Gay marriage

[Niall_Quinn]

Respond to my points then.

You read my points first. I don't mean pick out trigger words and auto-respond with boilerplate and another rendition of a Coke advert. And find out more about the characters you are in bed with.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It was a pretty rubbish post tbh, several times he presents a straw man and argues against a position that the (majority of) Christians don't hold. I will elaborate later.

Majority of Christians?.....i am not talking about individual christians i am talking about religious institutions.
Just because a lot of protestant christians in this country hold liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, doesn't mean that the churches themselves do....they just begrudgingly accept it because as always religion is behind the curve and tentatively drags it's feet behind human progress in a vein attempt to stay relevant in a world where increasingly it's no longer needed.
And the official line of Roman Catholicism towards Homosexuality is that it is an abhorrent practice, they are just frightened to shout it from the pulpit because it might offend the sensibilities of the western world and again it's frightened of losing it's influence.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No, it's not even a case of ignorance or nuanced opinion, that stuff is redundant in the face of modern society. This is a divided world, not just in terms of colour, race, creed, sexuality and the rest, but even more importantly in terms of thinking. Those that think and those that don't (and have others think for them). And the problem with that is simple. All the other divisions require thought if the problems arising from them are ever to be solved. If the majority are going to let a minority of liars with agendas think on their behalf then of course the problems don't get solved.

I'm not suggesting we should all sit here on GW and solve the problems of the world. When it comes to football I'd say it's even an advantage not to think about it too much because that kills the enjoyment, or whatever enjoyment is left. So football's a worthy dumping ground for bias and contradiction and emotional outbursts and any type of irrational behaviour. But it's also quite interesting the reaction you might get back if stepping over a line and suggesting somebody isn't a "proper" fan, we've seen that and we even pull that level for a thrill.

The important stuff though, bullshit thinking is a pain in the arse because a simple majority can force everyone down that path whether they like it or not. This is why it pisses me off so much. Not because somebody else wants to be vociferously thick, but because if the noise is loud enough then I have to live with the consequences even if I never gave a fuck about whatever if is they are shouting about. So at the very least make an argument, don't come along and tell me my thinking on something i didn't think about much in the first place is wrong! That's the PC game and that's why I despise it. The lack of thought, the intense oversimplification (necessary I suppose given the target audience) and the overbearing end result that ropes in innocent thinkers.

In fact I rarely go against the grain. None of us do, do we? We all follow the party line to varying degrees even when that line is a master class in lunacy, which it invariably is. But we play along. It gets a bit much when puppets flounce onto the stage with loud pre-recorded proclamations though. "Fuck off and leave me alone to be a lunatic in peace", is all I can think to say when they show up.

Anyway we'll see won't we? When this marriage thing has wound out I'm very confident the gay lobby will piss off, mission accomplished. On the other hand, no, that won't happen. What will happen is the puppets will be rolled out again on the next great crusade. And the clever bit is they'll use the concessions of the past as a baseline for the new "debate". The mile for the inch. It's what they do. And it;s a shame to see kids indoctrinated with that bullshit and helping to push it along.

I was so very tempted to quote Kevin Costner in JFK "we're through the looking glass here people, black is white, white is black!" but that seemed somewhat fatuous.
I disagree with most of your opinions but i don't find them in anyway offensive, the Libertarian philosophy for me seems largely to be one of wishful thinking that people will be better off if they are left completely free to either sink or swim on their own, but i think human beings are too flawed, too avaricious, too petty and undeveloped to be left completely to go it alone. Human beings came from a state of nature to form civilization as a sign of mutual protection from people that would harm you and deprive you of what was yours because they could.
Essentially universal freedom for all is impossible because total freedom for one person might necessitate a curtailing of freedom for someone else, we cannot always equate obligation with slavery.
But that's just my opinion.

[Xhaka Can’t]

"We're quite non-confrontational," the 22-year-old said. "I'm not that easily wound up but I was angered."

"But we were tired and decided not to make an issue."

Yeah, no issue made at all explaining why it is only the 3rd most read story on bbc.co.uk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21566002

[Letters]

Gays
Awful hissy fits

[Xhaka Can’t]

I've never heard anyone complaining about getting a room upgrade before. Certainly not one that made the news.

[Letters]

Zimm would if it was Wenger who offered him it.

[WMUG]

Woah, my mistake, didn't see this post til now.

Yes, it's different because it's between two people of the same gender. So why can't the definition of a civil partnership be changed to afford the same rights as a marriage. Keep the name, change the rights.

See your point, don't think it particularly matters either way, having thought about it. But then it's not up to me, is it? It's up to people whose marriages would or wouldn't be affected by the change in legislation.

Everyone's happy, right?

Probably not

I don't see any campaign to stop using terms like 'gay' and 'straight' in the name of equality.

Not particularly relevant to our conversation, admittedly, but there are a few screaming homophobes who want to stop using the world 'gay' to describe homosexuals

This is just about equal rights, isn't it?

Ideally.

Be honest - this isn't just about equal rights, this is about an oppressed minority thumbing its nose at religious people who have oppressed them.

Do you have any evidence to support that? If not, couldn't I equally claim that it's about it is about getting the same rights as other people:

People who have those rights are called 'married'.
We want what they have
They have marriage
We want marriage

?

The term used to describe it could easily be incidental. If it's about anything other than equal rights, then show me.

So we've got two possibilities here, and I have no idea which one is the case, and I doubt it's even a dichotomy between those two options.

Can you back your claim up? Genuine question.

Yeah, religious people will get offended by the definition of marriage changing because to them it means something special but screw 'em, they've oppressed us for millennia, why should we care that they think or believe?

I'm not inclined to believe that's the case without evidence, but even if it was, I don't feel that gay people, totally divorced from religious institutions owe religious institutions anything. The stance you outlined isn't, IMO, particularly unjustified.

If it was just about equality no-one would care what they called it if it gave the same rights as a marriage does.

Possible. Also possible that they would.

I watched the video btw. Wow, could that bloke be any more condescending? He sneers at easy targets who clearly don't understand science but from the things he says about religion he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to engage with or understand Christianity. It's interesting how he says (with some justification, admittedly) that Christians pick and choose verses when he's done the exact same thing and not tried to understand any context for the verses he mentions.

Yeah, he does that for comic effect. I think that video needs to be watched in the context of his other videos, or it does come across as being a bit of a condescending prick. He has one line in one video where he says something like "the easy option, of course, is to make fun of people's deeply held and personal beliefs without looking into why they believe them and what they mean to that person. So, let's get on with it".

[Özim]

Zimm would if it was Wenger who offered him it.

That's because he'd claim it was an upgrade but when I got to the room I'd find all the decent stuff has been sold off (TV, deluxe double bed, nice en suite etc etc) to be replaced by cheap untested French tat.

So in fact I'd be paying more for less.

[Letters]

That's because he'd claim it was an upgrade but when I got to the room I'd find all the decent stuff has been sold off (TV, deluxe double bed, nice en suite etc etc) to be replaced by cheap untested French tat.

So in fact I'd be paying more for less.

Well played