UK Moving In The Right Direction - Religious 'Marriages' For Gay Couples

[Saru Inc]

Sure its an opinion, but its a wrong one.

Because studys, statistics and facts show it to be wrong; hence it gets challenged.

 

Opinions can be wrong, it could be your opinion that grass is actually pink; that doesn't make it a fact because science has shown it falls into the spectrum of colour that we classify as green.

 

 

What. An opinion can be wrong? Sounds pretty ridiculous don't you think?

 

 

Ok if you have an opinion that the sky is polka dotted with lime green and magenta then technically that opinion can be proven wrong. But those aren't the opinions we are discussing. Those are opinions based on quantitative and literal/concrete/forget the other word that we can see and feel and touch. Opinions on human nature are of a entire different caliber.

 

And Romy, I'm not saying don't challenge, I'm all up for debating him. But it's different, in a sense the way I see it you're rejecting him for not agreeing with homosexuality, which is simply the polar opposite of whats happening to gays. But that doesn't make it ok. (note, not saying you think its ok) I just really don't like any discrimination, I will stand up for a bigot, if the bigot is the one being discriminated against. Growing up in my parents household (they are very close minded bigoted people) has let me appreciate true open mindedness, and the beauty of the human mind and all it encompasses. And I simply think its wrong to TELL someone what they think is wrong, and TELLING someone what they think is wrong is different from DEBATING what they think.

 

 

just my $2. I know I kinda ran down a couple bunny trails.

 

 

to boil it all down:

I value open mindedness over moral truth in a sense. And thats the philosophy I apply to Skully and other people I disagree with.

[Sy_Accursed]

to boil it all down:

I value open mindedness over moral truth in a sense. And thats the philosophy I apply to Skully and other people I disagree with.

 

I agree with this to an extent.

 

If someone simply thinks gays are wrong and dislikes them and thus avoids them and doesn't have dealings with them fair enough.

 

On the other hand when they do get involved and try to argue things such as gays shouldn't have kids cause they will make the kids gay I kinda debate or argue it. Because there is not statistical proof that gay parents has any effect over the sexuality of the child and studies show that gay parents have jsut as many/few gay kids as straight parents.

 

I think to boil that down it would be:

If you dislike gays but leave me be fair enough.

If you try to hinder my rights or prove me to be wrong based on made up or disproven "facts" or ideas then I'ma call you on it.

[Skully]

What. An opinion can be wrong? Sounds pretty ridiculous don't you think?

What it comes down to in the end is that people will throw in a baseless statement and disguise it as an "opinions". Voilà, your baseless claim is now untouchable, and you don't have to defend it.

 

So, "gay kids from straight parents are a minority, at least around here anyway. " is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

 

Why would I say something if it wasn't my opinion? That's a pretty stupid idea actually..

 

Skully be trollin'

or just really close minded

 

Really don't need such crap as above here.

 

Do you have proof that your opinion of challenging 'bigotted' opinions can lead to a better environment?

 

Maybe you'll see my point now.

We should let bigotted ideas go unchecked and unchallenged?

 

Guy : "Gays dont deserve to be treated the same as straight people"

Other guy : "Oh, I respect your opinion, but politely disagree"

 

Have that on cable news channels, it gets into peoples heads that its okay, perpetuates the problem.

People can have opinions, but when they start oppressing other people because of those opinions, no.

 

I'm not attacking anyone in particular, like i've said i'm against the whole idea of it. I have no personal problem with Saru or any other gay I know of.

[Romy]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

[Skully]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

[Romy]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

 

Not at all, discussion is the reason I created this thread.

 

I simply disagree with the opinions you presented here, especially since they aren't based on anything other than your own instinct.

[Skully]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

 

Not at all, discussion is the reason I created this thread.

 

I simply disagree with the opinions you presented her, especially since they aren't based on anything other than your own instinct.

As are many opinions.. It's not a crime that i'm not going to waste time looking into something to prove a point, because that's not why i'm here. I was here to give my opinion on the subject.

[Sy_Accursed]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

 

Well some things you have posted have been wrong.

 

Like I believe you made comment of homosexuality not being natural; but homosexuality has been proven in many non-human species so it is IS natural.

You said children of gay couples would mimic their parents and thus be gay; this is statistically unproven, possibly even disproven not sure and clearly wrong in that straight parents have gay children and thus children dont simply mimic sexuality of the parents etc.

