egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 and I still want to know who views civil partnerships as lesser relationships. Other than some bizarre technicality on the wording allowed to use in law no one has come up with any examples of who does or why they are. Semantics are important when different titles are given to different types of people in the same situation. It implies something different and in legal terms is slightly different. What is the argument for a different type of gay marriage and divorce to that for straight people? Please, please to answer without asking a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Semantics are important when different titles are given to different types of people in the same situation. It implies something different and in legal terms is slightly different. What is the argument for a different type of gay marriage and divorce to that for straight people? Please, please to answer without asking a question. in the same for all world should I be allowed to have a civil partnership with a bird...? surely, a yes..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Why not answer my questions? I dont care what gay people do, if they want to get married then fine, but it begs the questions i have raised above does it not? 1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles? 2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life? 3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout? I decided to go to church on Sunday as having "turned atheist" a while back I no longer see much religion first hand and have decided to check out the local churches, synagogues, mosques and temples etc to see what they are all teaching. I went to my nearest church, which is Episcopalian...which my ignorant self had to google to see that it's essentially the Church of England in the States. They changed the name and became a separate offshoot in the Revolutionary War as they didn't want to be beholden to English governance any more, but the banner is still the cross of St George and they name checked Rowan Williams as one of their leaders in their prayers, so they still essentially follow Church of England doctrine. All of which you may well know, but I didn't. Their rector is also English, not that that matters quite so much. Anyway, the thing about this church is that they are very actively supporting of LBGT issues. They promote many gay and lesbian agendas in the community and participate in the annual gay pride parade. They started the AIDS Project back in the 1980s when the epidemic was rife in the local gay community (NYC's Village scene) and opens its doors to host regular dinners for those affected. So, just to echo what others have said above, not all churches share the same teachings and views and some would happily allow their followers to be married in their church. I hope this addresses your points, in that they are founded on a faulty premise. I have actually been to a couple of churches recently, the one before being a fairly hard line Anglican one in Islington that was promoting picketing outside a planned parenthood centre for their opposition to contraception. Sure there will be many churches which do not want to perform gay marriage - and they likely will have few gay members as you point out - but others will be happy to and, in my opinion, should not be prevented from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 So the church didn't approve. So why would a gay couple want the blessing of a religion they didn't follow properly and didn't approve of them? Choice. Equality. Rights. Gay people do believe in god. They may want pretty photos with a church in. Whatever, they should have the same choices as straight people. It really isn't difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Choice. Equality. Rights. Gay people do believe in god. They may want pretty photos with a church in. Whatever, they should have the same choices as straight people. It really isn't difficult. what about my question..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 That's good then. I went to a private Catholic school :-) that explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I think you are looking at this too literally and objectively. Human's are quite subjective and really this whole debate is about the symbolism of marriage, which is something that homosexuals have a right to be able to share with heterosexuals if they so wish. What about the symbolism of civil partnerships. Aren't they effectively a homosexual marriage? Straight people cant have one. Why dont gay people say how fantastic is that they have something straight people cant have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 in the same for all world should I be allowed to have a civil partnership with a bird...? surely, a yes..? No, you can marry her. Gay people don't have that option, but wanted it. I repeat, gay and straight people should have the same status and be able to marry in the same way. Nobody is suggesting that gay people should have two legal options. Nor should straight people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 in the same for all world should I be allowed to have a civil partnership with a bird...? surely, a yes..? You're sick turkey sh*gger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 No, you can marry her. Gay people don't have that option, but wanted it. I repeat, gay and straight people should have the same status and be able to marry in the same way. Nobody is suggesting that gay people should have two legal options. Nor should straight people. ah i see...but I dont want to get married..I want the civil partnership I see you are just yet another total and utter hypocrit that cries foul for others...you say you want equality, when really, you do not what so ever.. personally, I could not care less but if we are going to make things fair for one group..why not, on the same subject, make it fair for all... you dont want that though it seems you dont like the '1 rule for 1" etc..but that is exactly what you want...just not the way it currently is.... that is my last on this subject as I have noticed BTF wont answer either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Semantics are important when different titles are given to different types of people in the same situation. It implies something different and in legal terms is slightly different. What is the argument for a different type of gay marriage and divorce to that for straight people? Please, please to answer without asking