GAY Marriage

[FMJ]

My point was on to criticize their approach, more or less like the gay parades.

Wow.

 

[t-stoff]

My point was on to criticize their approach, more or less like the gay parades.

Wow.

If I don't like those public displays of whatever, should I lie ?
Should I be banned ? I'm not entitled of my own opinion ?
Doesn't mean I don't accept gays, but I surely don't need those type of demonstrations blocking major streets.

 

[FMJ]

If I don't like those public displays of whatever, should I lie ?
Should I be banned ? I'm not entitled of my own opinion ?
Doesn't mean I don't accept gays, but I surely don't need those type of demonstrations blocking major streets.

Are you going to be pissed off at the Irish tomorrow?

 

[highlandsflyer]

T-stoff>

Just how often have your major streets been blocked by such?

Geez.

 

[t-stoff]

I've been knicked quite a few times and I didnt enjoy. No it doesnt happen everyday, but when it does, i hate it. Im sorry.
Theres other ways to get through.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Was it your back streets that were blocked?

 

[Neil]

whats wrong with civil partnerships that they have now

What's wrong with them being free to legally marry, if they so choose?

why try force the issue

Who's being forced, and why should there be an issue?

This is what I really don't get.

If Jim (the tax attorney) and Jim (the anaesthesiologist) who live down the road, decide they want to get hitched, who else does it affect? Assuming nobody / no religions are being forced to be involved against their religious beliefs, then who else does it affect? Nobody, that's who.

Most would never know - a lot would probably never care - so why, then, should the unaffected presume to control?

I've never understood this perspective about how it affects society, or the insitution of marriage.

From what I can see, the only people it affects is those that presume to moralise over the rest of society - and from where I'm sat, people should be free to do most things and not restricted, so long as what they do does not harm others, nor impinge on others' freedoms.

Now if a bunch of self-righteous religious people want to be offended on behalf of, they should be roundly ignored - after all, probably all of their perspective on the matter, likely stems from a few throwaway lines, in an old tome, written by people just as morally flawed as those their work seeks to control.

And I suspect, over history, just as much harm has been metered out to the world on the basis of fervent religious beliefs, or moral hang-ups.

I just don't get why so many in society, choose to weigh in over something that doesn't affect or involve them - and it doesn't - so why should it matter, and why should that have any credence in restricting other people?

The paedophile / thin-end-of-the-wedge argument is a big stinking crock - over time, society has become significantly less tolerant of paedophilia - and I'm really not getting the connection between paedophilia, and legal, consensual behaviour and relationships for adults.

 

[dbmtb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQf5jL3a4iU

Really.... this should be a non-issue by now though?

 

[tintin40]

Who's being forced, and why should there be an issue?

This is what I really don't get.

If Jim (the tax attorney) and Jim (the anaesthesiologist) who live down the road, decide they want to get hitched, who else does it affect? Assuming nobody / no religions are being forced to be involved against their religious beliefs, then who else does it affect? Nobody, that's who.

Most would never know - a lot would probably never care - so why, then, should the unaffected presume to control?

I've never understood this perspective about how it affects society, or the insitution of marriage.

From what I can see, the only people it affects is those that presume to moralise over the rest of society - and from where I'm sat, people should be free to do most things and not restricted, so long as what they do does not harm others, nor impinge on others' freedoms.

Now if a bunch of self-righteous religious people want to be offended on behalf of, they should be roundly ignored - after all, probably all of their perspective on the matter, likely stems from a few throwaway lines, in an old tome, written by people just as morally flawed as those their work seeks to control.

And I suspect, over history, just as much harm has been metered out to the world on the basis of fervent religious beliefs, or moral hang-ups.

I just don't get why so many in society, choose to weigh in over something that doesn't affect or involve them - and it doesn't - so why should it matter, and why should that have any credence in restricting other people?

The paedophile / thin-end-of-the-wedge argument is a big stinking crock - over time, society has become significantly less tolerant of paedophilia - and I'm really not getting the connection between paedophilia, and legal, consensual behaviour and relationships for adults.

4 pages :shock: 'Neil' wrote it better than i could have. Lets move in to the the 21st Century and out of the dark ages.

 

[David B]

Who's being forced, and why should there be an issue?

This is what I really don't get.

If Jim (the tax attorney) and Jim (the anaesthesiologist) who live down the road, decide they want to get hitched, who else does it affect? Assuming nobody / no religions are being forced to be involved against their religious beliefs, then who else does it affect? Nobody, that's who.

Most would never know - a lot would probably never care - so why, then, should the unaffected presume to control?

I've never understood this perspective about how it affects society, or the insitution of marriage.

From what I can see, the only people it affects is those that presume to moralise over the rest of society - and from where I'm sat, people should be free to do most things and not restricted, so long as what they do does not harm others, nor impinge on others' freedoms.

Now if a bunch of self-righteous religious people want to be offended on behalf of, they should be roundly ignored - after all, probably all of their perspective on the matter, likely stems from a few throwaway lines, in an old tome, written by people just as morally flawed as those their work seeks to control.

And I suspect, over history, just as much harm has been metered out to the world on the basis of fervent religious beliefs, or moral hang-ups.

I just don't get why so many in society, choose to weigh in over something that doesn't affect or involve them - and it doesn't - so why should it matter, and why should that have any credence in restricting other people?

The paedophile / thin-end-of-the-wedge argument is a big stinking crock - over time, society has become significantly less tolerant of paedophilia - and I'm really not getting the connection between paedophilia, and legal, consensual behaviour and relationships for adults.

4 pages :shock: 'Neil' wrote it better than i could have. Lets move in to the the 21st Century and out of the dark ages.

+1. Excellent post from Neil, plus your comment about moving out of the dark ages is bang on the money. The Daily Fail's front page yesterday (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/ ... _2012.html) trumpeted the inevitable knee-jerk reaction headline "Don't use the words husband and wife!". :roll:

David