Same Sex Marriage [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 12:37

The issue is simple. Objections to same-sex marriage are all theoretical. Allowing it would do no practical damage whatsoever. I believe laws should be made or opposed on the basis of their potential practical effect. Therefore, there can be no reasonable argument against same-sex marriage. It isn't, as some suggest, a complicated issue at all, unless one chooses to view it through the prism of outdated beliefs. And, no matter what some might try to say, opposition to same-sex marriage has its basis firmly in homophobic attitudes; what other term can be applied to a belief that homosexuals are in some way not worthy of being married in church?

Furthermore, it is, as ever, interesting that those on the right who are normally in favour of 'freedom' only want it according to their own narrow definition. In this instance, they believe that some 'freedoms' override others. If they truly believed in the concept, they would have no objection to same-sex marriage.

Dave B

11th December 2012, 12:56

I can't remember who said it first, but the advice to anybody who objects to a same sex marriage is not to marry somebody of the same sex. Problem solved!

What I don't understand is the notion bandied around that allowing gay marriage would somehow devalue it for the rest of us. I'm in a happy heterosexual marriage but I wouldn't suddenly feel threatened if homosexuals had the same rights, that's a very strange idea. Furthermore I don't get the idea that gays are somehow bringing down the sanctity of marriage. Yeeeess, whereas (say) Katie Price is really showing us the way.

Most of the objections to gay marriage come from people who take a work of fiction seriously and believe in magic sky fairies. Their views really shouldn't be taken seriously. I was at a wedding earlier this year and the priest began by telling us "in this church we believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman" before launching into a thunderous diatribe which ended with his face turning purple. At this point all I could think was "you're wearing a dress", but I let it go...

Knock-on

11th December 2012, 13:27

Finally!!!! I worried that Christmas is coming and yet nobody has started a controversial debate about God/religion/church. :laugh:

Interesting it was started by the guy who claimed that last night would drink some pints.....

There you go. The power of Kronenberg!! :beer:

It's a very controversial debate in the UK because it's being debated and the Law changed to facilitate same sex Marriage rather than a Civil Partnership which we currently have. Civil Partnership offers the same rights as Civil Marriage.

However, the problem is that it is illegal to have any sort of Religious readings, signs or music in Civil Partnership services. The debate is to allow Civil Marriage which can take place anywhere including in Church.

Now, in theory, Churches can 'opt out' of offering the service but I think it's hypocritical tht two people of opposite sex with no religious beliefs whatsoever can quite happily get Married in Church with the Clergy's blessing but two practicing Christians of the same sex cannot.

I also find it contentious that the Church is getting all high and mighty about one religious Law that some argue is ambigious to start with but freely ignores or revokes hundreds of others. If all these Laws were implemented, it whould make Shari Law look like the Peace and Love movement.

On the other hand, organisations like the Church of England should be allowed to practice their beliefs as they see fit as long as their docterine doesn't hurt anyone. It should be a matter of personal belief and not legislation if they allow their members of the same sex to join in Matrimony within their Church. If you turn up at a Hotel and are turned away because of your sexuality, then you have activly discriminated against someone but if you 'choose' to get Married in a Church that deems your request is against it's beliefs, then should they be made to change their beliefs?

Some Churches are happy to allow same sex Marriage within their religion. Quakers I believe will be holding the services. Is that enough or should the other faiths be forced to change their religious views. I know that at the moment organisations can opt out but that wont last long and eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

gadjo_dilo

11th December 2012, 13:33

I don't have time and patience to read the debate above.
I'll never understand the sense of these marriages and I'm too bored and tired to say why.

Knock-on

11th December 2012, 13:34

Do us a favour and don't post here then :z

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 13:41

However, the problem is that it is illegal to have any sort of Religious readings, signs or music in Civil Partnership services.

Is it really illegal? I mean, if two people having a civil partnership ceremony particularly wanted a hymn to be played, I very much doubt a prosecution would ever be brought; nor would any sensible authority object.

Now, in theory, Churches can 'opt out' of offering the service but I think it's hypocritical tht two people of opposite sex with no religious beliefs whatsoever can quite happily get Married in Church with the Clergy's blessing but two practicing Christians of the same sex cannot.

You are right. It is absurd.

I also find it contentious that the Church is getting all high and mighty about one religious Law that some argue is ambigious to start with but freely ignores or revokes hundreds of others. If all these Laws were implemented, it whould make Shari Law look like the Peace and Love movement.

Again, a very good point. Why is this? In my view, underlying homophobia.

On the other hand, organisations like the Church of England should be allowed to practice their beliefs as they see fit as long as their docterine doesn't hurt anyone. It should be a matter of personal belief and not legislation if they allow their members of the same sex to join in Matrimony within their Church.

They should, and it should, but it is very strange that one church could go from a place where same-sex marriages are, in effect, prohibited to one where they can happen merely on the basis of a change of vicar.

Some Churches are happy to allow same sex Marriage within their religion. Quakers I believe will be holding the services. Is that enough or should the other faiths be forced to change their religious views. I know that at the moment organisations can opt out but that wont last long and eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

If religions are sensible, they will wake up and see how, in this instance, the world has changed. But I fear they're not.

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 13:42

I don't have time and patience to read the debate above.
I'll never understand the sense of these marriages and I'm too bored and tired to say why.

Why bother posting that?

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 13:58

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 14:01

So?

Are you 'all' for hypocrisy then?

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 14:10

Are you 'all' for hypocrisy then?

What's that supposed to mean?

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 14:11

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

Ah, yes, let's forget about the fact that it may be nice to let same-sex couples who love each other just as much as any opposite-sex couple have the same right to marry.

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 14:12

Why bother posting that?

To get a response probably - and it appears to have worked.......

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 14:15

Ah, yes, let's forget about the fact that it may be nice to let same-sex couples who love each other just as much as any opposite-sex couple have the same right to marry.

Oh, I'm sure it is nice, Stan.

We'll all be off to join the Judean Peoples Front next, eh, Loretta.....

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 14:16

What's that supposed to mean?

Whatever you would like it to mean.......

gadjo_dilo

11th December 2012, 14:21

Why bother posting that?

Honestly?
1. As a protest. Because I bet all of you support them and the thread has become boring.
2. sometimes I like to step on somebody else'e callus toes ( don't take this literally, it's a local saying meaning an attempt to iritate the others )

Mea culpa!!!!!

Big Ben

11th December 2012, 14:46

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

And the countries where gay is beautiful are the ones that need population control

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 14:49

And the countries where gay is beautiful are the ones that need population control

Must be those torrid heterosexuals up to no good again........

Big Ben

11th December 2012, 14:51

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Just_Cuz_19.gif

SGWilko

11th December 2012, 15:00

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Just_Cuz_19.gif

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w385/sgwilko/Stuff/GetYou.jpg

Knock-on

11th December 2012, 15:12

Honestly?
1. As a protest. Because I bet all of you support them and the thread has become boring.

Who's 'them? The threads only been going a couple of hours. You have a low boredom threashold :)

2. sometimes I like to step on somebody else'e callus toes ( don't take this literally, it's a local saying meaning an attempt to iritate the others )

Mea culpa!!!!!

So, you have no opinion on the thread content and are just trying to derail it. Hmmmmm.

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 15:35

So, you have no opinion on the thread content and are just trying to derail it. Hmmmmm.

Doesn't seem like the only one, either.

schmenke

11th December 2012, 17:51

...eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

Agreed.

Around here at least legislation cannot dictate religious beliefs or customs, unless their practices are in direct conflict with statutes affecting personal and public safety.
A church is not a legal body in Canada. A marriage in a church is simply a ceremony recognising a union under the parameters of that particular religion. A marriage must be notarized by the government for it to be considered a legal union, affording all the applicable benefits, regardless of faith or gender.

ioan

11th December 2012, 19:07

If two people want to get married I see no reason why it has to be limited to people of opposite sex only.
As for the part about getting married in a church I can somehow understand why the church and some of it's supporters are against religious marriage of homosexuals, what I absolutely can't understand is why anyone would want to get married in a church or other religious establishment.
By now everyone must have understood that I am very much against religion. ;)

Regarding homosexual marriages I never understood the uproar about it, then again I have already been invited to a gay marriage last year and it was just like any other marriage, up to the point when the official told them: 'You may kiss the bride!'

Rollo

11th December 2012, 19:11

I in principle want to know what the point of, ie what the utility of marriage actually is. What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Once you answer those questions, the two general ideas that law itself should be either descriptive or prescriptive should come into view.

Personally I think that in the vast majority of cases, people don't care and that the state itself doesn't care about how people live their lives, so whether the law needs to be changed in any direction on this subject, entirely depends on social attitudes and more importantly, consequences arising from disputes to do with estates.

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 19:12

As for the part about getting married in a church I can somehow understand why the church and some of it's supporters are against religious marriage of homosexuals, what I absolutely can't understand is why anyone would want to get married in a church or other religious establishment.

Because they're much nicer buildings than many town halls or registry offices.

Knock-on

11th December 2012, 19:20

Agreed.

Around here at least legislation cannot dictate religious beliefs or customs, unless their practices are in direct conflict with statutes affecting personal and public safety.
A church is not a legal body in Canada. A marriage in a church is simply a ceremony recognising a union under the parameters of that particular religion. A marriage must be notarized by the government for it to be considered a legal union, affording all the applicable benefits, regardless of faith or gender.

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can.

With the question of same sex marriage, I agree. I dont hold religious beliefs but recognise it's up to individuals whether they choose to follow a religion as long as said religion doesn't hurt anyone. However, I don't think it's up to Government to interfere with peoples beliefs.

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

As I said at the beginning, I'm undecided and probably will remain so. On one hand we have a group of people that are being treated different to the rest of the population but to force a change, then another group of people will have to suffer the intrusion of Government in their hitherto legal religious practices thus curtailing their rights.

It would be nice if the Church would look at this differently and modify itself to encompass a world that has changed in the last few thousand years. They're quick enough to do it when it suits them. Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have worked on a Sunday or taken a day off other than Sunday? How many Churches have Angels or pictures of God? Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 19:27

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can.

With the question of same sex marriage, I agree. I dont hold religious beliefs but recognise it's up to individuals whether they choose to follow a religion as long as said religion doesn't hurt anyone. However, I don't think it's up to Government to interfere with peoples beliefs.

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

As I said at the beginning, I'm undecided and probably will remain so. On one hand we have a group of people that are being treated different to the rest of the population but to force a change, then another group of people will have to suffer the intrusion of Government in their hitherto legal religious practices thus curtailing their rights.

It would be nice if the Church would look at this differently and modify itself to encompass a world that has changed in the last few thousand years. They're quick enough to do it when it suits them. Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have worked on a Sunday or taken a day off other than Sunday? How many Churches have Angels or pictures of God? Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

I think you're addressing this topic very sensibly and thoughtfully, if I may say so. Reconciling the desire to maintain freedom of religion while at the same time not discriminating on the basis of sexuality is extremely difficult, but I would always argue that the most desirable outcome is to allow all their freedoms within the law, and the only way of achieving that is to permit same-sex marriage.

schmenke

11th December 2012, 20:14

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can....

A couple can be “legally” wed in a church as an ordained cleric typically has authorization to notarize the union. However, the marriage is not legal until the paperwork (identical for all marriages) is filed and submitted to the government. This is usually done, for a small fee of course, by the cleric soon after the wedding.

Mrs. schmenke and I were married in a friend’s garden by a non-denominational minister, who happened to be a woman :)

Big Ben

11th December 2012, 21:32

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

Obviously... like it says in the Bible... love thy gay. I like the way sexual deviations are put at the same level as race, gender or religion.

Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have..... taken a day off other than Sunday?

Didn't even know it was forbidden to take a day off other than Sunday.

donKey jote

11th December 2012, 21:40

Mrs. schmenke and I were married in a friend’s garden by a non-denominational minister, who happened to be a woman :)
ahh... so you remain unmarried in the eyes of some non-demoninational god ! :)

Rollo

11th December 2012, 21:41

Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

The thing is though, that the act of marriage itself, rests within 2 of those:
You shall not commit adultery. and
You shall not steal.

Again I ask the same two questions as before: What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Is marriage therefore merely the legal ringfencing to enforce the relationship of those two biblical commandments as far as the church is concerned? And since adultery itself is sex between someone who is married and someone outside that legal ringfencing, should that imply a very very more stringent degree of personal morality by the people who've voluntarily entered into that contract?

Really, this whole debate opens a lot of questions the further down the rabbit hole you go; and to places and issues that society really doesn't want to take responsibility for.

BDunnell

11th December 2012, 23:53

Our friends who were married in a church suddenly got quite religious in the run up to their weddings and went to mass once or twice. They've since admitted it was all for the venue but the church don't care because they make money from it.

Nor do I especially care about that, since there are many very worthy church activities towards which the money goes, to say nothing of the contribution made towards maintenance of some very historic buildings.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 00:01

The thing is though, that the act of marriage itself, rests within 2 of those:
You shall not commit adultery. and
You shall not steal.

Again I ask the same two questions as before: What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Is marriage therefore merely the legal ringfencing to enforce the relationship of those two biblical commandments as far as the church is concerned? And since adultery itself is sex between someone who is married and someone outside that legal ringfencing, should that imply a very very more stringent degree of personal morality by the people who've voluntarily entered into that contract?

