 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:17 PM The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour.....these figures prove the exact opposite, and will never improve while people like you studiously ignore them. Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour. If there was even the slightest proof of a genetic link, it would have been trumpeted round the world long since. Also any genetic component would be very obvious to modern geneticists.....the genetic difference would be huge. The argument expounded by you all Bill includedis....."Its just not fair"....thats it in a nutshell, you have nothing else. Well I have news for you Miss Pink Bunny, nobody promised that life would be fair....life is very unfair, all we can do is attempt to stop the death and disease.....would you rather be dead than considered "At Risk"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM Show me the link that insists that anyone who is 'different' should not be treated the same as all the other people who are 'different', namely everyone. So okay... lets accept the mortality figures for homosexual males living shorter lives than hetrosexual males (though I don't ever accept them because smack in the middle are bisexual males). Lets say that gay men die earlier on the planet. Let's say none of us are as concerned as you Akenaton about saving their lives... Now please tell me why they should be treated less favourably than anyone else and not be given the same rights as everyone wlse who is not gay? Can you imagine for one mnoment what it could have been like for you had you been born gay or bisexual and fell in love with a man you wanted to settle down with for life and declare that love to the world in a church. tell me why you should not be allowed to? It's not about me being "all heart" as you said in whichever way you meant it. It's about me affording others the same things I am allowed and me being allowed the same thing they are allowed, if we wish to exercise the right to use that. The health statistics have NOTHING to do with this topic as there can be no good reason to deny someone something if they want it because others have it. This is not even a gay issue. It's a fairness issue Do unto others as you would have done to you: the ethic of reciprocity mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:46 PM Steaming Willie.... you had better hope that you NEVER find yourself in a room with me. I'm a peace loving fellow till some idiot tries to physically abuse me. I dont think you would be so "brave" in real time... :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:33 PM "incontrovertible" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM The CDC figures are incontraverable. The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts. You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM As far as I can see, ake, you did not provide a link in this thread. You did provide a long quote. I took a random phrase from it "Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage" and did a search, which gave me This list The first item in that list is this one which gives credit to The Family Research Council, which is about as far right-wing with a pre-ordained agenda as you can find in the USA. When I read the various links obtained from that search..(Yes, I DO read your side of the issue in various formats)...I see site after site and page after page, quoting each other and assuring each other that a few out of context quotes like those in the above link 'prove' their pre-determined prejudices. What IS clear is that **the study** was loaded, slanted and biased in its very design and interpretation. It 'surveyed' the individuals & groups most likely to provide the answers they wanted, and "The Family Research Council" was only too happy to sing its praises. Let's be clear... it is possible to find extreme views (or at least quotes that can be interpreted to sound extreme on ANY issue. This 'study' makes no attempt to explore what the effect of more freedom in marriage laws might be or how narrow & restrictive laws have affected the behavior patterns of most gays & lesbians. This effect was shown clearly in the American South in the 50s & 60s, as the very basis of self-esteem of African-Americans was warped by decades of being called names and TOLD they they were essentially inferior and did not deserve the rights & privileges of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS). Many, many gays & lesbians have lived awkward, frustrating lives, believing that they 'needed to either change or pretend to change' because they were TOLD that their deeply implanted attitudes were 'evil, unnatural, illegal...etc. VERY few managed to even pretend adequately. Now, there is new medical & scientific evidence almost everyday showing that a certain percent of ALL mammals are BORN with genetic tendencies of varying degrees toward same-sex attractions. You can quote 'statistics' until you are blue in the face, but you cannot show, even with statistics from biased sources & studies, why that small % of humans who are different from the majority should be discriminated against and denied the **OPPORTUNITY** to marry & share in the benefits of marriage. And if you MUST hype statistics, don't forget to pay close attention to the behaviors of your favored HETEROSEXUAL groups who engage regularly in the same practices & behaviors you so