FCKH8!

Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »
- RaccoonR
- AKA Colonel Q-Daffi
- Pub Regular
- Oh yeah, baby!
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #90 - October 19, 2010, 12:17 AM

Goddamn hippie!

"In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
- Mount A Bison
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #91 - October 19, 2010, 12:34 AM

q
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #92 - October 19, 2010, 12:41 AM

Why are heterosexual couples allowed to marry?

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #93 - October 19, 2010, 12:43 AM

Quote from: Mount a Bison
I think you're turned on by this adversarial contest, by my rugged powers of seduction. You want me, I want you and all God's chillun know it. So why the shameless lies my overweight bison? You fancy yourself as something of a latter day Joan of Ark battling against the gathering forces of darkness. And I think you're a daft little bint with too much idealism and too little realism. Call it a draw.

I think you're breaking our rule against personal insults, and if you do it again you'll be taking a posting holiday. Call that a warning.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Mount A Bison
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #94 - October 19, 2010, 12:44 AM

w
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #95 - October 19, 2010, 12:47 AM

Don't say I didn't warn you.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #96 - October 19, 2010, 01:11 AM

Quote from: Mount A Bison on October 19, 2010, 12:34 AM
I think you're turned on by this adversarial contest, by my rugged powers of seduction. You want me, I want you and all God's chillun know it. So why the shameless lies my overweight bison? You fancy yourself as something of a latter day Joan of Ark battling against the gathering forces of darkness. And I think you're a daft little bint with too much idealism and too little realism. Call it a draw.

Aww, you're so adorable when you go into grubby old perv uncle mode. You're such a 'character'

Quote from: Mount A Bison on October 19, 2010, 12:34 AM
Because poverty has no bearing on the subject under review. But whether the physically handicapped should be allowed to marry and bring forth little chits does. Have you got a view of your own? Why do I get the lugubrious impression that in all the years you've been whooping and hollering for gay marriage like a scanty clad cheerleader with an IQ as low as her mini-skirt that it's the first time you've been confronted with serious questions? Tell me I'm wrong my sweet. Tell me it just ain't so. I'd hate to think your liberal arts education has gone for nothing.

Cheeta has already addressed your questions. Much more thoroughly and eloquently than I could. Do you want me to talk you through it? Apart from that, if you step up going "Hear ye! Hear ye! You will not believe this message I have! It is going to blow your mind! It is nothing less than the message of the century!" while handing over a dry cleaning receipt, don't blame me if I lose interest. I'm not in the mood for it.

Quote from: Mount A Bison on October 19, 2010, 12:34 AM
I see no grave evil that is not borne by any of the other aforementioned lifestyle choices. Which is not to say homosexuaity is not congenitally rooted. As noted a thousand times, let the gays have the same legal protections as the straights, but why that should not also extend to heterodox couplings cuurently out of favour is not immediately clear. What do you think should be done about consanguineous couples?

Read the thread. The pro’s and con’s are spelled out nice and clear. It’s a cut and dry issue for me. The pattern of countries establishing some form of same-sex civil partnership or marriage can extend further using the same model. Its not a black cloud of Mordor spreading over the land, burning churches down and raping brides before their wedding night, or turning normal families into some frenzied incest-fest. These counties survive, surprisingly. Nothing happens to the population. They dont all wake up with AIDS and a sore arse the next day. Just a few gays get married. Whoopdee-fucking-do! But the the progress starts to hit silly, petty objections like you raise, the rhetoric you're regurgitating, propagated by otherwise intelligent human beings who should mind their own fucking business anyway. You’re burning calories defending a stance I’m struggling to tolerate, and it fucking irritates me no end.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #97 - October 19, 2010, 02:03 AM

Quote from: deusvult on October 19, 2010, 12:41 AM
Why are heterosexual couples allowed to marry?

It all started in a town called Bethlehem...

Mary was fucking Joseph's best mate behind his back because he had a bigger cock than him and could get a hard on without getting emo about sin, and then when she got pregnant she thought "OH SHIT! IMMA GET STONED TO DEATH BY BEARDED MADMEN!" so she thought of a good excuse... "hmmmmm.... GOD DID IT!" And everyone in days of yore were crazy enough to believe her, even her muppet of a bloke, because they didn't want to be struck by lightening by the big raging bastard in the sky.

