Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 10, 2017, 05:56:39 PM
-
Of course
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/sydney-anglicans-give-one-million-to-no-campaign?utm_term=.dwmmQqEBq#.tioAmp4bp
-
Cunts.
I was trying to think of a stronger term of abuse, but nothing else does the job with such economy.
-
Let us hope their monies are wasted, and that they back the losing side, and let us further hope that they then consider what might have been more usefully done with this money (as opposed to funding those who support the continuance of discrimination).
-
Quite agree Gordon!
People don't realise there is a big Bible belt in Australia, lots of very traditional/fundamentalist Christians.
-
How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?
-
How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?
Maybe they are hoping people will vote on the basis of removing discrimination without needing to be 'encouraged' to do so.
-
How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?
For equality? Dunno. I note your tacit support for spending a million Aus bucks to support discrimination against same sex marriage.
-
Let us hope their monies are wasted, and that they back the losing side, and let us further hope that they then consider what might have been more usefully done with this money (as opposed to funding those who support the continuance of discrimination).
The opinion polls say it will be 70% in favour of marriage equality and 26% gits.
-
The opinion polls say it will be 70% in favour of marriage equality and 26% gits.
4% can't be arsed either way?
-
4% can't be arsed either way?
I presumer that is 4% undecided. When it comes down to it, the percentage of people who don't bother to vote will probably be much higher.
-
I presumer that is 4% undecided. When it comes down to it, the percentage of people who don't bother to vote will probably be much higher.
Tell a lie: it's compulsory to vote in Australia.
-
Maybe they are hoping people will vote on the basis of removing discrimination without needing to be 'encouraged' to do so.
That would certainly be cheaper.
-
Tell a lie: it's compulsory to vote in Australia.
Whoa back: it is in general elections - does that apply to issues such as this as well?
-
For equality? Dunno. I note your tacit support for spending a million Aus bucks to support discrimination against same sex marriage.
You know that do you? How do you know I'm not fishing to see how tight humanists are?
-
Answered my own question - thanks Google:
Unlike Australian federal elections, where voting is compulsory, the postal vote is voluntary and also non-binding.
http://tinyurl.com/ybj5wbdk
-
You know that do you? How do you know I'm not fishing to see how tight humanists are?
know it? No. But until you express that you disagree with them?
-
Whoa back: it is in general elections - does that apply to issues such as this as well?
Good question. I guess we'll find out.
-
know it? No. But until you express that you disagree with them?
Really? Even if I sent a donation to the equal marriage campaign?
-
Really? Even if I sent a donation to the equal marriage campaign?
Good. Then you think the Aus church was wrong spending a million bucks against it in Australia?
-
That would certainly be cheaper.
Perhaps they take the view that if you have to spend large amounts of dosh to encourage people to support enlightened social progress then, and even if if they get the result they want, that isn't really progressive, or perhaps they suspect that most Australians will be happy to support the removal of discrimination: let us hope so.
-
Perhaps they take the view that if you have to spend large amounts of dosh to encourage people to support enlightened social progress then, and even if if they get the result they want, that isn't really progressive, or perhaps they suspect that most Australians will be happy to support the removal of discrimination: let us hope so.
The fact that the plebiscite is in principle non-binding ought to be of concern save for the fact that few if any politicians who like being one would risk the fallout of ignoring the public will in quite such a brazen manner.
ETA: Though you'll always find a few:
... several conservative politicians have already said they'd vote against same-sex unions no matter what the postal vote says.
-
Good. Then you think the Aus church was wrong spending a million bucks against it in Australia?
So if I sent 50 bucks what multiple would that be of the humanist total contribution? 5 x, 2 x, 10 x?
-
Of course
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/sydney-anglicans-give-one-million-to-no-campaign?utm_term=.dwmmQqEBq#.tioAmp4bp
Regressive religionists, oh, oh, what a s u r p r i s e !
ippy
-
The Aussie Anglicans are very Evangelical to the point of being a bit fundie. At one point during the Eucharist at Sydney Cathedral the Bible was put in the altar instead of the cross.
