I'm intrigued by this. Is there any reason to suppose that a majority don't want it, and if so, what is that reason based on? It may be the case, but I haven't yet heard any evidence to prove that it is. So if you've got some, chuck it in. It will be an interesting adjunct to the debate.
Opinions are fine, affording other people rights doesn't have to affect your opinion of them either way.
Two muslims who are male and female have no right to demand anything at all of any mosque, and never have had. Two gay muslims would have precisely the same rights to be married in a mosque, namely none at all. No mosque has any legal obligation to marry anyone, nor perform any other service. So what on earth are you talking about?
Because I believe in equality and the rights of the individual. Unfortunately over this matter it is not possible to please everyone because some people are opposed to gay marriage as a matter of principle. However I do not think the fact that some people find gay marriage offensive over rides the fundamental right of the individual, particularly as gay marriage has no direct bearing upon the lives of those who chose to object but is massively important to those who wish to be married to a partner of their choice. So to those who object I would say 'get over it, it doesn't practically alter your position in the slightest'.
I dislike "bigot" being tossed around as a general term of abuse. People are perfectly entitled to their opinions, even if those opinions are based on ignorance and unreason. It is when people insist on imposing their own opinions on other people who do not share them, and on imposing restrictions on other peoples' rights, that they must justify those opinions. And it is when the opinions, the insistence and the imposition cannot be justified that the term bigotry becomes appropriate.
muslims can get married at mosques or at home as long as jts witnessed by an imam. so if ever the CofE is compelled to conducct gay marraige. ...in the name of equality why should other faiths not be included. if your gonna quote me keep it in context and carefully read my post again I said mosque and also religious place imposing opinion lol you said it yourself in other words an opinion YOU dont like or want to hear... ...if you dont like my opinion skip my posts..it becomes imposing when I tell you..YOU MUST AGREE which incidentally. ...yep....I havent rather imposing when one starts to brandish others as bigots for not agreeing with theirs..
I didn't want to ask why you changed your mind, John. What I wanted to ask was: Looking back at your previous view, what do you think now of the views you held then, and the reasons why you held them?
Previously I was very close to being undecided but marginally came down on the side of the status quo. I failed to look at the issue sufficiently from the other side and understand it from a gay persons perspective. It isn't about semantics, it is about real people's lives.
Oh I see. When you say "if ever the CofE is compelled to conduct gay marriage" you are now referring to a wholly hypothetical scenario, totally unconnected with the current Bill in parliament. A bit off the thread, but OK. The question you are raising seems to be: "If at some future date some future parliament were to pass an Act making it compulsory for the Church of England to conduct same-sex weddings, would it also make it compulsory for other religious bodies such as mosques to conduct same-sex weddings?" Well, the hypothesis is so far-fetched that it is not easy to analyse its implications, but presumably parliament would first have had to legislate to make it compulsory for other religious bodies to conduct opposite-sex weddings. That would be a momentous change, no doubt strenuously opposed from all sides. Extending such compulsion to same-sex weddings would be a comparatively minor issue.
but yet equality is not hypothetic its black and white - fairness/unfairness the implications are equality and fairness for all on our shores irrespective of faith etc it should apply to all - according to many here and be non discriminatory so my references earlier are valid for a foreseeable conclusion at some point in time the question stands...
heres where the religious gay haters get you...a vacuum of reason or logic... the brainwashing of children and the applause to their homophobia is quite disgusting. 'they should be put to death..thats what happens in Israel...im not saying that we should kill them, but the government should'.. thats christianity for you. to be fair, theyre only quoting what it says in the 'good' book... apparently god hates fags..
It has nothing to do with different views, but everything to do with how we get to these different views. Perhaps what I mean by this will become clear later in this post. There you are. You asked "Why not?", which implies a desire on your part to discuss the issue and hopefully to arrive at a conclusion. Had you said, "No legalising 'drugs' - ever!", there is an element of prejudice there. You are saying that there will never be a situation where drugs should be legal. If you were prepared to discuss the issue in a meaningful way, and then decide, "At this point, I say 'drugs' should not be legalised", I would not necessarily consider you 'prejudiced'. It's not the disagreement in opinions that I am calling you on, it's the fact that I cannot follow your logic - because you've supplied none, other than making a statement which seems to me to amount to little more than "that's the way it has been and that's the way it is". I cannot imagine you'll listen to this song but I have to link it. I don't fully agree with the message behind it but the points it makes are amusing. The abortion issue has been thrashed out for so long, by so many. The Catholic Church has supplied its reasons, the Right to Lifers have done likewise. I don't consider their stances as "prejudiced", they are thought out and explained in detail. Likewise with the Pro-Choicers. Whether I agree or disagree with the their reasons is neither here nor there, for the purposes of this discussion. Again, these are issues that are not simply explained away by saying "that's just how I feel about it"; arguments for and against are detailed and re-examined continuously. Indeed. People have a right to their opinion and if enough people agree on it, and if Parliament doesn't stand in their way, the majority sees their wishes in action. In theory. I am not telling you you have no right to your opinion, or even that you are not entitled to what I term a "prejudice". I am calling your POV a prejudice because it appears to be based upon a tradition that discriminates against people by way of their sexual orientation, based upon customs that aren't being re-evaluated but are instead carried forward from one generation to the next, with little or no critical examination. I've said a few times now that I don't agree with churches or other clubs having their rule-books tampered with in this way. In any event, as a gay individual, why would I want to join an organisation that wants to exclude me? It would be like joining a Bike Club whose rule book states you aren't allowed to ride your bike. That'd be nuts. It's hard to discuss anything on the forums because "my boss" keeps telling me to shut up and ffs ride my bike! :wink:
Exactly . If the original heading to this thread had been Are we all equal in the eyes of the State ? then what would the opinions have been . It's already fairly well established that for most religions we aren't all equal at all but the Church has been removed from the law making process for quite some time now and quite rightly so . If for the State we are all equal then everyone ought to have the same rights and that means access to all services and all organisations which provide a State mandated service ought to be those that apply those rights without question .
your being anal by micro analysing words to fit your context I could write 10000 words to convey my point better but neither have the time or the will to live doing so. why not this why not that each phrase can be taken both ways froid... and you cant tell in a brief text and re prejudice and the abortion scenario. perhaps youd want to tell the irish girl that who has been raped. that you as a man are deciding for her rights merely examples of rights and wrongs and what people want - and what they cant have because of others
