Gay Marriage- Did Cameron think this through?

Pecker

That's just it, that's not the only question.

Lets see.

I think you're not treating gays like human beings, because you call them gay, instead of straight.

You're a sexist because you won't let women be called men.

Is that how it works?

No, it isn't how it works, is it.

If people (religious or otherwise) argue that the word marriage refers to a union between members if the opposite sex, and has meant that for the history of the word, and that you cannot arbitrarily re- define words, then they have fairly reasonable point, and one that has nothing to do with equality.

Feel free to place your hands over your ears and shout "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!" if you like, but there's a genuine point there, and one which has nothing to do with religion.

Steve W

karkus30

Seriously. Women won't be called that for much longer. They will be referred to as persons of unspecified gender and will not be required to furnish their Christian names ( strike that, its not multi religious or culturally PC ) I meant first names accept as initials. Gender shall be indeterminate.

Pecker

Possibly. But there's a difference between saying "There won't be men and women, just people" (which is what you suggest may happen), and saying "Men and women will both be called men", which would be the correct parallel.

Steve W

Bl4ckGryph0n

You to be bending the meaning to your liking. It is the human rights act, not the man, not the woman, not based on your sexuality etc...It is human rights. Religous people may have innocently assumed that marriage is between two different sexes of human beings. However all humans being equal there is all the possibility to redefine that assumption. It is very clear, just open your eyes and look around you that there are more than one way to create a union. So let them, let them declare it, let them gain the rights and the respect associated with it..

karkus30

Yes, that's exactly how I see it. We are all a combination of Male and Female physically. The idea of unity goes well beyond the creation of children. Full union is way beyond the physical and we should grow towards it no matter how faltering the steps.

pragmatic

That would be my response to below (with the caveats already expressed which you've conveniently ignored)

Lets see properly, gay relationships including marriage existed before the Christian church, and many other religions.  Religions may have adopted marriage as an institution but please don't be so bigoted to suggested they invented or have sovereignty over it.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We somehow have returned to religion and its discrimination.  I am in no way claiming that gay marriage was universal or the norm in the ancient world, but it did exist and before many modern religions which both decry it and claim sole ownership of the word or concept.

As for your ridiculous notion that calling a gay person a gay has connotations?  This is not a playground insult but an accepted term used purely for context.  What this sounds like is the cry of a desperate argument, or the clutching of straws.   This meaningless attempt at diversion honestly devalues the rest of your argument

The truth is a women is a woman, a man is a man, their sexual orientation, colour of skin or any other genetic trait do not preclude them from being humans, thus granting them the same rights as all other humans.  You don't appear to share this view.

Pecker

That last comment is bang out of order.

I believe in complete, unequivocal equality for men and women, black and white, gay and straight.

Some people believe the English word marriage denotes members of opposite sexes. I merely say fine, we can come up with a different word for same sex marriages - after all, that's what we've all been doing all thread long, saying 'marriage' and 'same sex marriage'.

And from that you say I don't think gays are human.

Complete idiocy. You really are not capable of civil debate.  

Steve W

Bl4ckGryph0n

I think you may want to revisit your interpretation. How I read it was that karkus suggested that you seem to support that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as other groups of people. And to be fair, that is how I read your earlier posts as well. However that didn't mean that he or anyone else said that you said (this sounds so childish) men or woman who are gay aren't humans. I was just amazed how you seem to support a distinction in human rights based on their sexual orientation. That's all.

karkus30

I think the last comment was probably from Gaz ?

karkus30

You can't because it inherently creates division. Once you acct total equality there can be no hiding places, nothing can be off limits or sacred. If you don't accept that to be true, then you cannot take an apartheid approach just because it upsets religious groups. It has to be seen as just another ancient fallacy that has been part of religious doctrines. Once you start throwing out one religious doctrine, then you have to accept that you will one day have to chuck them all.

I'm actually neutral on this subject, I can clearly see both sides. If we accept laws which forcibly banish inequality then we cannot make another law that supports it. There is no half way house, if you accept everyone as equal and accept that this must be enshrined in statute to make is compulsory, then the church must relinquish its right to hold an alternative view. It is not right that the state should create a statute that exempts a group from a progression. It will marginalise the church eventually, it will make the church seem bigoted and backwards and will be the nail in its coffin in the years to come.