maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Why does it have to be "better"? If it isn't better why does it matter? ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 15:34 ---------- Which group of people would be discriminated against if the proposals go through? jb My sentence doesn’t say anyone would be discriminated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone 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 don't have the authority or the right to abuse anyone. Accurately describing your fear and dislike of gay people as homophobia is not abuse though. When we're talking about moral issues I of course have the right to judge for myself that you are wrong. I think you are wrong so should I now abuse you? If you wish. But don't try to pretend that you are responding to me abusing you as that will be an obvious lie. I haven't abused anyone. I've agree that discrimination exists in all aspects of life and that it’s not possible to remove it. You can't agree with me about that, I didn't say 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. Are you back to the idea of marrying your sister... Does she know about this? In my opinion no one has given a rational reason why marriage is better than a civil partnerships. Nobody needs to make such a justification. The default state should be equality unless someone can give a good reason why equality isn't appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 ... My sentence doesn’t say anyone would be discriminated against. Really? What does this mean then... ... because to do (so) would just discriminate(d) against another group of people. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 If it isn't better why does it matter? The whole point of discrimination, it isn't about "betterment" it's about equality. But as you use the term "better" we can all see that another 20 pages are imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 using Rosy Parks as an example, she would have been able to sit on any seat she liked but whist sat on it, it would be a black persons seat, once she moved and a white person sat on it, it would be called a white person seat, if she came back and sat on it again, it would once again be called a black persons seat. Same seat different name. Silly I know, but not discrimination. Can I give this an award for the best thing I've ever read on here? Really. A real masterpiece of words. I can't work out if it's a moral parable, a logic puzzle, or a joke from a Christmas cracker. 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? Source please. Secondly, it's perfectly possible for a gay man to be a bigot, yes. There are certain groups in the lgbt community that are very intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose 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 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. In reply to your bit in bold I will put this in bold also, just to make sure it sinks in. Nobody and no legislation is forcing or going to force any church to marry gay people. If there was a hint of a move to force churches to marry same-sex couples, I would fight for the side of the churches, as would every person who values liberty I know, so it isn't going to happen. With this in mind would you care to think again about the question I posed, and the main point of my post, which you skipped past. 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? To put it another way, in your own post #441 you specifically said that the state should stay out of Church affairs, and I have agreed with that, and yet the state has involved itself in your Church's affairs by banning gay marriage. Don't you think it's odd that you need protecting from yourselves, in case you change your minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I don't have the authority or the right to abuse anyone. Accurately describing your fear and dislike of gay people as homophobia is not abuse though. No one has claimed to dislike or fear gay people, it’s just an opinion you have formed which based on your prejudice belief that anyone with an opposing view to you must hate gays and must therefore be homophobic. When we're talking about moral issues I of course have the right to judge for myself that you are wrong. If you wish. But don't try to pretend that you are responding to me abusing you as that will be an obvious lie. I haven't abused anyone. If we all decide to abuse members that we feel are wrong then discussion will soon close down as demonstrated earlier. You can't agree with me about that, I didn't say it. Then you made an inaccurate statement about what you think I have agreed to. Are you back to the idea of marrying your sister... Does she know about this? I don't have a sister. Nobody needs to make such a justification. The default state should be equality unless someone can give a good reason why equality isn't appropriate. There is already equality. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 15:52 ---------- Really? What does this mean then... jb It’s best to read the whole sentence and not just the last part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 There is already equality. Not allowing some parts of society the same legal rights is equal in what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Can I give this an award for the best thing I've ever read on here? Really. A real masterpiece of words. I can't work out if it's a moral parable, a logic puzzle, or a joke from a Christmas cracker. You have to be very careful with words and how you phrase then..a particular poster may deem them complimentary. I'm going for Christmas Cracker btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 The whole point of discrimination, it isn't about "betterment" it's about equality. But as you use the term "better" we can all see that another 20 pages are imminent. Things are already equal because marriage isn’t better. If you can't explain why marriage is better than a civil partnership then they must be equal and not discriminatory. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 15:57 ---------- Can I give this an award for the best thing I've ever read on here? Really. A real masterpiece of words. I can't work out if it's a moral parable, a logic puzzle, or a joke from a Christmas cracker. What part of it are you having difficulty with and I will try to dumb it down for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.