a question. Ironic you ask me answer without asking a question as that is what you keep doing. Obviously one of the key things that matter when you decide to get married/enter a civil partnership are the slight differences there are in legal terms!!! That's a great arguement! The argument for different types of relationship is about perspective. I'm yet to see anyone come up with any examples of why a civil partnership is less of a relationship than a marriage. Why dont gay people embrace civil partnerships as their thing? Why dont they be proud they can have civil relationships and straight people cant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 ah i see...but I dont want to get married..I want the civil partnership I see you are just yet another total and utter hypocrit that cries foul for others...you say you want equality, when really, you do not what so ever.. personally, I could not care less but if we are going to make things fair for one group..why not, on the same subject, make it fair for all... you dont want that though it seems you dont like the '1 rule for 1" etc..but that is exactly what you want...just not the way it currently is.... that is my last on this subject as I have noticed BTF wont answer either.... What a stupid post. Why would you want a civil partnership, ie a slightly diluted marriage with a different name when you can have the real thing? What is the argument for something different for two groups of people? The debate is not why straight people should be able to do something in addition to marriage, but why straight people should not have parity with straight people instead of what they've been given instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Choice. Equality. Rights. Gay people do believe in god. They may want pretty photos with a church in. Whatever, they should have the same choices as straight people. It really isn't difficult. WHat about the right of straight people to choose to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage? Is there a difference? Why shouldn't they be allowed this? And it is difficult because i'm really struggling to understand why anyone of whatever sexual orientation would want the blessing of an organisation that doesn't approve of them and claim to be part of an organisation that they dont follow properly. I'm not anti gay marriage as i've said above, it's the insistance of the blessing of the church i find odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Ironic you ask me answer without asking a question as that is what you keep doing. Obviously one of the key things that matter when you decide to get married/enter a civil partnership are the slight differences there are in legal terms!!! That's a great arguement! The argument for different types of relationship is about perspective. I'm yet to see anyone come up with any examples of why a civil partnership is less of a relationship than a marriage. Why dont gay people embrace civil partnerships as their thing? Why dont they be proud they can have civil relationships and straight people cant? I've got deja vu. I've said that gay and people should have the same, ie proper marriage. In that situation civil partnership as it exists would go. Ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 What a stupid post. Why would you want a civil partnership, ie a slightly diluted marriage with a different name when you can have the real thing? What is the argument for something different for two groups of people? The debate is not why straight people should be able to do something in addition to marriage, but why straight people should not have parity with straight people instead of what they've been given instead. He wants a slightly dilitued version of marriage, not the real thing. Isn't it about choice? at least that's what you said it was 10 minutes ago. Why shouldn't he have the right to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 ah i see...but I dont want to get married..I want the civil partnership I see you are just yet another total and utter hypocrit that cries foul for others...you say you want equality, when really, you do not what so ever.. personally, I could not care less but if we are going to make things fair for one group..why not, on the same subject, make it fair for all... you dont want that though it seems you dont like the '1 rule for 1" etc..but that is exactly what you want...just not the way it currently is.... that is my last on this subject as I have noticed BTF wont answer either.... Praise the lord! Jamie - straight people can get married, same sex couples can't. If same sex couples COULD get married, there'd be no need for civil partnerships. So everyone would be able to get married if they wanted to. Why on earth would you want a civil partnership when you have the option to get married (an option gay people don't have)? Get it? I'll repeat it (since you don't seem to be able to grasp the basics) - if the same rights to marriage were afforded to everyone, there'd be no need for civil partnerships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Ironic you ask me answer without asking a question as that is what you keep doing. Obviously one of the key things that matter when you decide to get married/enter a civil partnership are the slight differences there are in legal terms!!! That's a great arguement! The argument for different types of relationship is about perspective. I'm yet to see anyone come up with any examples of why a civil partnership is less of a relationship than a marriage. Why dont gay people embrace civil partnerships as their thing? Why dont they be proud they can have civil relationships and straight people cant? I dunno, why weren't blacks happy with their "coloureds only" bathrooms in the early 20th century US and embrace them as their thing? I guess some of them didn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I've got deja vu. I've said that gay and people should have the same, ie proper marriage. In that situation civil partnership as it exists would go. Ffs Would it though? You said just now civil partnerships are a slightly diluted version of marriage, quite how im not sure apart from teh technicality around the legal wordings and how you can get divorced, why people entering a marriage or civil partnership would be worrying about how they get divorced is beyond me, but hey ho. Why cant gay people celebrate civil partnerships? I dont see many straight people wanting to go to gay pride for example, its a gay thing and it's treated as being a celebration of