BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM

And can it be said at all that married heteros do not "stray?"

Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance, which is really the heart of this. Perhaps because it demands an honest self-assessment, which some here adamantly refuse to do?? I think that refusal speaks volumes.


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM

Tis my belief that Cameron is in such a untenable situation with this coalition that he is pulling every stroke he can to divest himself of the post of PM by espousing contentious policies such as homosexual/lesbian marriage, nuclear energy shilly-shallying, HS2, taking on Brussels, forced green policies et al. Come the next election he will be happy as Larry to see someone else wrestle with the above. Blair seems to have personally flourished since being out of office.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

Okay, let's have the grownup discussion...

You (akenaton) asked "How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual.

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are worried about...even just a little bit?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:43 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

OK. But let's call it a gambit instead. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:41 AM

You and I are on different sides of the political divide

*splutter...*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM

Keith, your post was accurate...right on the button, but as i have found it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people.

They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.
You and I are on different sides of the political divide, but we do not see important social issues as party political.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM

an object lesson in "reason" from Keith.
Thank you Steve.
An object lesson in intolerance, too

No. It is liberal and tolerant to respect the deeply held convictions of others.
It may be necessary to overrule them, but not to assert that they must be bad people and their views dismissed.
That is illiberal, intolerant and bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:12 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

"Points have no dimensions"
"Wait a minute...aren't you making assumptions about all points? You Sir are a bigoted anti-pointist!"

Or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM

There ya go, achy, an object lesson in "reason" from Keith. An object lesson in intolerance, too, while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:04 AM

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.

We have already achieved this.
They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the right to enter in to a civil partnership with someone of the same sex.

Like everyone else they do not have the right to marry an underage person, a close relative or anyone of the same sex.

All those three limitations should be subject to scrutiny and change, but there will be people who will have valid objections to any change.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:01 AM

Really? What do you think that last post was, achy, Scotch bloody mist?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:45 AM

Steve doesn't do reason keith.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM

No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?

"Tautology"? It was a statement of fact (unless you disbelieve me, which you are quite entitled to do). I have yet to meet an opponent of gay marriage is who not homophobic. When I said that, I went to on to reject the usual reasons given for opposition, that marriage, traditionally, has always been between a man and a woman, that marriage should have the potential for offspring. I reject those claims, first because they usually emanate from a religious context (which is always suspicious to say the least) and second because they make a comfortable curtain for homophobes to hide behind, Pilate-like, saying with a shrug, well, that's how it is and we'll have to live with it, I suppose. When I type "I have yet to meet..." you would be entirely wrong to read that as my possessing any certainty in this matter. I'm open to persuasion from good, honest people who can supply good, honest, persuasive, agenda-free reasons why two men or two women should not get married and call themselves married.

By the way, I can guarantee that, by any definition of racist you care to choose, anyone who opposes the marriage of a black person and a white person, in principle, because of their skin colour (I do try to avoid traps) is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:32 AM

Given that they are in fact perfectly normal people (unless of course somebody can explain exactly how and why they differ from the other humans on this planet), the only reasonable answer is a).

Unless of course you are of the persuasion which discriminates against people who are black, or ginger, or live in trailer parks, all of which, like sexual orientation, are involuntary products of circumstances of birth and/or heritage.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:31 AM

In Britain we have never had laws against inter-race marriage.
It has been happening for centuries.
The idea that marriage is for male to female only is truly ancient.
That does not mean it can never be changed, but please do not pretend it is not a deeply ingrained cultural issue for some people other than homophobes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:10 AM

OK, here is a question for everyone, including the trolls. *Especially* the trolls:

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.
b) deny them some, but not all rights (specify which ones).
c) deny them all the rights of heteros.
d) shun them and make them live outside of society, like in the woods or under bridge overpasses, eating out of dumpsters.
e) beat them up.
f) imprison them.
g) kill them.

OK, then. Let's here it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe
So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption."




No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM

Steve,"There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc."
So they must all be ......

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:23 AM

Me: I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

Keef: So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.

