Same Sex Marriage

[donKey jote]

it's changed slightly... now it's also
powered by vBulletin childrens science definitions

[BDunnell]

It is to be expected, as kids will pick on children they see as vulnerable. Now you would say thats the parents fault. But 30 children in a class, and 1 has two fathers - once the kids get to the age where they "sort of" understand this, then they will have a field day. And no amount of parental guidance will stop this. Kids pick on kids already, why would this be any different? However, by allowing same-sex adoption - you are creating another option for bullying, so for the good of the child same-sex adoption cases should be looked at carefully. Men/women couples should be given preference (quality pertaining of course, but this veto process is done anyway) - as this will give the child the BEST chance of success.

I hate to use the term "survival of the fittest" but school really is like that, I've been through it!



How does it cast doubt on his parenting skills? What ARE you on about?! Are you suggesting that he should want his children to be homosexual so that they can be be "different" and "individual"? I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

Sounds like SGWilko is doing a good job of being a father. If many same-sex couples have the attitude of you, BDunnell, I doubt they would be brought up correctly - as you are too bitter towards people of differing opinions, and that would impact upon the children.

All nonsense, as I would expect from you. Your first paragraph is especially absurd. Bullying is no-one's fault other than the bully's. As a right-winger, I presume you believe in people taking personal responsibility? Well, why not apply it in this case?

I resent being told by someone whose opinions I consider ill-developed that my sexuality alone renders me inferior at anything.

[BDunnell]

And not every child that lives in an adopted family with same sex parents either?

I find it unacceptable that we should deny a Child a normal happy family life just because of a fear that a Bully could intimidate them. That strikes me as punishing the victim.

Perhaps the reason that this potential bullying might take place is because there has been such discrimination and ignorance of gay and lesbian couples generally. Perhaps the Church refusing to treat people different because of their sexuality would be a huge step in breaking down these unfair barriers. Perhaps one day we might be surprised that this was such a big deal.

Perhaps... we can hope.

I couldn't agree more. The backward, unenlightened thinking that accompanies this topic is unsurprising to some extent, but largely just saddening.

[Knock-on]

I quite agree. But the fact that a child finds him/herself in a position to be adopted suggests that already, this notion of a happy family has been taken away.

However, I take issue that you suggest anyone is denying a same sex couple be allowed to adopt. I just don't agree with it (as I don't agree with a church marriage as also discussed previously) because of the fundamental issues and hurdles that are thrown in the way, on top of the upheaval of being (in the position of) adopted in the first place.

Sorry, it wasn't designed to be an insult or insinuation and I apologise if it came across as such.

Personally, I agree with the main thrust of your point. If all other conditions are identical, it is better for the Child, IMHO, to grow up with both a positive male and a female role model. That is not any sort of slight to same sex partners but I feel that it is less complicated for the child, as you have said, and also a male and female bring different strengths and benefits to a childs development. This is looking purely from the childs side.

However, as I have said, there are thousands of Children out there that can be adopted or fostered and it is better to have a loving household for them to go to rather than worry about the sexuality of the parents.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes, there aren't many other rights similarly denied — or any, come to think of it. It is somewhat infuriating that this particular right is denied on the basis of meaningless, semantic arguments relating to the Bible and suchlike, given that same-sex marriage would have no practical consequences whatsoever. As I said earlier, laws should only be made for practical reasons. This is not the case with the ban on same-sex marriage.

Infuriating.....
But as far as I remember you ( and most of the fellow forumers ) don't believe in God.
Then where this anger come from? And then why should do 2 people ( homo or hetero ) marry at all?

P.S. I reckon my english is poor and I understand you're a sort of master of the words. I might me confusing the meaning of two words: marriage and wedding. In my mind marriage can be civil or/and religious, wedding is only in front of God.

[SGWilko]

Sorry, it wasn't designed to be an insult or insinuation and I apologise if it came across as such.

Personally, I agree with the main thrust of your point. If all other conditions are identical, it is better for the Child, IMHO, to grow up with both a positive male and a female role model. That is not any sort of slight to same sex partners but I feel that it is less complicated for the child, as you have said, and also a male and female bring different strengths and benefits to a childs development. This is looking purely from the childs side.

However, as I have said, there are thousands of Children out there that can be adopted or fostered and it is better to have a loving household for them to go to rather than worry about the sexuality of the parents.

Hey Knockie, panic ye not, for that was more to enforce my own viewpoint, for those that struggle with it - you have no need to apologise as you have not insulted anyone, let alone me.

But the last sentence of your second paragraph is the bit that I think gets lost, and some have not and do not wish, to consider - i.e. how does all this affect the child. Sometimes I think there are some that get too wrapped up in their own selfish need for a notion of equality that has the potential to steamroller roughshod over the needs of the child(ren).