Idolatry, anyone?
-
I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself. Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them - but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.
-
I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself. Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them - but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.
In what way do my friends John and George who are getting married next month not 'complement each other', the way my wife and I do?
-
NS
You know the answer to that - it's all to do with sockets and plugs. ;)
Reduce everything to the mechanical. Real feelings don't count.
It's obvious innit?
-
In what way do my friends John and George who are getting married next month not 'complement each other', the way my wife and I do?
I'd've thought that was obvious. As TV implies, it's to do with the shape of the naughty bits.
-
NS
You know the answer to that - it's all to do with sockets and plugs. ;)
Reduce everything to the mechanical. Real feelings don't count.
It's obvious innit?
I emphatically did not say that real feelings don't count. I know that gays can have as loving and meaningful a relationship as heteros.
-
I emphatically not say that real feelings don't count. I know that gays can have as loving and meaningful a relationship as heteros.
But you have admitted that you have reduced it to the mechanical in the previous post, no? That appears to be your sole criteria.
-
I'd've thought that was obvious. As TV implies, it's to do with the shape of the naughty bits.
what about the shape of the naughty bits is relevant to a form of discrimination?
-
But you have admitted that you have reduced it to the mechanical in the previous post, no? That appears to be your sole criteria.
I pointed out the mechanical aspect. I didn't say that that was all there was to it.
-
I pointed out the mechanical aspect. I didn't say that that was all there was to it.
So what else is there?
-
what about the shape of the naughty bits is relevant to a form of discrimination?
The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.
-
The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.
That's just repeating yourself. In what ways do they complement each other, leaving aside your mechanical irrelevance, that my friends John and George don't?
-
The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.
Gays would disagree with you.
-
The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.
I don't think you've defined the word 'complement'? If you're going to argue that it's something that applies only to heterosexuals but mysteriously vanishes when it's a same-sex couple surely it behoves you to do so.
Oxford says: "A thing that contributes extra features to something else in such a way as to improve or emphasize its quality", which certainly can apply to gay couples, so maybe you have something else in mind.
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
So other than your plugs stuff, you actually have nothing about 'complements each other' idea that makes any difference, and given you have said that it isn't significant, as you seem to to agree, at a loss as to what you are arguing.
ETA. You know when talking about sex it would be good if you showed some knowledge of how people might have sex with one and other. . Your rather simplistic idea about it being penetrative seems to be hugely simplistic but then to ignore what that might mean is scarily ignorant, but then at base the issue is you still want to define a relationship and what it means by your rather jejune view of physical love making.
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage
That's marriage for the disabled down the pan then.
it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Untrue.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
Common decency by the look of it.
-
Why treat peoole equally when I don't like their bits
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
So you are saying that all gay men & women have penetrative sex ?
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
Quoted direct from the Christian book of "Our way or not at all"!
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
What entitles you to speak against them?
-
I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself.
Luckily for you, you don't have to do it.
Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them
Good. We'll call it marriage then.
but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.
Since marriage equality has been the law in most of the UK since the end of 2014 and the sky has not fallen in, clearly it wasn't a step too far.
-
What entitles you to speak against them?
I'm not speaking against them.
Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).
-
I'm not speaking against them.
Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).
Just to be clear there are still differences between civil partnerships and marriage but even if it twere not so, and they were legally identical why indulge in a piece of apartheid because the means of making love are not always wholly identical. I do find it odd that people with this discriminatory approach always seem to think it's about bum sex
The reason you were pucked on on seeming to make it all about the plugs and sockets was when asked what way my friends relationship was not 'complementary' in the same ways as my wife and my relationship that's what you said was the difference. Despite mentioning that there were other things, you haven't said what they are.
-
Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm
Lots of things aren't 'the norm' but are not regarded as a bar to marriage. Why this one?
the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population.
Where's your evidence for this 'fact'?
since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples
Repeating this won't make it true.
marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap.
Good for him.
The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).
Civil partnerships, to me, were a half-hearted and second-best effort predicated on the idea that same-sex couples didn't merit full marriage. A two-tier system doesn't exactly scream equality, does it.