roundly condemn! Promiscuity? Anal sex? etc.... All there and documented. So, ake... I read YOUR preferred citations. It's your turn to go read & research the sites which see the issue differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:17 PM It hasn't caused a stir in the UK that I've heard of. I haven't seen mention of it in the Christian places I look at once in a while. This is Mudcat though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:08 PM Back to the topic of the thread, I'm amazed that the UK government getting out the church's business has even caused a stir. Why did they have such a law in the first place? Does anyone know where it came from and who supported it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM Here we go again... from a different angle but with the same implied lack of understand about equality Tory MP claims most gay people don't want the right to marry I suppose he entitled to his opinion too BUT it's worrying than an MP should not grasp the4 first tenets of true equality. Whether it is two, twenty, two hundred or two thousand... what is the right number to apply equal rights? I bet if someone treated him unequally because he was a Tory... "We will not marry Tories because of their beliefs and policies" can you imagine the outcry? Actually that would likely get quite a lot of people in favour of such a ban! lol You choose to be a Tory: you do not choose to be gay You see, the moment we start to segregate society and people's rights based on what they are or who they are then we really are going back to darker times in our past. We have to move forward to give every citizen the same starting point in life and the same basic priveliges as all unless they have done something that deserves them not being allowed some of those rights. Gay people have done nothing wrong to deserve not having the same rights as their hetrosexual neighbours. The suggestion now that it's down to numbers does not detract from the basic premisee of rights for all. What is the acceptable number for rights not to be applied? I suggest there is no acceptable number. We are are all very different from each other, though we share far more in common with each other than we don't, so who will be next in the numbers game to not be allowed rights? That this Tory should think there is a threshold to be applied before doing the right thing is quite worrying the only threshold that has to be reached in this area is one of fairness and that ALL should actually mean all. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM You're all heart MP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:48 AM There are lots of people suffering what may or may not be self inflicted illness but that gives no-one the right to refuse them the same basic rights of all other people. Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is This thread is about the rights of gay people being able to marry. Nothing more or less. It has now been made into something that has been gone over so many times I know it better than the bible. Could we perhaps let this thread keeps its topic and stay on track with that without it becoming yet another faux war cry to save gaydom from its own 'iniquities'? They are big enough and old enough to look after themselves. If they had the same rights as everyone else the topic being discussed, or trying to be discussed rationally and with fairness here, would not be needed at all. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM Akenaton, bigotry that pretends to be "helping" the oppressed is almost worse than plain old naked bigotry. A lot of people used to support slavery because it was "more kind" to all those black folks who clearly couldn't take care of themselves. I have an assignment for you: stop reading studies and health figures and go have lengthy conversations on the subject with as many gay people as you can find. If nothing else, you'll find out that gay people are . . . . people. Specifically, ask them what their "agenda" is. I have done this, by the way. The agendas varied all over the place, from figuring out how to afford to fix the roof to getting a difficult tune under the fingers, to wishing for some love in one's life. ALL of them wished for the right to get married, whether they actually wanted to get married right now or not. Oddly, none of them wanted to take over the world or even force their moral and political beliefs on other people. Claiming that we, by wanting to give normal civil rights to a large segment of our population, are physically harming homosexuals and consigning them to slow death by AIDS is scurrilous and unsupported by any logic or facts. It is the ranting of a person who is frantically casting about for some rational basis for his bigotry. Of course you like what Little Hawk says; he supports your viewpoint that everyone who disagrees with you is a brain-washed idiot and he is apparently not offended by by the denial of civil rights to other people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:32 AM It has been mooted here that Akenaton has the right to an opinion. At the risk of having an opinion on an opinion, I can't argue with the logic, but the reality saddens me. I have just thought of a compromise though. If I find myself in a room with Akenaton, I will deploy my canny tactic. I stuff an old sock in his mouth and wrap gaffer tape around his head to hold it in. You see, having