My statement makes no declaration that "they all must be", neither does it make any assumption. I did try, with my bit of reasoning [q.v.]to put the onus on opponents of gay marriage to demonstrate that their stance is not homophobic, which is exactly where I think the onus should be.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Steve ~~ Believe it or not, I had already done so before I read your last post ~~ with results rubricated immediately above.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM

Having now watched Question Time on i-player, I am somewhat at a loss. After reading the above comments, I was obviously going to be watching out for certain things. I did not, however, observe Dimbleby at any point inform Hitchens that the programme was 'not just about him talking', or any words to that effect, as quoted above. I didn't see anything approaching the exclusive conflict between Hitchens & Self described above, particularly in the opening 'gay marriage' question & discussion. I did not notice Hitchens 'glancing furtively around for approval' as fancifully described by a poster a few back. One question indeed, alone of the whole panel, he afforded simply the one-word answer 'no', in reply to whether he agreed with something or other ~~ the deserving or otherwise of the obloquy the Oz DJs are getting, I think it was. I got the clear impression that the two young lady MPs, a junior misister & a shadow ditto IIRC, both hogged & interrupted far more than any of the other participants.

It was all another example to me, taken in conjunction with comments above, of hearing and seeing what one's predispositions condition one to hope & expect to see & hear.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe. There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc.

And Michael. Before you patronise us who troubled to watch Question Time, might I suggest you watch it yourself on iPlayer?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM

Liberalism, as espoused by Will Self, seems very intolerant.
He said last night that anyone with any doubts about gay marriage was a homophobe, and anyone with any concerns about the level of immigration, (ie every political party and most of the population) must be racist.
He actually said both those things.
Anyone who disagrees with their current philosophy must be a bad person.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM

You have that about right MGM.....but the culture is slightly more insidious and dangerous. The "liberal agenda" is really an attack on free speech and rationally, it is driven by the profound philosophers who make up the broadcasting boards, newspaper editors, and the leaders of most of the mass media.

"Orwellian" describes it perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 AM

Bill...My remark,"Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour." did not apply to "gay parades" or any such like nonesense, but to the homosexual heath figures which have been at th heart of all of my post on this issue.

The health figures show a massive over reprsenration of male homosexuals in hiv/aids, and most other STDs. To explain this phenomenon, would meant that there is either something intrinsically unhealthy in sexual intercourse between men, or that male homosexuals are massively more promiscuous than heteros?

If either of these views are correct, legislation to bring a sexual minority with such an abysmal health record into mainstream society, rather than investigate or take steps to improve the present situation,is bad legislation.

There are many other points concerning familiy structure ect which call this legislation into question, but still all we get from the so called liberals is the myth of "equality".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:32 AM

Don ~~ I think people are reacting against the self-righteous, sometimes rather over-emphatic & bullying, tone taken by certain self-proclaimed 'liberals', 'progressives', &c, rather than to the actual social philosophy that the term 'liberalism' originally defined.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:52 AM

Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history.

Except, of course, by those who favor totalitarian regimes.

Why then, do people of a relatively free country use it as an insult?

One must conclude that they do not consider individual freedom to be important.

Of course, liberalism is in good company. Many people who use "liberal" or "liberal agenda" as an insult tend to discount scientists when they warn about human-caused global warming. We are told that scientists (about 97% of them) who say such things have a "liberal agenda."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:34 AM

In regards to my last post:

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS


..the same thing is true about a lot of the so-called 'Conservatives', as well..it just smells a little different, but equally as unpleasant.
My comment wasn't particularly aimed at the homosexual issues...but the way the 'left' have championed bad science, is the 'odors' of which I speak!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:11 AM

"The churches must be crazy" Though to be fair they have their own agenda and as far as marriage in church goes their beliefs need to be taken into account. Not so much on the question of marriage itself though! In Scotland for instance a majority of weddings are already non-religious!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:44 AM

"Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry"."

Though to be truthful the fact that Peter Hitchens agrees with you is hardly going to impress anyone who is liberal minded. I saw the programme and it was a bit more boisterous than usual but I wouldn't say it was any more thoughtful. Much of it consisted of Hitchems and Self squabbling. Hitchens in particular was his normal arrogant bullying self and Dimbleby on several occassions had to say to him "look this programme consists of more than just you speaking"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 AM

at way point did liberal (supporter of freedom) become a term of abuse?

I think to be liberal is quite a good thing. freedom is what our fathers fought for - so that we wouldn't have eejits making arbitrary decisions and judgements about how we should live.

The churches must be crazy. they're all empty as it is - the mainstream ones. They stand some meed to be excluding and disaffecting people, whole sections of the community.

I think you need to ask yourself, does this reflect the reality of the lives of my gay friends - all these statistics. Ake?

