[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

From the same poster who told me to get off the religious thread.

Don't I have a right to an opinion? Hypocrite!

As for your opinion who cares less about and opinion that you can't back up with a scrap of evidence or fact. Truly laughable!

Lol!!!!

[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

Not sure what you are referring to here. If you mean that conservatives will never accept legal equality for other human beings, it doesn't matter. Their acceptance is not required. If you mean that bigoted opinions will never be accepted by a society that is moving on and progressing, that is correct, and rightly so.

Society moves slowly and acceptance is required however much you think it isnt!

[SpamJavelin]

Originally Posted by BennyJoseph

The Guardian readers are on the rampage, run to the hills, run, run, before free speech is expunged .

Seriously, the irony of the bigots here against another bigot would form the basis of a fine screenplay

Bigotry against bigotry? I'm cool with that.

[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by SpamJavelin

Bigotry against bigotry? I'm cool with that.

Plenty of bigots from all corners on here!

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Fizzbin

I misread that, as what I think of the minister.

Indeed!

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Plenty of bigots from all corners on here!

Not really. Being a bigot is not just because you object to something,

I object to racists it does not make me a bigot.

[Hassaan13]

A similar topic was discussed on a CBBC show a few weeks ago where the kids discussed about whether gay couples should be allowed to foster, as it's supposedly 'not normal' (that's what was stated by one of the kids).

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

Not really. Being a bigot is not just because you object to something,

I object to racists it does not make me a bigot.

Yes, if objecting to bigotry makes you a bigot, then objecting to objecting to bigotry must make you doubly one.

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

And so by trying worm his way out of it he is just digging the hole deeper.

Did anyone actually need telling that two men or two women can't produce a baby unless they get together? I mean why the need to state the bleeding obvious?

And is the "institution of marriage" is ONLY for people who can produce children of their own then is his view that straight couples who know they can't or don't ever want children, should also be banned from marriage? And what about those who have children from a previous get together? One of the marriage won't have "Children of their own" and so will the marriage be invalid until they produce one of their own?

Seriously it's all just complete bollocks to exclude gay people and only gay people from marriage and all his arguments as usual are invalid and total bollocks!

Indeed.

Another of his reasons was this:

Certainly in constituency terms, I felt that overwhelmingly the constituents of Clwyd West were opposed to the change

Well that's interesting, because all the other Tory MPs in Wales said the same thing... and a couple of the Labour ones. Yet all the polls in Wales have show it to have the highest level of support in the UK - running some 3-5% above the national rate of 60-65%. So just what is there definition of 'overwhelming'?

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Yes, if objecting to bigotry makes you a bigot, then objecting to objecting to bigotry must make you doubly one.

I am getting tired of the 'bigot' debate though - it's like the all opponents of same sex marriage were given a dictionary for Christmas. I have tried to stop using the word - along with homophobia - just to stop them from trying to divert attention from the content of their arguments.

[Big Boy Barry]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Society moves slowly and acceptance is required however much you think it isnt!

Society moves slowly when bigots stand in its way.

And again, acceptance from bigots isn't required. If bigots still have a problem with women's sufferage, women aren't going to give a bollocks when they go to vote.

[BennyJoseph]

Originally Posted by SpamJavelin

Bigotry against bigotry? I'm cool with that.

Says quite a lot, its kind of going full circle here where the people who see themselves as maintaining the tradition of the enlightenment are actually more like the witch burners of the reformation period. Unlike the Daily Mail mob who actually appear to almost celebrate their hysteria, the Guardian gang seem to think they are the super duper cool rational thinkers, the vanguard, the bringers of light to end the dark, cruel days of yore. Not really true though, alas.
These planks savagely, rabidly (me likes wild dog metaphors) try and silence those who hold views counter to their own (probably held by 80-90+% of the world) and
sneer at others who oppose gay marriage / adoption (or issue x) while ignoring that far 'higher' cultures than ours (Japanese, Chinese, Korean and 'all' religious communities) follow systems where childbirth / procreation etc are at the centre of family life, and where traditional social or family structures form the entire backbone of their societies (hence, in many ways, more stable, durable, well-functioning societies than our own - see London riots 2011).

I hate points of concession, but i do have a cousin in Brazil, married, two adopted kids and very happy so it can work, however I think having reservations about this issue, and being able to openly and freely air them, is very natural and should not be so viciously condemned.

End of rant. Time to watch a swiftly-edited episode of Corrie.

[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

Not really. Being a bigot is not just because you object to something,

I object to racists it does not make me a bigot.