-
I'm not speaking against them.
Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).
NO! Refusing the gay community the right to be married is discrimination imposed by the religious on those that they arbitrarily condemn as non-religious.
I know gays, male and female, who are as firmly attached to their religion as are Sassy, Alan Burns and others are to theirs.
Why do Christianity and Islam, there may also be others but I can't think of any at the moment, demand the right to legally discriminate against anyone they choose without let or hinderance, a right denied every other individual and group in the country?
-
Why do Christianity and Islam, there may also be others but I can't think of any at the moment, demand the right to legally discriminate against anyone they choose without let or hinderance, a right denied every other individual and group in the country?
You have a valid point there, and I agree that they should be subject to the same equality laws as everyone else, but that's not really relevant to the topic.
-
You have a valid point there, and I agree that they should be subject to the same equality laws as everyone else, but that's not really relevant to the topic.
There seems a curious inconsistency in invoking equality laws out of one side of your mouth while arguing against equality with the other.
-
There seems a curious inconsistency in invoking equality laws out of one side of your mouth while arguing against equality with the other.
I was thinking that too.
-
Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?
You have an extremely limited view of sex and sexual pleasure.
As an aside, if a man is disabled and he and his wife use sex toys for her pleasure should their marriage be banned as it sits outside the ‘norm’?
-
Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.
-
Don't forget your ball.
-
You have a valid point there, and I agree that they should be subject to the same equality laws as everyone else, but that's not really relevant to the topic.
Yes, it is.
You are advocating denying gays equal rights of marital status.
-
You have an extremely limited view of sex and sexual pleasure.
As an aside, if a man is disabled and he and his wife use sex toys for her pleasure should their marriage be banned as it sits outside the ‘norm’?
Agreed!
-
My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage; if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships. So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.
-
My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage; if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships. So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.
Which "some people" are you referring to and why should they have to "think themselves into gay mariage" rather than being legally entitled to a marriage like straight people.
-
Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.
Hoo-ray!
-
My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage; if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships. So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.
Thank you for that vote of confidence!
-
Grout flounce over!
Rather a non-event what!
-
Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.
OK, how about this, then:
The primary purpose of marriage is to protect the ownership of property and its transmission to successive generations.
By encouraging the ready availability of sexual activity between a specific couple there is the greater likelihood that children are the product of the couple concerned. Hence family wealth is retained within the family. Religion became involved when religious leaders realised that the personal attachment between two people could be controlled by inducing guilt and shame into the relationship.
Modern marriage (due to the influence of religion) is a rather confused state with sex being subject to all kinds of moral controls.
One of the practical effects of marriage is that property can pass between spouses without control or taxation. Same sex marriage is a device which enables two men or two women who love each other the same property rights as conventional married couples. It also provides the opportunity for such couples to arrange for any children born to or conceived by one or other of the couple to become full members of a family and enjoy the rights possessed by children from conventional marriages.
And anyway, what people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is no concern of anyone else.
-
My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage; if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships. So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.
Really? ;D ;D ;D
-
OK, how about this, then:
The primary purpose of marriage is to protect the ownership of property and its transmission to successive generations.
By encouraging the ready availability of sexual activity between a specific couple there is the greater likelihood that children are the product of the couple concerned. Hence family wealth is retained within the family. Religion became involved when religious leaders realised that the personal attachment between two people could be controlled by inducing guilt and shame into the relationship.
Modern marriage (due to the influence of religion) is a rather confused state with sex being subject to all kinds of moral controls.
One of the practical effects of marriage is that property can pass between spouses without control or taxation. Same sex marriage is a device which enables two men or two women who love each other the same property rights as conventional married couples. It also provides the opportunity for such couples to arrange for any children born to or conceived by one or other of the couple to become full members of a family and enjoy the rights possessed by children from conventional marriages.
Civil partnerships do that as well.And anyway, what people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is no concern of anyone else.
I quite agree.
-
Really? ;D ;D ;D
Seems that way to me from what I've seen.