the right to odious opinions is not the same as having the physical ability to spew them out. And no gay dudes get upset by his diatribe. Free speech? it is a privilege every bit as much as a right. Use it wisely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:04 AM Normally I would have written this in a PM, but from the responses to LH's post I think I will post it here. I find it uncanny how insightfully Little Hawk interprets my outlook. It has always been thus ever since I arrived here....as if we had been brothers in a previous existence. You are fortunate to have someone of LH's intellect to explain political and personal motivations......I could never be arsed, let you all wallow in the mire of your own subjective prison. I cannot believe that some of you still refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the homosexual health figures(especially hiv/aids) Or the results of very large Scandanavian study into homosexual marriage. Perhaps you would do well to get beyond the limitations of your political agendas and start to cive some concern to the PEOPLE you pretend to support ....the homosexuals, who are afflicted to an ever increasing extent, by terminal disease .....by supporting the status quo and willfully ignoring the warning of the CDC figures, you are actually doing these people a serious disservice. If the figures continue to worsen, what would you people advise? Given that "education, money, and self regulation" have all seemingly failed abysmally. And please dont start blathering on about "gay marriage" solving the health problems by promoting monogamy......for a start the uptake numbers are insignificant in a "health" context, and "gay marriage" does not represent monogamy.....Please read my first link before answering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:07 PM Remember what Dante said, Little Hawk? Don't just blow it off. THINK about it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:59 PM "...trying to comprehend what he means..." It seems to me that he SAID what he means, and he said "liberals ARE xxx.." "Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion?" Well...yes, I certainly do... but that is not what he said. He did NOT say something like: "I have seen many liberals who are careless & inconsistent...blah, blah, blah..." What I read was a blanket condemnation of anyone claiming to be a liberal....and you know quite well how I react to expansive generalizations. "It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives. You mean, as in suggesting that homosexuals should somehow be investigated, controlled, and condemned because of some vaguely mentioned 'study' in Sweden and because of certain dubious 'statistics'? It is not me who is telling anyone how to live their lives...unless suggesting that they refrain from doing exactly that to others makes me guilty!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:38 PM Ah yes, Little Hawk is seeing things again . . . . Sorry, Little Hawk, it doesn't matter what you think of the state of our society. You still have to address individuals as individuals, and it's still rude to tell people their thoughts are being supplied to them by outside forces. It's a really assaholic debating technique, and it seems to be one of the few you know. The problem with your "fair and balanced" attitude is that there is a big difference between what most liberals believe and what most (so-called) conservatives believe. It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives. When you give equal weight to both sides of that equation, especially in this discussion, you just end up sounding like someone who enables bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM You're not even trying to comprehend what he means, Bill. You're just mouthing off at him. Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion? I do. I know it's possible. I see it happening a great deal in today's culture. I see it encouraged by today's media. I also see people who call themselves "conservative" (and truly believe they are), yet they simultaneously behave in ways that violate the true principles of classical conservatism and unwittingly behave in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion. And it is encouraged by today's media. The same error, deep hypocrisy, occurs in both cases...but due to the exact opposite set of supposed beliefs. In both cases it results in something that in many respects resembles the psychological mindset of fascism...or of any other form of extremism"...that is: - certainty of their own moral superiority - certainty of their rightness and righteousness - arrogance - absolutism - depiction of others as steretypes rather than as real people - reacting to triggers rather than really observing what's happening - a desire to force or pressure others into adopting their beliefs - a desire to pass laws to force others into living the way YOU want them to - a desire to blame the other side of the political divide for EVERYTHING that goes wrong...and I mean EVERYTHING. and so on. Hypocrisy, in other words...but usually quite unconscious hypocrisy. Deep knee-jerk prejudice, founded upon fear and a desire to dominate. Do you deny that there are a good many self-labelled liberals AND conservatives who fall into that same psychological trap? There are many who do. Their fanaticism and obnoxious attitude is invisible to them, but absolutely