[SGWilko]

Infuriating.....
But as far as I remember you ( and most of the fellow forumers ) don't believe in God.
Then where this anger come from? And then why should do 2 people ( homo or hetero ) marry at all?

P.S. I reckon my english is poor and I understand you're a sort of master of the words. I might me confusing the meaning of two words: marriage and wedding. In my mind marriage can be civil or/and religious, wedding is only in front of God.

Well, I only speak English, and I completely understood your post.

[gadjo_dilo]

Interesting the way most of you see the kids issue....
As if a kid might be affected only because the other kids would bully him and he has no his own needs and desires. That sometimes might don't match the idea of 2 parents of same sex.


Also interesting that when we debated the religion topics some of you say that a kid shouldn't be raised in a certain religion but be left to grow up and choose what suites him.
Isn't the same possibility that a kid raised by a same sex couple couldn't be happy with this alternative?

[SGWilko]

However, as I have said, there are thousands of Children out there that can be adopted or fostered and it is better to have a loving household for them to go to rather than worry about the sexuality of the parents.

Death of parents excepted, why are there so many unwanted children. There is a serious education issue here IMO.

[SGWilko]

Also interesting that when we debated the religion topics some of you say that a kid shouldn't be raised in a certain religion but be left to grow up and choose what suites him.
Isn't the same possibility that a kid raised by a same sex couple couldn't be happy with this alternative?

Religion is a choice, or it should be. Can you chose your parents? For a child that has been abandoned, someone is chosing the parents for them. That can only ever be the equivalent of 'making the best of a bad job' IMO.

[gadjo_dilo]

Religion is a choice, or it should be. Can you chose your parents? For a child that has been abandoned, someone is chosing the parents for them. That can only ever be the equivalent of 'making the best of a bad job' IMO.

It's considered a choice only if you're an atheist.
Speaking of parents, we definitely can't chose biological parents.

[SGWilko]

Speaking of parents, we definitely can't chose biological parents.

Not all couples (who could be biological parents) are suitable to have children.

[SGWilko]

This thread seems to address a more male angle, but what do you guys think of two lesbians adopting? Is that different because it would be like two mums and perhaps the male influence isn't as important?

From the childs perspective, I see two males bringing up a female an issue, and I've alluded to why, IMO, earlier.

I see it less of an issue for two women to bring up either a boy or a girl. I am unable at this point to articulate why. That is just the way I see it.

[gadjo_dilo]

Not all couples (who could be biological parents) are suitable to have children.
That's true. But it's a fatality, you can't reject your biological parents on the principle that "you can't turn the blood into water". I have a few members of my family which sometimes get on my nerves but I still love them and forgive their mistakes as we have the same roots.
On the other hand all those who support adoption by couples of same sex come with the reason of assuring a loving and caring background as if that minority can't have its own bad guys.

[SGWilko]

That's true. But it's a fatality, you can't reject your biological parents on the principle that "you can't turn the blood into water". I have a few members of my family which sometimes get on my nerves but I still love them and forgive their mistakes as we have the same roots.
On the other hand all those who support adoption by couples of same sex come with the reason of assuring a loving and caring background as if that minority can't have its own bad guys.

I know of a married couple, the women of which I used to work with, who adopted. They gave the child back because they could not get on!

Seriously, how do you think that made the child feel?

[Bezza]

All nonsense, as I would expect from you. Your first paragraph is especially absurd. Bullying is no-one's fault other than the bully's. As a right-winger, I presume you believe in people taking personal responsibility? Well, why not apply it in this case?

I resent being told by someone whose opinions I consider ill-developed that my sexuality alone renders me inferior at anything.

You are now struggling to discuss this properly. More personal jibes, and you are trying to bring politics into it again, as if a conversation five years ago has relevance here?!

People of course should take personal responsbility. Either you've not understood my point, or you've chosen to ignore it. It is quite simple really and I'm not repeating it again.

It is not about your sexuality, stop trying to make exaggerate everything. This is simply about my argument that a mother/father parenthood is better than a mother/mother or father/father one.

[SGWilko]

Well I don't agree with you, but haven't really got anything else to add myself. This is just one of those things neither of us will be able to see from the others perspective.

At least we are not dull and 'samey'. There clearly is not a right and wrong answer.

And to change one's opinion because someone does not agree with you would be a tad shallow.

[Bezza]

I couldn't agree more. The backward, unenlightened thinking that accompanies this topic is unsurprising to some extent, but largely just saddening.

Backward? You really have a bad choice in insults sometimes.

[gadjo_dilo]

Children naturally look for influence in adults and if a female or male presence isn't there, then it will be sort..
I'm not sure things are so easy.

