these issues, guess what ... you're not OK about gay people.
Funny, doesnt mention marraige at all in this one prej·u·dice /ˈprejədəs/ Noun Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. Verb Give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased: "the statement might prejudice the jury". Synonyms noun. bias - preconception - detriment - prepossession - harm verb. harm - injure - bias - damage And its clear to me most have a reason as they have set out many times. Replusion is one. Its a reason. Like it or not. Reason.
Funny how this has swung from gay marraige to gay generally, back to marraige and now back to gay dislike. Noting that some have started with humour, homophobic humour, then to proclaim they are pro gay etc. some have stayed staunch: poof is a poof and I wont run them over but dont expect me to accept it. Some seemed to have waivered in their opinion, is thta towards gay peolpe or the concenot of making a CP the same as marraige? And some just go over old ground again and aagain and again. common thread tho; if youre not PRO youre a BIGOT. Erm. Is that a good or a bad thing?!
Is it? A wonderful world of black and white with even minds and everyone with the same experiences. You either are or you're not. Anyone who lives in any mould which gives such an absolute outcome every time deserves sympathy and probably counselling. Wars are fought and lives lost because the two opposing sides take such a view. I'm right so you MUST be wrong. Awesome.
I think you're trying to move off topic here though Bradders. Here's the same question for you to answer, but prosed slightly differently: Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people?
we will never agree on this but there you are again tagging one as prejudice because of a different views why not legalise drugs ther are 100's of thousands of people persucuted for getting high and harming no one. 1000s want that... why not ban abortion its taking life even if she was raped its banned in ireland but wrong to me why not let 12 year olds drive cars - they do it well enough on playstations. even better than me why not get prosecuted for 30 mph but get fined for 31 mph on an empty road and harming no one all forms of discrimination based on where you are or lifes choices things mean different things to different people based on whats inportant to them. thats why we have a democracy where things are debated and enshrined in law according to the majority of polish it unsure where sadly things that are acceptable to oneself is unacceptable to others.. the CofE was approached and declined to conduct gay marraige because it is not their values. its simply not mine either for reasons said earlier. if it was wanted by the majority - it be law in 2004 when it was debated then by polishituns....but it wasnt its hard to talk on here about a sensitive subject where its hard to express ones views with the lag of a forum.
Less drift than you think, more that it pains me when I see people who seem to be intelligent and in the main articulate convey such a closed and blinkered view of the world and afford others less right to an opinion without insult than they do themselves, then bang on about rights. Its my way or the highway mentality. This is about my opinion, its about allowing others theirs, even if distasteful to you
I may believe I'm right but I will explain why I believe I'm right and invite opposing views to explain their logic. Where I have less sympathy is where there either is no logic or a refusal to explain the reasoning behind the belief in the correctness of their views.
Logic in your view. I will stop now because its a circular point I'm failing to get thru. Adios amigos.