obvious to those whom they turn their poison tongues upon. This was also true of fascists. They believed they were the best thing around, the veritable saviours of civilization. Their victims knew better. The same arrogant beast that lurked in the hearts of the fascists (and I speak metaphorically) still lurks in the hearts of many so-called "liberals" and many so-called "conservatives" in present day society. It thirsts to destroy. It thinks of itself as good and noble. It is capable of any monstrous act in service of a supposedly grand social or political ideal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM Guest999, Yes, of course Akenaton is entitled to his opinion. And the rest of us are entitled to tell him his facts don't add up, his logic sucks, he is (apparently) a heartless bastard, his statistics don't prove anything, his comments fly in the face of common sense as well as the actual experience of everyone else, he doesn't seem to know anything about most gay people, and he tries to score points in arguments by defining his opponents as mindless automatons who are therefore not worth listening to. Little Hawk also fits the last one, as well as being supportive of bigoted comments. I could also add that Akenaton's desire to deny civil rights to a group of people makes him a bigot, and his deep and abiding interest in what other people are doing in bed -- to the point of wanting to make laws about it -- makes him a sexual pervert. This isn't about Akenaton's rights. It's about what he actually says and how those of us who don't want him and his ilk to be able to control our lives respond to him. Where do you stand on all this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:07 PM I can't think of anything much more fascistic than trying to dictate that people live only lifestyles that I approve of. The liberal position, in both philosophy and practice, is more "live and let live." If the way someone else lives doesn't affect me in any particular way, I don't see that I have any right to interfere. Even if I disapprove. The two self-appointed life-style "policemen" who took 19-year-old Matthew Sheppard out on a country road, beat him and pistol whipped him brutally, and left him to die—which he did some 18 hours later—may have thought they were the "good guy" ("But he was gay!") are hardly what anyone (with, apparently, the possible exception of Ake) could consider "liberals." Ake, get a good book on political science and maybe another on philosophy, particularly ethics, and read them. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:15 PM "....."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists." They ARE? Did you just invent this interesting definition? Do you actually understand fascism? I would sure love to know how you tell the difference. Do you have a nice, easy label for yourself? Or should I consult the local fascists for a simple one? I don't qualify yet, hmmmm? Makes me also wonder what label I do qualify for. (You may or may not glean from my postings that I find 'most' labels such as you freely dispense to be nothing more than mud slinging to toss at opinions you don't like, in order to cover up a lack of insight.) (I really can't debate easily with those kind of remarks, so I resort to poking fun at them...not very useful, but.....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:07 PM Hell, gnu...I'm betting Don lost his cherry years ago. ;-) But who can say for sure? Perhaps his wearing of outlandish clothing and his over-the-top behaviour on "Coach's Corner" is all due to acting out the frustrations of still remaining a virgin despite his lengthy career in the NHL and the entertainment media. Think of the pressure he would have been under around the other guys in the ultra-macho atmosphere of the locker room. Think of the fear that he might be found out! Ridiculed! Laughed at! Pitied. I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of compassion whenever I see a sight like this... Look at the pain in his eyes... ...though I do, of course, admire his unparalleled ability with colour coordination... All I can say is, it's a good thing he's had Blue beside him all these years to provide that much-needed emotional support: Don and Blue I hope the dog doesn't get too jealous or Svend could be in real danger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:04 PM Once again, Little Hawk pontificates from the Mountaintop. Don Firth (Liberal, but in no way fascist -- I know the difference.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM Yeah, Ake, they just can't seem to imagine that you could disagree with them on one single trigger point political issue...and yet agree with them on much more foundational political matters that they are quite comfortable with. It doesn't fit their emotional needs. It doesn't fit their need to see you as "wrong". If you're "wrong", then you have to be seen as "all wrong" to fit their emotional expectations. You have to be some kind of monstrous aberration, some kind of dire threat to the peaceable kingdom of all that is right and proper. Accordingly, they resort to reducing you to some silly favorite stereotype that meets all their personal requirements for recreational outrage. Fun for the combative ego...but it doesn't lead to a reasoned discussion or a productive meeting of minds, just a lot of self-righteous posturing, all to the effect of saying: "I'm a much better and nicer person than you are. You're evil. I'm good. Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh!" ;-D Funny. Damn funny. That's the only reason I bother to come here and comment on it, just because it's funny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: gnu Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM LH... I think this is great! Svend Robinson is gonna get Don's cherry? Yeaaaaah... sue me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:50 PM Bill...."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists. There are many on this forum.... male, female, and indeterminate gender Would you like a list? I'm sorry but YOU do not yet qualify.. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM Whether folks like it or not, Ake, you are entitled to your opinion. And thank you for your very kind remark. B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:35 PM The biggest laugh LH, is that in my life I have been a supporter of Cuban Communism and hippy cuture, tho' I must admit to leaving Fascism to the censorial "liberals" Guilty as charged on that one Bill...:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM Little Hawk - No, he wasn't. Get a clue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:24 PM Sorry Bruce that was from me ..as I'm sure you'll have guessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM Thank you Bruce....I am touched by what you posted You are a good man, and I shall try to be as good a friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:49 PM Bill, when you said to Akenaton, I am amazed you left out "dirty, commie, hippie and fascist" from your list. ...you were doing exactly what you had just cautioned him NOT to do in your previous sentence. ;-D Such a remark is beyond serious debate, as it displays a "slogan mentality" which substitutes contrived hyperbole for reasoned discussion. Anyway, it was good for a laugh! ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:32 PM I think this is great! It means that Don Cherry can finally come out of the closet, marry Svend Robinson, and everything will be wonderful for everyone from then on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:32 PM On this issue, Akenaton and I are diametrically opposed. We remain friends despite that. Cool, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jon Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:02 PM Yes Penny, I know that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Penny S. Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:53 AM Jon said "Onto church weddings, I do not believe the state should interfere with religious issues and I don't believe they are. I think in practice you will find some will and some won't. " The point is that currently the state is interfering, in that churches which wish to carry out religious marriages for gays as they do for heterosexuals are banned by law from doing so. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:37 AM Mr.akenaton, sir.... You have tossed out some sort of personal, biased, unsupported opinion as a definition of 'liberalism'. I'll wager you cannot find ANY actual Liberals who think that way. Such a remark is beyond serious debate, as it displays a "slogan mentality" which substitutes contrived hyperbole for reasoned discussion. I am amazed you left out "dirty, commie, hippie and fascist" from your list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: DMcG Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:26 AM Ms Featherstone said: "And nor do we believe that any minister who refused would be successfully sued under discrimination law." That's good (as is the rest of the summary, assuming it is accurate!); however it would be nice if there were a stronger assurance than "we don't believe sueing would be successful." They also believed that Universities charging £9000 per annum would be the exception. We don't yet know, but my guess is they will be wrong on that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: mauvepink Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM "The only way I forsee a problem on the church side is with some gay couples wilfully seeking out those churches who have decided that their faith does not accept same sex unions." I believe the Equality Minister says faiths won't be sued for refusing civil partnerships according to the latest news on the subject. It most certainly will be an ongoing debate I think for some time. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: mauvepink Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:43 AM Willie... thanks for the explanation. However if that is you being no so thoughtful heaven knows how good it would look if it was ;-) I thought your points pertinent enough. If I could write that well without thought I would be happy woman indeed Whilst I agree with some of what you say about bigotry I think if people stay silent too long then they get to think only their view counts. How are they to be eduvated and their ideologies changed without engaging in some education and debate. All that said, I do not think poeple who have differeing views from me on this topic are all uneducated bigots personally. Many have raised some good point and their OWN opinions and comments. I learn from them too even if diametrically opposed almost to my own viewpoint. Very often the one's shouting of some agenda are the ones who have the biggest agenda themselves, which they pick up from others rather than actually have their own opinion. Or, worse, hide their own bigotry behind someone elses agenda and try to use that to prove their pointless point. I am not saying that is the case here but you do see it We live in hope eh? mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: mauvepink Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:34 AM liberal ['lIbErEl or 'lIbrEl] adjective 1 relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform 2 relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom 3 giving and generous in temperament or behaviour 4 tolerant of other people 5 abundant; lavish a liberal helping of cream 6 not strict; free a liberal translation 7 of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability noun 8 a person who has liberal ideas or opinions [C14: from Latin liberalis of freedom, from liber free] *liberally adverb *liberalness noun Simple as that really! mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:46 AM Well I suppose if you're a catholic and attend mass every week, and all your family are catholic - that is presumably the church you would want to be married in. I don't think people would, by and large, want to have confrontation and nastiness on such a joyous occasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jon Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:03 AM At the end of the day everyone hetro/gay should be entitled to be in a happy relationship or benefit from the security of a legal marriage if that is what they want. It is about time today's church concentrated on more important issues. Trying to be practical. There is no reason why the state should not give identical rights to same sex partnerships as they do hetrosexual partnerships. The legal rights/ security issue in itself need not in any way be a church issue and if there are currently differeneces, it is the government not the churches that should be taken to task. Onto church weddings, I do not believe the state should interfere with religious issues and I don't believe they are. I think in practice you will find some will and some won't. The only way I forsee a problem on the church side is with some gay couples wilfully seeking out those churches who have decided that their faith does not accept same sex unions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:40 AM Thread #135653 Message #3096964 Posted By: GUEST 17-Feb-11 - 04:34 AM Thread Name: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go Hey Mauvepink, Pete from the seven stars reckons that nobody has challenged Akenaton's content. A good reason for that. It's below contempt. Also based on the premise that all gay dudes have common traits. really? Do heterosexual people have common traits? After all, I once had a girlfriend who was far more kinky than me, and I thought I had a vivid imagination. Oh, and aren't the vast majority of convicted rapists heterosexual? By marrying Eva Braun at the last minute, we also know of at least one dictator who was heterosexual, methinks many more. Seem to me that it's convenient to ascribe common traits to large sections of society if it satisfies your odious agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM A hundred years or so ago, women were struggling against derision and contempt to gain the vote, and gradually liberated themselves, until now they (in the West) enjoy equality. Perhaps in a few years' time we will be able to look back on the discrimination against gays in the same light, as they hopefully enjoy the same rights as anybody to have fulfilling, loving relationships and happy marriages, accepted by all religious bodies without any hesitation at all. (and why not?) It's just a matter of the 'haters' coming to terms with the development of a civilised society. This takes time unfortunately. I feel we're about two thirds of the way there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:35 AM At the end of the day everyone hetro/gay should be entitled to be in a happy relationship or benefit from the security of a legal marriage if that is what they want. It is about time today's church concentrated on more important issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:15 AM Bill....If that is your view of "liberalism", then I'm afraid you dont understand it very well. "Liberalism" is not dedicated towards a better, happier and more free society, but rather on the destruction of free speech, government by committee and the removal of "conservatism" in all shape and form. Now, I suspect that politically I am much further removed from "conservatism" than you are, but that does not obscure the fact that there are many things in conservative ideology which benefit society.....Support of the Capitalist economic and social system being the biggest exception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:09 AM I'm afraid that Akenaton relies far too much on statistics that he has managed to glean and has spent little time actually talking to the people who are, themselves, involved. And I am not speaking of "activists and the very powerful 'liberal political lobby.'" I'm speaking of members of the gay community themselves. They tell a story quite different from Akenaton's statistics. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:43 PM (You want my statistics, so you can add one more 'serious study' to your list?) ☺ |