homosexuality, why not do the same with civil partnerships? And still no one can come up with examples as to who views them as a lesser relationship. I'm also yet to see anyone come up with the answer as to who is pushing for all this. Is it gay people? Is it the government or is it the church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Are Turkish and TDD one and the same? They both have the ability to engage in circular argument and appear unable to break out of the circle, in spite of logical answers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 What about the symbolism of civil partnerships. Aren't they effectively a homosexual marriage? Straight people cant have one. Why dont gay people say how fantastic is that they have something straight people cant have? You're right, many people want to have a civil partnership(both straight and gay) because of the baggage they perceive that marriage carries with it. Others, however, want a marriage and we should allow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I dunno, why weren't blacks happy with their "coloureds only" bathrooms in the early 20th century US and embrace them as their thing? I guess some of them didn't want to. What has that got to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 WHat about the right of straight people to choose to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage? Is there a difference? Why shouldn't they be allowed this? And it is difficult because i'm really struggling to understand why anyone of whatever sexual orientation would want the blessing of an organisation that doesn't approve of them and claim to be part of an organisation that they dont follow properly. I'm not anti gay marriage as i've said above, it's the insistance of the blessing of the church i find odd. You seem not to understand the concept of choice and equality. Just because it appears odd to you that someone may want to do something which appears hypocritical, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the choice. Some might think it odd but people can choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 You're right, many people want to have a civil partnership(both straight and gay) because of the baggage they perceive that marriage carries with it. Others, however, want a marriage and we should allow that. I ddin't say we shouldn't. I dont understand why gay people would want a marriage blessed by a religion that doesn't approve of them and they dont follow properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 You seem not to understand the concept of choice and equality. Just because it appears odd to you that someone may want to do something which appears hypocritical, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the choice. Some might think it odd but people can choose. Oh dear, so now people start to get patronising........ If the church doesn't approve of them and their relationship then dont they have the to refuse to allow them to marry in church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I ddin't say we shouldn't. I dont understand why gay people would want a marriage blessed by a religion where some of their followers don't approve of them and they dont follow properly. Corrected it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 (edited) Corrected it for you Please dont "correct" my posts BTF, it's very patronising. Edited 10 December, 2012 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Oh dear, so now people start to get patronising........ If the church doesn't approve of them and their relationship then dont they have the to refuse to allow them to marry in church? In a modern, all inclusive society, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I dunno, why weren't blacks happy with their "coloureds only" bathrooms in the early 20th century US and embrace them as their thing? I guess some of them didn't want to. What has that got to do with it? Take away the emotive baggage, and I don't really see the difference. One group of people excluded from a institution available to others based on a characteristic they were born with. Yes, the alternative being offered provides almost the same level of service (a toilet still flushes sh!t, just as a civil partnership still unites a couple), but for some people that isn't enough and they would like the primary facility to be available to all. In fact the analogy should be even stronger: nobody is insisting that this "bathroom" allows the "blacks" in, only that a neighbour, who is gladly opening his doors to all groups, to not be prevented from doing so by law. I dont understand why gay people would want a marriage blessed by a religion that doesn't approve of them and they dont follow properly. Well, aside from the fact that your lack of understanding of people's choices shouldn't really be dictating laws of the land, there are plenty of examples of churches who are very welcoming of gays and lesbians. In case you missed it... I decided to go to church on Sunday as having "turned atheist" a while back I no longer see much religion first hand and have decided to check out the local churches, synagogues, mosques and temples etc to see what they are all teaching. I went to my nearest church, which is Episcopalian...which my ignorant self had to google to see that it's essentially the Church of England in the States. They changed the name and became a separate offshoot in the Revolutionary War as they didn't want to be beholden to English governance any more, but the banner is still the cross of St George and they name checked Rowan Williams as one of their leaders in their prayers, so they still essentially follow Church of England doctrine. All of which you may well know, but I didn't. Their rector is also English, not that that matters quite so much. Anyway, the thing about this church is that they are very actively supporting of LBGT issues. They promote many gay and lesbian agendas in the community and participate in the annual gay pride parade. They started the AIDS Project back in the 1980s when the epidemic was rife in the local gay community (NYC's Village scene) and opens its doors to host regular dinners for those affected. So, just to echo what others have said above, not all churches share the same teachings and views and some would happily allow their followers to be married in their church. I hope this addresses your points, in that they are founded on a faulty premise. I have actually been to a couple of churches recently, the one before being a fairly hard line Anglican