News I don't see what all the fuss is about?

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20175530

He is a fucking bigot isn't he? These sorts of people should be ridiculed.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The fuss is someone being called a bigot, as much as someone would fuss if i called them a racist cunt. That's pretty much clear cut, no one wants to be called stuff, be it deserved or not.

Now, is "bigot of the year" award childish and unnecessary? Yeap.

To be honest i'm rather bored of gay people tooting the "we are gay!" horn, while demanding to be treated equal. If you want to be equal, don't make a big deal out of it all the time.

 

[Scouse]

The sponsors are threatening to pull out because, whilst they want to gain face amongst the liberal and gay communities by supporting stonewall, they don't want to lose face amongst the bigoted christians.

It's not really "support" from a sponsor that stonewall is getting. It's money and nothing more. Barclays and Coutts are paying for a positive spin on their image. Producing a "bigot of the year" award gives some people a negative spin on the sponsor's image - and one thing companies hate is negative image

Lobbying group Christian Concern has accused Stonewall of trying to shut down legitimate debate about the introduction of gay marriage.

This is true IMO. Stonewall would love to see the debate shut down because it means they'd get their own way. Freedom of speech ain't the highest thing on Stonewall's agenda.

However, I agree with Stonewall that the church are bigots - but I also think it's "poor form" for them to introduce the award. Stonewall already has a high profile - this is the sort of stunt that a small start-up campaigning group would pull...

 

[DaGaffer]

A plague on both their houses. I loathe the catholic church but I'm no fan of single issue pressure groups either; they're destroying rational debate.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wait, wait...on a subject that includes religion(to a degree), me and Scouse are on the same page'ish?

 

[Poag]

And lo the bell told, heralding the end of times.....

Repent! repent!

 

[Scouse]

Wait, wait...on a subject that includes religion(to a degree), me and Scouse are on the same page'ish?

The religion is irrelevant to the point

 

[opticle]

I'm not really sure what there is to debate any more..

If it were debating the right to a Christian marriage in a Church, I'd understand their problem, but as it's just giving a same sex couple the same legal rights as everyone else, I don't see the big deal.

I'm surprised it's required so much debate and has been allowed to go on as long as it has - there's not enough people willing to stop pandering to every over-vocal and just do what is clearly right - that's why everything seems to take at least two years to have a fucking decision on these days.

I see the same problem with management at work and with a couple of legal cases I'm semi-involved in - it's mostly people just fucking about talking, pretending to talk and promising to talk, with zero action whilst stretching out the "time for consideration" as long as possible to avoid having to do any work or ever make an actual decision that might bring some flak their way - slowly but surely costing everyone an unnecessary amount of money and achieving sweet fa whilst they try to disperse responsibility as widely as possible. /rant

 

[Scouse]

I'm surprised it's required so much debate and has been allowed to go on as long as it has - there's not enough people willing to stop pandering to every over-vocal and just do what is clearly right - that's why everything seems to take at least two years to have a fucking decision on these days.

Opticle: supporting free speech and authoritarian dictatorialism at the same time

 

[old.Tohtori]

Since we're all on the same page here, let's change that;

What exactly is "clearly right"?

 

[opticle]

Opticle: supporting free speech and authoritarian dictatorialism at the same time

Damn straight

To be fair though, I'm not supporting it - sometimes you have to just bite the bullet and make a decision, too often these days people spend years spending (often our) time and money on issues because they're afraid to just MAKE A DECISION - even though there is often a pretty clear "right" or "fair" or "correct" action, but very vocal minorities and a great fear of their careers being slaughtered in the media.

If everyone was allowed to say as much as they wanted all the time, NOTHING would ever be decided - there are always oppponents and more debate to be had. That's why people are elected - to make decisions because, at least (?)in the past, they had the experience and the expertise to allow them to do so.

These days politicians are often career politicians who have been licking arse since before university to get where they are, and they dare not do anything to risk that - often as their arse-licking colleagues will turn on them as soon as they see opportunity.

Since we're all on the same page here, let's change that;

What exactly is "clearly right"?

Equal rights for everyone with no difference based on race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation, provided it's not forcing the religions or other people to do anything they don't want to do or change their religious doctrines - as they can believe what they like, they just can't force it on to others.

 

[opticle]

Opticle: supporting free speech and authoritarian dictatorialism at the same time

And if you don't want someone to dictate a decision to you at some point, why elect leaders at all? Lets just referendum everything

 

[Scouse]

Equal rights for everyone with no difference based on race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation, provided it's not forcing the religions or other people to do anything they don't want to do or change their religious doctrines - as they can believe what they like, they just can't force it on to others.

The religious have made their decision (years ago - gays are against god) and are being forced to change against their religious doctrine.

And if you don't want someone to dictate a decision to you at some point, why elect leaders at all? Lets just referendum everything

At the end of the referendum you force the majority decision - right or wrong - on the minority.

Ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority"?

Anyway - I agree. Why elect leaders? I certainly don't need any.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Equal rights for everyone with no difference based on race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation, provided it's not forcing the religions or other people to do anything they don't want to do or change their religious doctrines - as they can believe what they like, they just can't force it on to others.

