The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, the loophole argument. Loopholes are particularly hated by those who wish to force everybody else to comply with their wishes.

I see nothing wrong with niche marketing operating as a loophole by which Jews can market kosher B&Bs, naturists can market B&Bs where you can wander round the garden naked if you want, vegetarians can market meat-free B&Bs, and where a retired couple can run a B&B that is Christian-themed, runs Bible studies, hangs Scripture texts on the walls, and where unmarried couples don't rent double rooms.

If people want to stay in such niche establishments then they know exactly what they are getting into. They are clearly marketed as catering for a minority group, and anyone who checks in and then claims to be offended is quite clearly acting the maggot. Meanwhile, the rest of us, the vast majority of paying guests, will continue to stay in accommodation which is marketed to the general public and where we don't expect to see naked people sitting in the garden, and where we can eat bacon sandwiches to our heart's content and then roger whoever we want in our room.

Just more equivocating , of course you would love loopholes , you just love to advance arguments as to why the law should not apply to your beliefs . And to avoid your usual nit-picking that 'your' is used in the broad sense and not you personally ).

It really is laughable how when asked to comply with the law it is taken as trying to ''force everybody else to comply with their wishes.'' It is the reverse - it is asking business to treat everyone the same . It is amazing how quickly the victim status is assumed .

As for the rest of your essay - ( 10 out of 10 for prolixity anyway), wasted effort though as most of it is irrelevant . This discussion is about the denial of service and not the provision of service .

So off you go and open as many niches markets as you like , I might even help you , do our bit for unemployment and that . It is not the customers who are claiming to be offended ,it is the owners who are acting the maggot by denying service to those people.

No best I think we rely on the objectivity of the law and not give out licenses to discriminate .

marienbad wrote: »

Just more equivocating , of course you would love loopholes , you just love to advance arguments as to why the law should not apply to your beliefs . And to avoid your usual nit-picking that 'your' is used in the broad sense and not you personally ).

So 'your' beliefs, in your world, doesn't mean beliefs that are yours at all?

I'm just advocating a toleration that extends to all, including those I strongly disagree with, but where it does in such a way that no-one is unfairly discriminated against.

I really don't understand why that seems to annoy you so much. Nor, why you can't discuss issues rationally and accept that other people hold different views without getting personal. Do you behave like that in real life, or is it just on the internet?

steamengine wrote: »

A perfect example of words being put in my mouth. How do you know I don't have a rational reason ?

Because you have been asked for it on several occasions and are yet to give one. That you hold a particular religious belief might be a rational reason to you, but it is not a rational reason for those that either hold a slightly different religious view than you, or have no religious view.

steamengine wrote: »

Or a reason which came about for rational reasons. I do have a reason and a democratic right to vote NO if I so wish.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to vote no, and of course you are perfectly entitled to hold a particular view, you have even believe that is a rational view to hold, but that does not mean it is rational.

The issue here is not what you feel to be rational. Whether you like it described like this or not, the fact of the matter is that by voting no in this referendum you are withholding a right to a group of people, or at least trying to. You might try to justify this by saying you are merely voting to protect your particular view, but that is simply the other side of the coin. The fact of the matter is you are trying to see that there is continued discrimination against a particular section of the population. Here is a brief summary of your argument:

You: I am not voting to discriminate against you, I am voting to protect my belief of what marriage is.
Gay person: OK, but the effect of that is to discriminate against me, which is a bad thing. What is your justification for this?
You: Well, it is my genuinely held religious belief. I believe, like many, but not all, christians that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Gay person: But I am not christian.
You: Yes, but I am, and that is what I believe.
Gay person: But you won't have to marry someone of the same sex, this will not affect you in anyway.
You: I know that, but this is my religious belief.
Gay person: OK, do you have any reasons that i might be able to relate to? Any reasons that might make me understand why you, who will not be affected in anyway want to stop me from marrying the person I love?
You: Stop attacking me and asking difficult questions.

Can you see how some people might struggle with that?

MrP

steamengine wrote: »

If you have a point to make, please, just make it.

You only recognise marriage as defined by the RCC , is that correct ?

If so you do not recognise civil marriage , for example divorced people, why do you even care about ssm ?

steamengine wrote: »

If you have a point to make, please, just make it.

We had a civil marriage ceremony. Do you consider me to be a married woman? Are we a family now that we have children? Or were we still a family after we got married and before I gave birth to our first child?

galljga1 wrote: »

As a sidebar to this great debate:

My daughter who is 11 heard the report on the details of a recently settled divorce case on the news this morning.
She asked if adultery was illegal in this country.
I said that it was not but also that the bible (the law of Moses, I think) advocates stoning to death as a punishment for adultery, so if the bible is followed literally....... a lot of people are in trouble.
I remembered something posted yesterday (maybe by one eyed jack) where it was stated that young people could not believe that homosexuality was criminalised as recently as 22 years ago.
I said this to her. Her response: "what sort of a <snip> up country is this?".
I did not know whether to kick her in the ar$e (metaphorically speaking) for her language or to congratulate her for being enlightened.

Both.

MrP

steamengine wrote: »

What i think is irrelevant. I had a church wedding, many moons ago, but there was also the civil side, the clergyman doing the paperwork afterwards. The same thing in my book, just the religion added in our case.

What about those who only want the civil bit? How come gay couples can't have that?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But you have said on numerous occasions that you believe LGBT people should not be able to marry the person of their choice because it is against your religious beliefs. How then is voting no for this reason not forcing your religious beliefs on everybody? Not everybody shares your beliefs.

steamengine wrote: »

Yet another misrepresentation of what I said.

But...

steamengine wrote: »

I really only come at this from the mainstream Christian point of view. As you are aware the mainstream churches are against same sex marriage and I agree with that stance. So take it up with them.

If I am wrong in interpreting from the above that you wish to deny LGBT people the right to marry the person of their choice because of your religious beliefs, and therefore you wish to have your religious beliefs enforced via legislation, then I am sorry to have misinterpreted you, but could you please explain my error?