one in Islington that was promoting picketing outside a planned parenthood centre for their opposition to contraception. Sure there will be many churches which do not want to perform gay marriage - and they likely will have few gay members as you point out - but others will be happy to and, in my opinion, should not be prevented from doing so. ----------- If the church doesn't approve of them and their relationship then dont they have the to refuse to allow them to marry in church? I don't disagree with you, and I don't believe any of the changes in the law being discussed would prohibit such a thing. The issue is whether those who want to (consenting on both sides: church and couple) be allowed to. ----------- I am pleased to have used up all my 3 posts on debating with you today, Mr Turkish. It has been a pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 In a modern, all inclusive society, no. So you have the right to disapprove of how people live their lives but they are not afforded that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 So you have the right to disapprove of how people live their lives but they are not afforded that right. I do not disapprove of anyone. I am firmly in the proper marriage for all camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Are Turkish and TDD one and the same? They both have the ability to engage in circular argument and appear unable to break out of the circle, in spite of logical answers Logical answers? I'm yet to see any logical answers to any of my questions. Why would gay people want the blessing of an organisation that disproves of them? Why would gay people associate as a member of a group whose fundamental doctrines are against the way they chose to live their lives? Why would gay people stay as part of a group that does not approve of their practises? I'm still waiting for people to come up with examples of where it has been said that a civil relationship is less of a relationship than a straight marriage and if its the gays themselves that want this legislation or is it other people deciding for them that they want it. All I keep hearing is that it's so they've got choice. Well fine let them be married but why do they need the approval of a church that they clearly don't follow the teachings of and is opposed to their morality. Lets hear the logical answers to those points because so far our liberal genius have drawn a blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 I do not disapprove of anyone. I am firmly in the proper marriage for all camp. But you are denying people the right to follow their own lifestyles. You are advocating that people are forced to compromise their faith in their own place of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Logical answers? I'm yet to see any logical answers to any of my questions. Why would gay people want the blessing of an organisation that disproves of them? Why would gay people associate as a member of a group whose fundamental doctrines are against the way they chose to live their lives? Why would gay people stay as part of a group that does not approve of their practises? I'm still waiting for people to come up with examples of where it has been said that a civil relationship is less of a relationship than a straight marriage and if its the gays themselves that want this legislation or is it other people deciding for them that they want it. All I keep hearing is that it's so they've got choice. Well fine let them be married but why do they need the approval of a church that they clearly don't follow the teachings of and is opposed to their morality. Lets hear the logical answers to those points because so far our liberal genius have drawn a blank. Try actually reading Deano6's post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 In a modern, all inclusive society, no. So actually we don't have religious freedom in this country so isn't a modern all inclusive society a all. Good luck explain it to the Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Try actually reading Deano6's post above. It answers none of my points. But I wouldn't expect you to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 But you are denying people the right to follow their own lifestyles. You are advocating that people are forced to compromise their faith in their own place of worship. So you're saying I'm dissaproving of some people by opposing discrimination and exclusion of gay couples? Interesting argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 It answers none of my points. But I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your points have all been answered. You may not agree with the answers, but they've been answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 So you're saying I'm dissaproving of some people by opposing discrimination and exclusion of gay couples? Interesting argument. It is quite straightforward you are denying one part of our society the right to practice their faith how they feel fit. I believe that gays should be entitled to live how they like and so should people with a faith; ask your self who is the intolerant one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 It answers none of my points. But I wouldn't expect you to understand. He explained quite clearly that some churches don't hate gays. If gay marriage was legalised it would give churches like this, as well as other venues the opportunity not to discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 (edited) Your points have all been answered. You may not agree with the answers, but they've been answered. Prehaps you could paraphrase them then as I'm struggling to see anyone come up with any decent and logical reason why a gay person would want the blessing of or be a part of an organisation that disapproves of them. I'm also struggling to see where anyone has come up with an examples of where it's proven that civil partnerships have been consider a lesser relationship than a marriage, other than your bizarre one about not being able to get a divorce based on adultery, which I disproved anuway.nO one has said who is pushing for this legislation, of it's gay people or people deciding for them they want it. And the now most recent point that in our all encompassing modern society actually we don't have religious freedom at all, because people can only practise the parts that th modern society aprroves of, by default we cannot approve if Islam as homosexuality is forbidden. Edited 10 December, 2012 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 