-
Civil partnerships do that as well.
Civil partnerships don't provide all/the same things as marriage, as you have now been told by more than one person. The differences are small, but that puts the opponent of fully equal marriage on the pointed horns not of a dilemma but of a contradiction. Either the differences are so small that it may just as well be full marriage anyway (which happily it now is) or the differences are large enough to amount to discrimination, which only a declared bigot would support.
Be that as it may, the CP institution used to uphold a two-tier system where straight people deserve marriage but CPs are good enough for gay couples who can make do with the sop they've been thrown. That's not equality; thankfully it has now been put right. If a government proposed that only same-race couples could marry whereas couples of different ethnic backgrounds could make do with something like a registered partnership or something of the kind there would be justified uproar. It would, rightly, be seen as discrimination.
Equality would be to have marriage open to anyone who wants it (which is already the case) and civil partnerships as well (which isn't, despite several legal challenges so far). That way everyone gets to choose which marital arrangement suits them. That's equality as far as I'm concerned.
-
Seems that way to me from what I've seen.
::)
-
Civil partnerships don't provide all/the same things as marriage, as you have now been told by more than one person. The differences are small, but that puts the opponent of fully equal marriage on the pointed horns not of a dilemma but of a contradiction. Either the differences are so small that it may just as well be full marriage anyway (which happily it now is) or the differences are large enough to amount to discrimination, which only a declared bigot would support.
Be that as it may, the CP institution used to uphold a two-tier system where straight people deserve marriage but CPs are good enough for gay couples who can make do with the sop they've been thrown. That's not equality; thankfully it has now been put right. If a government proposed that only same-race couples could marry whereas couples of different ethnic backgrounds could make do with something like a registered partnership or something of the kind there would be justified uproar. It would, rightly, be seen as discrimination.
Equality would be to have marriage open to anyone who wants it (which is already the case) and civil partnerships as well (which isn't, despite several legal challenges so far). That way everyone gets to choose which marital arrangement suits them. That's equality as far as I'm concerned.
I understood that civil partnerships gave exactly the same legal protection as marriage, but I'm happy to be corrected, provided someone comes up with the details: I'm not just taking other posters' words for it that there is a difference.
-
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/
-
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/
That seems like a good summary, thanks.
-
A bit out of date because I think civil partnerships are not just confined to gay couples now, at least in some areas. Isle-of-Man?
-
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/
But are those differences of any real significance? IIRC we have previously concluded that the only important difference is the name: that one is called "marriage" and one is called "civil-partnership".
Endless rowing over something stupid, some implied pecking order - typical human behaviour!
-
It was the government's idea to have civil partnerships as a prelude to gay marriage. I agree the differences are minimal but they obviously matter to some people, for example Elton and David had a CP and when the law changed, got married. If I was gay it might be important to me if only as a matter of principle, I don't know. I am glad there is equality in marriage now though, even those who weren't quite sure about it are coming round.
-
It was the government's idea to have civil partnerships as a prelude to gay marriage. I agree the differences are minimal but they obviously matter to some people, for example Elton and David had a CP and when the law changed, got married. If I was gay it might be important to me if only as a matter of principle, I don't know. I am glad there is equality in marriage now though, even those who weren't quite sure about it are coming round.
FTR No I am not "coming round" but we have argued this matter more times even than we have argued about abortion & I have nothing further to add.
-
I had no idea of your views on the subject Humph & wasn't thinking of people on R&E but those I've read about in publications (including Christians), and some that I've met who feel differently now to how they did a few years ago.
-
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/
ok, but the legal protection provided is the same.
-
ok, but the legal protection provided is the same.
Not quite, but as I covered earlier, let's suppose they are exactly the same, what's the justification for this apartheid you want?
-
I've already given it.
-
I've already given it.
Where?
-
Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.
-
Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.
1. My answer to anybody who invokes "the norm" as a justification for doing/not doing something is usually the Fry response - so fucking what?