Really, this whole debate opens a lot of questions the further down the rabbit hole you go; and to places and issues that society really doesn't want to take responsibility for.

As I said, I don't believe it is an issue that needs to be considered too deeply. Clearly, marriage is not seen by the majority of people — given the increasingly secular nature of society — as being merely the legal enforcement of the Biblical commandments. I would suggest that most who enter into it would view it rather more vaguely — for instance, as an affirmation of love between the individuals concerned. This ought not to matter a jot.

Mark

12th December 2012, 09:25

gadjo_dilo

12th December 2012, 09:32

It's interesting to find out who the closet bigots are. Like at work people who you thought we're a bit stupid are saying they can't see any problem and others you thought were cool are saying it shouldn't be allowed as it's not natural etc.
It's interesting to find out a new criteria to label people as stupid, cool, bigot, etc.
Sort of "who isn't with us is against us"....

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 09:44

Big Ben

12th December 2012, 09:44

All I understand is that I am a cool guy :laugh:

I don't really care about gay people. I know I'm never going to convince anyone of anything so I'm pretty sure I can't ungay anyone. It's their problem and all I want is to be left alone. I do resent the aggressive ones... like the gay pride people who feel the need to stick their gayness in my face. Seeing a bunch of gays riding bikes naked through the streets of Barcelona didn't enlighten me one bit. The same goes for forcing their way into the church.

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 10:08

It's interesting to find out who the closet bigots are. Like at work people who you thought we're a bit stupid are saying they can't see any problem and others you thought were cool are saying it shouldn't be allowed as it's not natural etc.

There is plenty in this world that is not natural - genetic modification etc.

Most homosexual males that I have come across are very non 'in your face' about their sexuality. It is the minority that shove it down folk's throats (bad choice) that spread much ill will.

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 10:16

Knock-on

12th December 2012, 10:44

The thing is though, that the act of marriage itself, rests within 2 of those:
You shall not commit adultery. and
You shall not steal.

OK, do you want a legal or religious opinion?

If we're talking about Religion, and I mean the whole Christ, Bible, Christian thing as that's the one I'm more familiar with, then Adultery is quite simple.

It is the act of sexual relations between a man and a woman where one or both are within wedlock. Funnily enough, this means that a gay or lesbian relationship can never be committing Adultery.

Of course, that is the modern interpretation. If we use Jesus's words as recorded in the Bible (Matthew) then Adultery is committed if you look at a Married woman with desire or lustfull thoughts. The punishment for such crime is death. Hmmmmmmm. I would have been stoned, and not in a pleasant way, with the thoughts I had for half my mates mums when I was at School. No hope for me.

Talking bout Jews, can you tell me about David. Don't they all descend from David and are therefore the fruit of Adultery. If we followed the bible, then Jews wouldn't exist. So, if a Jew objects to something like Same Sex marriage on Religious Law grounds, you mght like to remind them to stock up on half bricks for themselves and everyone involved with their religion first.

Seems to me, the only ones that have stuck more or less to these teachings are the Muslims. Mind you, they think the Jesus bloke was a Prophet which has always struck me as a bit more realistic. However, because we think that followers of the Koran are a bunch of extremists, and not in touch with our enlightened 21st Century lifestyle, we convienently dismiss them as a bunch of nutters when in fact, they are the ones upholding the laws of Christ etc.

Again I ask the same two questions as before: What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Is marriage therefore merely the legal ringfencing to enforce the relationship of those two biblical commandments as far as the church is concerned? And since adultery itself is sex between someone who is married and someone outside that legal ringfencing, should that imply a very very more stringent degree of personal morality by the people who've voluntarily entered into that contract?

Really, this whole debate opens a lot of questions the further down the rabbit hole you go; and to places and issues that society really doesn't want to take responsibility for.

It depends what context you see Marriage as I suppose. Legal or Religious.

For some it is the religious union before friends, family and God and for the right to bear offspring. For others it is a legal contract containing rights of property, title and deeds sanctified by the state.

For the rest of us it's probably something in between.

There are lots of interpreataions and trying to define something as individual with a single definition is impossible. It's a bit like saying what makes someone beautiful or what is the best colour.

Knock-on

12th December 2012, 11:00

My experience is the same. I have gay friends and my brother in law is gay and none of these people shove it your face in order to shock you or brag about their sexuality.

The ironic thing is I have met more Christians who have shoved their religion in my face when it is not welcome. The fact gay people are judged and condemned by narrow minded standards stemming from values written in a time that has very little relation to present day issues is quite astounding. I have no problem with people who are religious but when it starts conflicting with my life and forcing bigoted views on me, then it becomes a problem.

I'm so much with you on that one mate.

I've never had someone that's Gay try to turn me into a raving bender with their overt Homosexuality as some on here seem to suggest but I have seen many examples of straight people talking down to gay and lesbians like they have some sort of illness. The attitude is that they're just not trying hard enough to be straight :laugh:

As Eddie said, "I don't mind homophobics.... as long as they do it behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone" :D

As for religious idiots that think I'm unenlightened and just haven't got it yet. Sorry, I have. Your welcome to your beliefs and I'm happy with mine. I have managed 43 years on this planet and know all about your new fangled religion. I probably know more about it and it's origins than you do but you don't like talking about that because it's not convienant, fluffy and fitting with your marsh mellow view of reality. And then you threaten me with going to Hell!!! :laugh: That's a bit like me threatening you that you'll go to Mordor when you die. It's fantasy :D

Bezza

12th December 2012, 12:28

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 12:44

Most homosexual males that I have come across are very non 'in your face' about their sexuality.

Hardly a revelation, or even a surprise, to most.

Bezza

12th December 2012, 12:49

I'm going to throw a question out here, and please BDunnell or anybody else don't take this badly as I genuinely would like to know your thoughts on this:

Q1) Sodomy. Do you believe this to be a natural act in the modern era?

Q2) Do you believe it is natural for heterosexuals to engage in sodomy as well?

Mark, feel free to let me know that this is too far, but I would like to know what people think of this.

It sounds direct - but I'm not trying to be imflammatory. Just to clarify it, my answer for both questions is Yes, within a committed relationship.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 12:51

I don’t know the Bible cover to cover – I am not a Christian myself. However, I’m fairly sure gay marriage contradicts certain elements of it, without getting into too much detail – I’m sure you can imagine what I’m talking about.

Therefore, I don’t see why anybody could complain if a Church decided it would not allow them to marry in their Church based on religious reasons. Absolutely no argument really.

I don’t honestly see what the problem is with the civil partnerships we have now? That has worked well for a number of years now, and is as legally binding as marriage is.

Part of this I’m sure is a minority of people, who are far-left minded, kicking up a fuss realistically about nothing. I can imagine 95% of homosexual men and women don’t care and are happy with the way it currently is.

There's a lot of rubbish in this post. You admit you don't know the Bible, yet you're still happy in public to say you're 'fairly sure gay marriage contradicts certain elements of it'. Hardly an expert opinion. And why does this matter? Why do you care? Then, 'I can imagine 95% of homosexual men and women don’t care'. 95%? How on earth do you arrive at that figure? As for your comment about the 'far left' — honestly, this is absurd. People of the 'far left' like David Cameron, for example?

I reckon you need to have a think about the basis of your objections. Let's face it, it's not the religious aspect, is it? After all, it's not as if you seem to have given this aspect of the matter very much thought, beyond 'I think it's what the bible says'.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 12:54

I'm going to throw a question out here, and please BDunnell or anybody else don't take this badly as I genuinely would like to know your thoughts on this:

Q1) Sodomy. Do you believe this to be a natural act in the modern era?

Q2) Do you believe it is natural for heterosexuals to engage in sodomy as well?

Mark, feel free to let me know that this is too far, but I would like to know what people think of this.

Why do you care?

Just to clarify it, my answer for both questions is Yes, within a committed relationship.

Why should sodomy, as you so charmingly put it, be confined to 'committed relationships'? Why would you restrict one type of sexual activity to 'committed relationships'? I'm sure you wouldn't be of the view that all sex should be similarly confined.

Knock-on

12th December 2012, 13:12

I think Bezza should look up what Sodomy actually is ;) It might surprise him.

After all, is self love considered solo intercourse in which case he's been sodomising his fist :D

Sorry, probably too much info and only pulling your leg Bezza but Sodomy is any type of sexual intercourse not involving what is considered tradittional penis vagina penetration.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 13:33

Do you walk down the street and wonder what the people you pass get up to in their bedroom then? Even the heterosexual ones?

I couldn't care less what people get up as its none of my business and I certainly don't judge people on their appearance or what I think they should be doing. Being gay doesn't just stretch to sexual activities. Its mainly about being able to love who you are attracted to without bigots threatening you and asking silly questions about personal activities.

And here we have the nub of the matter relating to gay marriage, and indeed other laws past and present relating to homosexuality — that certain people in power, whether in politics or religions, wish to interfere in what people get up to in the bedroom.

Bezza

12th December 2012, 13:41

I know what sodomy is, Knock-On! Tough choice of word for me, I didn’t know which was best!

BDunnell, you really are too far sensitive. I’m asking a perfectly reasonable question which you’ve failed to answer – “why do you care” – a flippant remark the type of which you are becoming reknown for.

I am not afraid of asking uncomfortable questions. If you don’t like the word sodomy what you prefer I call it? Choose one, let me know what it is, and then please offer me your opinion.

Henners – I do walk down streets, correct. I don’t see a couple and wonder what happens, it’s just a basic question. A lot of people (not me) see that particular act (sodomy, whatever you prefer to call it!) as un-natural – as sex is there to reproduce, but doing it that way won’t work! Therefore I was interested in what people thought about it. In the modern age, times have changed. Sodomy used to be illegal (that definitely is too far!). Homosexuality isn’t just about sex, I agree, but part of it is, and that’s why I’m asking the question.

Feel free to answer the question gentlemen.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 13:49

BDunnell, you really are too far sensitive. I’m asking a perfectly reasonable question which you’ve failed to answer – “why do you care” – a flippant remark the type of which you are becoming reknown for.

'Known' or 'renowned', not 'reknown'. You went to university — you ought to be able to know the difference.

I'm not sensitive about this — rather, I'm irritated by your stance on it, which (for the reasons I gave) I think is utterly ill-developed.

I am not afraid of asking uncomfortable questions.

You may think your question is 'uncomfortable', but in reality it's just pointless and juvenile. Again, I ask, why do you care?

In The Pits

12th December 2012, 14:03

What surprises me about all this, and maybe I'm just getting old, is why these people would want to shout about it from the rooftops.

As for Mr Cameron, is he so desperate for votes?

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 14:16

What surprises me about all this, and maybe I'm just getting old, is why these people would want to shout about it from the rooftops.

What do you mean? Those advocating same-sex marriage? Those wanting to enter into a same-sex marriage?

As for Mr Cameron, is he so desperate for votes?

Perhaps, on this matter, he just believes in equality? I am no supporter of Cameron whatsoever, but while many things can be said about him, in no way is he a homophobe. Good on him for standing up to the dinosaurs in his party.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 14:17

Who wants to shout about what from the rooftops?

Or are you talking about Christians who knock on my door to give me leaflets, and try and stop me in the street to force their beliefs on me? Maybe I am young but I see more religion being shouted at from the 'rooftops' than homosexual rights.

Quite.

gadjo_dilo

12th December 2012, 14:47

I think opinions about sex in general have changed in the modern era and its just as acceptable (or becoming) as an act of love rather than purely for reproduction..
Since I'm already an old bigot dynosaur I dare to express my opinion that sex is a word that is more related to the animalic instinct than to love or reproduction.

I've been in relationships with girls (in the past before my wife obviously) ....
As if we don't know she's monitorizing your posts.....

Knock-on

12th December 2012, 15:08

I think we're getting to the root of the problem. It's not about same sex Marriage but about people being intolerant to Homosexuality.

The Church knows it has to change as it's views are outmoded and intolerant. It's a pity they don't adopt the same enthusium against Pedophile Priests as they do with people in Lawful relationships.

However, it's up to the Church and it's followers to adapt their religion rather than the Government and Legislation IMHO. I think if they don't change, they will continue to distance themselves from the mainstream population and diminish in size and status. Can't say I wont be sorry.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 15:14

I think we're getting to the root of the problem. It's not about same sex Marriage but about people being intolerant to Homosexuality.

Exactly. They may have tried to convince themselves they're not homophobic (see also 'I'm not racist — some of my best friends are black') but, in truth, they are. What other interpretation can there be?

It's a pity they don't adopt the same enthusium against Pedophile Priests as they do with people in Lawful relationships.

Well, one church in particular.

However, it's up to the Church and it's followers to adapt their religion rather than the Government and Legislation IMHO. I think if they don't change, they will continue to distance themselves from the mainstream population and diminish in sie and status. Can't say I wont be sorry.

The 2011 census figures published yesterday showed as much. Given the fact of Britain becoming a more secular society, something I think is a sign of progress rather than regression, it's rather rich for opponents of same-sex marriage to cite religion as a factor in alleged widespread support for their stance. It's even richer for someone, as seen in this very thread, to say they're not especially religious and then say that religion is a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. In fact, it's utterly disingenuous.

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 17:11

Hardly a revelation, or even a surprise, to most.

Why would it be? The point was that the minority give the (unfortunate) impression that then influence the masses.

