The point that you obviously missed is that the argument "gay marriage only affects gay couples" is wholly incorrect.
You keep making that assertion, but you haven't proved it.
I'll post my response to the Welby thread here for you:
So allowing equal marriage in the U.K caused a massacre in Africa.
Were there similar massacres when Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, many of the U.S states, and Uruguay legalised equal marriage...or is Justin Welby talking out of his arse?
Gneiss has always been anti gay marriage. And that's fair enough, but he doesn't half go on and on about it. Makes you wonder what motivates him to spend that amount of time on the subject.
If course it matters. If there is a split or someone dues without a will they are no relation at s to you or your mother. In a split neither of you are related either and would a blood relation would be the logical place to look fir people who have their interests at heart. That is why step families and blended families should make their intentions and crated kinship formal if it exists.
Ah but my response was to the notion that a blood bond is more important on a relationship level. That somehow blood means that you will be closer and there will be more love. That is not the case. the love can easily match that of an actual blood relationship
I'm sure the gays will sleep easier knowing they have the approval of some anonymous internet jackoff.
Why is the opinion of the OP so much less meaningful than everyone elses'? I'm sure you two have yourselves posted your fair share of opinions on here. Where does the distinction come in?
I think it's a shame that there's automatic hostility and insults whenever somebody states an opinion on same-sex marriage that isn't "I'm 100% for it without a shadow of a glimmer of a doubt". Having a certain view on marriage doesn't make one homophobic, and nowhere in the OP did they insult homosexuals, so I don't see the problem.
It's kind of counter-productive to preach about being accepting, and then shout down a perfectly-civil opinion because it slightly varies from what is classed as PC, and I say this as a gay guy myself. As long as people aren't being offensive, insulting and derogatory (which from what I've seen, the OP wasn't), then I have no problem with varying opinions.
Why is the opinion of the OP so much less meaningful than everyone elses'? I'm sure you two have yourselves posted your fair share of opinions on here. Where does the distinction come in?
I think it's a shame that there's automatic hostility and insults whenever somebody states an opinion on same-sex marriage that isn't "I'm 100% for it without a shadow of a glimmer of a doubt". Having a certain view on marriage doesn't make one homophobic, and nowhere in the OP did they insult homosexuals, so I don't see the problem.
It's kind of counter-productive to preach about being accepting, and then shout down a perfectly-civil opinion because it slightly varies from what is classed as PC, and I say this as a gay guy myself. As long as people aren't being offensive, insulting and derogatory (which from what I've seen, the OP wasn't), then I have no problem with varying opinions.
As a gay woman I find it offensive when people refer to my marriage as a "marriage" because they think my relationship isn't as good as that of a straight couple. If that isn't insulting to gay people then I don't know what is.
Why is the opinion of the OP so much less meaningful than everyone elses'? I'm sure you two have yourselves posted your fair share of opinions on here. Where does the distinction come in?
I think it's a shame that there's automatic hostility and insults whenever somebody states an opinion on same-sex marriage that isn't "I'm 100% for it without a shadow of a glimmer of a doubt". Having a certain view on marriage doesn't make one homophobic, and nowhere in the OP did they insult homosexuals, so I don't see the problem.
It's kind of counter-productive to preach about being accepting, and then shout down a perfectly-civil opinion because it slightly varies from what is classed as PC, and I say this as a gay guy myself. As long as people aren't being offensive, insulting and derogatory (which from what I've seen, the OP wasn't), then I have no problem with varying opinions.
I don't think people are saying an anti gay marriage opinion is less meaningful, it's more that they don't care.
If I was marrying a man and someone told me they didn't think it was real marriage and they didn't approve, I wouldn't care. I'd tell them to clear off and I'd be getting married regardless.
It's not a bad thing to tell someone you're going to ignore their view.
Why is the opinion of the OP so much less meaningful than everyone elses'? I'm sure you two have yourselves posted your fair share of opinions on here. Where does the distinction come in?
I think it's a shame that there's automatic hostility and insults whenever somebody states an opinion on same-sex marriage that isn't "I'm 100% for it without a shadow of a glimmer of a doubt". Having a certain view on marriage doesn't make one homophobic, and nowhere in the OP did they insult homosexuals, so I don't see the problem.
