Man on radio explaining he's against equal marriage because he doesn't want to have to explain to his children that gay people are equal.
The mind boggles doesn't it? Those sort of people make me angry. My little cousins are 9 and 7 and they know my partner and they don't question it. They just see it as normal. Heaven help this man when he has to explain to his kids about sex... I'd imagine that's more awkward than saying "sometimes men love men and sometimes women love women but it doesn't matter because its normal"
Apparently there are more important issues. So why the hell are they making such a fuss about it? Obviously it is a big deal to the ones ranting about it not being a big deal!
The mind boggles doesn't it? Those sort of people make me angry. My little cousins are 9 and 7 and they know my partner and they don't question it. They just see it as normal. Heaven help this man when he has to explain to his kids about sex... I'd imagine that's more awkward than saying "sometimes men love men and sometimes women love women but it doesn't matter because its normal"
He'd already explained to them that gay people aren't equal so is worried about how it will seem if the government disagrees with him. Poor thing.
He then went on to the 'marrying animals' stuff.
What a mind, what a heart he must have. He's probably worried about gay people having children, too, yet he has them in his condition.
It's strange how much of the 'anti' arguments are based on vague scare-mongering.
Apparently there are more important issues. So why the hell are they making such a fuss about it? Obviously it is a big deal to the ones ranting about it not being a big deal!
He'd already explained to them that gay people aren't equal so is worried about how it will seem if the government disagrees with him. Poor thing.
He then went on to the 'marrying animals' stuff.
What a mind, what a heart he must have. He's probably worried about gay people having children, too, yet he has them in his condition.
It's strange how much of the 'anti' arguments are based on vague scare-mongering.
Can someone please explain to me the link between allowing gay marriage and marrying animals, it keeps cropping up in the more extreme anti arguments and I just really don't understand it
He'd already explained to them that gay people aren't equal so is worried about how it will seem if the government disagrees with him. Poor thing.
He then went on to the 'marrying animals' stuff.
What a mind, what a heart he must have. He's probably worried about gay people having children, too, yet he has them in his condition.
It's strange how much of the 'anti' arguments are based on vague scare-mongering.
It would be interesting to see if one of his kids turned round and came out when they are older. Wonder if he would change his view or maybe his cave man attitude would inflict more damage? I don't get the whole animal or incest link. I love animals but the idea of intimacy with one repulses me. I also have no attraction towards family members. I really wonder where these people come from. I'm assuming he doesn't know any gay people.
Can someone please explain to me the link between allowing gay marriage and marrying animals, it keeps cropping up in the more extreme anti arguments and I just really don't understand it
It doesn't really have a link. It's just an example of the slippery slope argument and more scare-mongering.
The rationale is that, if you stop marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman, you are opening up the floodgates to anyone wanting to marry anything or any number of things/people/relatives.
It's not much of an argument as an opportunity for people to reveal a part of their real attitudes.
Can someone please explain to me the link between allowing gay marriage and marrying animals, it keeps cropping up in the more extreme anti arguments and I just really don't understand it
The link is that if you can't express your prejudices against gay people, you try and link gay people to things which most people find abhorrent.
It would be interesting to see if one of his kids turned round and came out when they are older. Wonder if he would change his view or maybe his cave man attitude would inflict more damage?
I don't get the whole animal or incest link. I love animals but the idea of intimacy with one repulses me. I also have no attraction towards family members. I really wonder where these people come from. I'm assuming he doesn't know any gay people.
It's just the usual argument they use as I said in a previous post they used the same argument about 40 years ago to justify why interracial marriage shouldn't be allowed
It would be interesting to see if one of his kids turned round and came out when they are older. Wonder if he would change his view or maybe his cave man attitude would inflict more damage? I don't get the whole animal or incest link. I love animals but the idea of intimacy with one repulses me. I also have no attraction towards family members. I really wonder where these people come from. I'm assuming he doesn't know any gay people.
I think a lot of it is that some people just feel comfortable with 'us and them' conditions. They like to know who they're better than and dress it up with these transparently ridiculous 'arguments'.
You can tell by the way that they cling on to these arguments, like people drowning, and then can't defend them.
Man on radio explaining he's against equal marriage because he doesn't want to have to explain to his children that gay people are equal.
Whilst I don't really care and don't want anyone to go through rejection and homophobia, I can't help wishing that one or more of his children turns out second class.
Just how then will he explain to his child that they are not equal?
It doesn't really have a link. It's just an example of the slippery slope argument and more scare-mongering.
The rationale is that, if you stop marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman, you are opening up the floodgates to anyone wanting to marry anything or any number of things/people/relatives.
It's not much of an argument as an opportunity for people to reveal a part of their real attitudes.
I have watched David Lynch movies that have made more sense then that argument.
I'm sure the same argument came out when inter race marriage was allowed.
Can someone please explain to me the link between allowing gay marriage and marrying animals, it keeps cropping up in the more extreme anti arguments and I just really don't understand it
You need to go to Argos and buy yourself a Slippery Slope.
They are good value as you can you it for all and any bigoted argument. - Just pile on any unconnected rubbish and hope that it all just slips past anyone with a logical argument based on fact.
