janie48 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Since when have all the members of any church agreed on anything. As far as I'm concerned any private club should be free to determine whatever the rules they want to operate by, and if the church of XYZ doesn't want gays to marry in their club then that's fine by me as long as the knowledge that I think they are homophobic bar stewards is fine by them. I will always argue for their right to be homophobic, I will just point and laugh at the same time. The state however, of whatever flavour, has no right to endorse such homophobic nonsense and I will always argue that the state should remain neutral with respect to religion and treat it's citizens equally fairly. Don't you think it's odd though that although there is this clear majority for change in society, the Church - which we are repeatedly told provides the moral backbone to that society - is prevented from making its own mind up whether it wishes to implement or reject the proposal? We allow other religions to make that call, but not yours. How is this not a clear case of hypocrisy, and fundamentally in direct contrast to the rights that you demand for the Church and it's members? No church members have never agreed on everything and why should they. If you choose to think anyone who holds the view that the church should oppose Gay marriage ceremony's in churches are homophobic then i think you are misinterpreting their position. What the legalisation is proposing is that clergy will not be compelled to marry gay couples,so in that sense religious freedom will be respected.What you seem to be implying is that those who in the future take the choice of refusing to marry a gay couple should be classed as homophobic,and that is quite likely to result in making them feel pressured to comply just to avoid being labelled with that insult,as well as that notion you have that to deny them that right is denying them happiness as if only those with a more modern liberal view have the monopoly on compassion. No wonder people are reluctant to contribute to this kind of debate when any reservation they may have on gay marriage is likely to label them with a an accusation of being homophobic (a word that is being banded about now and seems to be losing its true meaning) its just the same with the word christianophobia. I can well understand why anyone would feel restricted in stating an opposite view on a thread of this subject and why it would inevitably result in a dominant one sided discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's only an insult if it isn't correct, unless they can justify their stance on some grounds other than bigotry then they are indeed homophobic. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 14:48 ---------- Discrimination is normal human behaviour, it happens every day, everywhere. It’s the level of discrimination that matters and this is more trivial that many other discriminatory practices against other people. So after 20+ pages you've accepted that it is discrimination! And you've then argued that even though it's discrimination, and easy to fix, we shouldn't, because there are worse forms of discrimination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's only an insult if it isn't correct, unless they can justify their stance on some grounds other than bigotry then they are indeed homophobic. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 14:48 ---------- So after 20+ pages you've accepted that it is discrimination! And you've then argued that even though it's discrimination, and easy to fix, we shouldn't, because there are worse forms of discrimination... Spot on...Max has finally come around...but hold on, there's another 20 pages of Max to run around in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 No church members have never agreed on everything and why should they. If you choose to think anyone who holds the view that the church should oppose Gay marriage ceremony's in churches are homophobic then i think you are misinterpreting their position. What the legalisation is proposing is that clergy will not be compelled to marry gay couples,so in that sense religious freedom will be respected.What you seem to be implying is that those who in the future take the choice of refusing to marry a gay couple should be classed as homophobic,and that is quite likely to result in making them feeling pressured to comply just to avoid being labelled with that insult,as well as that notion you have that to deny them that right is denying them happiness as if only those with a more modern liberal view have the monopoly on compassion. No wonder people are reluctant to contribute to this kind of debate when any reservation they may have on gay marriage is likely to label them with a an accusation of being homophobic (a word that is being thrown now and seems to be losing its true meaning) its just the same with the word christianophobia. I can well understand why anyone would feel restricted in stating an opposite view on a thread of this subject and why it would inevitably result in a dominant one sided discussion. Thank you for an excellent post. If SF suffers from one problem it is that the lesser side of a debate gets piled on with accusations and insults. Its like being in a school full of bullies. I admit that I like to go to church, that's my business and nobody elses. I also admit that I don't like the term marriage used on gays. I have no problem with equal status in the way of entitlements, but I will not go to a gay wedding and watch gay men kissing each other. I was raised in a different Sheffield a long time ago, and am just too old to change my ways. Let them continue to throw out the rants. I'm used to it, and quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Thank you for an excellent post. If SF suffers from one problem it is that the lesser side of a debate gets piled on with accusations and insults. Its like being in a school full of bullies. I admit that I like to go to church, that's my business and nobody elses. I also admit that I don't like the term marriage used on gays. I have no problem with equal status in the way of entitlements, but I will not go to a gay wedding and watch gay men kissing each other. I was raised in a different Sheffield a long time ago, and am just too old to change my ways. Let them continue to throw out the rants. I'm used to it, and quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Yes you do or why bother trying to convince us all how you "don't give a damn". Blows bucky a big kiss (on the lips)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's only an insult if it isn't correct, unless they can justify their stance on some grounds other than bigotry then they are indeed homophobic. So after 20+ pages you've accepted that it is discrimination! And you've then argued that even though it's discrimination, and easy to fix, we shouldn't, because there are worse forms of discrimination... Who gives you the authority to decide who or what is wrong and that its appropriate to abuse someone. I think you are wrong so should I now abuse you? I've agree that discrimination exists in all aspects of life and that it’s not possible to remove it. It the level of discrimination that matters and they aren't decimated against to the point of it being unfair or a disadvantage. And the new proposals still don’t remove that discrimination because to do would just discriminated against another group of people. In my opinion no one has given a rational reason why marriage is better than a civil partnerships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's only an insult if it isn't correct, unless they can justify their stance on some grounds other than bigotry then they are indeed homophobic..Plenty do attempt to justify their stance,but others dismiss them,either because they are anti-religious and have no interest in listening to them because of that, or because some of them who do that are themselves bigoted and want to appear superior. They might even be homophobic themselves but are attempting to conceal it to be in with a certain group because it suits their purpose and makes them appear more in fashion. I have heard the comments of those opposed to gay marriage in areas of the media,some of them have been gay people,such as Christopher Biggins,would you refer to him as homophobic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Who gives you the authority to decide who or what is wrong and that its appropriate to abuse someone. I think you are wrong so should I now abuse you? I've agree that discrimination exists in all aspects of life and that it’s not possible to remove it. It the level of discrimination that matters and they aren't decimated against to the point of it being unfair or a disadvantage. And the new proposals still don’t remove that discrimination because to do would just discriminated against another group of people. In my opinion no one has given a rational reason why marriage is better than a civil partnerships. Why does it have to be "better"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Thank you for an excellent post. If SF suffers from one problem it is that the lesser side of a debate gets piled on with accusations and insults. Its like being in a school full of bullies. I admit that I like to go to church, that's my business and nobody elses. I also admit that I don't like the term marriage used on gays. I have no problem with equal status in the way of entitlements, but I will not go to a gay wedding and watch gay men kissing each other. I was raised in a different Sheffield a long time ago, and am just too old to change my ways. Let them continue to throw out the rants. I'm used to it, and quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. The question isn't whether you will go to a gay marriage or not, it strikes me as quite unlikely that you will ever be invited to one. The question is whether your dislike of gay expressions of love should mean that other people aren't allowed to have them... I phrased it like that because you apparently see it as insulting to use the correct term, homophobia. But that is what you are demonstrating, albeit quite mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Who gives you the authority to decide who or what is wrong and that its appropriate to abuse someone. I think you are wrong so should I now abuse you? I've agree that discrimination exists in all aspects of life and that it’s not possible to remove it. It the level of discrimination that matters and they aren't decimated against to the point of it being unfair or a disadvantage. And the new proposals still don’t remove that discrimination because to do would just discriminated against another group of people. In my opinion no one has given a rational reason why marriage is better than a civil partnerships. Which group of people would be discriminated against if the proposals go through? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.