Lets not forget influence doesn't just end at the parents, most people have family members that help where children are involved. Not always I know. ..
But as the say "mum is the only one". :laugh:
Family helps but it's not enough. In my country a lot of children are living the drama of having parents working abroad and they're left with grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. who love them and take care of them but can't replace their presence. A lot of suicides have happened from missing them.

This thread seems to address a more male angle, but what do you guys think of two lesbians adopting? Is that different because it would be like two mums and perhaps the male influence isn't as important? I know from experience when my wife was pregnant that very little thought goes in to helping the man during pregnancy, and opinions seem to be old fashioned even in the modern NHS.
After my father’s death nothing was the same. Even if in his last years he was ill and helpless I still felt a stability and security. I suppose these were the things that a man usually brings ( or should bring ) in a family. Unfortunately although my mother is a brave woman she and the rest of family couldn’t ever replace his role.
Of course I survived but always felt the family is incomplete.

[SGWilko]

After my father’s death nothing was the same. Even if in his last years he was ill and helpless I still felt a stability and security. I suppose these were the things that a man usually brings ( or should bring ) in a family. Unfortunately although my mother is a brave woman she and the rest of family couldn’t ever replace his role.
Of course I survived but always felt the family is incomplete.

I am sorry to learn of your experience.

Imagine how the child who loses both parents is then put with foster parents. It will be hard enough to adjust if you have been used to a mum and a dad - how might you feel in a same sex parent family?

I am not saying it is wrong per se, I just think that, for the child, it's hard enough as it is.

[gadjo_dilo]

I know of a married couple, the women of which I used to work with, who adopted. They gave the child back because they could not get on!

Seriously, how do you think that made the child feel?

What's the point? I spoke of biological parents. Adoptions are always a sort of lottery and to be honest I'm not a fan of them.


P.S. Who couldn't get on? The couple between them or the couple with the child?

[SGWilko]

What's the point? I spoke of biological parents. Adoptions are always a sort of lottery and to be honest I'm not a fan of them.


P.S. Who couldn't get on? The couple between them or the couple with the child?

The couple and the child. For me, I'd say the couple were not trying hard enough, but that is just an assumption.

I am sure the child was difficult, but that is to be expected isn't it?

[BDunnell]

Backward? You really have a bad choice in insults sometimes.

It is backward — as in looking backward.

[SGWilko]

Why would the other kids know that a kid has two dads?
Most of my colleagues in school never knew who my parents were.
This is not as obvious as being fat or wearing glasses

Did you never invite your mates round for tea?

[Anubis]

Should the bible be changed?



That implies the Bible is a fixed point, existing as a ready formed single document and unchanging through the ages, which clearly isn't correct. Like anything, it has changed to reflect the times it finds itself operating in. More often than not to enhance or preserve the power of those changing it, but that's another debate. I don't see people denouncing those with tattoos, yet that's right there in Leviticus. When I walk past my local church on a Sunday, I don't see anyone taking up serpents. Likewise, I don't know of anyone who keeps a slave, yet both are advocated in the Bible. People modify their interpretations depending on the society of the time. The change in social attitudes towards homosexuality is simply the latest manifestation of that process. To be honest, the religious aspect to the debate is a bit of a red herring anyway. The main issue is simply that homosexual couples should be afforded the same recognition in law as heterosexual couples. You don't have gay driving licences or gay passports, so why have specifically gay marriages in the form of civil partnerships? That's not equality, it's highlighting difference.

[race aficionado]

My son has been exposed to school mates with 2 moms and 2 dads since he was very young.

It is natural for him.

Our son was adopted (my sunshine) and he has a mother and a father - the male and female influence which I believe to be the best scenario for a child.

And I say this totally approving the adoption for same sex couples which I'm sure will give the child all the love they can muster.

Just the fact that I prefer a child to have both a mom and a dad does in NO WAY demean the 2 dads or 2 mom scenarios. As a matter of fact, I celebrate them.

I also celebrate fatherhood. It's been the best and currently the toughest experience (teenager) in my life.
:)

[BDunnell]

My son has been exposed to school mates with 2 moms and 2 dads since he was very young.

It is natural for him.

Our son was adopted (my sunshine) and he has a mother and a father - the male and female influence which I believe to be the best scenario for a child.

And I say this totally approving the adoption for same sex couples which I'm sure will give the child all the love they can muster.

Just the fact that I prefer a child to have both a mom and a dad does in NO WAY demean the 2 dads or 2 mom scenarios. As a matter of fact, I celebrate them.

I also celebrate fatherhood. It's been the best and currently the toughest experience (teenager) in my life.
:)

Excellent post, if I may say so.

[gadjo_dilo]

And underlying all of this is the same important point: that law should always be made on the basis of practical effect, and in this case the ban on gay marriage has none.