 

Though I do think romy may have drifted from dealing with the issues to simply saying you are wrong.

[meol]

What. An opinion can be wrong? Sounds pretty ridiculous don't you think?

What it comes down to in the end is that people will throw in a baseless statement and disguise it as an "opinions". Voilà, your baseless claim is now untouchable, and you don't have to defend it.

 

So, "gay kids from straight parents are a minority, at least around here anyway. " is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

 

Why would I say something if it wasn't my opinion? That's a pretty stupid idea actually.

I never said that. It's just that you can't come and say "blacks are inferior" and try to pass it off as "an opinion that can't be wrong". You are welcome to say your opinion and to have it respected by others. That doesn't mean it's untouchable, or that you don't have to back up facts. That's the whole purpose of a debate.

 

But I would like to get back on the original topic, if you don't mind. You still haven't addressed any of the points we brought up concerning homosexuality as a choice.

 

[Edit] There's something where I agree with you and yguy, though. People throw around "bigot" way too easily nowadays. Then again, it's never good for a discussion when people start playing the victims.

[obfuscator]

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

Aha get used to it. If you're anti gay marriage, you're automatically a bigot.

 

Yet, if you're anti-religion, you're an intelligent, popular human being.

[Skully]

What. An opinion can be wrong? Sounds pretty ridiculous don't you think?

What it comes down to in the end is that people will throw in a baseless statement and disguise it as an "opinions". Voilà, your baseless claim is now untouchable, and you don't have to defend it.

 

So, "gay kids from straight parents are a minority, at least around here anyway. " is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

 

Why would I say something if it wasn't my opinion? That's a pretty stupid idea actually.

I never said that. It's just that you can't come and say "blacks are inferior" and try to pass it off as "an opinion that can't be wrong". You are welcome to say your opinion and to have it respected by others. That doesn't mean it's untouchable, or that you don't have to back up facts. That's the whole purpose of a debate.

 

But I would like to get back on the original topic, if you don't mind. You still haven't addressed any of the points we brought up concerning homosexuality as a choice.

 

[Edit] There's something where I agree with you and yguy, though. People throw around "bigot" way too easily nowadays.

 

I have. Look back a page.

 

But yeah, it's all ties in with political correctness, we are somehow bad for having a different opinion.

@Saru- But telling someone they're wrong, and explaining why, is debating.

No. You're trying to be rid of me just because I have a different opinion to you. Also calling me a bigot simply for having a non-pc, 'controversial' if you like, opinion. That's different to telling me i'm wrong. (Which isn't possible with a subject matter like this) You seem like you want one big happy thread of everyone supporting the OP with no real discussion? :mellow:

Aha get used to it. If you're anti gay marriage, you're automatically a bigot.

 

Yet, if you're anti-religion, you're an intelligent, popular human being.

I'm actually anti both. What does that make me? :P

[Romy]

I shouldn't have said you're a bigot, I take that back. It's a result of frustration in general, not with you specifically.

 

I do believe your opinion is ignorant, though. You admit it's based on an instinct, and refuse to "research" it properly.

[Skully]

I'll admit to being ignorant. Doesn't bother me really, but you don't seem to see my point of an opinion being something totally different to fact. But don't think i'm ignorant for the reason that I disagree with homosexuality. I hate it when people say something like 'you're ignorant, you never look at other peoples opinions' or something along those lines, as if to say 'you're ignorant, because you looked at other people's opinions but didn't change your mind to suit them after', if that makes sense.

[Sy_Accursed]

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

[Skully]

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.

[Saru Inc]

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

 

 

 

Yea that perplexed me for like 5 minutes until I realized just to ignore it. :D

[Bouwzie]

So, why do people rate marriage so high? I don't see it as an ultimate token of love actually. More of a burden.

[meol]

Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.

Okay, now I understand your point. :thumbup: That's an opinion I can disagree with, since it's just subjective speculation. But unless you can back it up with strong facts, it must not be the base for legislation, which was the original topic.

[Alg]

So, why do people rate marriage so high? I don't see it as an ultimate token of love actually. More of a burden.

Because with it come legal privileges. Can't really restrict legal privileges to people.

[Skully]

Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.