For every 'religious nut' one may encounter, there are plenty of religious followers keeping their beliefs to themselves.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 17:15

Why would it be? The point was that the minority give the (unfortunate) impression that then influence the masses.

'Influence the masses'? Really?

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 17:22

I'm not sensitive about this — rather, I'm irritated by your stance on it, which (for the reasons I gave) I think is utterly ill-developed.

Ah - there it is then.

Your opinion is better than his, so he should go away, is that what you are saying?

SGWilko

12th December 2012, 17:22

'Influence the masses'? Really?

Well done!

Dave B

12th December 2012, 17:36

I don’t know the Bible cover to cover – I am not a Christian myself. However, I’m fairly sure gay marriage contradicts certain elements of it, without getting into too much detail – I’m sure you can imagine what I’m talking about.

Some people choose to take parts of the bible literally to justify their homophobia, but get all vague and say it's open to interpretation when the text appears to forbid something they actually like doing - even shaving a beard is a no-no if you take it literally, and working on a Sunday should apparently result in death yet most of the staff at my local B&Q seem to be coping alright. Most of them...

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 17:58

Ah - there it is then.

Your opinion is better than his, so he should go away, is that what you are saying?

Did I say 'better'? No. I said his view is ill-developed, which it is.

BDunnell

12th December 2012, 18:00

Well done!

So, in your view, 'the masses' are anti-gay as a result of encountering 'in your face' gay people? I don't think so. In any case, whose fault would this be?

ioan

12th December 2012, 18:36

I in principle want to know what the point of, ie what the utility of marriage actually is. What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?

Can't really answer that as I see no utility yet in getting married at this point in time. When the kids arrive there might be some reason but not before that.

ioan

12th December 2012, 18:40

Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have worked on a Sunday or taken a day off other than Sunday?

Not sure about Christians however most people in Israel have days off on Friday and Saturday, especially Friday evening to Saturday evening (Shabat) and they do all work on Sundays.

race aficionado

12th December 2012, 18:43

Same sex marriage?

A bit of advice: accept it, it is a fact and it is not going to go away.

Live with it (if you choose) or decide to make it a pet peeve that will probably make you age faster.

Just my two gay (as in happy) cents.

:s mokin:

ioan

12th December 2012, 18:48

ioan

12th December 2012, 18:51

Do you walk down the street and wonder what the people you pass get up to in their bedroom then? Even the heterosexual ones?

Well, I'll admit that walking past some women on the street I do wonder about what they do in their bedroom. Maybe it's just me who does this and I should feel ashamed about it?! ;)

Roamy

12th December 2012, 20:01

oh freaking great thread - Lets all do a daisy chain with a reach around at spa!!

gloomyDAY

12th December 2012, 20:04

This issue is tricky for the UK and religious organizations. I don't believe that the government should be able to dictate what you can and cannot do in terms of marriage within a place of worship. My opinion is that religious organizations are for-profit groups that are allowed to openly discriminate against various people, not just homosexuals. Therefore, I can see why the UK would give these religious establishments a big 'fudge you' and force the issue with same-sex marriage.

I'm not too sure as to why this is even an issue anymore. Most of the opposition to same-sex marriage I see here in the USA comes from Evangelical Christians and Catholics. I'm not too sure as to why religious establishments have such a perverse obsession with sex and speak out against the nature of homosexuals when: (1) Ted Haggard and various other Evangelical figureheads have been caught red-handed having gay sex, and (2) Catholic priests like to stick their weenies into little boys.

Religion has no right in making any kind of policy, especially 'moral' policy. Religion is inherently immoral.

Anubis

12th December 2012, 21:02

This issue is tricky for the UK and religious organizations. I don't believe that the government should be able to dictate what you can and cannot do in terms of marriage within a place of worship. My opinion is that religious organizations are for-profit groups that are allowed to openly discriminate against various people, not just homosexuals. Therefore, I can see why the UK would give these religious establishments a big 'fudge you' and force the issue with same-sex marriage.

I have no issue with religious organisations having a "right to refuse" to conduct gay ceremonies as long as they stop playing the discrimination card when (for example) businesses seek to enforce in house rules about overt religious symbols. If your private club is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of faith, any other club should likewise be allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they wish. Opens a huge can of worms, but there is no reason why faith should have elevated status in that regard.

Big Ben

12th December 2012, 21:03

Speaking of holes i liked the fart thread better

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 08:53

I have no issue with religious organisations having a "right to refuse" to conduct gay ceremonies as long as they stop playing the discrimination card when (for example) businesses seek to enforce in house rules about overt religious symbols. If your private club is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of faith, any other club should likewise be allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they wish. Opens a huge can of worms, but there is no reason why faith should have elevated status in that regard.

OK - consider a no jewelery policy (air stewardesses for example, so drunken oiks can't grab hold of necklaces etc) and the poor little darling moans that as it is a cross on her necklace, the company is descriminating on religious grounds..........

In The Pits

13th December 2012, 10:04

This topic is like the kings new clothes. No-one dared to say what they really think. [apart from that innocent of course].

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 10:13

Even if the orthodox church will ever admit such marriages ( which is quite imposible since orthodox means to follow dogmatically ), the ceremony would be a farce since all the service is a long incantation about man and woman and a prayer for blessing them with the "fruits of the womb".

Dave B

13th December 2012, 10:15

This topic is like the kings new clothes. No-one dared to say what they really think. [apart from that innocent of course].
Well it shouldn't be. If somebody holds homophobic views then that's their lookout and I defend their right to discuss it, provided they engage in constructive conversation and not simply hurling insults. I'm always fascinated to hear other opinions and the reasoning behind them.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 10:17

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 10:18

Well it shouldn't be. If somebody holds homophobic views then that's their lookout and I defend their right to discuss it, provided they engage in constructive conversation and not simply hurling insults. I'm always fascinated to hear other opinions and the reasoning behind them.

That's because you have an open mind, and have no desire to be either inflexible or unsympathetic to others' opinions.

Sometimes, I get the impression that some on here are worse in their attempt at steamrollering their own opinion than the very folk they dissagree with.

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 10:24

Have you never seen the great epic classic Arnie film Twins? ;)

I'm afraid I'll die before seeing an Arnie film.

Knock-on

13th December 2012, 10:39

Some people choose to take parts of the bible literally to justify their homophobia, but get all vague and say it's open to interpretation when the text appears to forbid something they actually like doing - even shaving a beard is a no-no if you take it literally, and working on a Sunday should apparently result in death yet most of the staff at my local B&Q seem to be coping alright. Most of them...

Yes, the overt hypocrisy of the Church really frustrates me as well. Their stance on this is fundamentally flawed.

The main passage that Christians use to justify discrimination of Homosexuals is Leviticus. My God (pun intended), what a pile of crap that is. It was supposed to have been written by Moses but in reality, was written between the 1st and 5th Century with passages included from ancient scriptures. In it we have:

Animal sacrifices to God
'Blooding' of Aaron, a follower, by Moses
Murder of Aaron's sons by God
Apparently Hares are unclean because they eat grass and 4 legged Birds are an abomination
He doesn't like Bats either think these are unclean
Contrary to popular belief, insects only have 4 legs and not 6????
Lots of sexism:
. Baby girls are twice as dirty as boys
. Menstruating women are unclean
. You shouldn't look on a Menstruating woman
. If you have sex with a Slave girl, she should be soundly whipped afterwards, preferably with a multi thronged whip, and inflict severe Corporal Punishment
. Women with familiar spirits should be killed
. If a priest has an 'impure' daughter, she shall be burned to death (I suppose sons are OK?)
Don't wear garments of different fibres or materials
Don't shape your beard or head (hair)
Children who swear at their parents should be killed, so should adulterers (unless it's with a slave girl obviously) and Homosexuals
If you're handicapped, you're not allowed to approach the alter

So, in one book, we discriminate against homosexuals, females, animals and the handicapped; commit infanticide, torture and murder, set the basis for the mass genocide of tens of thousands of women during the Reformation and other 'witch' hunts and various other atrocities and statements of lunacy.

And this book is what the 'modern' Church uses today to justify its stance on same sex Marriage? I think the Church would be better advised to consign Old Testament nonsense like this to a regrettable history that is swept under the carpet in favour of the more relevant teachings of the New Testament that better relates to how people perceive it today. In particular, the word of Christ as recounted by St Paul states:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This seems quite enlightened to me and suggests everyone is equal within the Church and nobody should be treated differently. However, this doesn't fit in with the outdated, Conservative views of senior 'Christian' members of the Church so it's back to burning Witches, Torturing Slaves, Unclean Women and Murdering Children. Whoops, sorry, forgot about the Gays.

At the moment the Church is confused and I think ill-advised with its meandering direction. Perhaps this is why people are losing faith with the Christian Faith.

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 11:08

. Menstruating women are unclean

That's true.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 11:10

That's true.

And moody.....

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 11:41

..... should be killed, so should adulterers

I think it's still a great idea......

Bezza

13th December 2012, 11:51

'Known' or 'renowned', not 'reknown'. You went to university — you ought to be able to know the difference.

I'm not sensitive about this — rather, I'm irritated by your stance on it, which (for the reasons I gave) I think is utterly ill-developed.

Referring to grammatical errors is fairly below the belt in forum etiquette fella. As is your university jibe. You sound really bitter about the world!

I really don't care whether my opinions are "ill-developed" in your eyes, my opinions are my own and I will not force anybody to agree with me, never have done.

I'm quite spontaneous and therefore don't have the time or desire to research anything before relaying my opinion. I'll take the risk of being shot down happily.

You may think your question is 'uncomfortable', but in reality it's just pointless and juvenile. Again, I ask, why do you care?

Its not at all pointless and juvenile. The subject is usually covered in the media in this way, but I haven't approached in that way at all, and my feeling is that your outburst here is born from frustration at the casual references to it on TV etc - and you've tarred me with the same brush.

I appreciate the answers I've had from others so far. Speaking of juvenile, you keep repeating "why do you care?" - which is, ironically, coming across quite childish.

Big Ben

13th December 2012, 13:28

MLVJm7QW3dA

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 13:50

At the moment the Church is confused and I think ill-advised with its meandering direction. Perhaps this is why people are losing faith with the Christian Faith.

I think it's a natural reaction to progress, particularly scientific. There's not much religion in whatever form can do about that.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 13:55

Referring to grammatical errors is fairly below the belt in forum etiquette fella. As is your university jibe. You sound really bitter about the world!

Not at all. Am I disappointed that someone should go through university and, afterwards, freely admit that they 'don't have the time or desire to research anything' before offering an opinion? Yes. Your studies strike me as having been of questionable value if they didn't leave you with a desire to look into things more deeply.

Anyway, in this instance, I still feel you're skirting around one issue in particular, one touched upon by others: that your view on the subject of same-sex marriage is probably based on an underlying homophobia. You seem to dress it up in religion, without apparently being especially religious yourself — why? What, exactly, is the basis of your view that same sex marriage is so desperately undesirable?

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 14:21

I think it's a natural reaction to progress, particularly scientific. There's not much religion in whatever form can do about that.

From a scientific point of view you're right.
From a moral point of view I can't see any progress.
(OK, might be because of my dioptres...)
Anyway at this moment I'm afraid science can do nothing for my tormented soul.

Otherwise it's interesting that in my country whenever they make a poll about the institutions people have trust in, church is always on pole position.

Maybe because we ( meaning eastern people ) are a bit different....

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 14:25

Not at all. Am I disappointed that someone should go through university and, afterwards, freely admit that they 'don't have the time or desire to research anything' before offering an opinion? Yes. Your studies strike me as having been of questionable value if they didn't leave you with a desire to look into things more deeply.

Anyway, in this instance, I still feel you're skirting around one issue in particular, one touched upon by others: that your view on the subject of same-sex marriage is probably based on an underlying homophobia. You seem to dress it up in religion, without apparently being especially religious yourself — why? What, exactly, is the basis of your view that same sex marriage is so desperately undesirable?

Are you confusing opinion with facts?

What is the sole reason behind human existance? WHy was the act of copulation made to be so pleasurable - because no-one would bother and the species would not exist?

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

We've gathered all the evidence and made some conclusions and assumptions.

There are still divided opinions on this. Until the killer piece of evidence is found that explains where it all began, it's still a best guess.

Now then, same sex partnerships. Not really going to keep the human race going if we were all same sex couples. It's nice to be different and all that, but you'd summise that the purpose behind men and women, ultimately, is to reproduce, with a bit of life expeience in between.

Does this mean that men and women are the norm?

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 14:36

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

You're wrong. Some of our fellow forumers (pretend to) know, the others aren't interested

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 14:37

Are you confusing opinion with facts?

What is the sole reason behind human existance? WHy was the act of copulation made to be so pleasurable - because no-one would bother and the species would not exist?

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

We've gathered all the evidence and made some conclusions and assumptions.

There are still divided opinions on this. Until the killer piece of evidence is found that explains where it all began, it's still a best guess.

None of this has the slightest bearing on the subject in hand, surely? It doesn't matter. Why should same-sex marriages be allowed? Not because of any abstract notions regarding the point of human existence, but because there is no good, practical reason for denying same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex ones.

Now then, same sex partnerships. Not really going to keep the human race going if we were all same sex couples. It's nice to be different and all that, but you'd summise that the purpose behind men and women, ultimately, is to reproduce, with a bit of life expeience in between.