Then the poor fucker was born, given the stupid name ‘Christ’, and she screwed his poor little brain up by telling him he was the son of god. The kid had no chance. He thought he could actually walk on water and cure AIDS with his laser eyes. Until the evil Jews got bored of his bullshit and nailed him to a cross. And then some random whore-stoning goat herders who thought the world was flat wrote a book about his life. After that, a bunch of celibates and kiddy-fuckers got hold of the book and re-wrote it, and built an 'establishment' in honour of it called the Roman Polanski Church, then just decided one day to sweep through the world like a plague of locusts, slaughtering everyone and anyone in the name of ‘Christ the Merciful’ And then when everybody had stopped killing each other for a moment, they slapped a Jesus Christ ™ sticker on the whole fucking sorry mess.

Meanwhile, they have been systematically fucking with peoples brains from an early age, convincing them they can buy a place in some magical land when they die if they do exactly what they are told, while all the time fucking the dead skull of that poor retard kid they nailed to the cross. Hordes of do-gooders and religious bimbos buy into the myths written in the greatest work of fiction ever told and are sent out as ambassadors of good will with charitable efforts, while clerics in stupid hats and dresses get rich and fat and live in palaces, fucking cherub faced children, and get driven around in bulletproof limos and private jets to suck believers dry, and then make token efforts to apologise for millennia of being total bastards to every minority they lay their dirty, perverted, hungry eyes on... and then just keep on being total bastards anyway in third-world backwater countries where they need help most and where nobody can see them. And now they sit comfortably upon their throne of skulls and make plans for no less than full global domination, with worshipers at their feet and little boys on the end of their cocks. And God smiles upon them.

And they said heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #98 - October 19, 2010, 03:32 AM

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 18, 2010, 11:20 PM
This shit's not complicated-- there exists a movement to ensure gay couples have the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples. Either you support equality under the law for homosexuals or you oppose it. There are no gray areas here.

In the UK homosexuals are allowed civil partnerships, but not marriage which is legally indifferent but recognised as an institution of the church. Some have challenged that civil partnership as a secular contractual arrangement between two individuals should also be open to heterosexuals. I like this idea because in my eyes it makes the christian institution defunct, the next step would be to decouple it from the law, tie it in a nice ribbon and hand it back to the church. Muslims can have their nikah's, Christians can have their marriages, and if they'd like their partnership recognised by the state then they can sign a secular partnership contract. If homosexuals are able to force the acceptance of same-sex marriage, then good for them- but I view it as little more than spitting in the eye of the church when viable secular alternatives exist.

For the record, MAB did say he agreed that homosexuals should enjoy equality before the law:
Quote
Let the rear mounters be given the same legal rights and protections afforded to the hetros, but legal marriage no. Why? Throw open the floodgates of matrimonial privilege and there is no logical end in sight for which spiky-haired tattooed drifter with a guitar and a vanishing IQ can take up with whom. If a man can wed a man, why might he not marry two men? I’m serious. The bonds of amorous entanglement can exist between three men just as well as between two. True enough the norm today is serial marriage. Why not polygamous marriage? By what right does the law discriminate in favor of monogamous relationships?

I can see where MAB is coming from there and I expanded upon my reasoning in a previous post.

Quote from: Cheetah on October 18, 2010, 11:29 PM
Yes, it would be OK, it just wouldn't be called marriage. It would be called a bunch of people living together, and that is already legal in Europe and N. America.

Why should the christian institution of marriage be made available without the consent of the church for homosexuals? Surely if the church doesn't recognise the unions as "marriage" then the point is moot, anyway? Unless you contest that marriage is no longer the preserve of the church and is already a secular institution which should be opened to all. I can see the merit in such an argument, but it seems to be going about the problem in an arse about face manner when fully secularised forms of union already exist which afford the same legal privs which don't carry the religious baggage of "marriage". FWIW, I still think marriage should be abolished in legal terms and unionship placed in a fully secularised context - universal and open for all. This would only be a first step towards recognising the rights of those who engage in non-monogamous relationships. As you can see, my approach is already quite pragmatic in this regard and I don't think homosexuals winning the right to "marriage" is problematic, per se. Just taking a more meandering route on the same path towards equality and recognition for individuals choosing to live their lives in ways that do not conform to the current outmoded institution of marriage.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #99 - October 19, 2010, 10:19 AM