I have watched David Lynch movies that have made more sense then that argument.
I'm sure the same argument came out when inter race marriage was allowed.
Yes, none of their arguments make much sense and versions of the same arguments have been used to try and impede moves towards equality over the years.
IMO, if the people who oppose equal marriage now were speaking 50 years ago, they'd be opposing equal pay, decriminalisation of homosexual acts, the Race Relations Acts etc.
I have yet to hear an argument against that came close to convincing me that SSM is wrong.
However I am genuinely puzzled that a SSM and a hetero marriage are the same thing when the rules around consummation and adultery are not equal between the two. If those rules are unequal, then surely the whole thing is unequal. And when equality is what is being sought ..........?
You need to go to Argos and buy yourself a Slippery Slope.
They are good value as you can you it for all and any bigoted argument. - Just pile on any unconnected rubbish and hope that it all just slips past anyone with a logical argument based on fact.
Do I get a warranty? And will they deliver weekends?
For me it seems illogical that this issue has blown up so much. The institution of marriage has changed so many times, its been changed and adapted many many times so you would think we would be used to it by now. Why has this issue exploded when it has happened so many times before? The concept of marriage in something that is not fixed, it often changes to suit the attitudes of the time (take inter racial marriage just as one example), if we never changed the institution of marriage my parents would be selling me off for a few goats.
I have yet to hear an argument against that came close to convincing me that SSM is wrong.
However I am genuinely puzzled that a SSM and a hetero marriage are the same thing when the rules around consummation and adultery are not equal between the two. If those rules are unequal, then surely the whole thing is unequal. And when equality is what is being sought ..........?
Those rules can easily be equalised.
The only people I've come across arguing against tjhat are people who think it's a 'gotcha' against equal marriage.
The only people I've come across arguing against tjhat are people who think it's a 'gotcha' against equal marriage.
Then why aren't they being? Without that equalisation you end up with a two-tier system. Is that what is wanted? It certainly isn't what I would want if I were gay.
I have watched David Lynch movies that have made more sense then that argument.
I'm sure the same argument came out when inter race marriage was allowed.
A conservative MPs used one when they wanted to lower the age of consent of gay people to that of everyone else: "Do we want people buggering our schoolchildren?" was what he said.
With that, he implied that older people trying it on with 16 year olds only ever happens with gay people and never with school girls that could already have sex at 16. - Which being totally wrong, makes a whole nonsense of what he is trying to say.
Also the use of emotive words like "Buggering" were used just to imply that gay people don't have sex like normal people, they go around "Buggering" each other all the time and in this case little schoolchildren! - All wrong and just pathetic scaremongering. All gay people do not have anal sex and yet some heterosexual people do! So that's the other part of his argument blown out of the water.
This is always the result if someone tries to apply something just to gay people, when it equally already applies to straight people. Do they really think people that stupid?
Then why aren't they being? Without that equalisation you end up with a two-tier system. Is that what is wanted? It certainly isn't what I would want if I were gay.
I don't think the legislation has been drafted yet. If it has, then I'm sure the debates will address it.
I don't think its gay people who are arguing to maintain that difference so it isn't what is wanted.
It would be those in Parliament who don't want to define what gay consummation is. I think that was the reason for the difference with the civil partnership laws. I don't think there's any reason to suppose gay people generally are arguing for a two-tier system.
A conservative MPs used one when they wanted to lower the age of consent of gay people to that of everyone else: "Do we want people buggering our schoolchildren?" was what he said.
With that, he implied that older people trying it on with 16 year olds only ever happens with gay people and never with school girls that could already have sex at 16. - Which being totally wrong, makes a whole nonsense of what he is trying to say.
Also the use of emotive words like "Buggering" were used just to imply that gay people don't have sex like normal people, they go around "Buggering" each other all the time and in this case little schoolchildren! - All wrong and just pathetic scaremongering. All gay people do not have anal sex and yet some heterosexual people do! So that's the other past of his argument blown out of the water.
This is always the result if someone tries to apply something just to gay people, when it equally already applies to straight people. Do they really think people that stupid?
Some of the 'anti' arguments are so facile, I think they must do.
A conservative MPs used one when they wanted to lower the age of consent of gay people to that of everyone else: "Do we want people buggering our schoolchildren?" was what he said.
With that, he implied that older people trying it on with 16 year olds only ever happens with gay people and never with school girls that could already have sex at 16. - Which being totally wrong, makes a whole nonsense of what he is trying to say.
Also the use of emotive words like "Buggering" were used just to imply that gay people don't have sex like normal people, they go around "Buggering" each other all the time and in this case little schoolchildren! - All wrong and just pathetic scaremongering. All gay people do not have anal sex and yet some heterosexual people do! So that's the other past of his argument blown out of the water.
This is always the result if someone tries to apply something just to gay people, when it equally already applies to straight people. Do they really think people that stupid?
Well, he did just saying the words 'buggering our schoolchildren, and considering the argument against is that it will lead to me being able to marry Bluebell the illuminated rabbit, I'm going to say yes on that one.
