Halibut Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Apart from gays, what? You said ''everyone should have the right to choose their own path without being labelled...'' but in the same breath you say it ''wouldn’t bother me if there were place in which gay people are not allowed'' Contradictory or what? You think everyone can choose their own path, but it doesn't bother you if gays aren't allowed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It depends on the reason for opposing gay marriage, but some will be bigots. None of the opponents have a sensible reason to oppose it though. Clegg's being attacked for something he didn't say anyway. He should've just offended people anyway. Trying to appease their views just creates this pointless trouble. They shouldn’t need a sensible reason for disagreeing with it, in their opinion their reason is sound. Gay people should be allowed to marry but churches shouldn't be compelled to marry them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 They shouldn’t need a sensible reason for disagreeing with it, in their opinion their reason is sound. I'll judge that as and when I see it, thank you. Never read one reason why two people marrying has any effect upon my life, and so I've no reason to be against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Clegg didn't say it and there was no evidence that he ever would have said. Presumably one of his speech writers put that in and he or another speech writer took it out. Not that its that big a deal anyway its really not very offensive:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Even if Clegg did indeed initially use the word 'bigot', I think he was correct, because bigots they most certainly are. I can understand the politics of the matter, and why he might prefer to not use such a term, but he was right to use the term, even if he didn't. The wording of the extracts do not say that all opponents of gay marriage are bigots, but does suggest that bigots that are against gay marriage are attempting to use the political system to restrict people's human rights. This is perfectly true. In fact, if the inadvertent release of the extracts was in fact intentional, then for the first time in ages I'll have to give him credit for something. Leaking excerpts of an "early draft" annoys the bigots while enabling him to feign innocence. It's quite hilarious how the usual suspects in the media have shown their hand, and actually exposed their bigotry, by claiming to be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 You said ''everyone should have the right to choose their own path without being labelled...'' but in the same breath you say it ''wouldn’t bother me if there were place in which gay people are not allowed'' Contradictory or what? You think everyone can choose their own path, but it doesn't bother you if gays aren't allowed to. So you think people should have choice by removing the choice of others. They would have the right to chose like everyone else, they would have the choice to use premises that are happy for to marry them, why would they want to choose premises in which the owners have been forced to marry them. There are churches that wouldn’t marry me because I’m an atheist; I wouldn’t want them to be forced to marry me because that would then remove their choice on who to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I'll judge that as and when I see it, thank you. Never read one reason why two people marrying has any effect upon my life, and so I've no reason to be against it. I also have no reason against it, but some people have and that is their choice, it not for me to tell them what to think and what are good or bad reasons for thinking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 So you think people should have choice by removing the choice of others. They would have the right to chose like everyone else, they would have the choice use premises that are happy for to marry them, why would they want to choose premises in which the owners have been forced to marry them. There are churches that wouldn’t marry me because I’m an atheist; I wouldn’t want them to be forced to marry me because that would then remove their choice on who to marry. No church would be forced to marry a gay person, just as they are not forced to marry atheists or divorced people. At the moment, no church that wants to marry gay people is allowed to because of the bigotry of others. At the moment, no gay marriage in a secular building is allowed to have any religious paraphernalia or music, even if they are deeply religious, because of the bigotry of others. At the moment, no gay marriage is allowed to even be called marriage because of the bigotry of others. This is simply about choices to increase the happiness of people, with no effect at all on the lives of others. But no church should ever be forced to marry somebody they don't want to, and no sensible person is arguing for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 So you think people should have choice by removing the choice of others. Yes. I should have the choice of entertaining my children at the local park because the choice of a pedophile to use it as a hunting ground has been removed. I'll agree with you if the choice is a mental one, meaning it stays within the person as a thought. Once it goes beyond a thought..even verbal, it's an action. You cannot control thought. What you seem to be doing here is defending the indefensible as a means to defend your own bigotry. You want to be a bigot? Fine, but keep it in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I also have no reason against it, but some people have and that is their choice, it not for me to tell them what to think and what are good or bad reasons for thinking it. How would you know if they were only thinking it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.