An utterly specious and intellectually bankrupt argument, unsurprisingly. No-one is suggesting that same-sex couples will become the norm. It's an absurd notion. People are what they are.

Why not just say what you really think, rather than dressing your view up in ideas of same-sex couples harming the continuation of the human race?

Does this mean that men and women are the norm?

What does this question mean?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 14:38

You're wrong. Some of our fellow forumers (pretend to) know, the others aren't interested

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 14:51

Speaking of juvenile, you keep repeating "why do you care?" - which is, ironically, coming across quite childish.

I wouldn't have to keep asking if you answered the question, because I genuinely don't understand the basis for your worry about same-sex marriage.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 14:53

An utterly specious and intellectually bankrupt argument, unsurprisingly.

Intellectually bankrupt argument? One clearly that you cannot answer you mean.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 14:54

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

Why so interested in the subject then? An opportunity to pretend to be superior?

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 15:00

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

Good for you. A modern ( better said recent ) man without an existential anxiety. I envy you.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:03

Its a difficult one that because I have never met a gay person who has said given the choice, that they wouldn't be heterosexual. I think we have to accept that normal comes in many forms. There are certainly millions of gay people world wide so that gives the indication that homosexuality is a fairly common thing. I once saw a claim that there are more gay people on this planet than there are people with ginger/red hair. It just goes to show how a human being doesn't get a lot of choice in the matter and we should accept that not everyone is like us.

We've lost sight of the original post - same sex marriage.

Churches are unwilling to allow it as, to do so, they would be going against the fundamental teachings.

Should the bible be changed?

Besides, if the church is so out of touch, why would anyone want to get married there?

The fact that divorces are now so common, that the whole point of marriage, has been lost somewhere.

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 15:07

I think we have to accept that normal comes in many forms. There are certainly millions of gay people world wide so that gives the indication that homosexuality is a fairly common thing.

That's not a reason.
There are many common things and some of them are still unacceptable.
I can give some examples but I risk to be ( again! ) misunderstood.

To set the record straight before I go: I have no problem with homosexuals but I can't see why they should marry.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:07

Intellectually bankrupt argument? One clearly that you cannot answer you mean.

Rubbish. I answered it above by saying that there will be no sudden jump in the number of same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is legalised, since people are what they are, and can't help their sexuality. It's not a lifestyle choice.

Are you seriously saying that same-sex marriage should not be legalised because you believe it would lead to a jump in the number of same-sex couples, thus reducing childbirth? Do you think that this concern should override the small matters of love and personal choice?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:14

Why so interested in the subject then? An opportunity to pretend to be superior?

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:16

Rubbish. I answered it above by saying that there will be no sudden jump in the number of same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is legalised, since people are what they are, and can't help their sexuality. It's not a lifestyle choice.

Are you seriously saying that same-sex marriage should not be legalised because you believe it would lead to a jump in the number of same-sex couples, thus reducing childbirth? Do you think that this concern should override the small matters of love and personal choice?

Legalised or not, same sex couples will still exist. What exactly is the pre-occupation if civil ceremonies are available?

If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:18

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

It's called life. I didn't like getting the sh!t kicked out of me at school for wearing glasses or because my family was skint. Still have to deal with it.

gadjo_dilo

13th December 2012, 15:19

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

I suppose it's the only right that is denied to you.
Otherwise everything goes well....

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:19

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

And I find your attempts to belittle everyone who's opinions you don't like, but hey......

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:20

Legalised or not, same sex couples will still exist. What exactly is the pre-occupation if civil ceremonies are available?

Because same-sex couples want the same rights as everybody else! Is this really too hard a concept to grasp?

If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

Because they might, just maybe, be decent human beings too.

With a question like that, you again mark yourself out as nothing but a troll.

Dave B

13th December 2012, 15:21

Churches are unwilling to allow it as, to do so, they would be going against the fundamental teachings.

Should the bible be changed?
As I've said before, some people seem intent of cherry-picking the parts of the bible which suit their agenda, while dismissing others as open to interpretation or not to be taken literally. Until we address that fundamental hypocrisy, I don't see the church making any progress.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:22

And I find your attempts to belittle everyone who's opinions you don't like, but hey......

I'm not belittling them — I'm saying why they are muddle-headed and asinine.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:24

Because they might, just maybe, be decent human beings too.

With a question like that, you again mark yourself out as nothing but a troll.

Of course they are decent people. There are plenty of scumbag heterosexual couples that should never be allowed children, but that's that life thing again.

The fact is, two men or two women - together - cannot have children.

I am sorry you see me as trolling, I most certainly am not.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:27

I suppose it's the only right that is denied to you.
Otherwise everything goes well....

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.

schmenke

13th December 2012, 15:28

...If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

Now that is a tricky question, as it’s an issue that introduces the welfare of the child into consideration.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:32

The fact is, two men or two women - together - cannot have children.

Again, so what? I ask that not to be rude, but because I genuinely cannot understand why it matters, or what your point is. Should gay people, in your eyes, not be allowed to adopt or marry simply because people of the same sex cannot reproduce together? What is the end result of which you are so scared?

As I said, I find genuinely insulting the idea that I would not be suitable as a father simply on the grounds of my sexuality, or that my sexuality should disbar me from marrying if I so wish. It's like me saying that you are inherently a poor father, or should not marry, based on some spurious notion.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 15:35

Now that is a tricky question, as it’s an issue that introduces the welfare of the child into consideration.

An adoption by a same-sex couple should be considered using exactly the same criteria as one by a heterosexual couple. What's the difference? I hope you're not suggesting that a child's welfare is somehow at more risk as a result of adoption by a same-sex couple.

Honestly, I don't understand why any of these questions are deemed 'tricky' at all. It all strikes me as extremely simple. There are no sound practical reasons to withhold rights of any kind based merely on sexuality. This is not a hard concept.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:45

Again, so what? I ask that not to be rude, but because I genuinely cannot understand why it matters, or what your point is. Should gay people, in your eyes, not be allowed to adopt or marry simply because people of the same sex cannot reproduce together? What is the end result of which you are so scared?

As I said, I find genuinely insulting the idea that I would not be suitable as a father simply on the grounds of my sexuality, or that my sexuality should disbar me from marrying if I so wish. It's like me saying that you are inherently a poor father, or should not marry, based on some spurious notion.

I could well be a poor father, that's how opinions work.

Try to understand - this is my opinion. Does not make me any more or less correct, it's just how I feel.

Lets say you and your partner adopt a child - a boy for arguments sake. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to go hunting you down or start burning crosses on your lawn.

How do you broach the subject, come the right time, as to girls, and courting. Until that child is old enough to understand, he will see two men as his father as normal. Now, if he is gay, no problem.

But, if he is heterosexual, do you not suppose that he might be a little confused up until that point of understanding?

How then would you bring up a girl?

I'm sorry, but seriously, I really don't see how it can work.

Good luck to you, whatever you do. But my opinion will be as it is.

I don't think you are inferior (which I think you think that's what I think), but I don't see how you can expect to have the same rights to children when, naturally, it cannot happen.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 15:54

What's the difference?

Seriously. Kids get beaten up by other kids for being fat, spotty, or wear glasses. What's going to happen to the kid with two dads?

Maybe you don't want to think about it, but kids see things very simplistically and they pick on 'different'.

That's not opinion; that, I am afraid, is fact.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:00

Seriously. Kids get beaten up by other kids for being fat, spotty, or wear glasses. What's going to happen to the kid with two dads?

Maybe you don't want to think about it, but kids see things very simplisticly and they pick on 'different'.

That's not opinion; that, I am afraid, is fact.

It's only 'fact' because the view gets ingrained by people like you, with deep-seated, irrational dislikes for and mistrust of people different to a very narrow-minded view of what constitutes a norm.

I feel sorry for your children, having as they do an unreconstructed bigot for a father.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 16:03

It's only 'fact' because the view gets ingrained by people like you, with deep-seated, irrational dislikes for and mistrust of people different to a very narrow-minded view of what constitutes a norm.

I feel sorry for your children, having as they do an unreconstructed bigot for a father.

Well, I respect your opinion, but forgive me if I don't agree with it.

Why don't you address the points in my previous post? You may well enlighten me and save my kids.

Maybe I am old fashioned, but 'so what', as you like to type a lot?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:10

Well, I respect your opinion, but forgive me if I don't agree with it.

Why don't you address the points in my previous post? You may well enlighten me and save my kids.

Maybe I am old fashioned, but 'so what', as you like to type a lot?

You're not worth the bother.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 16:12

You're not worth the bother.

So, you are going to avoid the issue then? That is dissapointing.

You must have thought about it. I am genuinely interested.

It is your opportunity to prove me wrong isn't it?

Bezza

13th December 2012, 16:26

Not at all. Am I disappointed that someone should go through university and, afterwards, freely admit that they 'don't have the time or desire to research anything' before offering an opinion? Yes. Your studies strike me as having been of questionable value if they didn't leave you with a desire to look into things more deeply.

I don't see what me going to university has anything to do with this topic at all. You are making it personal by bringing things like this into the discussion.

Anyway, in this instance, I still feel you're skirting around one issue in particular, one touched upon by others: that your view on the subject of same-sex marriage is probably based on an underlying homophobia. You seem to dress it up in religion, without apparently being especially religious yourself — why? What, exactly, is the basis of your view that same sex marriage is so desperately undesirable?

Very predictable.

I disagree with same-sex marriage in a church and you then move that opinion onto me meaning i'm a) against same-sex marriage entirely, and b) homophobic.

This is tiresome - just because some disagrees with something about sexuality does not automatically mean they are "homophobic". I wondered how long it would be until you brought this "modern term" into the conversation.

And again, you've exaggerated my opinion to make yours seems more valid. "Desperately undesirable" - come on, spare me the Shakespeare!

Here's my opinions in cold facts:

I am straight
I am all for civil-partnerships
I have no ill-feeling towards homosexuals
People can do what they want in their own homes
I disagree with same-sex marriage in a church setting

Homophobic? Really?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:29

So, you are going to avoid the issue then? That is dissapointing.

You must have thought about it. I am genuinely interested.

It is your opportunity to prove me wrong isn't it?

Your notions regarding how a gay couple would bring up children are based solely on your own homophobic prejudices — specifically, your lack of any sense of realisation that gay people aren't that different to anyone else. All of the situations you describe would be dealt with by a gay couple in the manner in which they saw fit, just as would any other parent or parents. If a child with two fathers gets bullied for that reason, whose fault is that? If a child grows up believing that having two mothers or two fathers is normal — good.

Believe me, I would rather a child was brought up by two fathers or two mothers than a heterosexual couple with bigoted attitudes and closed minds any day.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:34

This is tiresome - just because some disagrees with something about sexuality does not automatically mean they are "homophobic". I wondered how long it would be until you brought this "modern term" into the conversation.

It's hardly a 'modern term'. And maybe the fact that, as you've noticed before, you often get accused of racism and homophobia on here is because what you say sometimes has, at the very least, racist or homophobic overtones.

Here's my opinions in cold facts:

I am straight
I am all for civil-partnerships
I have no ill-feeling towards homosexuals
People can do what they want in their own homes
I disagree with same-sex marriage in a church setting

Homophobic? Really?

But why do you disagree with same-sex marriages in a church setting? What actual damage would it do, were they to be allowed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're especially religious, are you? If that is the case, why this view of yours that the sanctity of church marriage needs to be preserved? There must be an underlying reason behind it.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 16:38

Your notions regarding how a gay couple would bring up children are based solely on your own homophobic prejudices — specifically, your lack of any sense of realisation that gay people aren't that different to anyone else. All of the situations you describe would be dealt with by a gay couple in the manner in which they saw fit, just as would any other parent or parents. If a child with two fathers gets bullied for that reason, whose fault is that? If a child grows up believing that having two mothers or two fathers is normal — good.

Believe me, I would rather a child was brought up by two fathers or two mothers than a heterosexual couple with bigoted attitudes and closed minds any day.

Bigoted to you, with a chip on your shoulder because (you think)the whole world is against you, when actually, I see things from a heterosexual point of view.

If that's your idea of a bigot, then fine.

Your attitude stinks, you act like you have no tolerance to other points of view. Isn't that what you are getting on your high horse about 'homophobia'. Again, you are right, no one else is.

Hypocritical methinks.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 16:42

what you say sometimes has, at the very least, racist or homophobic overtones.

Not at all. It depends upon how paranoid and insecure the person reading it is, and exactly what they make of it.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 16:43

It's hardly a 'modern term'. And maybe the fact that, as you've noticed before, you often get accused of racism and homophobia on here is because what you say sometimes has, at the very least, racist or homophobic overtones.

But why do you disagree with same-sex marriages in a church setting? What actual damage would it do, were they to be allowed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're especially religious, are you? If that is the case, why this view of yours that the sanctity of church marriage needs to be preserved? There must be an underlying reason behind it.

What changes if the church does allow same sex marriage?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:47

Bigoted to you, with a chip on your soldier because (you think)the whole world is against you

I don't, actually, because I'm confident that gay marriage will be legalised in the UK.

I see things from a heterosexual point of view.

Rubbish. Yours is one point of view; not all heterosexuals would agree with you, thankfully.

Your attitude stinks, you act like you have no tolerance to other points of view. Isn't that what you are getting on your high horse about 'homophobia'. Again, you are right, no one else is.

Hypocritical methinks.