2. Do you apply that principle equally, i.e. to other things which aren't the norm either?
I seem to recall that two people (I was one, Rhiannon the other) who asked this with regard to disabled people. What's it to be this time - flounce or answer?
-
Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.
..just for marriage or is there any other area which needs to be considered?
-
Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.
So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?
-
So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?
That's the third time ...
-
That's the third time ...
It appears that the answer to your question is - FLOUNCE!
-
It appears that the answer to your question is - FLOUNCE!
People not answering questions instantaneously, or indeed ever is not s flounce, not does it mean they are wrong.
-
Leaving aside flounces, no one has ever given an answer to me as to why my partnership shouldnt be considered equal to any of my straight counterparts. And noone has ever quantified how it affects their marriage in any way. It really sounds to me like the dying howls of some assumed right and privelidge being dealt a long awaited death blow.
And if you really are worried about marriage just think it survived Britney Spears, the Gabors, Liz Taylor. There is nothing gay people can throw at marriage that it won't easily overcome.
-
So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?
I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.
-
Though I am more than happy that we now have gay marriage I completely get where you're coming from & don't see you as being discriminating in any way. Deliberately misunderstood more like.
-
I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.
Yes, you do. You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.
If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.
-
Though I am more than happy that we now have gay marriage I completely get where you're coming from & don't see you as being discriminating in any way. Deliberately misunderstood more like.
so if he usn't being discriminatory why does he want to treat Trentvoyaget differently? And why are you suggesting Trent is lying in his objection to being treated differently?
-
Yes, you do. You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.
If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.
It's your ridiculous false analogies that are becoming tedious.
-
I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.
So what if we swap it around. Gays get married. Heterosexuals get civil partnerships. Same rights ok? So whats the difference?
Except somewhere there must be a difference otherwise you would not be advocating the distinction.
-
It's the idea of complementarity that baffles me. I suppose the argument is that some slots and tabs are 'designed' to fit, but some others are not, these being to do with gay sex, even though straight people use similar methods, e.g. anal sex, oral sex. If it's not a design argument, then I can't see the point. After all, people have sex in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways, why should this produce apartheid in marriage?
-
to Genital Hairy Peaseblossom.
...You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.
If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.
Your badgering isn't going to change his mind.
So what if we swap it around. Gays get married. Heterosexuals get civil partnerships. Same rights ok? So whats the difference?
Except somewhere there must be a difference otherwise you would not be advocating the distinction.
There must be a difference otherwise gay people wouldn't care and would have stayed with CP. Which is why I am in favour of gay marriage - because it's important to them, if not to me; I can't pretend to understand it completely. I said as much in a previous post to Humph.
I have more problems getting my head around why heterosexual couples - and I mean cohabitating couples, not two friends or relatives who've lived together for years - would want a civil partnership.
-
Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.
-
Leaving aside flounces, no one has ever given an answer to me as to why my partnership shouldnt be considered equal to any of my straight counterparts.
Because you're not the Norm.
Clearly I don't know your other half's name, obviously.
-
Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.
Doesn't exactly bespeak of somebody with a well-thought-out, closely reasoned case capable of standing up to questioning and critique, does it?
-
Why is asking him to justify his position as Trentvoyager has done 'badgering'? Why did you suggest Trentvoyager was deliberately misrepresenting peopke with his objection?
-
Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.
So trent in wanting equality and to be able to marry is being 'ridiculous'?
-
I have more problems getting my head around why heterosexual couples - and I mean cohabitating couples, not two friends or relatives who've lived together for years - would want a civil partnership.
I don't get it either.
I know that at least one of the couples who have mounted a (unsuccessful, so far) legal challenge has said that they disagree with the religious connotations of marriage, but civil marriage is by law a non-religious thing in any case - you're prohibited from having hymns or prayers and what have you. So I don't see how that objection stands up.
-
I still find the 'aren't CPs enough for them' attitude both tedious and offensive.
CPs were initiated as a sop to gay people so as to prevent them seeking legal marriage: I dare say it was well-intended by those who feared that same-sex marriage would always be an impossibility and that 'something must be done' but, in hindsight, CPs have become a concrete lifebelt wherever SSM is legal.