But maybe on a divine level things are different....
Spirituality isn't necessarily related to practical effects.
Civil marriages can be ( and in time maybe they will be everywhere ) legalised by a human authority but nobody can impose a gay wedding to the clergy. In religion we don't have laws but dogmas.

[donKey jote]

nobody can impose a gay wedding to the clergy

Nobody is trying to impose a gay wedding on the clergy. I think (not sure) it's quite the opposite: the (human) law explicitely forbids gay marriage in the Church of England.
It's as if the law were also to forbid woman catholic priests, for example. Why make a (human) law for it ? :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Interesting the way most of you see the kids issue....
As if a kid might be affected only because the other kids would bully him and he has no his own needs and desires. That sometimes might don't match the idea of 2 parents of same sex.


Also interesting that when we debated the religion topics some of you say that a kid shouldn't be raised in a certain religion but be left to grow up and choose what suites him.
Isn't the same possibility that a kid raised by a same sex couple couldn't be happy with this alternative?

Absolute rubbish, absurd comparisons like always.

[ioan]

Did you never invite your mates round for tea?

Nope, we always met outside on the play grounds.

[ioan]

But maybe on a divine level things are different....

Yep, completely different because here is no such thing.

[BDunnell]

But maybe on a divine level things are different....
Spirituality isn't necessarily related to practical effects.
Civil marriages can be ( and in time maybe they will be everywhere ) legalised by a human authority but nobody can impose a gay wedding to the clergy. In religion we don't have laws but dogmas.

I don't care one jot about 'the divine level'. It's meaningless to me.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I do not feel that forcing churches to allow same sex marriage is the correct thing to do.

Yes, if any other organisation was allowed to discriminate on grounds of sexuality it would be wrong. But I would like to give the church the chance to prove to us that it isn't inherently homophobic and intolerent. If certain churches refused weddings for same sex couples then I'm sure these cases would come to the attention of the media.

[BDunnell]

I do not feel that forcing churches to allow same sex marriage is the correct thing to do.

Yes, if any other organisation was allowed to discriminate on grounds of sexuality it would be wrong. But I would like to give the church the chance to prove to us that it isn't inherently homophobic and intolerent.

Yes, and thereby move on in line with society.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yes, and thereby move on in line with society.

But do you honestly think the church would move on? After all, people still believe that it is acceptable to refuse to sell their bed and breakfast service to gay couples.

[BDunnell]

But do you honestly think the church would move on?

At some indeterminate point, I think the Church of England increasingly will.


After all, people still believe that it is acceptable to refuse to sell their bed and breakfast service to gay couples.

I am thinking of opening a B&B in order solely to refuse entry to Conservative and UKIP voters.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

At some indeterminate point, I think the Church of England increasingly will.



I am thinking of opening a B&B in order solely to refuse entry to Conservative and UKIP voters.

But what if William Hague wanted to stay with his special advisor?

[BDunnell]

But what if William Hague wanted to stay with his special advisor?

That would never happen, and I find it disgraceful that you would commit such a slur.

[gadjo_dilo]

Absolute rubbish, absurd comparisons like always.

Sorry. It's a result of living in an absurd place.
But I hate normality anyway..... :laugh:

As for you: same stupid attitude as if anybody who don't share your opinion is a knobhead.

[gadjo_dilo]

Nobody is trying to impose a gay wedding on the clergy. I think (not sure) it's quite the opposite: the (human) law explicitely forbids gay marriage in the Church of England.
It's as if the law were also to forbid woman catholic priests, for example. Why make a (human) law for it ? :rolleyes:
Matter of religion....
The orthodox christian church is definitely against this kind of marriages. Even if a law adopted by the Parliament wll ever accept a union-marriage this will be only a civil act. Church rules are different and adopted by the synod.

[gadjo_dilo]

Nope, we always met outside on the play grounds.

Those who never invited mates in their home used to have something to hide. :laugh:
Usually a wellfare hard to be explained on those times. :D

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't care one jot about 'the divine level'. It's meaningless to me.

Good for you but once again I come and ask why are you so angry on church regarding same sex mariages? What's the need of the blessing of a meaningless authority?

[SGWilko]

I am thinking of opening a B&B in order solely to refuse entry to Conservative and UKIP voters.

As an individual, you should be able to refuse entry to whoever you wish. This is where I don't quite follow the decrimination aspect.

Forcing the issue will only result in resentment by those have been forced, against their wishes, to allow all and sundry entry to their establishment.

You wouldn't allow Mr Tattoo and his mates, pierced beyond belief looking like a meccano set was glued to their face clutching cans of Special Brew in, would you?

[gadjo_dilo]

Should the bible be changed?