Quote from: thinkfree on October 19, 2010, 03:32 AM
In the UK homosexuals are allowed civil partnerships, but not marriage which is legally indifferent but recognised as an institution of the church. Some have challenged that civil partnership as a secular contractual arrangement between two individuals should also be open to heterosexuals. I like this idea because in my eyes it makes the christian institution defunct, the next step would be to decouple it from the law, tie it in a nice ribbon and hand it back to the church. Muslims can have their nikah's, Christians can have their marriages, and if they'd like their partnership recognised by the state then they can sign a secular partnership contract. If homosexuals are able to force the acceptance of same-sex marriage, then good for them- but I view it as little more than spitting in the eye of the church when viable secular alternatives exist.

Hetro couples can already get married in UK without the blessing of the Church.

Quote
Civil marriages and civil partnerships

A civil marriage ceremony or civil partnership can take place in any register office in England or Wales, or at any venue approved by the local authority. These include stately homes and other prestigious buildings, hotels and restaurants.

You will first need to formally give notice of marriage or notice of civil partnership.

On the day of your marriage or civil partnership, you will need to bring at least two other people who can sign as witnesses.

A civil marriage ceremony cannot have any religious content, but you may be able to arrange for individual touches such as non-religious music and readings to be added to the legal wording, and for the ceremony to be videoed. The register office where you intend to marry will be able to tell you more about the options available.

A Civil Partnership is legally formed by the signing of the civil partnership schedule. Like a civil marriage, this is also non-religious, but couples who wish to arrange for a ceremony should discuss this with the registration officials.

Welsh speaking marriages and civil partnerships

You can marry or form a civil partnership in Welsh in any place in which the Welsh language is commonly used. Both yourselves, your witnesses and the person conducting the marriage should be able to understand what is being said. You don’t have to have given notice in Welsh.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Marriagesandcivilpartnerships/DG_175715

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #100 - October 19, 2010, 10:34 AM

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 10:19 AM
Hetro couples can already get married in UK without the blessing of the Church.

It was never forwarded that they could not.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #101 - October 19, 2010, 10:42 AM

I thought thats what you meant when you said "Some have challenged that civil partnership as a secular contractual arrangement between two individuals should also be open to heterosexuals. I like this idea..."

Marriage in the UK is no longer a Christian institution, is what I mean. A church ceremony might be a Christian thing, but not marriage.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #102 - October 19, 2010, 10:49 AM

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 10:42 AM
I thought thats what you meant when you said "Some have challenged that civil partnership as a secular contractual arrangement between two individuals should also be open to heterosexuals. I like this idea..."

Civil marriage != Civil partnership. Example to expand my previous statement, here.

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 10:42 AM
Marriage in the UK is no longer a Christian institution, is what I mean. A church ceremony might be a Christian thing, but not marriage.

I don't necessarily disagree, as stated previously:
Quote from: thinkfree on October 19, 2010, 03:32 AM
Unless you contest that marriage is no longer the preserve of the church and is already a secular institution which should be opened to all. I can see the merit in such an argument, but it seems to be going about the problem in an arse about face manner when fully secularised forms of union already exist which afford the same legal privs which don't carry the religious baggage of "marriage".

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #103 - October 19, 2010, 11:01 AM

Oh ok.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Sir Wankalot
- Pub Regular
- small, furry and brown
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #104 - October 19, 2010, 11:22 AM

I agree with the human rights case.

The word marriage comes with a lot of historical baggage and has religious connotations since christianity claims divine ownership of word.

If a nation wants to be really secular and keep the state and religion separate, then it makes sense to have a neutral term like civil partnership that is available to consenting adults of any sexual orientation. Having civil marriages AND civil partnership is stupid because the state is still making a distinction between the two when it shouldn't.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #105 - October 19, 2010, 11:33 AM

But why do we need another word or term? Its only pointless political correctness and religious appeasement. People will still call it marriage, in England at least. It’s a cute word. It’s romantic to say ‘I love you’ its romantic to say ‘Marry me’. What a massive turn off it would be for me if a man said ‘lets go sign a civil partnership/marriage’. Bleh!

Marriage only has religious and historical baggage if even the people who think it shouldn’t have keep saying it does.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Sir Wankalot
- Pub Regular
- small, furry and brown
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #106 - October 19, 2010, 11:49 AM

How about 'union of love'?