Because you do know gay people, they are very numerous - and people who maybe you don't know very well - some of them will be gay. If they've heard you saying this stuff, I would imagine they must be pretty guarded when they talk to you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM

Geez, Louise, the contortions some of you will go through to try to deny equal access to marriage and the rights it confers. Are you too busy trying to imagine what the sex life of a gay couple looks like to lose track of the 98% of their lives that are dedicated to loving and caring for a partner in everyday life?

Seems this thread has run its course. And then some.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:57 PM

I didn't watch the programme either; but it is obvious what is happening here: both of you found convincing the arguments of the one who embraced the side of the argument you support yourself, and absurd the one which opposed it ~~ a most common phenomenon in all argument and debate, as Socrates, according to Plato, demonstrated just a few years back.

The other thing that clearly happened is that each side convinced by means of what literary critic John Gross described as the practice of a noted predecessor in that genre, F R Leavis, as his "air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted".

So one of you perceived Peter Hitchens as the triumphant demonstrator because you agreed with his stance from the off, and vice versa for the other of you with regard to Will Self.

Absolute par for the course. Hardly advances the main argument, though, does it?!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:19 PM

Whenever someone starts attacking me on the basis of my "liberal agenda," I know I'm dealing with a person who's operating on an agenda of his own, which generally involves restricting someone else's freedom.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:25 PM

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins [sic] illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.

Well you weren't watching the same programme as me, then, achy Tony. Hitchens demonstrated, not only in that debate but in every debate on the programme, what a complete and utter bigoted twat he truly is. He seems to think that a self-regarding polemical outburst automatically indicates truth, and, on more than one occasion, his furtive looking-round for approval, caught well by the cameras unfortunately for him, showed it abundantly.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

Ake said: "Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour."

Nonsense! It is only that the promiscuous ones are in the spotlight ... those type often flaunt their lifestyle and like to be seen in silly parades and at bars...etc.

As Don F. & I and others have pointed out, the ability to consider a simpler, stable lifestyle reduces the former group. And... no matter what you believe... there is NO reason to deny those who ARE in a stable, monogamous relationship a legal form for it, just as heterosexuals have.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:08 PM

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

Hey! Maybe these two guys ought to get married!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 PM

Hey Musket....Neither one of us are 'bigots'...that's what fucked up politics does to your thinking..you can't even take in another point of view, without attaching it to someone 'hating' someone else.
That sucks..I thought being 'liberal' was above that....apparently not!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 09:19 AM

Oh hell. Goofus & bigot britches saying hello to each other.

One thinks he has hit the target whilst the other misses the mark. Their shots land in the same field all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM

Hey, Ake..you're still around...hello, and regards to you and family.

Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 AM

"Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?"

Because in my view it is a step in the wrong direction.   Bad legislation.

It is a token gesture towards an equality which does not, and will never exist under this money orientated system.
Our system only works if it continues to produce extreme inequality, something it does very efficiently.

There are many valid arguments "against" bringing homosexuality into the social mainstream.......but only one "for", the mythical equality agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:07 AM

Don Firth: "P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex."

I know...it's about using the reproductive system for reproducing....ooops maybe the term 'reproductive system' and 'reproductive organs' should be deemed politically incorrect' terms, because it's not in line with the party's propaganda.

Not 'just about sex' at all.....any child could see THAT!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:29 PM

Ake, how does this relate to the question at hand?

When I said the world is moving forward apace, I didn't say that things are perfect. I just said that this is a step in the right direction (whether you think so or not).

Bit by bit.

One of the problems with wild-eyed fanatics is that they want everything RIGHT NOW! Well, unfortunately, the world, it seems, doesn't work that way.

Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM

Equality???......We have huge sink estates where the youth are unemployable, not because of sexual orientation, not because of ethnicity, but simply because of where they live and the underclass to which they belong.

Equality is a fucking myth.....grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:40 PM

461 posts? This is the year 2012. 2012!

How can anyone be so fucking ignorant? It's apalling. It's unblievable. It's soooo sad*.



*Trolls excluded. Void where stupidty and ignorance are accepted or required by law or by social pressures foisted upon the weak of mind and moral character.

PS... 461 posts??? Ya gotta be shittin me! Un fuckinreal!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM

"Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished."

Not true - one of the things that was fought for is equal rights for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and while that is yet to be fully realized significant progress has been made and one of the markers of that is the growing acceptance of same sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:00 PM

"The world is moving forward apace"....:0) I'm amazed that anyone still believes that to be the case.

Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished.

The bread is being stolen from our children and we are offered the cake of homosexual "marriage rights"