The Bible is a book. If we change it then we have the right to change every book to adapt its meaning to modern times and become poltically correct. From Shakespear's work to Confucius's, from Francoise Villon's to Dante Alligheri's, etc.

Romeo and Juliet, a modern playright rewritten by Ioan...( sorry Ioan, but since you always ridicule my examples...)
Don Quijote written in donkey jote's style ( sorry donkey, I know you have a good sense of humour to understand it's a joke )
Rappaccini's Daughter improved by the forum's doctor ( sorry Doc, I know you think it's a masterpiece so it can't be improved)

Let's see who dares to change the Koran....

[SGWilko]

The Bible is a book. If we change it then we have the right to change every book to adapt its meaning to modern times and become poltically correct. From Shakespear's work to Confucius's, from Francoise Villon's to Dante Alligheri's, etc.

Romeo and Juliet, a modern playright rewritten by Ioan...( sorry Ioan, but since you always ridicule my examples...)
Don Quijote written in donkey jote's style ( sorry donkey, I know you have a good sense of humour to understand it's a joke )
Rappaccini's Daughter improved by the forum's doctor ( sorry Doc, I know you think it's a masterpiece so it can't be improved)

Let's see who dares to change the Koran....

I see where you are coming from, and understand the principal.

However, the Bible advocates stoning etc, and I don't really think we should continue doing that. Adjust punishments accordingly.

Does this mean we should change other principals? Personally I don't, and I'm not going to labour my point because I've said my piece already. Others are free to make thier own interpretations etc.

[Bezza]

At some indeterminate point, I think the Church of England increasingly will.



I am thinking of opening a B&B in order solely to refuse entry to Conservative and UKIP voters.

I know you've said this sarcastically, but its not a comparison. How would you know who votes for who? Would you ask them on their way in?!

[gadjo_dilo]

However, the Bible advocates stoning etc, and I don't really think we should continue doing that. Adjust punishments accordingly.

Does this mean we should change other principals? Personally I don't, and I'm not going to labour my point because I've said my piece already. Others are free to make thier own interpretations etc.

Just treated myself with a Christmas present, a book by one of my fav authors ( a romanian philosopher ). It's title is Jesus's Parables and the preface says:

"There are questions which can be answered promptly and appropriate. From those of current experience (what number you wear shoes?) To those of scientific expertise (What is gravity?). There are also questions those of early childhood, which seem simple, or surreal, but whose answer calls rather metaphysical talent or imagination: Why does hand five fingers?, Who invented sleep? There are, finally, the questions "big" questions ultimatum, which I like to call "Russian" for doing the dostoievskyan substance of many sleepless nights: What is happiness?, Why does evil exist?, What is the meaning of life?
For such questions, you can not propose a geometric response, but an analogy, a metaphor, a transfigured "detour" . It is the most appropriate solution. Only. Instead of saying, scholar "how things look", saying: "Let's just tell you a story."
In this book will be about the stories told by Jesus in his effort to familiarize others with the metabolism of His kingdom. Task which he assumes is impossible, so is the extent of his divinity:'s talking about unevident things, having to offer help, without falling into the recipe and abuse of doctrine, and has to give not only matter for reflection, but also motivation of life and existential support."


( Now I reckon our mutual friend Ioan will be again smirking at the thought of my absurd examples :laugh :) .

It makes me think that we should look behind the “stories” from the Bible, some of them reflects realities of that time, some of them reflects things that happen on spiritual-divine level that people of that time couldn’t explain.

Coming back to the power of example ( just to annoy Ioan…. ) , let’s just take the common prayer “Give us this day our daily bread” . I’m sure the sense is of a spiritual bread not the material bread as Jesus hasn’t come to feed people.

[schmenke]

The Bible is a book. ....

That’s an oversimplification. The scripture of the Bible is a recount of the history of how Christianity came to be. This scripture has been revised over the years to benefit the supremacy of the church at any given time. This has resulted in the multiple versions of the Bible we see today.
There is nothing stopping a church from revising yet again :mark: .

[schmenke]

...Let's see who dares to change the Koran....

As I understand it the text in the Q’ran has always been the original scripture as transcribed by Muhammad. In fact, Islam forbids any edits or modifications to the text. Thus it is far more a “pure” holy scripture than the Christian bible.

Sorry… off topic here.

[race aficionado]

Speaking about interpreting the bible correctly:

:)

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/21/qu6yzara.jpg

[BDunnell]

Good for you but once again I come and ask why are you so angry on church regarding same sex mariages? What's the need of the blessing of a meaningless authority?

Because the church is preventing people from having equal rights. Quite a big thing, in my book.

[BDunnell]

As an individual, you should be able to refuse entry to whoever you wish. This is where I don't quite follow the decrimination aspect.