Correct me if i'm wrong but you object to religious people do you not? If so you are a bigot and depending upon how you express that you could be arrested.

[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

Society moves slowly when bigots stand in its way.

And again, acceptance from bigots isn't required. If bigots still have a problem with women's sufferage, women aren't going to give a bollocks when they go to vote.

Acceptance is required for any change. Society is not yet convinced. Rabid accusations of "bigot" entrenches those views...

[SpamJavelin]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Acceptance is required for any change.

Actually, no. it isn't. It really isn't. Sometimes public opinion leads the way and legislation eventually catches up, but sometimes it's also the other way round and legislation is introduced which only a minority of the public supports. Whether they eventually come round is neither here nor there, but history shows that for the most part they do.

Society is not yet convinced.

I don't know what you're referring to but if you mean equal marriage then you couldn't be more wrong. A majority of people support it and the evidence shows it.

[InMyArms]

He's entitled to his opinion.

I'm entitled to my opinion that he's a nasty bigoted twerp.

[Big Boy Barry]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Acceptance is required for any change. Society is not yet convinced. Rabid accusations of "bigot" entrenches those views...

It really isn't. A change in law suffices. Whether individuals don't accept it really doesn't matter. Society doesn't need to be convinced of anything.

[Paul237]

Funny that those who agree with him sometimes don't want to say it, so they just defend his "right to an opinion".

However, my opinion is that he's utterly wrong and his comments verge on anti-gay. Yet they'll tell me off for that, despite it just being my opinion.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by jesaya

Indeed.

Another of his reasons was this:

Certainly in constituency terms, I felt that overwhelmingly the constituents of Clwyd West were opposed to the change

Well that's interesting, because all the other Tory MPs in Wales said the same thing... and a couple of the Labour ones. Yet all the polls in Wales have show it to have the highest level of support in the UK - running some 3-5% above the national rate of 60-65%. So just what is there definition of 'overwhelming'?

"I felt that..." So nothing but what he felt. Not "I asked many people and.." or "Many people have expressed that..." but just what he felt with nothing to back up why he should be led to that conclusion.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by Paul237

Funny that those who agree with him sometimes don't want to say it, so they just defend his "right to an opinion".

However, my opinion is that he's utterly wrong and his comments verge on anti-gay. Yet they'll tell me off for that, despite it just being my opinion.

Could it be that those who support him also don't have a single valid reason to back up they have to say?

I say yes!

[Dai Clust]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

Society moves slowly when bigots stand in its way.

And again, acceptance from bigots isn't required. If bigots still have a problem with women's sufferage, women aren't going to give a bollocks when they go to vote.

Yeah, but they haven't got any bollocks to give, have they?

[SpamJavelin]

Originally Posted by Paul237

Funny that those who agree with him sometimes don't want to say it, so they just defend his "right to an opinion".

However, my opinion is that he's utterly wrong and his comments verge on anti-gay. Yet they'll tell me off for that, despite it just being my opinion.

BIB: Not wholly true - I couldn't disagree with this man more, but as a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian (in the proper British sense, not the one which has crept into American political discourse!) I still defend his right to express his opinion. I say that even of the BNP and the Westboro Baptist Church. I'd sooner live in a society where even the most obnoxious views are able to be expressed than one which routinely silences people, on the basis that it's them today but it could be me tomorrow.

Still, once you stick your head over the parapet, it's game on, and anything and everything that comes your way is your own affair to deal with

[Big Boy Barry]

Originally Posted by Dai Clust

Yeah, but they haven't got any bollocks to give, have they?

It depends on the kind of women one associates with.

That trip to Thailand really opened my eyes.

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

"I felt that..." So nothing but what he felt. Not "I asked many people and.." or "Many people have expressed that..." but just what he felt with nothing to back up why he should be led to that conclusion.

Yes a bit like my MP who, when I wrote to him to ask him to support the bill actually told me that his constituents didn't support it. I then pointed out that I was writing to him because I was one of his constituents... at which point he started rambling about how he might have supported it but was cross with Stonewall's attitude to the B&B owners who refused to let a gay couple stay.

At that point I joined Plaid.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by jesaya

I am getting tired of the 'bigot' debate though - it's like the all opponents of same sex marriage were given a dictionary for Christmas. I have tried to stop using the word - along with homophobia - just to stop them from trying to divert attention from the content of their arguments.

Yes, it is diversionary (especially irritating is 'I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of them' stuff), I agree.

And also quite silly to complain that speaking out against prejudice amounts to prejudice.

I do wonder if there's some booklet in which people are advised to come out with this sort of stuff as a sort of battle tactic.