Gay Marriage

[videojetman]

what if everyone suddenly decided to be "gay" homosexual or lesbian.
it would look pretty grimm for the human race.
children should be conceived naturally.
logically gay couples are unable to conceive children naturally.
i have no problem with people choosing who they want to be with.
i just fear what message this is sending out to our children.

 

[sylus]

To Sylus, Ratbane, B77, etc. If you are against gay marriage, may I suggest that you don't marry a member of the same sex. Nobody is going to force you, honest.

Sorry for the delayed reply...just got home

I'm not sure why you have that impression, I and others have not said we are against gay marriage at all?

the problem is the definition of marriage, for most it will be a ceremony at a church..the church does not allow that (although some more liberal churches do) and those faiths/churches should not be legally forced to perform such marriages

the objection is that those churches/branches of faith who do not agree with same sex marriage should not have their beliefs walked over to appease a few and be forced to recognise that which they do not

now..if your idea of marriage is not a church wedding but a ceremony that is not coe or rc then that should not be a problem because you are not asking for others do drop their beliefs for your convenience

 

[suburbanreuben]

Wow! Haven't you all misunderstood the proposals?
No faith is being forced to wed gays, and the C of E will be specifically barred from doing so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18407568

Come on! There's better things to do with your arse than talk out of it!

 

[sylus]

Absolutely have understood the proposal and the safeguard if it can be called that, that no religious body can be forced to carry out a marriage

However, that applies to british law and as we know we are constantly being overuled by the european court of human rights

we all know they will not directly launch the process against sikhs, judaism and islam etc so the obvious and easy target is christianity claiming that they are discriminating based on sexual descrimination or hate laws

Now..honestly, how long do you think it will take before a group such as stonewall takes this to the echr?..be honest

as to better things to do with my arse...I have an atomic hot curry for tea and so my bum will be busy for some time.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Wow! Haven't you all misunderstood the proposals?
No faith is being forced to wed gays, and the C of E will be specifically barred from doing so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18407568

Come on! There's better things to do with your arse than talk out of it!

The actual facts don't get in the way of the current debate on the issue!

I am sure most people consider legislation change as a stage in a process rather than the end, and the contention lies in what is ahead.

There is no automatic presumption towards allowing gay couples a right to get married wherever they want, in the same way the government would not dictate that Catholic churches must marry Muslims.

My point is that the large religious organisations are businesses and should adhere to the same rules as other businesses.

If they cannot due to their 'beliefs', then at the least they should not be given an advantage in the market place with tax breaks and charitable status.

The stance of the Catholic church on gay priests and child abuse, for example, is ridiculous. Allowing an organisation with that track record to continue operating within its own set of rules is nothing more than state sponsored hypocrisy. I feel that religious organisations should be much more closely scrutinised and regulated.

 

[Charlieboy28]

I'm not sure what you want me to sort out Greenstiles, seems a pretty typical response to the issue, im actually heartened by the number of right minded people on here.

I can only speak personally but i happen to believe in equality for all, in religion, law, services etc etc, regardless of colour race creed, sexual preference etc etc.

Gay marriage is really a very simple question of equality in my mind, either you believe in equality or you don't, its not a pick and mix or something you can bestow in degrees.

So i can see no logical or valid reason why gay people should not be able to marry. It always fascinates me why people are so hung up about what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But then personal bigotry is fueled by emotions so defies logic. How or why would gay marriage impact upon anyone here voicing anti views?

I believe strongly in gay adoption also, I am also of the view that gay adoptions are more successful in regards to enhanced life chances for the child and a lower rate of breakdowns when compared to heterosexual adoptions, but there may be other reasons for this in that the battle gay people face to become adopters separates the wheat from the chaff. They are usually educated to university level and are more affluent which may play a part. Time will tell and research is much needed here.

I can't comment on Alison's experience of social services, nor do i want to, but its back to damned if you do damned if you dont. I'm taking it that there is perhaps the feeling that social services did not act quickly or decisively enough. Social Services and adoption are intrinsically linked however.

There is some very very interesting research however on low IQ and intolerance, prejudice, racism and conservative beliefs

 

[highlandsflyer]

Yet most right wing/fascist organisations have highly articulate, educated founders and magnetic, inspirational leaders. Go figure.

Any kind of tunnel vision or dogmatism indicates a lack of self realization, and limitation; whether it be in terms of raw intellect or inability to question and overcome social conditioning, peer pressure, power relationships.

I highly doubt Left Wing/Liberal thinking and behaviour can be convincingly demonstrated to be a trait tied to above average intelligence.

Besides, IQ tests are flawed and skewed to those with a background of challenged thought and competitive leanings. Hardly a level playing ground.

 

[Charlieboy28]

Yet most right wing/fascist organisations have highly articulate, educated founders and magnetic, inspirational leaders. Go figure.

Any kind of tunnel vision or dogmatism indicates a lack of self realization, and limitation; whether it be in terms of raw intellect or inability to question and overcome social conditioning, peer pressure, power relationships.

I highly doubt Left Wing/Liberal thinking and behaviour can be convincingly demonstrated to be a trait tied to above average intelligence.

Besides, IQ tests are flawed and skewed to those with a background of challenged thought and competitive leanings. Hardly a level playing ground.

I agree entirely but could you of not allowed me to have a little fun before sinking my battleship

 

[sylus]

You in the bath again ?

 

[highlandsflyer]

It is an interesting area, and quite related to the issue of gay adoption.

The nature/nurture question. I have heard so many people claiming that a young boy adopted by two gay men will most likely 'become' gay.

I should imagine they are less likely to remain in the 'closet' if they happen to be gay, and of course it should have no bearing on them as heterosexuals. Other than being less hung up and more tolerant of difference I should imagine.

Strongly political parents involved in their children's formative years should result more often in polarised views, whether in harmony or opposed. Often strong opinion can be mistaken for intellect.

I am a perfect example.

Having extreme opinions and maintaining a rigid stance can be a defence mechanism, indicating possible issues relating to self worth.

Unless of course one is politically involved, in which case these traits can merely be a group defence mechanism.

This is what I see as one major flaw in our political system. The Whips, and the whole tow the party line dilemma.

Most ballots should be secret, in my view.

We have seen the real difference between the Tories and the rest on the gay marriage issue. I wonder how many of these politicians really have such a problem with the issue, rather than a problem acknowledging they really don't.