I don't think the legislation has been drafted yet. If it has, then I'm sure the debates will address it.
I don't think its gay people who are arguing to maintain that difference so it isn't what is wanted.
It would be those in Parliament who don't want to define what gay consummation is. I think that was the reason for the difference with the civil partnership laws. I don't think there's any reason to suppose gay people generally are arguing for a two-tier system.
Thanks for that..... I had thought they were voting on specific legislation, not a general intention.
Comments
The mind boggles doesn't it? Those sort of people make me angry. My little cousins are 9 and 7 and they know my partner and they don't question it. They just see it as normal. Heaven help this man when he has to explain to his kids about sex... I'd imagine that's more awkward than saying "sometimes men love men and sometimes women love women but it doesn't matter because its normal"
I agree. The whole revolt thing is just absurd.
He'd already explained to them that gay people aren't equal so is worried about how it will seem if the government disagrees with him. Poor thing.
He then went on to the 'marrying animals' stuff.
What a mind, what a heart he must have. He's probably worried about gay people having children, too, yet he has them in his condition.
It's strange how much of the 'anti' arguments are based on vague scare-mongering.
Nicely put Voynich!
Can someone please explain to me the link between allowing gay marriage and marrying animals, it keeps cropping up in the more extreme anti arguments and I just really don't understand it
It would be interesting to see if one of his kids turned round and came out when they are older. Wonder if he would change his view or maybe his cave man attitude would inflict more damage? I don't get the whole animal or incest link. I love animals but the idea of intimacy with one repulses me. I also have no attraction towards family members. I really wonder where these people come from. I'm assuming he doesn't know any gay people.
The rationale is that, if you stop marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman, you are opening up the floodgates to anyone wanting to marry anything or any number of things/people/relatives.
It's not much of an argument as an opportunity for people to reveal a part of their real attitudes.
The link is that if you can't express your prejudices against gay people, you try and link gay people to things which most people find abhorrent.
Probably disown him.
It's just the usual argument they use as I said in a previous post they used the same argument about 40 years ago to justify why interracial marriage shouldn't be allowed
You can tell by the way that they cling on to these arguments, like people drowning, and then can't defend them.
Whilst I don't really care and don't want anyone to go through rejection and homophobia, I can't help wishing that one or more of his children turns out second class.
Just how then will he explain to his child that they are not equal?
I have watched David Lynch movies that have made more sense then that argument.
I'm sure the same argument came out when inter race marriage was allowed.
You need to go to Argos and buy yourself a Slippery Slope.
They are good value as you can you it for all and any bigoted argument. - Just pile on any unconnected rubbish and hope that it all just slips past anyone with a logical argument based on fact.
IMO, if the people who oppose equal marriage now were speaking 50 years ago, they'd be opposing equal pay, decriminalisation of homosexual acts, the Race Relations Acts etc.
However I am genuinely puzzled that a SSM and a hetero marriage are the same thing when the rules around consummation and adultery are not equal between the two. If those rules are unequal, then surely the whole thing is unequal. And when equality is what is being sought ..........?
Do I get a warranty? And will they deliver weekends?
For me it seems illogical that this issue has blown up so much. The institution of marriage has changed so many times, its been changed and adapted many many times so you would think we would be used to it by now. Why has this issue exploded when it has happened so many times before? The concept of marriage in something that is not fixed, it often changes to suit the attitudes of the time (take inter racial marriage just as one example), if we never changed the institution of marriage my parents would be selling me off for a few goats.
The best three posts I have seen all week on any subject. I love this forum sometimes.
The only people I've come across arguing against tjhat are people who think it's a 'gotcha' against equal marriage.
Then why aren't they being? Without that equalisation you end up with a two-tier system. Is that what is wanted? It certainly isn't what I would want if I were gay.
A conservative MPs used one when they wanted to lower the age of consent of gay people to that of everyone else: "Do we want people buggering our schoolchildren?" was what he said.
With that, he implied that older people trying it on with 16 year olds only ever happens with gay people and never with school girls that could already have sex at 16. - Which being totally wrong, makes a whole nonsense of what he is trying to say.
Also the use of emotive words like "Buggering" were used just to imply that gay people don't have sex like normal people, they go around "Buggering" each other all the time and in this case little schoolchildren! - All wrong and just pathetic scaremongering. All gay people do not have anal sex and yet some heterosexual people do! So that's the other part of his argument blown out of the water.
This is always the result if someone tries to apply something just to gay people, when it equally already applies to straight people. Do they really think people that stupid?
I don't think the legislation has been drafted yet. If it has, then I'm sure the debates will address it.
I don't think its gay people who are arguing to maintain that difference so it isn't what is wanted.
It would be those in Parliament who don't want to define what gay consummation is. I think that was the reason for the difference with the civil partnership laws. I don't think there's any reason to suppose gay people generally are arguing for a two-tier system.
Well, he did just saying the words 'buggering our schoolchildren, and considering the argument against is that it will lead to me being able to marry Bluebell the illuminated rabbit, I'm going to say yes on that one.
Thanks for that..... I had thought they were voting on specific legislation, not a general intention.