He explained quite clearly that some churches don't hate gays. If gay marriage was legalised it would give churches like this, as well as other venues the opportunity not to discriminate. Some church's, not all churches. What about the one that do? What about if some religions don't want gays to marry in their churches? should they be forced to do so? What about Islam, where homosexuals are forbidden? How is it going to go down with them that they HAVE to allow gays to get married in their mosques if they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 It is quite straightforward you are denying one part of our society the right to practice their faith how they feel fit. I believe that gays should be entitled to live how they like and so should people with a faith; ask your self who is the intolerant one? Your position is that in some areas of society it's ok to exclude others. That's discriminatory/intolerant. I don't see any possible argument that allowing gay marriage is intolerant to the beliefs of some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 It is quite straightforward you are denying one part of our society the right to practice their faith how they feel fit. I believe that gays should be entitled to live how they like and so should people with a faith; ask your self who is the intolerant one? It's actually the opposite. The plans will just give religious places the opportunity to marry gay people, they are not forcing them to. The law currently forbids it which is denying people the right to practice their faith how they feel fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Some church's, not all churches. What about the one that do? What about if some religions don't want gays to marry in their churches? should they be forced to do so? What about Islam, where homosexuals are forbidden? How is it going to go down with them that they HAVE to allow gays to get married in their mosques if they want to. Repeat after me: No church is to be FORCED to marry same sex couples in their churches / mosques / synagogues / temples if they don't want to. Churches WILL be allowed to marry same sex couples if they want to. Understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Some church's, not all churches. What about the one that do? What about if some religions don't want gays to marry in their churches? should they be forced to do so? What about Islam, where homosexuals are forbidden? How is it going to go down with them that they HAVE to allow gays to get married in their mosques if they want to. But if a Mosque wanted to marry two blokes why should they be refused that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Repeat after me: No church is to be FORCED to marry same sex couples in their churches / mosques / synagogues / temples if they don't want to. Churches WILL be allowed to marry same sex couples if they want to. Understand? Unfortuantely despite the increasing patronising nature of your reply BTF you have also failed to address any of my point. However no doubt the first gay couple that are refused marriage in a religious building will create the usual uproar from people like yourself. Yet they are just exercising their right to freedom of worship are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 But if a Mosque wanted to marry two blokes why should they be refused that right? In Islam homosexuality is forbidden. Why would two blokes who claim to practise Islam firstly, be gay and secondly want the approval of the religIon that forbids them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 (edited) Your position is that in some areas of society it's ok to exclude others. That's discriminatory/intolerant. I don't see any possible argument that allowing gay marriage is intolerant to the beliefs of some. No, gays can do what they do and religious people can do what they do without the State making judgement on one or the other. Your position is intolerant because you are demanding that people compromise their faith. Edited 10 December, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Prehaps you could paraphrase them then as I'm struggling to see anyone come up with any decent and logical reason why a gay person would want the blessing of or be a part of an organisation that disapproves of them. I'm also struggling to see where anyone has come up with an examples of where it's proven that civil partnerships have been consider a lesser relationship than a marriage, other than your bizarre one about not being able to get a divorce based on adultery, which I disproved anuway.nO one has said who is pushing for this legislation, of it's gay people or people deciding for them they want it. And the now most recent point that in our all encompassing modern society actually we don't have religious freedom at all, because people can only practise the parts that th modern society aprroves of, by default we cannot approve if Islam as homosexuality is forbidden. You are tiresome mate. You are unable to comprehend the point. We have a legal position that fails to recognise that gay couples should be allowed to enter into a legally recognised union that is identical to that for straight people. There can be no place for such discrimination. Should we have slightly different voting rights for men and women and call it something different? Ditto for different races in, say, the ability to claim benefits? Bestowing different rights on different people is plain old discrimination. The argument should not be why there should be equality. That should be the presumption. You have not put forward one argument in favour of why straight couples and gay couples should be treated differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Unfortuantely despite the increasing patronising nature of your reply BTF you have also failed to address any of my point. However no doubt the first gay couple that are refused marriage in a religious building will create the usual uproar from people like yourself. Yet they are just exercising their right to freedom of worship are they not? You don't even read my post that you quote in your response do you. If logic and reason don't answer your 'questions' it's no wonder I resort to being patronising. I, and others, have answered every single one of the points you raise. However, like a needle stuck in a record, you repeat your 'questions' ad nauseam - attention seeking, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29e38131fa8680ec93d955d1d4052a3d.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now