On this issue, I have no tolerance at all for your view, because I find it very personally offensive that you think I shouldn't get married or adopt kids — especially the latter, given that you believe that I and others like me would actually do damage to a child's prospects. Does this make me hypocritical? No. My lack of tolerance is towards one viewpoint. Your lack of tolerance is towards a whole group of people and is based on nothing more than simple unfounded prejudice. I know with which I'm more comfortable.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:48

What changes if the church does allow same sex marriage?

Same-sex couples stop being discriminated against. Quite a big thing.

Bezza

13th December 2012, 16:51

It's hardly a 'modern term'. And maybe the fact that, as you've noticed before, you often get accused of racism and homophobia on here is because what you say sometimes has, at the very least, racist or homophobic overtones.

That is because you and others are always too quick jumping to the wrong conclusion. Always the extreme. You don't seem aware it is possible to have a strong opinion, that disagrees with your views, that isn't such an extreme.

Unfortunately, this is part of society now. If somebody dares to disagree with something - then the extreme is always the point that is gone to. Be it sexism, racism or homophobia.

But why do you disagree with same-sex marriages in a church setting? What actual damage would it do, were they to be allowed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're especially religious, are you? If that is the case, why this view of yours that the sanctity of church marriage needs to be preserved? There must be an underlying reason behind it.

It doesn't sit well with me if I'm honest. I just think it is one step too far. What is the matter with civil partnerships and why this sudden need to get married in a church! I'm sorry but that is as much of an answer you're getting from me.

I know you want more eloquent and better-based opinions from me, but thats as good as its getting! That is my opinion, end of.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:53

Not at all. It depends upon how paranoid and insecure the person reading it is, and exactly what they make of it.

Again, complete rot. If your attitude was true, no-one would ever be categorised as racist or homophobic, because the fault would always lie with the person being offended.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 16:54

It doesn't sit well with me if I'm honest. I just think it is one step too far. What is the matter with civil partnerships and why this sudden need to get married in a church! I'm sorry but that is as much of an answer you're getting from me.

I know you want more eloquent and better-based opinions from me, but thats as good as its getting! That is my opinion, end of.

You'll forgive me when I say that this is a really weak argument. I suspect you know it is, too.

Bezza

13th December 2012, 16:57

You'll forgive me when I say that this is a really weak argument. I suspect you know it is, too.

I don't care what type of argument it is. In your eyes, it devalues my opinion. If you feel like that, fine. But this is not a contest and there is no quiz at the end of the debate.

People have feelings and opinions can be based on feelings too you know. Would you say Michael Schumacher is the greatest F1 driver of all time just because he has won more races than anybody else?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:01

I don't care what type of argument it is. In your eyes, it devalues my opinion. If you feel like that, fine. But this is not a contest and there is no quiz at the end of the debate.

People have feelings and opinions can be based on feelings too you know. Would you say Michael Schumacher is the greatest F1 driver of all time just because he has won more races than anybody else?

Certainly not. But, in that scenario, I could at least offer some opinions as to why.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:02

gay people aren't that different to anyone else.

From a parenting and natural birth point of view - mothers bonding, breast feeding etc - I think you may find there is a difference.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:03

From a parenting and natural birth point of view - mothers bonding, breast feeding etc - I think you may find there is a difference.

Marriage is about more than just child-rearing and parenting. You may as well forbid it to a heterosexual couple who have no intention of having kids.

Big Ben

13th December 2012, 17:06

Lousada

13th December 2012, 17:11

The famous philosopher Groucho Marx once said: "I don't want to belong to a club that will accept people like me as a member".
My question to BDunnell and other homosexuals is: "Why do you so desperately want to belong to a club that will not accept people like you as a member"?

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:11

Marriage is about more than just child-rearing and parenting. You may as well forbid it to a heterosexual couple who have no intention of having kids.

There'd be no point, in my opinion, in the couple needing to be married in that case. If they split up, there are no kids lives destroyed so no need for a legal bond to tie the two together. No need for a ring on the finger to say 'I'm taken' etc.

Again, feel free to call me old fashioned. But that is what I see as the reason behind Church marriages.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:11

Well, well.... I speak of aggressive gays and there he is... Tearing apart everyone who disagrees with him. Now no-one can say they don't know one who's sticking in everyone's faces.

Can you not understand why I feel so strongly about this, and why I might be rather irritated by people saying I'm some kind of inferior citizen, not worthy of the same rights as everyone else, just on the grounds of what happens to be my sexuality? Furthermore, how dare you describe me as an 'aggressive gay'. I wouldn't call someone an 'aggressive straight', so why make the distinction based purely on sexuality?

schmenke

13th December 2012, 17:14

An adoption by a same-sex couple should be considered using exactly the same criteria as one by a heterosexual couple. What's the difference? I hope you're not suggesting that a child's welfare is somehow at more risk as a result of adoption by a same-sex couple.

Honestly, I don't understand why any of these questions are deemed 'tricky' at all. It all strikes me as extremely simple. There are no sound practical reasons to withhold rights of any kind based merely on sexuality. This is not a hard concept.

The point I was trying to make is that the debate of same-sex marriage is a straightforward as it involves only the couple. The debate is expanded when adoption is introduced because the wellbeing of the child needs to be considered.

I’m sure that a same-sex couple is more than capable of nurturing a child but I can only assume that there are potential psychological issues to be considered for a child raised by parents of the same sex in a world where the majority is the opposite.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:16

There'd be no point, in my opinion, in the couple needing to be married in that case. If they split up, there are no kids lives destroyed so no need for a legal bond to tie the two together. No need for a ring on the finger to say 'I'm taken' etc.

Again, feel free to call me old fashioned. But that is what I see as the reason behind Church marriages.

I do see this as very old-fashioned, yes, and also unduly restrictive. What's so bad about giving everyone a free choice within the law?

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:17

Can you not understand why I feel so strongly about this, and why I might be rather irritated by people saying I'm some kind of inferior citizen, not worthy of the same rights as everyone else, just on the grounds of what happens to be my sexuality? Furthermore, how dare you describe me as an 'aggressive gay'. I wouldn't call someone an 'aggressive straight', so why make the distinction based purely on sexuality?

You still think I think you are inferior and that I am a bigot? That my kids are unfortunate because of my opinions?

I make jokes about many things that I find funny. Sometimes, that may include a sexually themed joke.

If you chose to see that as derogatory, when I quite often poke fun at myself, then so be it.

That's me, deal with it.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:19

I do see this as very old-fashioned, yes, and also unduly restrictive. What's so bad about giving everyone a free choice within the law?

Free love within marriage and all that (not bigamy)? Is that what you include free choice?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:19

The point I was trying to make is that the debate of same-sex marriage is a straightforward as it involves only the couple. The debate is expanded when adoption is introduced because the wellbeing of the child needs to be considered.

Of course, but this applies equally to all adoption cases, no matter what the gender of the parents might be.

I’m sure that a same-sex couple is more than capable of nurturing a child but I can only assume that there are potential psychological issues to be considered for a child raised by parents of the same sex in a world where the majority is the opposite.

Only so long as societal norms are viewed in too narrow a fashion. What I object to is the notion that a problem would automatically ensue.

I should add that I have no desire either to get married or adopt kids. My argument is with the viewpoint that I should be automatically forbidden from doing either should I so desire, and on such spurious grounds.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:21

I do see this as very old-fashioned, yes, and also unduly restrictive. What's so bad about giving everyone a free choice within the law?

I happen to think if we were all a little more restrictive in respect of marriage, there would be a lot less unhappy kids left from single parents thinking it's ok to sleep here there and with everyone.

Not a lot of accountability.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:25

You still think I think you are inferior and that I am a bigot? That my kids are unfortunate because of my opinions?

In a word, yes. Though I don't think 'inferior' is quite the right term.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:26

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:28

Though I don't think 'inferior' is quite the right term.

I was using your terminology from an earlier post.

Presumably then, you think that, at night, before giving them a kiss goodnight, I tell them to stay away from those nasty gay people?

And that ensuring they have a safe and loving environment is outdated?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:31

I was using your terminology from an earlier post.

In which case, my term wasn't quite right.

Presumably then, you think that, at night, before giving them a kiss goodnight, I tell them to stay away from those nasty gay people?

And that ensuring they have a safe and loving environment is outdated?

Not at all. I make that observation based on how I think you come across — which is, amongst other things, as somewhat bigoted. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that you, and people with your views, don't have a monopoly on offering your children a safe and loving environment. Don't try and equate the two things.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:32

Those are no grounds to seek to restrict marriage to mixed-sex couples.

Again, for me, marriage is the first step toward a man and a woman preparing to have a family.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 17:35

Again, for me, marriage is the first step toward a man and a woman preparing to have a family.

Why be so intolerant of any diversion from this? To some degree, this is why I brought your children into the discussion. I believe fundamentally that children need to be taught that there are ways of doing things other than one very restrictive, very prescriptive norm. Indeed, the word 'normal' I find, in some ways, quite problematic.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 17:43

Why be so intolerant of any diversion from this? To some degree, this is why I brought your children into the discussion. I believe fundamentally that children need to be taught that there are ways of doing things other than one very restrictive, very prescriptive norm. Indeed, the word 'normal' I find, in some ways, quite problematic.

Because, my parents, both their parents, all the way back to great great great grampy wilko with the gammy leg, that is what was passed down as normal.

Worked for us.

Again, I won't stop you or the next bloke from having a civil ceremony - do what you like. I, however, do not agree with it.

To me, learning from my folks, has taught me what I know.

That is why I have reservations with same sex adoption - not because I think they are bad people, but because of my upbringing. Also, having been bullied, I know that other kids - wether they understand what and why they are doing - can be down right evil.

And no, it would not be your fault, but I suspect you would feel bad if you found yourself in that position.

Seriously - I'm not having a pop. I don't think I'm better than you. I just see things differently and, perhaps, struggle to convey my opinions well on screen.

schmenke

13th December 2012, 17:47

Same-sex couples stop being discriminated against. Quite a big thing.

I’m not sure if discrimination is the correct term here.

A church is an organization with voluntary membership by those who subscribe to its faith, customs and beliefs. People who disagree with those would not subscribe to the church, as it would contradict their personal beliefs. This is not discrimination.

Knock-on

13th December 2012, 18:46

Well, well.... I speak of aggressive gays and there he is... Tearing apart everyone who disagrees with him. Now no-one can say they don't know one who's sticking in everyone's faces.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

That's not quite fair. BDunnell's approach is very passionate as he feels it is unfair that a group of people, a group that he is part of, does not have the same opportunities as everyone else in this Country. I think I would feel quite strongly if it was me in that situation and nowhere have I seen him try to ram his 'gayness' in anyones face.

About his aggressive posting and insults, that is nothing to do with sexuality either. If you read any of the threads he gets worked up about, you will see he acts identically on them as he has on here so I'm afraid that's just hs posting style and as I'm normally on the receiving end of hs posts, I know how frustrating it becomes.

I'm not going to quote all the posts I want to respond to so will just address a couple of points.

There should be no reason whatsoever why a Gay or Lesbian couple cannot raise an adopted child in a Loving and well rounded environment. I don't think there is any evidence that a child is any more likely to be physically, sexually or emotionally abused in a Homosexual or Hetrosexual family. Issues such as Bullying are an everyday fact of life but Education and a good School working in partnership with Parents should deal with this. If we let Bullying dictate life we've failed and not just Children of a same sex couple but Children of Ethnic Minorities, short kids, tall kids, spotty ones, Jewish children and any other excuse that some bully can think of to intimidate his peers.

Having worked with Children in the past, I can tell you that I would rather a Child in care went to a laving and stable same sex couple than bouncing around the car crash that is Residential Childrens Homes.

I can also appreciate the point a couple of people have made about it not feeling right for same sex couples to be Married in Church. It's perfectly natural when you have been told all your life by spiritul Leaders holding positions of power that this is Unholy, Unnatural and against morality but in actual fact, is it? That's what they said about Women becomming Priests. All the gumph about Bras in the Vestry and PMT sermons every 4 weeks didn't really happen, did it? Now, Women are accepted and doing as good a job as their male colleagues aren't they. I am sure if you are on your death bed, confessing your sins and making peace before you pass away, you wouldn't give a toss if your priest had a dick or boobs.

A point was also made about Marriage in Church being a joining of a Man and a Woman for the purpose of procreation. This arguement has some merit for people with deep religious conviction and fundementally why I think Legislation shouldn't be imposed in this case. However, how much weight does this arguement carry? Is this the sole reason people get married? I suggest there are many other reasons and many couples that married in Church have no intention of having Children. Should they be excluded as well? Following on from that, if anyone has those views, then they must also subscribe to the passage of the old testament it comes from and support Murder, Infanticied, Discrimination of Females and the Disabled and Torture. Please reread my post on Livictus here>> http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/156508-same-sex-marriage-5.html#post1090008. It also means you must ignore the words of St Paul which are acknowledged to be the words of Christ and contradict these views.

Hundreds of religious Laws have been scrapped, quite rightly, because they are outdated or purely hatefull. Half the 10 Commandments are ignored these days or contradicted in the Bible and those were supposed to come from God himself :rolleyes: I see this one being no different.

So, what would happen if a Gay or Lesbian couple got married in Church. I suspect nothing and in 5 years, we would wonder what all the fuss was about.

gloomyDAY

13th December 2012, 20:26

I’m not sure if discrimination is the correct term here.