But how has it been established that there are indeed two classes of loving relationships in terms of how those involved regard the value of their own personal relationship and where one is deemed more worthy than the other - and on whose authority does this view persist?
To me it is a daft as saying that while all workers are required to pay the same rate of NI towards their state pension those smaller that 5ft 10ins in height* should receive only two-thirds of what people taller than this will get.
* or red-haired people, or those able to play the banjo etc etc etc (substitute your preferred characteristic).
-
I don't get it either.
I know that at least one of the couples who have mounted a (unsuccessful, so far) legal challenge has said that they disagree with the religious connotations of marriage, but civil marriage is by law a non-religious thing in any case - you're prohibited from having hymns or prayers and what have you. So I don't see how that objection stands up.
I've heard it said that they want the legal protections of marriage e.g. the right to be each other's next of kin and the tax breaks without the cultural baggage that comes with marriage.
-
OK,
After weeks of campaigning, months of planning and years (of) debate, the results of the controversial three-month-long postal survey revealed 61.6 per cent of people voted ‘yes’ and 38.4 per cent ‘no’.
The question asked simply: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/australia-votes-apos-yes-apos-230717029.html
However, as the result is not binding it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law.
-
... as the result is not binding it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law.
I doubt it.
Consider a parallel (up to a point) with the Brexit referendum. High turnout, clear majority. We criticise politicians for being a self-serving, self-interested lot for a reason: very few politicians would openly show such contempt for the public will - the thing that gets them where they are and keeps them there, precariously - as to in effect piss all over a democratic vote. "Thanks ever so much for taking the time and trouble to vote. We all really appreciate it enormously, we really do. Now we're going to ignore your vote completely. Sorry." Don't think so. Given a sniff of some sort of power most people find that they quite like it and want to hang on to it.
In the case of Australia's plebiscite the turnout was even higher and the majority even more thumping. The usual god bothering suspects will of course make the same dreary noises as they always do - it gives them something to do and makes them feel important -, but their rowing boat won't be able to get in the way of the ocean liner here.
-
Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!
Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject ??? ;) ;)
-
Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!
Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject ??? ;) ;)
Perhaps some will try later.
For now, perhaps I may be permitted to summarise:
-
Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!
Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject ??? ;) ;)
He didn't of course, but then maybe he was gay having a specific disciple, presumably male, whom he loved.
-
I doubt it.
Consider a parallel (up to a point) with the Brexit referendum. High turnout, clear majority.
This is a bit more clear cut than Brexit where people thought that they were voting for low waiting times in a far richer NHS, Low immigration, an easy tariff free agreement with Europe, No personal impact but hopefully impoverishment for their neighbour who had it coming anyway.
None of that will come about apart from impoverishment and someone (else presumably ) will have to make the 48% of remainers leave the UK and live in Europe.
-
This is a bit more clear cut than Brexit where people thought that they were voting for low waiting times in a far richer NHS, Low immigration, an easy tariff free agreement with Europe, No personal impact but hopefully impoverishment for their neighbour who had it coming anyway.
None of that will come about apart from impoverishment and someone (else presumably ) will have to make the 48% of remainers leave the UK and live in Europe.
W T F has this to do with the Australian vote?
Maybe it should be moved to the Brexit thread?
-
W T F has this to do with the Australian vote?
Maybe it should be moved to the Brexit thread?
I invoked Brexit (in #105) only as an analogy in response to your comment: "... it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law." I didn't intend to derail the thread but I was drawing a comparison with all those people who think Brexit should be stopped despite the fact that there's a close but clear democratic mandate for it which would be career suicide for politicians to go against.
-
I invoked Brexit (in #105) only as an analogy in response to your comment: "... it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law." I didn't intend to derail the thread but I was drawing a comparison with all those people who think Brexit should be stopped despite the fact that there's a close but clear democratic mandate for it which would be career suicide for politicians to go against.
Shaker
I KNOW what YOU were doing, what I want to lknow is W T F Vlad was doiing! And why?