Okay, now I understand your point. :thumbup: That's an opinion I can disagree with, since it's just subjective speculation. But unless you can back it up with strong facts, it must not be the base for legislation, which was the original topic.

Alright then, imagine there are an equal amount of gay families as straight ones. That one gay family decides to adopt a kid, that kid then lives and grows up seeing those two guys affection etc. He grows up thinking it is normal, or the 'right' thing to do, so he follows the path. He never has second thoughts about it even if he sees straight couples, because that is how he grew up so therefore that must be correct.

[Spiffeh]

Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.

Okay, now I understand your point. :thumbup: That's an opinion I can disagree with, since it's just subjective speculation. But unless you can back it up with strong facts, it must not be the base for legislation, which was the original topic.

Alright then, imagine there are an equal amount of gay families as straight ones. That one gay family decides to adopt a kid, that kid then lives and grows up seeing those two guys affection etc. He grows up thinking it is normal, or the 'right' thing to do, so he follows the path. He never has second thoughts about it even if he sees straight couples, because that is how he grew up so therefore that must be correct.

Kid grows up with straight parents, sees their straight affection, becomes gay, etc..

im sure it works in the opposite direction. i have no idea about the percentages and everything, i dont really care.

 

Okay, well whats the point youre trying to make?

[Bouwzie]

What kind of privileges would those be then? And remember, this is about the UK, not the US. I could only find legal privileges that apply to the US.

[Rock Hard]

i generally think gays are pretty creepy

 

i think the gay manager at work fancies me, hes always trying to hug me and giving me these sly smiles and it makes me feel really awkward

 

the gays who go round 'flaunting their sexuality proudly' really do my head in - i dont ponce around them putting on shows of being 'extra straight and PROUD man!!! yeahh represent!! IMMA GO [bleep] ME SOME WOMENS!!!' because that would be weird and socially unacceptable. be gay, but dont be weird k?

 

on topic:

 

if they want to get 'married' thats their business, but DONT do it in a holy building dedicated to a god who 'forbids' it - thats true disrespect

 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

 

same goes for people who disrepect other laws of god tho tbh, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, gossips, drunkards, idolaters, the whole shebang - if you aint a chrizhead, dont [bleep]in dedicate the entirety of your lovelife to the christian god in a christian temple - makes sense no?

 

edit: bloody hell i log into facebook and that managers just added me :( think he just wants to be friends??

[Sy_Accursed]

No skully it was an offshoot tht seemed to slot in nicely and divert away from the whole bigot argument.

 

However I would say the whole nature vs nuture thing and possibility of more gay kids due to gay parentage is though speculative flawed. Foremost because surely any gay couple who wants kids would get them regardless of marriage status, especially with civil partnerships as they stand.

 

The marriage issue is all to do with semantics.

 

As it stands religious premises and practitioners can only be used for a marriage and a marriage can only be formed by a male and a female.

Meanwhile a civil partnership can only be formed by two men or two women.

 

This act in its entirety would mean:

Gay couples part of a religion who accepts gays could legally have a marriage opposed to a civil partnership

And straight couples who arent religious could have a civil partnership opposed to a marriage.

[Skully]

Is this directed at me? Because at this moment in time I don't think it is a choice, I was trying to say that I believed that if or when gay marriage and adoption became big, it would get into a nature vs nurture thing, with more gay kids due to them growing up around gay carers. I think that's kind of hard to say is 'wrong'.

Okay, now I understand your point. :thumbup: That's an opinion I can disagree with, since it's just subjective speculation. But unless you can back it up with strong facts, it must not be the base for legislation, which was the original topic.

Alright then, imagine there are an equal amount of gay families as straight ones. That one gay family decides to adopt a kid, that kid then lives and grows up seeing those two guys affection etc. He grows up thinking it is normal, or the 'right' thing to do, so he follows the path. He never has second thoughts about it even if he sees straight couples, because that is how he grew up so therefore that must be correct.

Kid grows up with straight parents, sees their straight affection, becomes gay, etc..

 

Okay, well whats the point youre trying to make?

Stop trying to be a smartass, I already explained that i'm not talking about current times, but when gay marriage and adoption becomes mainstream. I don't know who you are or where you randomly popped up from but if you took the time to read the past 2 or 3 pages or so, you'll see i've been making my point the whole way through.