A church is an organization with voluntary membership by those who subscribe to its faith, customs and beliefs. People who disagree with those would not subscribe to the church, as it would contradict their personal beliefs. This is not discrimination.Yes, that's called institutionalized discrimination.

Baptist Church pulled the same bull**** arguments in The South. Blacks and whites can get married, but it cannot happen within their church.

gloomyDAY

13th December 2012, 20:34

I happen to think if we were all a little more restrictive in respect of marriage, there would be a lot less unhappy kids left from single parents thinking it's ok to sleep here there and with everyone.

Not a lot of accountability.You have a very narrow view of same-sex marriage and homosexuals. If anything your argument is clearly an advocacy for gays to get married. Homosexuals have jobs, busy lives, and responsibilities just like you. They also adopt kids that would otherwise get snagged in the foster care system. Technically, if gays were to get married, those adopted kids would be living with two parents and not a single parent.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 20:36

Yes, that's called institutionalized discrimination.

Why would someone voluntarily join an institution, assuming they are intelligent enough to understand what membership of said institution entails, then take issue with it's policies?

If it is voluntary and you don't agree with it, don't join?

That's neither rocket science nor brain surgery.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 20:40

You have a very narrow view of same-sex marriage and homosexuals. If anything your argument is clearly an advocacy for gays to get married. Homosexuals have jobs, busy lives, and responsibilities just like you. They also adopt kids that would otherwise get snagged in the foster care system. If gay people were allowed to get married, then their adopted children wouldn't have to grow up in a single family home. Technically, if gays were to get married, those adopted kids would be living with two parents and not a single family.

My post you quote was in reference to heterosexual individuals and stopping them having children willy nilly while not in a relationship.

Stop single mothers having children, by restoring family values. Less need for childrens homes/fostering etc.

SGWilko

13th December 2012, 20:44

Yes, that's called institutionalized discrimination.

Baptist Church pulled the same bull**** arguments in The South. Blacks and whites can get married, but it cannot happen within their church.

Try to understand how over here (UK) our history and laws are intermingled with religion.

Big Ben

13th December 2012, 20:46

Firstgear

13th December 2012, 21:18

Technically, if gays were to get married, those adopted kids would be living with two parents and not a single parent.
Where is your logic leading you? Two is better than one. I guess it follows then, that three is better than two. Is there such a thing as gay polygamy? How many fathers does a kid need?

schmenke

13th December 2012, 21:42

Try to understand how over here (UK) our history and laws are intermingled with religion.

Therein lays the root of the matter.

As previously mentioned Canadian laws permit same-sex marriage but don’t dictate religious conventions. Churches are allowed their respective freedom of religous practices.

Knock-on

13th December 2012, 22:10

Why would someone voluntarily join an institution, assuming they are intelligent enough to understand what membership of said institution entails, then take issue with it's policies?

If it is voluntary and you don't agree with it, don't join?

That's neither rocket science nor brain surgery.

I totally agree with you but do so from my own point of view. It would be like me joining the BNP and trying to make it more tolerant when in fact, I detest it. I can't understand why anyone would join a Church but therein lies the rub.

Faith is not something logical in my opinion but a belief that someone 'feels'. They can no longer deny their belief than a Homosexual or Hetrosexual could alter their sexuality.

Knock-on

13th December 2012, 22:24

On a side note, there is a fight going on over here to have Alan Turing 'pardoned' for his crime.

BBC News - Alan Turing pardon campaign goes to House of Lords (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18988608)

Alan Turing was the codebreaker during the 2nd world war that brought peace a hell of a lot sooner than it would have been through his work. He saved 1000's of lives and is considered one of the Fathers of modern Computing.

Of course, his crime was being Homosexual.

DO NOT PARDON HIM!!! Do not denegrate hs memory and the reason he committed suicide by some fanciful apology that insults his struggle. That's not going to make it right. It's just going to diminish the gravity an arcane Law and horrendous Legislation had on people of the time.

I would rather people remembered what effect discrimination has on people and apply it to how we react to our fellow man (or woman) today.

Or was he just one of the good woofters?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 22:42

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 22:47

I totally agree with you but do so from my own point of view. It would be like me joining the BNP and trying to make it more tolerant when in fact, I detest it. I can't understand why anyone would join a Church but therein lies the rub.

This would be all very well if one had to 'join' a church in order to marry there. Many atheists marry in churches because they want a church wedding, if only because the surroundings are nicer. I don't think this is in any sense hypocritical or problematic.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 22:56

I think I've been fair enough. Most of his replies have been aggressive and outright rude. The posts he replied to and the people who wrote them didn´t deserve the tone and the words used (for what they wrote here at least). That's how I see it and it has nothing to do with his orientation. I think someone sharing my POV expressing himself like that would do us all a favor if he shut up.
He seems to be to gay people what gigi becali is to Christianity (he is a self proclaimed defender of Christianity that any real Christian is ashamed of)

Name any word you don't feel I should have used. Nowhere have I sworn or threatened. My language has been temperate throughout.

As it happens, I am perfectly happy to find myself in disagreement with the two people whose comments particularly provoked my ire. That those who are not particularly analytical of mind have a problem with the very simple issue of gay marriage comes as no surprise.

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 22:58

Stop single mothers having children, by restoring family values.

So many vague notions from you, so little in the way of genuine thought or content — and so much in the way of bland, conformist notions of societal norms. How do you define 'family values'?

BDunnell

13th December 2012, 23:04

That's not quite fair. BDunnell's approach is very passionate as he feels it is unfair that a group of people, a group that he is part of, does not have the same opportunities as everyone else in this Country. I think I would feel quite strongly if it was me in that situation and nowhere have I seen him try to ram his 'gayness' in anyones face.

About his aggressive posting and insults, that is nothing to do with sexuality either. If you read any of the threads he gets worked up about, you will see he acts identically on them as he has on here so I'm afraid that's just hs posting style and as I'm normally on the receiving end of hs posts, I know how frustrating it becomes.

I'm not going to quote all the posts I want to respond to so will just address a couple of points.

There should be no reason whatsoever why a Gay or Lesbian couple cannot raise an adopted child in a Loving and well rounded environment. I don't think there is any evidence that a child is any more likely to be physically, sexually or emotionally abused in a Homosexual or Hetrosexual family. Issues such as Bullying are an everyday fact of life but Education and a good School working in partnership with Parents should deal with this. If we let Bullying dictate life we've failed and not just Children of a same sex couple but Children of Ethnic Minorities, short kids, tall kids, spotty ones, Jewish children and any other excuse that some bully can think of to intimidate his peers.

Having worked with Children in the past, I can tell you that I would rather a Child in care went to a laving and stable same sex couple than bouncing around the car crash that is Residential Childrens Homes.

I can also appreciate the point a couple of people have made about it not feeling right for same sex couples to be Married in Church. It's perfectly natural when you have been told all your life by spiritul Leaders holding positions of power that this is Unholy, Unnatural and against morality but in actual fact, is it? That's what they said about Women becomming Priests. All the gumph about Bras in the Vestry and PMT sermons every 4 weeks didn't really happen, did it? Now, Women are accepted and doing as good a job as their male colleagues aren't they. I am sure if you are on your death bed, confessing your sins and making peace before you pass away, you wouldn't give a toss if your priest had a dick or boobs.

A point was also made about Marriage in Church being a joining of a Man and a Woman for the purpose of procreation. This arguement has some merit for people with deep religious conviction and fundementally why I think Legislation shouldn't be imposed in this case. However, how much weight does this arguement carry? Is this the sole reason people get married? I suggest there are many other reasons and many couples that married in Church have no intention of having Children. Should they be excluded as well? Following on from that, if anyone has those views, then they must also subscribe to the passage of the old testament it comes from and support Murder, Infanticied, Discrimination of Females and the Disabled and Torture. Please reread my post on Livictus here>> http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/156508-same-sex-marriage-5.html#post1090008. It also means you must ignore the words of St Paul which are acknowledged to be the words of Christ and contradict these views.

Hundreds of religious Laws have been scrapped, quite rightly, because they are outdated or purely hatefull. Half the 10 Commandments are ignored these days or contradicted in the Bible and those were supposed to come from God himself :rolleyes: I see this one being no different.

So, what would happen if a Gay or Lesbian couple got married in Church. I suspect nothing and in 5 years, we would wonder what all the fuss was about.

Other than one paragraph — how else am I meant to react when I feel passionately about something, especially in the face of arguments in this case that I think are intellectually bankrupt? — I agree with every word. Excellent post, well argued, well thought-through, pretty much unarguable.

Wallingtonlifts London

13th December 2012, 23:05

Personally,,why not,, the thing is, we don't always think
The same thing at the same time,, if at all.. It's meeting the
Person who shares the same thought.... If your lucky : ).. Regards Jason

gloomyDAY

14th December 2012, 00:55

Where is your logic leading you? Two is better than one. I guess it follows then, that three is better than two. Is there such a thing as gay polygamy? How many fathers does a kid need?My logic is quite solid. Two people, regardless of their sex, should be able to wed without being discriminated. Also, I'm simply stating that a child in a stable home with two parents is better than having a kid grow up in foster care. Do you want to see results of homosexuals being able to get married? Ask the kids who got adopted because no one else wanted them, and a gay couple loved them and gave them a second chance.

gloomyDAY

14th December 2012, 01:02

Stop single mothers having children, by restoring family values. Less need for childrens homes/fostering etc.What does same-sex marriage have to do with this? Gay people getting married has nothing to do with women choosing to be single mothers. You should also be aware that your definition of 'family values' contrasts greatly from mine.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 01:29

What does same-sex marriage have to do with this? Gay people getting married has nothing to do with women choosing to be single mothers. You should also be aware that your definition of 'family values' contrasts greatly from mine.

He no doubt thinks his is 'normal', whatever that means, and therefore the only true way.

Alexamateo

14th December 2012, 04:46

It hasn't been mentioned I don't think, but the United States Supreme Court is set to hear two interesting cases revolving around same-sex marriage.

The first is United States vs Windsor It concerns a woman named Edie Windsor who lived with and was registered as domestic partners with another lady named Thea Spyer since 1993 (and they had actually been together more than 40 years.) In 2007, Spyer contracted MS. They went to Canada and got married that year, and later Spyer passed away in 2009. New York, where they live, recognized their marriage, but the US Federal Government did not. Because Windsor had no spousal rights, she ended up having to pay $363,053 in estate taxes. Had she been married to a man, her tax bill would have been $0!!

The second is Hollingsworth vs Perry which said it was unconstitutional for voters California to pass Prop 8 banning gay marriage after the state supreme court had legalized it. They won in lower courts, with the rulings being limited only to California, but Prop 8 supporters have made it bigger. They wrote in the petition to the high court, “The 9th Circuit’s sweeping dismissal of the important societal interests served the traditional definition of marriage is tantamount to a judicial death sentence for traditional marriage laws throughout this Circuit.”

The first (US v W) looks like a winner, and it's only fair that someone you've shared so much of your life with be granted full inheritance rights. It could be dealt with with other laws regarding inheritance though, and a win, while important, is really only a baby-step towards recognition of same-sex marriage.
The other (H v Perry) has the potential to make same-sex marriage legal throughout the whole United States in one fell swoop. The question is, are the justices prepared to make that giant step? Some advocates are nervous that this is too much too soon, and a defeat could set the movement back several years.

It's going to be an interesting year.

Robinho

14th December 2012, 05:26

I personally don't think marriage should be "owned" by the Church, and therefore anyone should be able to marry, legally, another consenting adult. I struggle to see why any gay couple would want to get married in church, but I understand that being Gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive, and therefore that option should be available to them, if their chosen church is inclusive enough to accept an openly gay couple into their congregation. equally, for the non-religious who want to get married in church, gay or straight, the church really should be equally as open to allowing a marriage in the premises, but like i said, i don't think marriage should be owned by the church, so why not have a non-religous ceremony in church for people who just want the setting. treat it as a business opportunity. Even if passed this law will not open the floodgates to throusands of gay couples queing up to be married in church, but it would be nice to have the option for those who wish to be recognised in front of whatever god they follow. I would suspect that most gay couples would like to be married, have the title, the ceremony, but not the religous side, as generally they hold incompatible views with the church anyway.

As for the (IMO) rather sinister turn the thread has taken with regard to gay couples and children, i'm not sure what the insinuation is, but it feels like some are suggesting danger to the child, or a failure in moral values, or possibility of being forced to be gay. this simply is not the case, i don't believe any gay couple would present any more of a danger to their children than a "normal" parent, nor would they force them to be something they are not, what with them being accepting of the fact that gay or straight is not a lifestyle choice. where do you draw the line. Gay couple should not have kids. straight couples who are biologically unable to have children? Women who can't breast feed? (can't withdraw this from the children, how will they turn out?) Women who choose not to breastfeed? Women who are single but choose to articially inseminate (or just go and get some from the source)? Couples where the woman works and the man is the primary care giver? Couples where the women tragically dies during childbirth or in the childs's early years? should they have their kids taken away.

I can see no sound reason for a gay couple not to bring up a child, whether they are involved in the process (sperm/egg donations) or if they adopt someone who by definition dearly needs a family and home.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 08:33

This would be all very well if one had to 'join' a church in order to marry there. Many atheists marry in churches because they want a church wedding, if only because the surroundings are nicer. I don't think this is in any sense hypocritical or problematic.