Forcing the issue will only result in resentment by those have been forced, against their wishes, to allow all and sundry entry to their establishment.

You wouldn't allow Mr Tattoo and his mates, pierced beyond belief looking like a meccano set was glued to their face clutching cans of Special Brew in, would you?

Yes I would. If I ran a B&B I'd want to be a welcoming host to all, so long as they didn't cause damage, disturbance or so forth. Why would you run a B&B and decide to only be welcoming to a certain group of people? You shouldn't be in the business if that's the case.

[BDunnell]

I know you've said this sarcastically, but its not a comparison. How would you know who votes for who? Would you ask them on their way in?!

The fact of it being said sarcastically indicates that, quite clearly, I don't have a serious answer.

You may as well say the same of a gay couple. How would you know that two men booking in to your establishment and sharing a room were gay? Would you ask them on their way in?

[gadjo_dilo]

Because the church is preventing people from having equal rights. Quite a big thing, in my book.
So you don't believe in God but care about his institutions.

Anyway I'm laughing in my beard ( just a saying....) thinking of the wedding service in the orthodox christian church.
It's destinated to hetero people but contains a lot of advice like "the woman should fear of her man", "the woman should be obedient to man because man is woman's head ", etc.
Wouldn't you say that the church is discriminating women?

However I've noticed that all brides don't care about it and are glowing of joy.....

[Bezza]

The fact of it being said sarcastically indicates that, quite clearly, I don't have a serious answer.

You may as well say the same of a gay couple. How would you know that two men booking in to your establishment and sharing a room were gay? Would you ask them on their way in?

I agree with you on this! If they had specifically asked for a double-bed then that would be a clue...but I'm not against any of this. They can do what they want and a hotel shouldn't be discriminating on these grounds.

[SGWilko]

I agree with you on this! If they had specifically asked for a double-bed then that would be a clue...but I'm not against any of this. They can do what they want and a hotel shouldn't be discriminating on these grounds.

And this brings us back to comment a few pages back - as in you don't look at couples in the street and wonder what they get up to in bed.

Certainly, you would not turn away decent folk, gay, straight, muslim etc. But you should be able to turn away those you have good reason to consider might cause trouble/damage without them pulling the descrimination card.......

[BDunnell]

And this brings us back to comment a few pages back - as in you don't look at couples in the street and wonder what they get up to in bed.

Certainly, you would not turn away decent folk, gay, straight, muslim etc. But you should be able to turn away those you have good reason to consider might cause trouble/damage without them pulling the descrimination card.......

Their sexuality is no 'good reason', though, is it? And, if you were to turn people away on that basis, what is it other than discrimination?

[ioan]

As for you: same stupid attitude as if anybody who don't share your opinion is a knobhead.

For once you've got it right. This must be the end of the world! :laugh:

[ioan]

Those who never invited mates in their home used to have something to hide. :laugh:
Usually a wellfare hard to be explained on those times. :D

Yeah we were extremely rich and we even had bananas, oranges and pepsi for Christmas! Can you even imagine that?

[ioan]

I see where you are coming from, and understand the principal.

However, the Bible advocates stoning etc, and I don't really think we should continue doing that. Adjust punishments accordingly.

Does this mean we should change other principals? Personally I don't, and I'm not going to labour my point because I've said my piece already. Others are free to make thier own interpretations etc.

Just burn it and be done with it! :D ;)

[ioan]

Just treated myself with a Christmas present, a book by one of my fav authors ( a romanian philosopher ). It's title is Jesus's Parables and the preface says:

"There are questions which can be answered promptly and appropriate. From those of current experience (what number you wear shoes?) To those of scientific expertise (What is gravity?). There are also questions those of early childhood, which seem simple, or surreal, but whose answer calls rather metaphysical talent or imagination: Why does hand five fingers?, Who invented sleep? There are, finally, the questions "big" questions ultimatum, which I like to call "Russian" for doing the dostoievskyan substance of many sleepless nights: What is happiness?, Why does evil exist?, What is the meaning of life?
For such questions, you can not propose a geometric response, but an analogy, a metaphor, a transfigured "detour" . It is the most appropriate solution. Only. Instead of saying, scholar "how things look", saying: "Let's just tell you a story."
In this book will be about the stories told by Jesus in his effort to familiarize others with the metabolism of His kingdom. Task which he assumes is impossible, so is the extent of his divinity:'s talking about unevident things, having to offer help, without falling into the recipe and abuse of doctrine, and has to give not only matter for reflection, but also motivation of life and existential support."


( Now I reckon our mutual friend Ioan will be again smirking at the thought of my absurd examples :laugh :) .

It makes me think that we should look behind the “stories” from the Bible, some of them reflects realities of that time, some of them reflects things that happen on spiritual-divine level that people of that time couldn’t explain.