As Scouse said above, people are demanding the religious folk change their views to give equal rights.

If there's a freedom to hold your own religion, then we can't force them to accept(per example) homosexuals if it doesn't fit their doctrine.

Marriage, church based not state, is the churches and if we want to keep forcing out, then we can't give equal rights on that aspect.

This is exactly why there can't be a thing as "clearly right", since if we want equality and right to own views, those views will differ.

 

[Job]

When all the bigots are burned at he stake and we live in a world of anything goes, we will yearn for the days when life had limits to give our rather pointless lives some structure.
He's not a bigot, he just believes in a set of cultural norms we have thrown away.
Quite rightly so, because of the terrible injustices done to gay people, but we can't just keep changing the rules for everyone without someone pointing out that the road to hell may well be paved with good intentions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You can't get rid of bigots since you can't get rid of opinions

The target will change, but differences will remain.

 

[throdgrain]

I dont really get this.

If the church people dont agree with gay marriages they shouldnt have to perform them in my opinion. It's their religion, if you are going to make them marry gay people, even if they dont beleive in it, then surely you are impacting on the churches rights to free speech etc.

If a gay couple want to get married they can. But why would they want to be married by a vicar who obviously doesnt agree with their lifestyle, and is only doing it because he has to by law?

Most bike clubs I know will not accept people who have formerly been in the police or prison service. So if there was a law to say they had to accept them, and you had some ex old bill feller in a club, everyone would hate him. So the old bill feller wouldnt want to join anyway.

 

[Scouse]

I agree with that throddy. Any gay couple who want to get married in a church are obviously wankers.

Their church and god hates them. Maybe they need to start thinking a little bit more...


If they want to get married in a civil ceremony good luck to them tbfh. Less income for religious idiots.

 

[DaGaffer]

I dont really get this.

If the church people dont agree with gay marriages they shouldnt have to perform them in my opinion. It's their religion, if you are going to make them marry gay people, even if they dont beleive in it, then surely you are impacting on the churches rights to free speech etc.

If a gay couple want to get married they can. But why would they want to be married by a vicar who obviously doesnt agree with their lifestyle, and is only doing it because he has to by law?

Most bike clubs I know will not accept people who have formerly been in the police or prison service. So if there was a law to say they had to accept them, and you had some ex old bill feller in a club, everyone would hate him. So the old bill feller wouldnt want to join anyway.

I wasn't aware the church were being forced to conduct gay marriages. I thought this was about members of the church being against gay marriage as an institution. As far as I'm aware the church can tell who they like to fuck off (for instance I can't get married in a catholic church because I'm divorced); just a bit like running a B&B you can't say why.

 

[Raven]

Yeah, that's the issue. They just have a gob on them. Louder than when discussing kiddie fiddling for some reason...

The good news is that their voice has less and less importance.

 

[Scouse]

The good news is that their voice has less and less importance.

Yup. Agree with this too.

 

[throdgrain]

I wasn't aware the church were being forced to conduct gay marriages. I thought this was about members of the church being against gay marriage as an institution. As far as I'm aware the church can tell who they like to fuck off (for instance I can't get married in a catholic church because I'm divorced); just a bit like running a B&B you can't say why.

Ahh, I thought that was what the thread was about.

I'll get me coat ...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I thought this was about members of the church being against gay marriage as an institution.

Still their voice to be heard as much as anyones. As long as it remains a voice

 

[Raven]

It should be ridiculed until it goes away. Not banned ofc, just laughed at.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And i want ridicule to go away, though it's too easy to ridicule poor ridicule since it makes a joke of itself every day

 

[Scouse]

Mwaaaaah! People make fun of my ideas! Mwaaaaaah! I want them to go away! Mwaaaaaahhh!

Fixed for ya m8

 

[old.Tohtori]

Peopel not on myside i laik totally rage!

Ditto

 

[old.user4556]

I've had lunch with Cardinal O'Brien.

He's an out of touch patronising cunt.

 

[opticle]

I wasn't aware the church were being forced to conduct gay marriages. I thought this was about members of the church being against gay marriage as an institution. As far as I'm aware the church can tell who they like to fuck off (for instance I can't get married in a catholic church because I'm divorced); just a bit like running a B&B you can't say why.

This. Which is why below makes sense.

Equal rights for everyone with no difference based on race, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation, provided it's not forcing the religions or other people to do anything they don't want to do or change their religious doctrines - as they can believe what they like, they just can't force it on to others.

As far as I'm aware, the church aren't being forced to change anything about religious marriage? They still don't have to do it - but same sex marriages will have the same legal standing as any other.

 

[Tom]

If the church people dont agree with gay marriages they shouldnt have to perform them in my opinion.

They don't have to. Marriage in law has nothing to do with religion, which is why you can get married at any venue with a marriage licence.

Which suggests to me that the Church is whinging about this because marriage ceremonies are a valuable source of income. If they no longer feel they can perform marriages according to the law of the land, then they'll lose out on all that lovely money.