RootsBooster Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 There are ways to disagree with people without using language that can be construed as offensive and bullying. And if you can't communicate without causing offence then you can't expect many people to enter the discussions. If you're still talking about the word "homophobic", the simple solution is for people to accept what it means. If someone is going to hold extreme or irrational aversions to homosexuality and homosexual people (definition of homophobia), then they should expect to be called a homophobe. By the way, refusing to accept rational reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry (ie, equality & the technical/social/symbolic reasons why it is unequal), is irrational and an aversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 The way some people are so upset about it you'd think the Government had made it compulsory. Basically, getting back to the OP, if Bill and Fred who live in Bristol, who I've never met, don't know and will never meet decide to marry then is it really any of my damned business? Of course it isn't. I don't know them from Adam, why should I give a toss? Why does anyone give a toss? Because you don't know them from Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 If you're still talking about the word "homophobic", the simple solution is for people to accept what it means. If someone is going to hold extreme or irrational aversions to homosexuality and homosexual people (definition of homophobia), then they should expect to be called a homophobe. By the way, refusing to accept rational reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry (ie, equality & the technical/social/symbolic reasons why it is unequal), is irrational and an aversion. That is just an opinion which you are entitled to hold, but just because you believe someone holds extreme or irrational aversions to homosexuality doesn’t make it so and expressing such an opinion just stifles discussion. Then what’s the point in having a discussion forum if discussion is stifled by name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 That is just an opinion which you are entitled to hold, but just because you believe someone holds extreme or irrational aversions to homosexuality doesn’t make it so and expressing such an opinion just stifles discussion. Then what’s the point in having a discussion forum if discussion is stifled by name calling. On the contrary, continuing to bleat "offensive abuse" about labels which fit according to their definitions, is stifling the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 On the contrary, continuing to bleat "offensive abuse" about labels which fit according to their definitions, is stifling the debate. It’s the only thing keeping the discussion going. But I will leave you too it because I can see we will never agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 That is just an opinion which you are entitled to hold, but just because you believe someone holds extreme or irrational aversions to homosexuality doesn’t make it so and expressing such an opinion just stifles discussion. Then what’s the point in having a discussion forum if discussion is stifled by name calling. Quite, I have a very strong aversion to Tripe and Cowheel and Chitlins, and Liver and kidney, particularly, but I don't give a hoot if others enjoy eating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Someone on the Sunday Politics show today said that this is a rare example of the Government doing something to make peoples' lives better, to make them happier. I don't want to get married. But if others do, and are unable, then surely passing a law that increases their happiness AND HAS NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ANYONE ELSE is a good thing. And lets face it, two people who you don't know getting married has no, zero, zilch, effect on your life at all. So why the angst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 You've just cut out anyone who is infertile or post-menopausal. You brute. If you read the sentence I put in brackets you may not consider me such a brute. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:09 ---------- But you're not giving any opinion as to why it shouldn't be redefined apart from stating what the current definition is, over and over again. And that is the reason I do not think it should be redefined. I have given my reasons several times. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:11 ---------- So what does reproduction (or the choice to reproduce) have to do with marriage? It defines the difference between the sex of the people involved. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:12 ---------- Or, what does marriage have to do with reproduction? Are you reading my replies ? ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:14 ---------- Sperm and egg meet outside marriage, and that child is a sin, and will spend part of the afterlife in a specially reserved layer of hell because of the actions of its parents - before it was even born. Welcome to the wonderful world of religion. I would have never thought you held these views. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:18 ---------- So then, back to the topic, gay marriage; what damned business is it of religion? Having had a think about this through this thread over the last few days i've changed my mind. I'm now of the opinion that church's should be legally obliged to marry a gay couple. That should apply from the lowliest Methodist chapel to the highest Catholic cathedral. To do otherwise would be institutional discrimination. But, I don't think that individual priests should be obliged to perform ceremonies though. They can keep their prejudices if they wish to. I think this will be the eventual outcome and the European Court will decide so. The government will then be able to say they never intended this but it was forced on them. What is now being decided is a form of discrimination. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:22 ---------- By the way, refusing to accept rational reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry (ie, equality & the technical/social/symbolic reasons why it is unequal), is irrational and an aversion. And what does it make one who will not accept reasons for them not marrying when there is an alternative ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 It defines the difference between the sex of the people involved. So let me get this straight... -Your argument is that gay couples shouldn't marry because they are biologically different to straight couples, but the comparison of blacks and whites is invalid -Straights are different because they can reproduce -By your own admission, reproduction is irrelevant to to the subject of marriage, it's just a difference between gays and straights -The comparison of blacks and whites being biologically different (and the historic effects of this) is invalid, because a black man and a black woman can reproduce, even though reproduction is irrelevant to to the subject of marriage, it's just a difference between gays and straights Is that right ? So if your argument is that the union between same sex couples should have a different name because they are different to opposite sex couples, I take it you also think a mortgage between same sex couples should be renamed something like a "civil home owner's loan"? And what does it make one who will not accept reasons for them not marrying when there is an alternative ? If the reasons are rational and the person refuses to accept them, then that makes their aversion irrational, which fits the definition of homophobe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I would say if the cap fits wear it. Homophobic is what it is! ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 14:18 ---------- For the "priesthood" actually. Re my bold...has it really ever been a necessity? If you count being ostracized for having sex and children outside of marriage yes it was a necessity ,thats entirely my point, the stigma of being born a ******* no longer exists hence I dont see why,unless you are actively religious,the perceived sham of gay marriage should bother anyone,at one time straight marriages held outside of churches were condemned by the church as not sanctified now they are second nature as far as the general populace is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.