Coming back to the power of example ( just to annoy Ioan…. ) , let’s just take the common prayer “Give us this day our daily bread” . I’m sure the sense is of a spiritual bread not the material bread as Jesus hasn’t come to feed people.

Believe me, I have found the answers to all those questions because life is very simple as long as you do not over-complicate it yourself.
And BTW I buy my own bread, no need to pray to get it.
In the end it is just a matter of mindset.

I don't have time and patience to read the debate above.

[SGWilko]

Their sexuality is no 'good reason', though, is it? And, if you were to turn people away on that basis, what is it other than discrimination?

But should their behaviour give you reason it could adversely impact on other guests, then it is not discriminating to turn them away.

I'd fully expect them to use the discrimination card though......

[BleAivano]

IMO the whole marriage thing needs to change.

If I could decide, all couple (regardless of being of same or opposite sex) would first have to do a very short
civil/legal process at a courtor a city hall or something. Then every couple could have a ceremony of their like.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yeah we were extremely rich and we even had bananas, oranges and pepsi for Christmas! Can you even imagine that?

Nonsense! Everybody could afford those on condition to have enough time to waste on queues and enough luck to be in the right store at the right time.

The real symbols of wealth on those times were:
- the freezer ( symbolizing you have too much food to store it in a simple fridge )
- the color TV ( very expensive and hard to get )
- the videoplayer ( only sent by a relative/friend from abroad, otherwise absent in our shops )

But on the countryside where you lived....

O tempora, o mores.....



Good God....And I wanted to be good with you esp. today. LMA again and forgive me.

[Anubis]

But should their behaviour give you reason it could adversely impact on other guests, then it is not discriminating to turn them away.

I'd fully expect them to use the discrimination card though......

Turning someone away because of what you think they might do is discriminatory. Asking people to leave because of what they have done is not. I don't see how sexuality can be the basis for any sort of snap judgement on what behaviour may or may not occur?

[BDunnell]

Turning someone away because of what you think they might do is discriminatory. Asking people to leave because of what they have done is not. I don't see how sexuality can be the basis for any sort of snap judgement on what behaviour may or may not occur?

And who in their right mind would care about what happens in a bedroom in private?

[gadjo_dilo]

And who in their right mind would care about what happens in a bedroom in private?

Good question. Always wanted to know why so many people ( usually men :devil :) are interested in porn magazines and movies.

[SGWilko]

Turning someone away because of what you think they might do is discriminatory. Asking people to leave because of what they have done is not. I don't see how sexuality can be the basis for any sort of snap judgement on what behaviour may or may not occur?

"But should their behaviour" was a key element in my post I think.......

[gadjo_dilo]

Do these 'men' view such things in public where you are from then? .
Generally not but they boast themselves in public with viewing such things.


Even the material you talk about is viewed in private in most places in the world.
Public(hate this word)/private - I don't care, I want to see where the interest to view such things comes from. :laugh:

[SGWilko]

I want to see where the interest to view such things comes from. :laugh:

Probably (if you are religious) for the same reason the apple was taken from the tree despite being forbidden.

Maybe a better question in respect of pornography, is why there are so many willing participants? Wouldn't be money perchance would it? Many a page 3 girl has done so to earn a bob or two......

[SGWilko]

I'm sure at some point we've all had a go at making our own at some point :p

Well, I tried it, but I had to give it up as it made my eyes water....... ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

I think its generally a natural urge for a man and some women obviously.

Coming back to where I started from: Couldn't be this natural urge the reason why someone "would care about what happens in a bedroom in private"?



Maybe you should look at some yourself and see if it unlocks your inner lustful fire lol.
Since I decided that starting from today I'll be a different ( better? ) person, I shall pretend I haven't seen this and refrain from giving you the acrid reply you deserve.

[gadjo_dilo]

I can't see how it relates to gay marriage though..
In my opinion it relates with BDunnels post "And who in their right mind would care about what happens in a bedroom in private? "



I didn't mean to offend, I'm sorry.
You misunderstood me. I have a thick cheek and I can't be easily offened. But I'm afraid I'm the one offending the others so I'll try to control my words ( don't know if I'll succeed though...) :laugh:

[SGWilko]

there are many straight couples who engage in activities some would find disturbing.

Quite - would you want your guests to wake up with your establishment crawling with the fuzz, having discovered one such guest suspended from the toilet door with an orange in their cake hole, a makeshift noose round their neck and gawd knows what up where the 'sun don't shine'? ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

I just assumed I had offended you if I deserved a harsh or 'acrid' reply to my previous comments :)
I wasn't offended but I'm afraid your intention was to. :laugh:

[Knock-on]

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/ded/b30/2c8/resized/glassestwilight-meme-generator-this-thread-needs-a-psychologist-7dfec8.png?1325187531.jpg

[gadjo_dilo]

.....so think twice whenever you start a thread. :laugh:

[SGWilko]

.....so think twice whenever you start a thread. :laugh:

It takes two to tango you know.......