I don't really mind what word is used as long as people of all sexual orientations can use it to have a legal recognition of their union. Marriage can be used, but not if you are gay... then it's a partnership so we could actually just use marriage but then the religious folk get their knickers in a twist...
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #107 - October 19, 2010, 12:20 PM

Quote from: Poopycock on October 19, 2010, 11:49 AM
How about 'union of love'?

I don't really mind what word is used as long as people of all sexual orientations can use it to have a legal recognition of their union. Marriage can be used, but not if you are gay... then it's a partnership so we could actually just use marriage but then the religious folk get their knickers in a twist...

It might seem less arbitrary if we were discussing this for example in a speculative future secular Muslim state where "marriage" might mean one man having no more than four wives, since their conception of marriage would be grounded in a religion which is permits polygamy. Would permitting gay marriage in that context mean allowing a person (of either sex) up to four marriages to individuals (again, regardless of sex)? Would the arbitrary cap of four partners be lifted? At what point would it stop being called "marriage", or should religion have no claim on the term which previously defined an institution of its design?

Debate is currently raging in the UK regarding this very question, with Stonewall (one of the largest and oldest gay rights organisations) taking a position of non-committal to making civil marriage open to homosexuals. It's a complex issue which evokes an array of often conflicting opinion from within the LGBT community.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #108 - October 19, 2010, 12:36 PM

Baby steps. Gays are not even allowed to be alive in certain Islamic nations, nevermind get a legal union.

I don't think its necessary to couple other issues to this particular one. It does no good. This is a simple issue, in and of itself. Choose your battles. Choose where you stand. Move forward. You’re either for or against. Isolate that which stops progress, which in this case seems to be a bunch of undecided, uncommitted fence-sitters sticking their oar in, and the conservative cock-blocking, pussy-plugging control freak union doing the usual posturing and chest-thumping routine.

Polygamists are well within their rights to campaign against any injustices they perceive to their way of life, but not hijack and derail this one.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #109 - October 19, 2010, 02:01 PM

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 12:36 PM
Baby steps. Gays are not even allowed to be alive in certain Islamic nations, nevermind get a legal union.

I mentioned that my analogy was speculative so your pointing out the social problems within certain repressive islamic states in the here and now does not affect it. Furthermore, in the here and now, homosexuals are also severely oppressed in certain christian countries.

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 12:36 PM
I don't think its necessary to couple other issues to this particular one. It does no good. This is a simple issue, in and of itself. Choose your battles. Choose where you stand. Move forward. You’re either for or against. Isolate that which stops progress, which in this case seems to be a bunch of undecided, uncommitted fence-sitters sticking their oar in, and the conservative cock-blocking, pussy-plugging control freak union doing the usual posturing and chest-thumping routine.

Attempting to frame what is obviously a multi-faceted and complex issue in binary terms is disingenuous. Caricaturing those whom you may not agree with does little but illustrate chronic myopia on your part. Would you consider a gay campaign group such as Stonewall (with a membership of around 20,000, iirc) to be "a bunch of undecided, uncommitted fence-sitters sticking their oar in" because you don't agree with their position of non-committal to campaigning for the inclusion of homosexuals in civil marriage?

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 12:36 PM
Polygamists are well within their rights to campaign against any injustices they perceive to their way of life, but not hijack and derail this one.

Again, polygamists (or polyamorists, even) are not the primary concern. Right now we have two forms of monogamous contractual partnership in the UK. One for homosexuals, one for heterosexuals. You could open both to all, but then what is the point in having two things which are essentially the same? The only difference being one is historically religiously grounded and represents an institution called "marriage", whilst the other is a purely secular contractual agreement between two individuals. In my view, marriage is outmoded and its legal status should be revoked because we already have a working alternative in place.

I am not opposed to homosexuals attempting to gain access to civil marriage (as I have already stated). However, acting as though you or I speak for the gay community or know what's best for homosexuals by attempting to paint all critique so negatively merely serves to make you appear ignorant, which I am sure you are not.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- RaccoonR
- AKA Colonel Q-Daffi
- Pub Regular
- Oh yeah, baby!
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #110 - October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM

Quote from: thinkfree on October 19, 2010, 02:01 PM
Attempting to frame what is obviously a multi-faceted and complex issue in binary terms is disingenuous.

It's not an "obviously multi-faceted and complex issue", it's simple-- either you support legal recognition of same-sex marriage or not. It is a binary construct and entirely appropriate to the issue at hand.