Athiests marrying in a church because it is a nice venue. And you don't think that hypocritical?

Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 08:44

He no doubt thinks his is 'normal', whatever that means, and therefore the only true way.

I think what is normal?

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 09:01

What does same-sex marriage have to do with this? Gay people getting married has nothing to do with women choosing to be single mothers. You should also be aware that your definition of 'family values' contrasts greatly from mine.

I don't care what same sex marriage has to do with it, as in this instance I was referring to the fact that you were enquiring what do we do with unwanted children. Well, prevention is better than cure.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 09:39

So many vague notions from you, so little in the way of genuine thought or content — and so much in the way of bland, conformist notions of societal norms. How do you define 'family values'?

Plenty of thought thanks, I just don't think like you. You are gay, so that's a natural perspective for you. The trouble you have understanding my viewpoint is clearly not exclusive.

You are so keen to make your view correct, that there is no room for anyone elses, because it will always be wrong in your mind.

Knock-on

14th December 2012, 09:51

Athiests marrying in a church because it is a nice venue. And you don't think that hypocritical?

Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it.

Reality actually. Ex Mrs Knockie MkI and I got married in Church. It was a lovely, serene building which was a great place to get all our friends nd family together to witness our Marriage and a superb backdrop for Photo. Do I see any hypocriscy because I or my Partner weren't of the 'faith'. None whatsoever. I don't believe in all that nonsense so why should I not get Married in what I considered was the most sutiable building.

Now, someone that DOESN'T believe in God NOT getting Married in Church when they want to is hypocritical but this is way of topic.

Bezza

14th December 2012, 11:42

Bezza

14th December 2012, 11:45

Because, my parents, both their parents, all the way back to great great great grampy wilko with the gammy leg, that is what was passed down as normal.

Worked for us.

Again, I won't stop you or the next bloke from having a civil ceremony - do what you like. I, however, do not agree with it.

To me, learning from my folks, has taught me what I know.

That is why I have reservations with same sex adoption - not because I think they are bad people, but because of my upbringing. Also, having been bullied, I know that other kids - wether they understand what and why they are doing - can be down right evil.

And no, it would not be your fault, but I suspect you would feel bad if you found yourself in that position.

Seriously - I'm not having a pop. I don't think I'm better than you. I just see things differently and, perhaps, struggle to convey my opinions well on screen.

You really can't argue with that.

People come from different backgrounds, different cultures - what they know is different to you and you different to them.

I agree with SGWilko, and as it happens agree with him on Same-Sex Adoption as well. I think Straight couples should be given preference. You can call that bigoted if you want, BDunnell, but in reality it isn't - its a free-will opinion of mine - and it is not like I'm enforcing that opinion as fact.

Bezza

14th December 2012, 11:48

Name any word you don't feel I should have used. Nowhere have I sworn or threatened. My language has been temperate throughout.

As it happens, I am perfectly happy to find myself in disagreement with the two people whose comments particularly provoked my ire. That those who are not particularly analytical of mind have a problem with the very simple issue of gay marriage comes as no surprise.

I am one of those and you've already made it clear that your provocation stems from your misperception of me being both a racist and a bigot. So, it doesn't take much from me to irritate you.

And you have been quite unreasonable. As above, bringing up past discussions which are irrelevant, questioning SGWilko's parenthood and your below-the-belt university jibe at me, amongst others.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 11:59

The problem here is you are suggesting to SGWilko that he is not bringing his kids up properly. And I'm quite sure he is doing a fine job. If I was a father, I'd be quite angry at this underlying suggestion that you are making.

I'm not angry or irriatetd at Ben's stance. I can tolerate it.

I sympathise with him, but he needs to lighten up a little and be as tolerant himself as he would like everyone else to be.

As to being a good father or not, I do what I think is right - what I have been taught and learned through my own life experiences.

Time will tell when my kids grow up as to my (our - cos 'er indoors counts too!) success.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 12:14

I'm all for different opinions and the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same. I have the opinion I dislike people who think gay people should be treated differently because of their sexuality. I've been in the company of people who have given me their opinions like that in the past and I have chosen not to associate with them. There is a guy many of my friends are friends with from our Uni days who had very strong views against gay people and I've never been able to socialise with him like some of my friends since. I didn't like his views and was very open with him about mine. We are occasionally in each others company during meet-ups but we know we don't like each other and its an amicable stance if that can be said? The weird thing is we got on so well before this but I think you learn more about people when you discuss such important topics and especially topics that give an insight into their true character. We are all entitled to our own opinions and I'd rather stay true to myself than put up with something for the benefit of others. Opinions will always differ but as Harry says in the film 'In Bruges', "you've got to stick to your principles".... :)

Look, I seem to be percieved as this evil gay bashing luddite. I am only discussing my views and opinions.

We had a guy at work that was homosexual - he was the office manager - and bloody good at his job. He was a very nice chap, we both got on well and often socialised.

He had a civil partnership, and lived with his husband.

They were both invited and came to my wedding.

Now, why would I want to do that - because I am a bit shallow and want to 'keep up with the Jones'

He was welcomed into our church service.

Just because the church does not allow same sex marriages, does not mean it cannot tolerate homosexuals.

Knock-on

14th December 2012, 12:29

Look, I seem to be percieved as this evil gay bashing luddite. I am only discussing my views and opinions.

Who by? Not me, and I welcome the views of you and Bezza on this thread. There is no right or wrong here, just a sharing of opinions.

I do struggle with the notion of accepting things just because they have always been that way. If we blindly accept the views of our ancestors without challenging them, then we will never progress. Homosexuality would still be illegal, Witches would be burned and we would be whipping slave girls as punishment for being raped.

Lets face it, if we replaced the word Homesexual for Black in this thread, who would defend the Church is they said Couples cannot get married because they are Black.

About adoption, I really do understand your fears but again, if we deprive a Child of a placement in a Loving and stable home environment just because of the fear of Bully's, just who are we hurting. Aren't we punishing the innocent because of the actions of Bullys?

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 13:53

I'm all for different opinions and the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same. I have the opinion I dislike people who think gay people should be treated differently because of their sexuality. I've been in the company of people who have given me their opinions like that in the past and I have chosen not to associate with them. There is a guy many of my friends are friends with from our Uni days who had very strong views against gay people and I've never been able to socialise with him like some of my friends since. I didn't like his views and was very open with him about mine. We are occasionally in each others company during meet-ups but we know we don't like each other and its an amicable stance if that can be said? The weird thing is we got on so well before this but I think you learn more about people when you discuss such important topics and especially topics that give an insight into their true character. We are all entitled to our own opinions and I'd rather stay true to myself than put up with something for the benefit of others. Opinions will always differ but as Harry says in the film 'In Bruges', "you've got to stick to your principles".... :)

I couldn't agree more. Why should I respect opinions with which I vehemently disagree? I may respect the right of someone to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean I should be respectful towards it.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 13:53

Who by? Not me, and I welcome the views of you and Bezza on this thread. There is no right or wrong here, just a sharing of opinions.

I do struggle with the notion of accepting things just because they have always been that way. If we blindly accept the views of our ancestors without challenging them, then we will never progress. Homosexuality would still be illegal, Witches would be burned and we would be whipping slave girls as punishment for being raped.

Lets face it, if we replaced the word Homesexual for Black in this thread, who would defend the Church is they said Couples cannot get married because they are Black.

About adoption, I really do understand your fears but again, if we deprive a Child of a placement in a Loving and stable home environment just because of the fear of Bully's, just who are we hurting. Aren't we punishing the innocent because of the actions of Bullys?

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.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 13:55

Look, I seem to be percieved as this evil gay bashing luddite. I am only discussing my views and opinions.

Yes, and it's those views and opinions that portray you as such.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 13:57

I'm not angry or irriatetd at Ben's stance. I can tolerate it.

I sympathise with him, but he needs to lighten up a little and be as tolerant himself as he would like everyone else to be.

There is no comparison whatsoever between my intolerance of backward views on homosexuality and the fact that others are intolerant of homosexuals. You, and others, are making judgements on people based entirely on what their sexuality happens to be. I am reacting to those opinions based on what has actually been said, not some prejudice I might have. See the significant difference?

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 13:58

I agree with SGWilko, and as it happens agree with him on Same-Sex Adoption as well. I think Straight couples should be given preference. You can call that bigoted if you want, BDunnell, but in reality it isn't - its a free-will opinion of mine - and it is not like I'm enforcing that opinion as fact.

More than that, it's not even as if you're 'enforcing' that opinion with any facts to back it up, or indeed any basis stronger than 'it's what I reckon'.

Bezza

14th December 2012, 15:18

More than that, it's not even as if you're 'enforcing' that opinion with any facts to back it up, or indeed any basis stronger than 'it's what I reckon'.

I believe a child should grow up with a mother and a father, whether that is bloodlined, adopted, fostered, whatever - they need that maternal figure in their life. That is absolutely impossible if the child has two "fathers". Therefore, whilst I wouldn't preclude same-sex adoption entirely - I would put the heterosexual couples in the adoption queue first, as this gives the child the greater chance in life. I know you don't like the word "normal" but a normal life is indeed, growing up with a mother and a father, and taking the advantages of each into your learning of life. With two fathers, you simply cannot have the same effect.

ioan

14th December 2012, 15:32

Of course they are decent people. There are plenty of scumbag heterosexual couples that should never be allowed children, but that's that life thing again.

One thing I hate to hear is: That's life!
Life is not perfect, so what about trying to make it better instead of shoving 'That's life!' in the face of all those who dare to question things which are plain wrong?

ioan

14th December 2012, 15:43

I could well be a poor father, that's how opinions work.

Try to understand - this is my opinion. Does not make me any more or less correct, it's just how I feel.

Lets say you and your partner adopt a child - a boy for arguments sake. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to go hunting you down or start burning crosses on your lawn.

How do you broach the subject, come the right time, as to girls, and courting. Until that child is old enough to understand, he will see two men as his father as normal. Now, if he is gay, no problem.

But, if he is heterosexual, do you not suppose that he might be a little confused up until that point of understanding?

How then would you bring up a girl?

I'm sorry, but seriously, I really don't see how it can work.

Good luck to you, whatever you do. But my opinion will be as it is.

I don't think you are inferior (which I think you think that's what I think), but I don't see how you can expect to have the same rights to children when, naturally, it cannot happen.

Someone might have meanwhile addressed this but hey I'll also give it a try.

I think that homosexuality is not learned, it is not a result of one's environment either. It is a genetic predisposition as far as I can tell from what I've heard, read and seen about it.

I've never been educated by my parents about what is wrong or right, about having to feel attracted to women or men. It was a natural attraction to women (or even better said girls when I was a kid).

Given that all homosexual individuals were born to opposite sex couples I think that it is obvious that the sexual orientation of the parents is not the reason why a person will become attracted to the opposite sex, to the same sex or to both.

And to round it up I pretty much prefer a kid to be adopted by a caring homosexual pair then by a catastrophic opposite sex couple who doesn't know how to care a bout a child.

ioan

14th December 2012, 15:45

Seriously. Kids get beaten up by other kids for being fat, spotty, or wear glasses. What's going to happen to the kid with two dads?

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

ioan

14th December 2012, 15:48

Would you say Michael Schumacher is the greatest F1 driver of all time just because he has won more races than anybody else?

Yep!

14th December 2012, 15:49

I think this is the major social issue of the recent time.I don't like it.There should be legislation over this issue.Its really unrealistic and unnatural.No single religion of the world allow this.

ioan

14th December 2012, 15:51

The point I was trying to make is that the debate of same-sex marriage is a straightforward as it involves only the couple. The debate is expanded when adoption is introduced because the wellbeing of the child needs to be considered.

I’m sure that a same-sex couple is more than capable of nurturing a child but I can only assume that there are potential psychological issues to be considered for a child raised by parents of the same sex in a world where the majority is the opposite.

There are quite a few cases where kids in society are brought up by couples (of opposite sex) which are still very different from what the majority is, do they all develop serious psychological issues?

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:03

Why would someone voluntarily join an institution, assuming they are intelligent enough to understand what membership of said institution entails, then take issue with it's policies?

If it is voluntary and you don't agree with it, don't join?

That's neither rocket science nor brain surgery.

Have you been voluntarily baptized? Don't think so.
The problem is that the church is still seen as an institution instead of just being seen as a club where people become members or decide to leave.
Why do you think that the large majority of the kids are baptized when they are just a few months old, instead of much later when they can decide for themselves?

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:05

Try to understand how over here (UK) our history and laws are intermingled with religion.

That is no reason for continuing down the same path instead of choosing a change for better.

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:07

I think I've been fair enough. Most of his replies have been aggressive and outright rude. The posts he replied to and the people who wrote them didn´t deserve the tone and the words used (for what they wrote here at least). That's how I see it and it has nothing to do with his orientation. I think someone sharing my POV expressing himself like that would do us all a favor if he shut up.
He seems to be to gay people what gigi becali is to Christianity (he is a self proclaimed defender of Christianity that any real Christian is ashamed of)

BDunnell did not offend you in any way, you're just taking part in this discussion as you have an interest in trying to prove that homosexuals are aggressive, which is a stupid generalization that you are making due to you prejudice.

PS: Gigi Becali is a product of the extremist christians that inhabit the space called Romania, and proof for that is the support he receives from the orthodox church.