[gadjo_dilo]

It takes two to tango you know.......

But as my fav song says:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT3j3lXp5bg


:devil:

[BDunnell]

Public(hate this word)/private - I don't care, I want to see where the interest to view such things comes from. :laugh:

This is a totally different issue, surely?

[BDunnell]

Since I decided that starting from today I'll be a different ( better? ) person, I shall pretend I haven't seen this and refrain from giving you the acrid reply you deserve.

I don't believe the comment deserves an 'acrid' reply at all. If you're curious to see why some people are into porn, surely the best way to find out whether you can understand this enthusiasm is, quite genuinely, to have a look at some yourself?

[BDunnell]

In my opinion it relates with BDunnels post "And who in their right mind would care about what happens in a bedroom in private? "

In my opinion it doesn't. Would you consider it acceptable to ban a couple from your hotel if they liked porn?

[SGWilko]

In my opinion it doesn't. Would you consider it acceptable to ban a couple from your hotel if they liked porn?

If they had it blaring out, disturbing other guests, then yes - absolutely.

[BDunnell]

If they had it blaring out, disturbing other guests, then yes - absolutely.

But banning people who have actually done something to cause a disturbance is totally different from saying it's OK to ban people from your establishment on the basis of their sexuality.

[gadjo_dilo]

In my opinion it doesn't. Would you consider it acceptable to ban a couple from your hotel if they liked porn?


This is a totally different issue, surely?

I don't know. I'm totally confused now. I'll wait to finish work and then go to find a shrink.

[gadjo_dilo]

I think his argument is people shouldn't judge someone's sexuality by imagining what they get up to and I happen to agree with that. You shouldn't be disgusted by somebody because of an assumption IMO. What people do in private is up to them and there are many straight couples who engage in activities some would find disturbing. I just think its double standards to judge in advance on such matters.


Long time ago I rented my aunt’s apartment to 2 guys. I was in a terrible need of money and very naive. Didn’t think the couple was a bit weird: one was in his midforties and kinda gypsy, the other was very young and a poor jobless moldovan and they had to share a matrimonial bed. None of them had a Bucharest ID and the older had a questionable job outside the city. After a few weeks the older started to come to my house complaining that his roommate is flirting with girls. After 3 months I threw them out of my house but still didn’t think they were a couple. The thought came a few years ago when I remembered the episode and how I grabbed the moldovan by the collar and pushed him downstairs.

[Knock-on]

I can honestly say I haven't got a clue what point you are trying to make. :confused:

What has porn got to do with marriage and your assault on a Lodger got to do with your opinion?

I really am struggleing.

[gadjo_dilo]

If they were a well behaved gay couple who paid their rent on time and gave you no aggro, would you have thrown them out based on their sexuality? Just trying the gage how this relates to gay couples and opinions based on their preferences that's all.
I wanted to underline that never thought they were gay ( and who knows, maybe they really weren't) and I gave them a chance even one of them was gypsy. I throw them out because of other reasons.
You and Knock on may believe whatever you want.

[gadjo_dilo]

I can honestly say I haven't got a clue what point you are trying to make. :confused:

What has porn got to do with marriage and your assault on a Lodger got to do with your opinion?

I really am struggleing.

Forget it. Don't bother anymore to understand.

[BDunnell]

I wanted to underline that never thought they were gay ( and who knows, maybe they really weren't) and I gave them a chance even one of them was gypsy. I throw them out because of other reasons.
You and Knock on may believe whatever you want.

I genuinely don't understand the relevance either, I must say. I'm all for going off topic, but this really does seem like a bit of a stretch.

[gadjo_dilo]

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm asked to split the thread into quaters too much. I simply can't.
Forget what I said. It's really irrelevant and pointless.
Hurray and see you at the railway station.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I can imagine how you feel right now, gadjo. Don't know the reason but sense the vibe. In such cases I down a double whisky and a beer or two.

[gadjo_dilo]

Unfortunately I can't. I'm still at work and drinking is not a solution anyway.

But thanks for understanding my feelings.

[Anubis]

"But should their behaviour" was a key element in my post I think.......

If people are turned away away before having the opportunity to check in, their behaviour is as yet unknown, so can't be the basis for a judgement.


And who in their right mind would care about what happens in a bedroom in private?

I was using "behaviour" in a wider sense than just sexual activity. You are correct that what guests do in the bedroom should be no concern of the proprietor as long as there's no indication anything illegal is occurring.