Quote
Would you consider a gay campaign group such as Stonewall (with a membership of around 20,000, iirc) to be "a bunch of undecided, uncommitted fence-sitters sticking their oar in" because you don't agree with their position of non-committal to campaigning for the inclusion of homosexuals in civil marriage?

1. "Membership" numbers are irrelevant as Stonewall is not a democratic, membership organization. It has supporters, not members. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/09/27/stonewall-chief-executive-wont-be-jumped-into-gay-marriage-position/

2. I wouldn't use those words to criticize Stonewall, but I would say that, like many such lobbying organizations in the US vis-a-vis the Democratic Party, Stonewall has subordinated the interests of gay Britons to the tactical electoral concerns of the "Labour" Party.

Quote
Again, polygamists (or polyamorists, even) are not the primary concern. Right now we have two forms of monogamous contractual partnership in the UK. One for homosexuals, one for heterosexuals. You could open both to all, but then what is the point in having two things which are essentially the same? The only difference being one is historically religiously grounded and represents an institution called "marriage", whilst the other is a purely secular contractual agreement between two individuals. In my view, marriage is outmoded and its legal status should be revoked because we already have a working alternative in place.

Great-- when you get that last bit worked out the debate will be irrelevant because there will be full equality under the law for heterosexual and homosexual couples in this regard, but until then it is unjust not to legally recognize same-sex marriage.

Quote
speak for the gay community or know what's best for homosexuals

Unnecessary. One can simply hold an opinion on what is just.

"In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #111 - October 19, 2010, 03:14 PM

I wont even pretend to be an expert or claim to know the ins and outs of the issue, or even a fraction of the knowledge required to make a valid, airtight case to the powers that be. I have neither the patience, time or inclination to educate myself on the intricacies, the technicalities, the red tape, and I am not ashamed to be ignorant about it. Its not important to me. I’ll wear the ignorant badge if I must.

What’s important to me is that my friend now living in America couldn’t sit vigil by her soul-mate’s hospital bedside when she was extremely ill, and got kicked out after family hours ended at 8pm every night. They physically removed her while she was in tears. And what really, really, really makes my blood boil is the look in their eye when they spoke once of adopting, heartbreaking, all that love going to waste and so many that need it. And here I am, my conscience burdened with it, stuck with the knowledge that the self-proclaimed guardians of morality deny one more child in this world a set of loving parents, who right now have a stronger, more powerful, enviable bond than pretty much all the straight relationships I’ve ever seen or known, married or not, blessed by god or not. And they don’t even particularly want a legal union of any sort, but absolutely need one simply to function in the world they live in.

An appeal to emotion? Damn right it is. A proud one. That, in and of itself, is enough for me and should be enough for anyone. Talk is cheap. I feel no shame for not seeing what the fuss is, for not taking seriously the objections raised. I don’t have the energy to pretend to emphasise or have sympathy to anyone who doesn't agree, nor will I ever muster even an ounce of respect for anyone who stands against this directly or indirectly, nor will I ever share the position they defend. And there is nothing, no case however valid it might be, or how well presented and thought out it is; Nothing that I need to read or get educated about. Nothing that will change my mind on this. I am set in stone, immovable. The issue is still either for or against, whichever direction you look at it. This is instinctual for me. I already know where I stand, I already know where I’ll always stand. Gimmie the paper slip. Where do I sign?

I’m Ishina, and I’m a stubborn ignorant bitch.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #112 - October 19, 2010, 03:57 PM

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM
It's not an "obviously multi-faceted and complex issue", it's simple-- either you support legal recognition of same-sex marriage or not. It is a binary construct and entirely appropriate to the issue at hand.

It is complex to the extent that there are a number of views and positions. I can only speak of the UK, where at the most basic there are four positions on the issue. Underlying those four positions are a multitude of opinions and perspectives. A religionist may oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it is against "god's law" whilst a homosexual may oppose it on the grounds that they do not wish to support the institution of marriage ala Emma Goldman eschewing women's suffrage on the grounds that it would only lend support to a corrupt system (or normative neo-christian values in this instance).

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM
1. "Membership" numbers are irrelevant as Stonewall is not a democratic, membership organization. It has supporters, not members. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/09/27/stonewall-chief-executive-wont-be-jumped-into-gay-marriage-position/

Point taken that the word I should have used was "supporters".