It's kind of counter-productive to preach about being accepting, and then shout down a perfectly-civil opinion because it slightly varies from what is classed as PC, and I say this as a gay guy myself. As long as people aren't being offensive, insulting and derogatory (which from what I've seen, the OP wasn't), then I have no problem with varying opinions.
Wanting to deny someone a right based solely on their sexuality seems like a homophobic attitude to me .
Also, putting the words marriage in quotation marks, when referring to same-sex couples is pretty insulting.
Gneiss has always been anti gay marriage. And that's fair enough, but he doesn't half go on and on about it. Makes you wonder what motivates him to spend that amount of time on the subject.
Let it go, mate. You'll be happier for it.
It isn't really that fair enough. If the views of yesteryear were allowed to continue to be peddled we would still live among people who lived like medieval villagers. Eventually these outdated views have to be removed.
Even if they are actually homophobic? Surely most Catholic organisations would be.
I think any organisation is made up of individuals and I have found that they are as diverse as any other group of individuals - even within Catholic organisations; and I've had no little experience of them through working on issues of clerical abuse and the abortion debate. It's surprising and refreshing how many of them are open to discussion and willing to have entrenched views challenged. But if you start by calling them a bigot and sneering at them, that discussion simply won't happen. That's all I'm saying.
I partially agree with you. I think shouting bigoted or homophobe early is counterproductive however I think in the Irish case it may have been justified.
I think when someone who has a strong position or are in the right and trivialise it and personalise arguments they also may trivialise their position in some people's eyes. Crying offence and hurt when you hear something you don't like is equally a negative ploy in discussions that merely attempts hampers honestly held views being expressed.
This - exactly. As I said earlier in the thread, the main thrust of the 'anti' debate in Ireland has centred around the 'protection' of children. There's a widespread view on the conservative side of the argument that children of same-sex couples would be discriminated against because of their parentage. Same-sex marriage will be introduced in Ireland next year by way of referendum - we have to have a referendum to alter the definition of marriage in the Constitution. It's running at 70%/30% in favour in the opinion polls and there's another dozen or so per cent 'don't knows'; so it's a shoe-in. I think the child protection discussion is an interesting one and it challenges basic and ingrained views on what 'family' means as a concept. There are many families here, as elsewhere, where there's a mammy, a daddy and 2/3 children - but a dreadfully dysfunctional atmosphere. If we're to be so concerned about the children of gay couples, we should be much more concerned about others, IMO and the discrimination and difficulties they may experience based on physical abuse, drug abuse, poverty etc. etc. etc. But it's interesting that this issue seems to be the cornerstone of the 'anti' argument. It might be a smokescreen for some real bigots; but I think it's a genuine, if misguided, concern for some.
To clarify, I'm fully in support of same-sex marriage. However, following the debate on this site I've been very disappointed with the sneering and negative labelling levelled at those who disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage.
Now I'm not saying that homophobia isn't a motivation for some people's opposition to gay marriage. But I feel it's counter-productive to simply label anyone who dares to disagree with gay marriage as a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe'; or that they somehow want to restrict gay people's rights full stop. Frankly, it shuts down debate and probably makes those people even more wary of expressing their disagreement with the new law.
I don't believe that haranguing people into conformity is beneficial for anyone really. I'd rather we convinced one another of our points of view through argument and rational discussion; not through childish ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm not really convinced by any of the arguments against gay marriage, but that shouldn't give me carte blanche to label those who do hold those views as 'bigots', without even properly engaging with their arguments.
Some people do engage with the opposing arguments. But a worrying number of people seemingly aren't interested in a debate at all, and simply want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus. I find that approach very troubling, as it's tantamount to scaring people into conformity as they fear what they'll be labelled as if they dare to disagree. Not good.
To clarify, I'm fully in support of same-sex marriage. However, following the debate on this site I've been very disappointed with the sneering and negative labelling levelled at those who disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage.
Now I'm not saying that homophobia isn't a motivation for some people's opposition to gay marriage. But I feel it's counter-productive to simply label anyone who dares to disagree with gay marriage as a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe'; or that they somehow want to restrict gay people's rights full stop. Frankly, it shuts down debate and probably makes those people even more wary of expressing their disagreement with the new law.
I don't believe that haranguing people into conformity is beneficial for anyone really. I'd rather we convinced one another of our points of view through argument and rational discussion; not through childish ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm not really convinced by any of the arguments against gay marriage, but that shouldn't give me carte blanche to label those who do hold those views as 'bigots', without even properly engaging with their arguments.
