johncocker Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 What I would like you understand Mr. Smith is that if homophobic and bigoted statments are made they will be challenged to the max! so let's call a spade a spade... "minority view" = legal equality "those with traditional views" = homophobic bigots I don't think the oed would be beating a path to your door either:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 let's call a spade a spade... "minority view" = legal equality "those with traditional views" = homophobic bigots "minority demographic" = legal equality with the "majority demographic" Anything else is simply mob rule "those with traditional views" = okay, whatever floats your boat "those that want to use traditional views to discriminate against gays" = homophobic bigots quite definitely. By the way, how many heterosexual people have committed suicide because people have disagreed with their "traditional views" about homosexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I do understand them, and accept them as your views. If you bothered reading the post, you'd have realised that wasn't me asking you a question, it was the continuation of the conversion between man "A" or man "B", posted under your quote for relevance. Or were you aware of that but attempting humour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 so let's call a spade a spade... "minority view" = legal equality "those with traditional views" = homophobic bigots I don't think the oed would be beating a path to your door either:D Which traditional view are you espousing? The one where a wife has to obey her husband in all things or the one where she has to consent to being raped by her husband? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 gay 'marriage' most certainly undermines 'marriage'. How so? Gay 'marriage' is an attempt by a severe minority to redefine something that did not originate in their house. What, and you think it originated in the Church's "house"? Neither can there be such a thing as 'straight marriage'...there is only 'marriage'...the union of a man and a woman before God. My marriage wasn't a union before any of the gods Why would someone who calls themselves 'gay' in opposition to 'heterosexual' want to interfere in something that is clearly not for gays. They don't want to interfere in it, they want to be included in it. Why is it clearly not for gays? Call it what you like, but you cannot call it 'marriage'. So what should we call it when gays are allowed to marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 "minority demographic" = legal equality with the "majority demographic" Anything else is simply mob rule "those with traditional views" = okay, whatever floats your boat "those that want to use traditional views to discriminate against gays" = homophobic bigots quite definitely. By the way, how many heterosexual people have committed suicide because people have disagreed with their "traditional views" about homosexuality? since 1837 ,27 in england 3 in scotland 2 in wales 83 in ireland. 1 in south orkney ---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 13:42 ---------- How so? What, and you think it originated in the Church's "house"? My marriage wasn't a union before any of the gods They don't want to interfere in it, they want to be included in it. Why is it clearly not for gays? So what should we call it when gays are allowed to marry? idiotic anybody who allows theselves to be married by someone in a frock who still belives in fairytales ,as got to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 so let's call a spade a spade... "minority view" = legal equality "those with traditional views" = homophobic bigots : Thats the problem,people will get so used to being called "homophobic bigots" for being against gay marriage for the reason you describe the traditional union of marriage,they will cease to be offended by the accusation. It isn't that long ago that i was against gay church marriage for that same reason,though i was much in favour of a civil ceremony. Hearing other views,reading further information,and seeing the comments on the gay christian websites etc made me think more deeply about it,it also confirmed to me what i had heard before that there are plenty of gay people who also don't believe in gay marriage. I'm repeating this again,I don't think it should be assumed that a person is homophobic for not believing in gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Thoroughly enjoyed the Daily Mail article linked to above. In particular this section: How brilliant the secular liberals are at stigmatising the mainstream beliefs of moderate people, and trying to frighten them into believing that they are extremists who must change their ways. But it is the liberals, in their intolerance and caricaturing of their opponents, who are the real extremists. There’s nothing new about this. Over the past 50 years, similar tactics have been used to introduce one revolutionary social reform after another, often with undesirable consequences, though usually presented at the time in a spirit of measured reasonableness. As a result, we’ve got abortion on demand, pornography accessible to every child with a computer, and contraceptives handed out to 14-year-old girls like lollipops, without their parents having the right to know. What next? The legalisation of drugs, perhaps. The social campaigners win one battle and go on to the next. The social conservatives put up a fight, and nearly always lose. So it goes on. Ah, that dreadful revolutionary social reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Thats the problem,people will get so used to being called "homophobic bigots" for being against gay marriage for the reason you describe the traditional union of marriage,they will cease to be offended by the accusation. It isn't that long ago that i was against gay church marriage for that same reason,though i was much in favour of a civil ceremony. Hearing other views,reading further information,and seeing the comments on the gay christian websites etc made me think more deeply about it,it also confirmed to me what i had heard before that there are plenty of gay people who also don't believe in gay marriage. I'm repeating this again,I don't think it should be assumed that a person is homophobic for not believing in gay marriage. Hi janie, Nobody called anybody else a homophobic bigot. At least I didn't. I referred to homophobic statements and bigoted statements. I was responding to a post without being abusive to the poster. johncocker then equated those with "traditional views" to "homophobic bigots," in response to my post. Firstly, I think it's naive in the extreme to hide behind the defence of "traditional values" as if that would make it ok to make statements considered by civilised society to be homophobic, bigoted or discriminatory. Some contributors to the debate have gone well beyond anything that could reasonably be construed as civilised. I try not to assume that much about anyone I havn't met personally on the basis of what they write on here but you must surely see that some people make it feel like a task of Herculean proportions. I do agree with your last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 If you bothered reading the post, you'd have realised that wasn't me asking you a question, it was the continuation of the conversion between man "A" or man "B", posted under your quote for relevance. Or were you aware of that but attempting humour? Unaware and no humour intended. Just had another look at it, it looks like the argument will go on forever because neither side can give an explanation for their views that the other side thinks is rational. You don’t think someone’s explanation for opposing gay marriage is rational; they don’t think your explanation for supporting it is rational. At that point it’s just best to agree to disagree because neither side is likely to change their opinion, the alternative is for the argument to turn into a verbal slanging match and then possibly violence. I think both explanations are rational with both sides of the argument having reasonable reason for their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.