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:12

Many atheists marry in churches because they want a church wedding, if only because the surroundings are nicer. I don't think this is in any sense hypocritical or problematic.

I have to disagree on this one.

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:14

Personally,,why not,, the thing is, we don't always think
The same thing at the same time,, if at all.. It's meeting the
Person who shares the same thought.... If your lucky : ).. Regards Jason

Jason, your keyboard has an issue with punctuation.

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:24

Look, I seem to be percieved as this evil gay bashing luddite. I am only discussing my views and opinions.

We had a guy at work that was homosexual - he was the office manager - and bloody good at his job. He was a very nice chap, we both got on well and often socialised.

He had a civil partnership, and lived with his husband.

They were both invited and came to my wedding.

Now, why would I want to do that - because I am a bit shallow and want to 'keep up with the Jones'

He was welcomed into our church service.

Just because the church does not allow same sex marriages, does not mean it cannot tolerate homosexuals.

You're not the big bad guy, no way.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the last phrase in your post is pointing out the issue that this thread is all about, homosexuals do not want to be tolerated, they want to have equal rights.

For my part I don't understand why people fight to have the right to get married by an institution which doesn't want them. But then again I'm not a believer.

ioan

14th December 2012, 16:27

I think this is the major social issue of the recent time.I don't like it.There should be legislation over this issue.Its really unrealistic and unnatural.No single religion of the world allow this.

Any chance you can tell us why it is unnatural?
And what else should be legislated other than homosexual marriage? Come on, let it out.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:39

Who by? Not me,

By the chap citing me as a bad father as he does not understand my opinion.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:41

Yes, and it's those views and opinions that portray you as such.

Totally incorrectly mind you. You've drawn your conclusion about me and my family, without any room for tolerance whatsoever.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:43

There is no comparison whatsoever between my intolerance of backward views on homosexuality and the fact that others are intolerant of homosexuals. You, and others, are making judgements on people based entirely on what their sexuality happens to be. I am reacting to those opinions based on what has actually been said, not some prejudice I might have. See the significant difference?

It is only backwards to you - have you not worked that out yet?

I can happily tolerate homosexuality. The fact they I don't see two parents of the same sex should bear or foster children does not mean I am intollerent of homosexuality - it is just a natural limitation.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:45

One thing I hate to hear is: That's life!
Life is not perfect, so what about trying to make it better instead of shoving 'That's life!' in the face of all those who dare to question things which are plain wrong?

If it is not life and natural - what is it - Artificial?

Artificial is not real.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:46

Yep!

Surprise! :)

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 18:50

You're not the big bad guy, no way.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the last phrase in your post is pointing out the issue that this thread is all about, homosexuals do not want to be tolerated, they want to have equal rights.

For my part I don't understand why people fight to have the right to get married by an institution which doesn't want them. But then again I'm not a believer.

And don't want to use that right regardless........

I'd like to be filthy rich - not gonna rob a bank though, as that is not legal.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:09

It is only backwards to you - have you not worked that out yet?

Apparently not, given the millions of other people in favour of gay marriage and adoption. Your statement is factually incorrect.

I can happily tolerate homosexuality.

How wonderfully generous of you.

The fact they I don't see two parents of the same sex should bear or foster children does not mean I am intollerent of homosexuality - it is just a natural limitation.

A limitation that is non-existent except in your mind.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:10

I'd like to be filthy rich - not gonna rob a bank though, as that is not legal.

An asinine comparison.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:13

You've drawn your conclusion about me and my family, without any room for tolerance whatsoever.

Says the man who believes there should be a blanket ban on homosexuals adopting and marrying, for no good reason whatsoever. My opinion on your parenting abilities is based precisely on how you portray yourself in this thread, which is as a bigot with a significant degree of intolerance towards people who don't happen to conform to your own bland, restrictive norms. I don't think such people would be the best parents. You, on the other hand, have come to a conclusion about the parenting abilities of myself and other people like me on the basis of our sexual preferences and nothing more. There is no comparison between my comments about you and yours about me.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:15

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the last phrase in your post is pointing out the issue that this thread is all about, homosexuals do not want to be tolerated, they want to have equal rights.

Exactly. 'Tolerate' is a pretty dreadful word to use about a fellow human being on the basis of nothing more than whether they happen to like having sex with people of the same gender. One's view of someone should be based on factors other than that.

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:16

There are quite a few cases where kids in society are brought up by couples (of opposite sex) which are still very different from what the majority is, do they all develop serious psychological issues?

Another very good point. How can anyone define 'normal'?

BDunnell

14th December 2012, 19:17

I have to disagree on this one.

Well, I like church buildings. My preferences would be for a civil wedding in church.

gloomyDAY

14th December 2012, 20:04

I don't care what same sex marriage has to do with it, as in this instance I was referring to the fact that you were enquiring what do we do with unwanted children. Well, prevention is better than cure.What do you mean by your last sentence? I hope you don't mean that suppressing homosexuals is the key to getting rid of this topic altogether.

I think Straight couples should be given preference. You can call that bigoted if you want, BDunnell, but in reality it isn't - its a free-will opinion of mine - and it is not like I'm enforcing that opinion as fact.Sir, I think that's absurd. The vetting process for parents who want to adopt would be the best choice, and not just the straight or gay option. I really don't think you're a bigot, so please don't raise that claim against me. I do think that you're misinformed about gay couples being able to adopt. The mountain of crap any couple has to go through here in USA to adopt a child is equally tedious for hetero/homo- sexual couple.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 20:23

You should read and think before posting. I don't agree with it, not asking for a ban.

SGWilko

14th December 2012, 20:27

Prevent unwanted children.

gloomyDAY

14th December 2012, 20:53

You should read and think before posting. I don't agree with it, not asking for a ban.I did read what you wrote, and it didn't fully explain what you meant. That's why I asked a question, sir. There's no need to be curt with your response. If you don't agree with homosexuals, then that's your problem. Try therapy.

Prevent unwanted children.That's a laughable notion here in USA. The Republican Party is hellbent on reducing women's rights and limiting their ability to get birth control. Also, Conservatives are against abortion and have tried to reverse Roe v. Wade. Most "unwanted" children are born into families who do not have the funds or the competence to raise a child in modern society.

Gay couples have been great for kids who get left behind, and stuck in foster care. People argue that it's bad for the adopted child to be with a gay couple because it causes bullying in school. Maybe if other brats in school learned how to be more accepting, then that wouldn't be an issue.

SGWilko

15th December 2012, 08:59

My bad Gloomy. Was posting on Blackberry waiting recovery with a puncture late last night. My first reply was not to you but Ben.

BDunnell

15th December 2012, 11:39

People argue that it's bad for the adopted child to be with a gay couple because it causes bullying in school. Maybe if other brats in school learned how to be more accepting, then that wouldn't be an issue.

This is one of the worst arguments of all. It's like saying that someone who's the subject of a racist attack is to blame because of their skin colour.

Oh, and many of those who would deploy this argument against gay adoption are also the sort of individuals who go on about the need for personal responsibility...

SGWilko

15th December 2012, 13:00

SGWilko

15th December 2012, 13:02

How wonderfully generous of you.

You paint your own picture with comments like that.

ioan

15th December 2012, 14:37

Surprise! :)

Objectivity.

ioan

15th December 2012, 14:42

Guys, can we please discuss the thread's subject instead of the posters?

BDunnell

15th December 2012, 18:46

How are they be to blame? That is a silly argument to make a point out of nothing to attempt to justify a viewpoint.

Children don't have the understanding of adults. They just see differences, and you will always see bullying when someone is different. Be that their hand-me-down attire, their physical size, their parents (old etc).

You basically said that if a child with two fathers gets bullied about this, it's only to be expected. Do you believe that bullying on grounds of difference is OK — that it should just be accepted as a fact of life? If so, you're not a very humane person. Such an attitude, in my view, also casts further doubt on your parenting skills. Do you want your kids to grow up merely as what you consider to be 'normal', so that they blend into the background and don't attract the bullies, or would you wish them to be different and individual?

BDunnell

15th December 2012, 18:46

Guys, can we please discuss the thread's subject instead of the posters?

The two are inextricably intertwined, given the extent to which this subject is a matter of personal opinion and, to some extent, personal experience.

SGWilko

15th December 2012, 20:14

You basically said that if a child with two fathers gets bullied about this, it's only to be expected. Do you believe that bullying on grounds of difference is OK — that it should just be accepted as a fact of life? If so, you're not a very humane person. Such an attitude, in my view, also casts further doubt on your parenting skills. Do you want your kids to grow up merely as what you consider to be 'normal', so that they blend into the background and don't attract the bullies, or would you wish them to be different and individual?

Funnily enough I don't think any form of bullying is OK. I am however realistic enough to know it will not stop because you cannot change the cruel aspect of human nature. Wrap it up or word it however you wish, it will go on sadly.

My kids will be parented by us as we were parented ourselves. We wont fill our kids with sweets or use sweets to pacify them. This will lead to obesity, which, aside from being unhealthy will lead to teasing in school etc.

They will be taught right from wrong - to be courteous, not be greedy etc.

The blending into the background bit intrigues me Ben. If I'd prefer my children to be well behaved in public rather than loud, obnoxious, unruly and rude, then yes - give me blending in any day.

I quite like the fact that often, we are commented on our childrens behaviour when we are out. It is also quite amusing that it is the older generation that often make these comments - the ones that have the most life experience.

Please tell me, because I worry myself about this;

When my daughter gets to the age where her body changes, and she will not want her father to see her naked etc, she will turn to, among others such as friends etc, her mother for advice or just to talk about these changes.

How would that work in a same sex parent situation, where both the parents are male. Or what when the child asks about its mother?

I struggle with that, because I genuinely see that as a hurdle that the child will struggle with.

Finally, however my children turn out, they will be individual.

donKey jote

15th December 2012, 20:44

How would that work in a same sex parent situation, where both the parents are male. Or what when the child asks about its mother?

The same as it works when the mother is -for whatever other reason- missing?

SGWilko

15th December 2012, 20:48

The same as it works when the mother is -for whatever other reason- missing?

OK, sure.

I kinda should have suggested in a surrogate mother situation.....

Bezza

17th December 2012, 10:01

You basically said that if a child with two fathers gets bullied about this, it's only to be expected. Do you believe that bullying on grounds of difference is OK — that it should just be accepted as a fact of life? If so, you're not a very humane person.

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!

Such an attitude, in my view, also casts further doubt on your parenting skills. Do you want your kids to grow up merely as what you consider to be 'normal', so that they blend into the background and don't attract the bullies, or would you wish them to be different and individual?

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.

SGWilko

17th December 2012, 10:37

It is worth pointing out that, with children, only one needs to start the name calling, and others will join in. And they join in not because they are particularly mean, but because for them, better to be on the side of the class bully than risk being beaten up.

When I was bullied, while I kept it to myself and told no-one about it, I'd decided I had no wish to be 'on the side' of the bullies, and sadly, I was fair game.

Knock-on

17th December 2012, 10:47

I appreciate what you are saying about Children facing less potential issues if they grow up in a conventional Male / Female family unit. However, this is not a show stopper but merely one small issue in a bigger picture.

We have Children being brought up by parents that have seperated or single parents. They might be brought up where one of the parents have passed away. They might be in a care home themselves or living with foster parents. They might be of a different ethnic origon or religion from most of the other kids. Have different colour hair, a disability, learning problems, odd socks or pick their nose.

In fact, all Children are different which makes them the same. Bullying is slowly being stamped out and will continue to be as focus is applied to this problem.

A man and a woman have Children in a loving married relationship is an ideal that can offer a stable platform for successfully raising a child / children. That's not to say the Child will grow up as a well rounded person with no issues but I agree it's a good start. Equally, if a loan parent or a same sex couple offer the same stable environment, then the Child has a similar chance in life. They might have additional challenges but any parent faces challenges. It's a compromise and balancing act each and every day :D

There are more Children out there that need a stable home than suitable people that are prepared to offer them. That's the real issue.

SGWilko

17th December 2012, 11:07

Bezza

17th December 2012, 11:37

This is one of the worst arguments of all. It's like saying that someone who's the subject of a racist attack is to blame because of their skin colour.

Oh, and many of those who would deploy this argument against gay adoption are also the sort of individuals who go on about the need for personal responsibility...

Its not the same as racism at all. This is about same-sex versus opposite-sex couples - as in the natural way vs adoption into a gay partnership. Colour of skin is different, completely.

We are not on the side of the bully here. Just arguing that it is important the child has the best chance of success.

SGWilko

17th December 2012, 11:42

Its not the same as racism at all. This is about same-sex versus opposite-sex couples - as in the natural way vs adoption into a gay partnership. Colour of skin is different, completely.

We are not on the side of the bully here. Just arguing that it is important the child has the best chance of success.

To avoid an outburst - can I clarify the natural way - you are alluding to childbirth with that I assume?

Bezza

17th December 2012, 12:24

To avoid an outburst - can I clarify the natural way - you are alluding to childbirth with that I assume?

Yes :)

Knock-on

17th December 2012, 15:14

Not every obese child is picked on, nor every child wearing glasses. But if a child is going to be a target, there are underlying issues that those that bully will pick up on.

I am not casting aspersions on the adoptive parents, but alluding to one of the myriad complications that they face.

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.