Some people do engage with the opposing arguments. But a worrying number of people seemingly aren't interested in a debate at all, and simply want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus. I find that approach very troubling, as it's tantamount to scaring people into conformity as they fear what they'll be labelled as if they dare to disagree. Not good.
If people want to deny other people's rights, they are indulging in prejudice and endorsing discrimination.
I don't actually believe that people who hold such views will remotely be persuaded out of them by a softly softly approach (not that people should be rude or just shout 'homophobe') so it's not counter-productive.
If the views aren't entrenched, they have had and have plenty of other opportunities to think their way out of them. From what I've seen in these arguments, the anti-equal marriage people are often the ones who don't engage with argument, perhaps because the arguments are pretty weak and sometimes offensive. So people get frustrated with them
And you wouldn't make that argument about people endorsing racism and/or denial of equal rights to black people. (And, no, that isn't different - it's just that people who want to deny gay people equal rights are still a little bit more respectable than people who are racist. More than they should be). Plus the 'softly softly' argument is often used as a device itself to silence people (not saying you are).
People don't have a right not to have their opinion disrespected, especially when they don't respect other people's right to equality, people who've been victims of prejudice for a very long time.
If people want to deny other people's rights, they are indulging in prejudice and endorsing discrimination.
I don't actually believe that people who hold such views will remotely be persuaded out of them by a softly softly approach (not that people should be rude or just shout 'homophobe') so it's not counter-productive.
If the views aren't entrenched, they have had and have plenty of other opportunities to think their way out of them. From what I've seen in these arguments, the anti-equal marriage people are often the ones who don't engage with argument, perhaps because the arguments are pretty weak and sometimes offensive. So people get frustrated with them
And you wouldn't make that argument about people endorsing racism and/or denial of equal rights to black people. (And, no, that isn't different - it's just that people who want to deny gay people equal rights are still a little bit more respectable than people who are racist. More than they should be). Plus the 'softly softly' argument is often used as a device itself to silence people (not saying you are).
People don't have a right not to have their opinion disrespected, especially when they don't respect other people's right to equality, people who've been victims of prejudice for a very long time.
That's exactly it. These arguments against equal marriage seem to be that effectively LGBT people shouldn't have a right to marriage and that their marriages are lesser.
It's extremely offensive to people like Jesaya to put the word marriage in quotations when describing her relationship and certainly a lot worse than calling someone a bigot or a homophobe.
Also, wanting to deny someone rights based only on their sexuality is bigoted and homophobic.
The reasons you want to deny those rights are frankly irrelevant.
The people against equal marriage forget there are real people in these debates with real feelings and they come out with some quite horrible and hurtful stuff.
In fact the very fact that our rights are being debated in this way is quite insulting..
You've now got this odd situation where on top of that, you also have people telling us what homophobia is, even though we're the ones who experience it!
A lot of people seem to be missing one of the main reasons why making gay marriage legal was essential.
There are many countries in the world, including some European ones that don't recognise civil partnerships. Therefore, if you and your CP spouse visited, and one of you was hospitalised, you wouldn't legally be recognised as next-of-kin.
If you're married, then they have to recognise you as next of kin, whether the country allows gay marriage or not.
That's exactly it. These arguments against equal marriage seem to be that effectively LGBT people shouldn't have a right to marriage and that their marriages are lesser.
It's extremely offensive to people like Jesaya to put the word marriage in quotations when describing her relationship and certainly a lot worse than calling someone a bigot or a homophobe.
Also, wanting to deny someone rights based only on their sexuality is bigoted and homophobic.
The reasons you want to deny those rights are frankly irrelevant.
The people against equal marriage forget there are real people in these debates with real feelings and they come out with some quite horrible and hurtful stuff.
In fact the very fact that our rights are being debated in this way is quite insulting..
You've now got this odd situation where on top of that, you also have people telling us what homophobia is, even though we're the ones who experience it!
Yes, I completely agree.
The religious right (and other reactionaries) are always crying 'marginalisation', yet they're the ones who actively want to maintain a two-tier civil right, to have a a status that they can exclude people from. Then they cry 'intolerance', when people object.
As a gay woman I find it offensive when people refer to my marriage as a "marriage" because they think my relationship isn't as good as that of a straight couple. If that isn't insulting to gay people then I don't know what is.
Yes any post in whatever form that discriminates against people because of their sexuality is highly offensive and insulting.