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM
2. I wouldn't use those words to criticize Stonewall, but I would say that, like many such lobbying organizations in the US vis-a-vis the Democratic Party, Stonewall has subordinated the interests of gay Britons to the tactical electoral concerns of the "Labour" Party.

That's a sweeping criticism of an organisation which has arguably done a lot for gay rights in the UK over the years. Whether or not Stonewall represent the majority of the LGBT community, it illustrates that differing opinions on the issue are both valid and open for debate and should not be closed down or painted as enemies of progress.

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM
Great-- when you get that last bit worked out the debate will be irrelevant because there will be full equality under the law for heterosexual and homosexual couples in this regard, but until then it is unjust not to legally recognize same-sex marriage.

As previously stated, I think the legal status of marriage should be revoked because we have a working secular alternative already in place simply requires opening to all people. In lieu of this (as already stated...), I have no qualms about homosexuals being given access to civil marriage because it is unjust that they are excluded (which goes without saying), in much the same way that it is unjust that heterosexual couples are currently excluded from civil partnerships. One should be universalised and the other scrapped. As this is unlikely to happen in the short-term, pragmatism suggests that both systems run in parallel whilst being opened to both hetero and homosexuals as the current situation is unfair to all.

Quote from: Rev. Winton Dupree on October 19, 2010, 02:37 PM
Unnecessary. One can simply hold an opinion on what is just.

And one can do so without caricaturing those who hold differing perspectives on the matter. My position is clearly that homosexuals should have equal rights before the law, however my perspective is that giving homosexuals the right to civil marriage whilst simultaneously opening civil partnership to heterosexuals doesn't go far enough.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
- thinkfree
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: FCKH8!
Reply #113 - October 19, 2010, 04:09 PM

Quote from: Ishina on October 19, 2010, 03:14 PM
I wont even pretend to be an expert or claim to know the ins and outs of the issue, or even a fraction of the knowledge required to make a valid, airtight case to the powers that be. I have neither the patience, time or inclination to educate myself on the intricacies, the technicalities, the red tape, and I am not ashamed to be ignorant about it. Its not important to me. I’ll wear the ignorant badge if I must.

What’s important to me is that my friend now living in America couldn’t sit vigil by her soul-mate’s hospital bedside when she was extremely ill, and got kicked out after family hours ended at 8pm every night. They physically removed her while she was in tears. And what really, really, really makes my blood boil is the look in their eye when they spoke once of adopting, heartbreaking, all that love going to waste and so many that need it. And here I am, my conscience burdened with it, stuck with the knowledge that the self-proclaimed guardians of morality deny one more child in this world a set of loving parents, who right now have a stronger, more powerful, enviable bond than pretty much all the straight relationships I’ve ever seen or known, married or not, blessed by god or not. And they don’t even particularly want a legal union of any sort, but absolutely need one simply to function in the world they live in.

An appeal to emotion? Damn right it is. A proud one. That, in and of itself, is enough for me and should be enough for anyone. Talk is cheap. I feel no shame for not seeing what the fuss is, for not taking seriously the objections raised. I don’t have the energy to pretend to emphasise or have sympathy to anyone who doesn't agree, nor will I ever muster even an ounce of respect for anyone who stands against this directly or indirectly, nor will I ever share the position they defend. And there is nothing, no case however valid it might be, or how well presented and thought out it is; Nothing that I need to read or get educated about. Nothing that will change my mind on this. I am set in stone, immovable. The issue is still either for or against, whichever direction you look at it. This is instinctual for me. I already know where I stand, I already know where I’ll always stand. Gimmie the paper slip. Where do I sign?

I’m Ishina, and I’m a stubborn ignorant bitch.

I know little to nothing about the situation in the US or anywhere else, although I'm certain there are still terrible inequalities experienced by homosexuals all over the world. I only offer my opinion on where I currently reside, in the UK. The situation here is somewhat unique because we currently have two legal forms of unionship running in parallel, with heterosexuals excluded from one whilst homosexuals are excluded from the other. It seems slightly silly to maintain both as they are almost the same in all but name and since my preference is the purely secular version it is that is which I'd like to see kept whilst the other be consigned to history. Without the baggage of neo-christian values, perhaps it would even be easier to alter the secular system to make it inclusive of other forms of partnership in the future.

Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
Propagandhi - Failed States
Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »