The big problem is that most people are scared stiff of speaking their minds. One wrong word and they run the risk of getting the early-morning knock after being overheard by some gay zealot and reported for a 'hate crime.' So they simply go along with what they hear others saying.
I've got nothing against homosexuals, but the idea of them getting married is ludicrous.
Really? And how often has this happened? Any evidence/links to back up this , what would appear to be a bizarre statement.
The big problem is that most people are scared stiff of speaking their minds. One wrong word and they run the risk of getting the early-morning knock after being overheard by some gay zealot and reported for a 'hate crime.' So they simply go along with what they hear others saying.
I've got nothing against homosexuals, but the idea of them getting married is ludicrous.
Why did you say homosexual marriage is ludicrous?
Homophobia isn't a crime. No one will report you for being scared of homosexuals. So you can squeak freely.
Really? And how often has this happened? Any evidence/links to back up this , what would appear to be a bizarre statement.
Yes. At my wife's school, most of the teachers I have spoken to (five so far) have said they think gay marriage is silly and 'not right, but if a pupil were to ask them about it they would feel obliged to follow the LEA's line of 'inclusivity and diversity' and keep their jobs rather than being honest and being hauled up infront of an investigation and being banned from teaching.
My wife has been at the school for almost thirty years and we are on very good terms with them. They spoke to me only on the understanding that it would stay between us.
Such is the fear.
Yes. At my wife's school, most of the teachers I have spoken to (five so far) have said they think gay marriage is silly and 'not right, but if a pupil were to ask them about it they would feel obliged to follow the LEA's line of 'inclusivity and diversity' and keep their jobs rather than being honest and being hauled up infront of an investigation and being banned from teaching.
My wife has been at the school for almost thirty years and we are on very good terms with them. They spoke to me only on the understanding that it would stay between us.
Such is the fear.
Of course. I am sure that the Police will be instructed to kick in their doors at five in the morning and drag them down to the local nick to be charged with a hate crime. Which is what you suggested in the first place. Now it is teachers who are not allowed to spread their intolerance and prejudice to pupils.
So, do you have any evidence of people being arrested for hate crimes in the manner you suggest?
"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"
As you don't like me believing that gay marriage is wrong and have attacked me for saying so, I'd guess that puts you firmly in the 'bigot, class 1' category.
This is your first post
You are the bigot unlike the poster you responded to
Somebody asked for arguments for or against the issue rather than just position statements.
Still I had better state my opinion so that nobody just thinks I am homophobic or a poofter or a Roman catholic conservative.
I do not care about the issue, but on balance I think that if two people want to marry then it should be possible for them to do so, and it is nobody else's business. That is about it.
However I will say sonething which could be taken as arguing against. First, it is not correct to assume that people who oppose it do so because of homophobia (which really means hatred of Homsexuals).
Some people are conservative i.e. they do not want progress and change. They even prefer going backwards to the old ways of doing things.. They will oppose homosexual marriage just because it is a change. They will think there might be unintended consequences and things will be 'weakened' and so on.
Such people are not evil or haters they are just conservatives.
Next, consider this. There is more thought needed before a simple amendment to marriage rules. What about pre-nups? What about the divorce laws? What about property laws. If a marriage gets in trouble, the courts almost invariablty grant custody of children to the mother - what happens if the parents are two men?
Anyway that is a bit of ammo for the antis.
Don't much care myself because I am not scared of change and I am sure we will cope if snags arise.
Politically I guess cameron will stick tp his guns on the natter. He saw what happened to Sarcozy when he tried to pander to the right in France. However Cameron is a genuine lightweight who might switch his principles at the drop of a hat, and I hope he does and we get a one term government.
Poofters is homophobic
The ones you claim are conservatives could also be described as bigots though
Yes. At my wife's school, most of the teachers I have spoken to (five so far) have said they think gay marriage is silly and 'not right, but if a pupil were to ask them about it they would feel obliged to follow the LEA's line of 'inclusivity and diversity' and keep their jobs rather than being honest and being hauled up infront of an investigation and being banned from teaching.
My wife has been at the school for almost thirty years and we are on very good terms with them. They spoke to me only on the understanding that it would stay between us.
Such is the fear.
Oh for the fun of fiction. Nowhere in any educational guideline does it say that any teacher has to support gay marriage. In fact schools are prohibited from making one sided political arguments. And where are these cases of the police bursting through someones door at home as a result of homophobic language? The only case I can think of that had very serious consequences was those muslim men posted tonnes of flyers through peoples doors saying that gay people in the area should be beheaded.
As I said before, there are hundreds of posts up on twitter from people who literally say that they would kill their child if they knew it was going to be gay. It was all part of a #tomyunbornchild campaign where people stated something they'd like to say to a future child. They're all still happily posting away despite their comments. No knocks on the door:
Of course. I am sure that the Police will be instructed to kick in their doors at five in the morning and drag them down to the local nick to be charged with a hate crime. Which is what you suggested in the first place. Now it is teachers who are not allowed to spread their intolerance and prejudice to pupils.
So, do you have any evidence of people being arrested for hate crimes in the manner you suggest?
Not above a bit of fiction yourself by the sound of it. Where did I suggest the police would 'kick in doors'? Please point me to the post.
Putting words in people's mouths seems to be the done thing around here.
Not above a bit of fiction yourself by the sound of it. Where did I suggest the police would 'kick in doors'? Please point me to the post.
Putting words in people's mouths seems to be the done thing around here.
You said something that was farcical (One wrong word and they run the risk of getting the early-morning knock after being overheard by some gay zealot and reported for a 'hate crime.') and this person took you to task for it. If you're trying to defend a point of view or stance you're doing a terrible job of doing so. Please, carry on.
You said something that was farcical (One wrong word and they run the risk of getting the early-morning knock after being overheard by some gay zealot and reported for a 'hate crime.') and this person took you to task for it. If you're trying to defend a point of view or stance you're doing a terrible job of doing so. Please, carry on.
It was stated that I said the police 'would kick in doors', which I never said or suggested. Putting words into people's mouths and then attacking them for something they never said is pretty low, don't you think?
It was stated that I said the police 'would kick in doors', which I never said or suggested. Putting words into people's mouths and then attacking them for something they never said is pretty low, don't you think?
It was stated that I said the police 'would kick in doors', which I never said or suggested. Putting words into people's mouths and then attacking them for something they never said is pretty low, don't you think?
Ok, so you said 'early morning knock'... but please, can you tell me what reasons these teachers had for thinking equal marriage was 'silly' and 'not right'?
Ok, so you said 'early morning knock'... but please, can you tell me what reasons these teachers had for thinking equal marriage was 'silly' and 'not right'?
I don't know and didn't ask. Perhaps the idea of two males getting married just seems strange and odd. Not right.
And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
It was stated that I said the police 'would kick in doors', which I never said or suggested. Putting words into people's mouths and then attacking them for something they never said is pretty low, don't you think?
It was clearly tongue in cheek, much like (I assume) your "Call the Correctional Facility, another one for treatment" comment was.
You say that people are afraid to speak out against gay marriage, when countless people on this forum seem to have no trouble doing so, as do those hundreds of people on twitter talking about killing gay people. Where exactly are people holding back?
Cardinal Keith O'Brien felt free enough to call gay marriage "grotesque". Again where is this holding back of expressing views? It's clear to see that there are much more extreme views against gay people in society than in support of same sex marriage.
If anything, people now think twice about expressing views because we are entering a time where same sex marriage has a higher level of support than before. The same can even be said is more religious and conservative countries like America. Co-incidentally in America 50 years back only 4% of people supported interracial marriage. It wasn't until the 90s that it broke the 50% mark. Same sex marriage is now at that level of support. Where more people begin to hold a contrasting view, yes, you may well find that existing ideas are scrutinised, much as they should be.
And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
Just like thinking interracial marriage is odd isn't racist I guess . I mean, to someone with a problem with races mixing it certainly is 'odd'. Whether that's racist or not would not only be down to the individual spouting off. It would be for others to decide to.
I don't know and didn't ask. Perhaps the idea of two males getting married just seems strange and odd. Not right.
And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
You didn't ask why, yet you seem to support their position? That seems odd and not right to me. How do you know they are not just rabidly homophobic?
As is trampling over someone else's right to hold their own views and the freedom to express them.
When has that happened? You are comparing two incomparable things and people can show off their stupidity like honophobia as much as they want and thus accept the consequences. Homophobia gets people killed
I don't know and didn't ask. Perhaps the idea of two males getting married just seems strange and odd. Not right.
And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
It is homophobic as its denying equality
Why should people be tolerant of intolerant idiots like the homophobic?
When has that happened? You are comparing two incomparable things and people can show off their stupidity like honophobia as much as they want and thus accept the consequences. Homophobia gets people killed
It happens frequently. You either have a right to a view and a right to express or you don't, the fact it may be highly offensive is irrelevant.
.........And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
I have to agree with these points. However, I must say I'd like to see someone justify why they would think gay marriage 'odd' or 'not right', otherwise what's the point of a discussion?
Even though someone may disagree with the principle, for whatever reason, why would they want it not to happen?
I can't see the point of things like football matches, fox hunting, ballet or the olympics, but I don't want them banned. Except the olympics, obviously.
It happens frequently. You either have a right to a view and a right to express or you don't, the fact it may be highly offensive is irrelevant.
Point at proof then as it is so supposedly frequent, you must have tons of proof.
You also then have a right to accept the consequences like hate speech laws cover hate speech
I have to agree with these points. However, I must say I'd like to see someone justify why they would think gay marriage 'odd' or 'not right', otherwise what's the point of a discussion?
Even though someone may disagree with the principle, for whatever reason, why would they want it not to happen?
I can't see the point of things like football matches, fox hunting, ballet or the olympics, but I don't want them banned. Except the olympics, obviously.
Why is it such a valid stance though? Often when questioned the ones with this attitude refuse to elaborate so it can hardly be valid
Comments
Really? And how often has this happened? Any evidence/links to back up this , what would appear to be a bizarre statement.
Why did you say homosexual marriage is ludicrous?
Homophobia isn't a crime. No one will report you for being scared of homosexuals. So you can squeak freely.
Yes. At my wife's school, most of the teachers I have spoken to (five so far) have said they think gay marriage is silly and 'not right, but if a pupil were to ask them about it they would feel obliged to follow the LEA's line of 'inclusivity and diversity' and keep their jobs rather than being honest and being hauled up infront of an investigation and being banned from teaching.
My wife has been at the school for almost thirty years and we are on very good terms with them. They spoke to me only on the understanding that it would stay between us.
Such is the fear.
So, do you have any evidence of people being arrested for hate crimes in the manner you suggest?
Is a gay divorce also silly?
This is your first post
You are the bigot unlike the poster you responded to
The ones you claim are conservatives could also be described as bigots though
Oh for the fun of fiction. Nowhere in any educational guideline does it say that any teacher has to support gay marriage. In fact schools are prohibited from making one sided political arguments. And where are these cases of the police bursting through someones door at home as a result of homophobic language? The only case I can think of that had very serious consequences was those muslim men posted tonnes of flyers through peoples doors saying that gay people in the area should be beheaded.
As I said before, there are hundreds of posts up on twitter from people who literally say that they would kill their child if they knew it was going to be gay. It was all part of a #tomyunbornchild campaign where people stated something they'd like to say to a future child. They're all still happily posting away despite their comments. No knocks on the door:
http://storify.com/homophobes/100-homophobes-who-would-kill-their-gay-child
Note that there are thousands such comments as opposed to hundreds. But still 'oh the fear that the straight majority face'. Wake up.
Ignoring the fact that Labour introduced PR to elections in its heartlands in Scotland and Wales, as well as for London and for the Euro's.
Ed M also campaigned in favour of AV.
Not above a bit of fiction yourself by the sound of it. Where did I suggest the police would 'kick in doors'? Please point me to the post.
Putting words in people's mouths seems to be the done thing around here.
On what logical grounds did they justify gay marriage as "silly" and "not right"?
You said something that was farcical (One wrong word and they run the risk of getting the early-morning knock after being overheard by some gay zealot and reported for a 'hate crime.') and this person took you to task for it. If you're trying to defend a point of view or stance you're doing a terrible job of doing so. Please, carry on.
It was stated that I said the police 'would kick in doors', which I never said or suggested. Putting words into people's mouths and then attacking them for something they never said is pretty low, don't you think?
supporting homophobia is vile
Ok, so you said 'early morning knock'... but please, can you tell me what reasons these teachers had for thinking equal marriage was 'silly' and 'not right'?
As is trampling over someone else's right to hold their own views and the freedom to express them.
I don't know and didn't ask. Perhaps the idea of two males getting married just seems strange and odd. Not right.
And to another poster - thinking gay marriage 'odd' and 'not right' is not homophobic, it's a perfectly valid stance. One could argue that by attacking people for thinking thus was intolerant in itself.
It was clearly tongue in cheek, much like (I assume) your "Call the Correctional Facility, another one for treatment" comment was.
You say that people are afraid to speak out against gay marriage, when countless people on this forum seem to have no trouble doing so, as do those hundreds of people on twitter talking about killing gay people. Where exactly are people holding back?
Cardinal Keith O'Brien felt free enough to call gay marriage "grotesque". Again where is this holding back of expressing views? It's clear to see that there are much more extreme views against gay people in society than in support of same sex marriage.
If anything, people now think twice about expressing views because we are entering a time where same sex marriage has a higher level of support than before. The same can even be said is more religious and conservative countries like America. Co-incidentally in America 50 years back only 4% of people supported interracial marriage. It wasn't until the 90s that it broke the 50% mark. Same sex marriage is now at that level of support. Where more people begin to hold a contrasting view, yes, you may well find that existing ideas are scrutinised, much as they should be.
Just like thinking interracial marriage is odd isn't racist I guess
You didn't ask why, yet you seem to support their position? That seems odd and not right to me. How do you know they are not just rabidly homophobic?
Oh and gay people can be women as well.
When has that happened? You are comparing two incomparable things and people can show off their stupidity like honophobia as much as they want and thus accept the consequences. Homophobia gets people killed
It is homophobic as its denying equality
Why should people be tolerant of intolerant idiots like the homophobic?
It happens frequently. You either have a right to a view and a right to express or you don't, the fact it may be highly offensive is irrelevant.
I have to agree with these points. However, I must say I'd like to see someone justify why they would think gay marriage 'odd' or 'not right', otherwise what's the point of a discussion?
Even though someone may disagree with the principle, for whatever reason, why would they want it not to happen?
I can't see the point of things like football matches, fox hunting, ballet or the olympics, but I don't want them banned. Except the olympics, obviously.
Point at proof then as it is so supposedly frequent, you must have tons of proof.
You also then have a right to accept the consequences like hate speech laws cover hate speech
Why is it such a valid stance though? Often when questioned the ones with this attitude refuse to elaborate so it can hardly be valid