I really don't get why they can't see that. What is wrong with them? Can it be cured?
The religious right (and other reactionaries) are always crying 'marginalisation', yet they're the ones who actively want to maintain a two-tier civil right, to have a a status that they can exclude people from. Then they cry 'intolerance', when people object.
It's down to the very way monotheism makes you think. Only your way is correct, everyone else is wrong. Therefore if something you want is removed it's because people are being vicious and trying to victimise you, and if something you don't want gets adopted it's because nefarious influences have an agenda against you.
It's all a bit pathetic really. The logic processes of a five year old before they begin to realise the world is more nuanced than everything being black and white.
It's down to the very way monotheism makes you think. Only your way is correct, everyone else is wrong. Therefore if something you want is removed it's because people are being vicious and trying to victimise you, and if something you don't want gets adopted it's because nefarious influences have an agenda against you.
It's all a bit pathetic really. The logic processes of a five year old before they begin to realise the world is more nuanced than everything being black and white.
Yes, I'm not really sure why monotheism is supposed to represent an advance in society.
It's down to the very way monotheism makes you think. Only your way is correct, everyone else is wrong. Therefore if something you want is removed it's because people are being vicious and trying to victimise you, and if something you don't want gets adopted it's because nefarious influences have an agenda against you.
It's all a bit pathetic really. The logic processes of a five year old before they begin to realise the world is more nuanced than everything being black and white.
Many people who believe in God fully support gay marriage; many atheists oppose gay marriage; many Christians are both Christian and gay so - no, it's not very black and white. The world is more nuanced.
Many people who believe in God fully support gay marriage; many atheists oppose gay marriage; many Christians are both Christian and gay so - no, it's not very black and white. The world is more nuanced.
That I don't dispute. However, those Christians wouldn't be classified as "religious right" nor be the sort that would claim they are being marginalised by the marriage laws extending to couples they will likely never meet.
Read back over the conversation my post was part of. It's all about context.
That I don't dispute. However, those Christians wouldn't be classified as "religious right" nor be the sort that would claim they are being marginalised by the marriage laws extending to couples they will likely never meet.
Read back over the conversation my post was part of. It's all about context.
Yes, indeed. My reference to the religious right and other reactionaries was about opposers of equal marriage, not those that agree with it.
I have often pointed out that being religious doesn't make it mandatory to oppose it, as many of the religious right try to imply.
As a gay woman I find it offensive when people refer to my marriage as a "marriage" because they think my relationship isn't as good as that of a straight couple. If that isn't insulting to gay people then I don't know what is.
Did you get married in a recognised place? with all the proper shizzle.... then your marriage is as valid as mine (hetro WITH KIDS!!) !! and anyone who thinks its not can sod off!!
I cannot believe that this is still going - really anti-gay-marriage? Like I said near the start just switch 'gay' with 'black ' or even 'interacial' lets see how far you get on that one
Comments
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=72050974&postcount=598
Wedding? Surely you mean marriage?
You keep making that assertion, but you haven't proved it.
I'll post my response to the Welby thread here for you:
I remember you sticking up for homophobic Muslims on a previous thread (criticising anyone for daring to criticise their opinion). No I know why.....
Let it go, mate. You'll be happier for it.
Ah but my response was to the notion that a blood bond is more important on a relationship level. That somehow blood means that you will be closer and there will be more love. That is not the case. the love can easily match that of an actual blood relationship
Why is the opinion of the OP so much less meaningful than everyone elses'? I'm sure you two have yourselves posted your fair share of opinions on here. Where does the distinction come in?
I think it's a shame that there's automatic hostility and insults whenever somebody states an opinion on same-sex marriage that isn't "I'm 100% for it without a shadow of a glimmer of a doubt". Having a certain view on marriage doesn't make one homophobic, and nowhere in the OP did they insult homosexuals, so I don't see the problem.
It's kind of counter-productive to preach about being accepting, and then shout down a perfectly-civil opinion because it slightly varies from what is classed as PC, and I say this as a gay guy myself. As long as people aren't being offensive, insulting and derogatory (which from what I've seen, the OP wasn't), then I have no problem with varying opinions.
As a gay woman I find it offensive when people refer to my marriage as a "marriage" because they think my relationship isn't as good as that of a straight couple. If that isn't insulting to gay people then I don't know what is.
I don't think people are saying an anti gay marriage opinion is less meaningful, it's more that they don't care.
If I was marrying a man and someone told me they didn't think it was real marriage and they didn't approve, I wouldn't care. I'd tell them to clear off and I'd be getting married regardless.
It's not a bad thing to tell someone you're going to ignore their view.
Wanting to deny someone a right based solely on their sexuality seems like a homophobic attitude to me .
Also, putting the words marriage in quotation marks, when referring to same-sex couples is pretty insulting.
It isn't really that fair enough. If the views of yesteryear were allowed to continue to be peddled we would still live among people who lived like medieval villagers. Eventually these outdated views have to be removed.
I think any organisation is made up of individuals and I have found that they are as diverse as any other group of individuals - even within Catholic organisations; and I've had no little experience of them through working on issues of clerical abuse and the abortion debate. It's surprising and refreshing how many of them are open to discussion and willing to have entrenched views challenged. But if you start by calling them a bigot and sneering at them, that discussion simply won't happen. That's all I'm saying.
This - exactly.
Excellent post.
I don't actually believe that people who hold such views will remotely be persuaded out of them by a softly softly approach (not that people should be rude or just shout 'homophobe') so it's not counter-productive.
If the views aren't entrenched, they have had and have plenty of other opportunities to think their way out of them. From what I've seen in these arguments, the anti-equal marriage people are often the ones who don't engage with argument, perhaps because the arguments are pretty weak and sometimes offensive. So people get frustrated with them
And you wouldn't make that argument about people endorsing racism and/or denial of equal rights to black people. (And, no, that isn't different - it's just that people who want to deny gay people equal rights are still a little bit more respectable than people who are racist. More than they should be). Plus the 'softly softly' argument is often used as a device itself to silence people (not saying you are).
People don't have a right not to have their opinion disrespected, especially when they don't respect other people's right to equality, people who've been victims of prejudice for a very long time.
That's exactly it. These arguments against equal marriage seem to be that effectively LGBT people shouldn't have a right to marriage and that their marriages are lesser.
It's extremely offensive to people like Jesaya to put the word marriage in quotations when describing her relationship and certainly a lot worse than calling someone a bigot or a homophobe.
Also, wanting to deny someone rights based only on their sexuality is bigoted and homophobic.
The reasons you want to deny those rights are frankly irrelevant.
The people against equal marriage forget there are real people in these debates with real feelings and they come out with some quite horrible and hurtful stuff.
In fact the very fact that our rights are being debated in this way is quite insulting..
You've now got this odd situation where on top of that, you also have people telling us what homophobia is, even though we're the ones who experience it!
There are many countries in the world, including some European ones that don't recognise civil partnerships. Therefore, if you and your CP spouse visited, and one of you was hospitalised, you wouldn't legally be recognised as next-of-kin.
If you're married, then they have to recognise you as next of kin, whether the country allows gay marriage or not.
The religious right (and other reactionaries) are always crying 'marginalisation', yet they're the ones who actively want to maintain a two-tier civil right, to have a a status that they can exclude people from. Then they cry 'intolerance', when people object.
Yes any post in whatever form that discriminates against people because of their sexuality is highly offensive and insulting.
I really don't get why they can't see that. What is wrong with them? Can it be cured?
It's all a bit pathetic really. The logic processes of a five year old before they begin to realise the world is more nuanced than everything being black and white.
Many people who believe in God fully support gay marriage; many atheists oppose gay marriage; many Christians are both Christian and gay so - no, it's not very black and white. The world is more nuanced.
Read back over the conversation my post was part of. It's all about context.
I have often pointed out that being religious doesn't make it mandatory to oppose it, as many of the religious right try to imply.
Did you get married in a recognised place? with all the proper shizzle.... then your marriage is as valid as mine (hetro WITH KIDS!!) !! and anyone who thinks its not can sod off!!
I cannot believe that this is still going - really anti-gay-marriage? Like I said near the start just switch 'gay' with 'black ' or even 'interacial' lets see how far you get on that one
If it offends you so much to see threads like this, why don't you refrain from reading them.
The whole point of forums like this is to discuss topical news. Gay marriage has only just become legal this week so obviously it is worthy of debate.
Or how about the people who are posting hurtful and insulting comments sod off and leave the adults to discuss the topic?
Well if they did that it would be a one sided debate so what is the point? Also not condoning gay marriage is not an insult it is an opinion.