|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 13:41:35 GMT
So long as they accept the morals of the country they come to. As I have said you are allowed to have different views, just not impose them on the moral majority. But isn't that what happened with 'gay' marriage? The majority of people were ambivalent at best if not directly opposed but then an activist minority persuaded the political elite to change the law and now it would be considered immoral to attempt to repeal it. I disagree. The majority of people had accepted homosexuality long before the laws began to change. Most were appalled when Alan Turing was imprisoned for being gay. That happened in 1952 it took 60 years for gay marriage to become legal. "The majority of people were ambivalent at best if not directly opposed" This is a misleading statement. 'Ambivalent' means mixed feelings, adding " at best" implies they are more likely to be opposed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 13:48:28 GMT
So long as they accept the morals of the country they come to. As I have said you are allowed to have different views, just not impose them on the moral majority. They belong to a cult that claims homosexual acts are a sin and an insult to God. Do you propose,that they should renounce Islam before they can enter ? Otherwise would you be happy with an self confessed neo Nazi allowed to live the UK if he keeps his mouth shut about the Jews? There are millions of Muslim cultists living in London and thousands of homosexuals. Neither bother each other. The idea that Muslims are all fanatical in their beliefs is a diatribe pushed out by Islamophobics. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 14:20:22 GMT
I disagree. The majority of people had accepted homosexuality long before the laws began to change. Most were appalled when Alan Turing was imprisoned for being gay. That happened in 1952 it took 60 years for gay marriage to become legal. "The majority of people were ambivalent at best if not directly opposed" This is a misleading statement. 'Ambivalent' means mixed feelings, adding " at best" implies they are more likely to be opposed. In both cases you are incorrect.
As late as 1998, thirty years after homosexuality was de-criminalised, a majority of those polled for the BSA said that homosexuality was 'always or mostly wrong'. The Labour government brought in civil partnerships in 2004.
As late as 2012 only 43% of those polled responded positively to the question 'Would you support same-sex marriage?' The following year same-sex marriage by legalised by the Conservative government.
In neither case could it be claimed that the government had obtained a decisive public mandate in support of such changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 15, 2023 15:06:39 GMT
The government might not have had a mandate for gay marriage, but it hasn't done much, if any harm.
Heterosexual civil partnerships are now a thing as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 15:11:46 GMT
They belong to a cult that claims homosexual acts are a sin and an insult to God. Do you propose,that they should renounce Islam before they can enter ? Otherwise would you be happy with an self confessed neo Nazi allowed to live the UK if he keeps his mouth shut about the Jews? There are millions of Muslim cultists living in London and thousands of homosexuals. Neither bother each other. The idea that Muslims are all fanatical in their beliefs is a diatribe pushed out by Islamophobics. It's a top-down micromanaged heavily policed divided society that could break down at any minute. It could well be a house of cards. After all, anyone that questions it are automatically smeared with a mental disorder, as you have just done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 15:30:50 GMT
The government might not have had a mandate for gay marriage, but it hasn't done much, if any harm. Heterosexual civil partnerships are now a thing as well. I actually agree. The gay thing always seemed a bit meh, as in, I really didn't care. Two genuinely gay blokes getting married isn't something I want to get in the way of. I do, however, agree that the Church shouldn't be required to entertain it, because the Church should not be a political institution, just as it shouldn't be forced to abandon its views on marriage from a purely idealistic sense. This way, the Church can do its thing and doesn't interfere in the legal side of marriage. I know many will disagree with this, but they tend to be the type who would, at the same time, defend Sharia laws.
Unfortunately, my more liberal position on homosexuality seems to be a green light for accepting every homosexual on Earth. It's almost like it's seen as soft, when it should just be seen as social libertarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 15:55:00 GMT
Well it certainly kyboshed the traditional notion that marriage is a lifetime union between one man and one woman. Does that mean that anything goes now?
What if I decide I want to marry Daisy our prize heifer? Could that be on the cards? Or, if that's a bit too radical for 2023, what about the Bobbsey twins next door, Harold and Harriet? Could that be a goer? If not, why not?
I understand the principal benefit of 'gay' marriage according to Dave is that it increases the store of human happiness, so what's standing in the way of me maximising my own?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 16:08:30 GMT
Well it certainly kyboshed the traditional notion that marriage is a lifetime union between one man and one woman. Does that mean that anything goes now? What if I decide I want to marry Daisy our prize heifer? Could that be on the cards? Or, if that's a bit too radical for 2023, what about the Bobbsey twins next door, Harold and Harriet? Could that be a goer? If not, why not? I understand the principal benefit of 'gay' marriage according to Dave is that it increases the store of human happiness, so what's standing in the way of me maximising my own? I'm not sure if anything else can go. Out of the two sexes, I don't see any other combinations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 16:08:30 GMT
Well it certainly kyboshed the traditional notion that marriage is a lifetime union between one man and one woman. Does that mean that anything goes now? What if I decide I want to marry Daisy our prize heifer? Could that be on the cards? Or, if that's a bit too radical for 2023, what about the Bobbsey twins next door, Harold and Harriet? Could that be a goer? If not, why not? I understand the principal benefit of 'gay' marriage according to Dave is that it increases the store of human happiness, so what's standing in the way of me maximising my own? On this occasion it seems to be your prejudice against homosexuality making you unhappy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 16:18:49 GMT
But why can't I marry Daisy if it would make me happy? I think she loves me too so that will be double the happiness. All goodness according to Dave.
At least I'm not being venal like Norman Tebbit who mulled over marrying his son for tax reasons.
Don't be so hard hearted. Just imagine you could marry your cat if you wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 16:23:18 GMT
But why can't I marry Daisy if it would make me happy? I think she loves me too so that will be double the happiness. All goodness according to Dave. At least I'm not being venal like Norman Tebbit who mulled over marrying his son for tax reasons. Don't be so hard hearted. Just imagine you could marry your cat if you wanted. Marriage should be consensual between two human beings. "I do" was my acceptence of the ball and chain. Trying to marry an animal would be considered animal cruelty. That would trigger me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 16:26:55 GMT
I'm sorry but now that the traditional meaning of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history it seems nonsensical to want to invent arbitrary new ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 16:27:34 GMT
But why can't I marry Daisy if it would make me happy? I think she loves me too so that will be double the happiness. All goodness according to Dave. At least I'm not being venal like Norman Tebbit who mulled over marrying his son for tax reasons. Don't be so hard hearted. Just imagine you could marry your cat if you wanted. Beastiality, unlike homosexuality, is a criminal offence. As for marrying my cat (or anyone else for that matter) I agree with Marx on the subject. ''marriage is a wonderful institution but who wants to live in an institution''. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 16:28:34 GMT
Don't know where you got that idea from. I have never mentioned the law. The law and morality are two entirely different things. If pressed I would say the law changed on gay marriage because the moral position had changed. As for not supporting being immoral, I specifically said the opposite. You could not support the idea that you should not queue jump, you would be breaking no law but the morals of the country would frown upon you and the people holding those morals might even turn on you. Thus you could disapprove of gay marriage, but if you turned up at a gay marriage and tried to disrupt it you would find yourself against the crowd rather than the law. No it doesn't, as I say law a morality are not the same. Often the law lags behind moral attitude. Also unlike the law, two different moral attitudes can be held by different groups in the same community. What matters with morals is which group is in ascendance. Of course they do, but you only need to take notice if they represent a sizeable majority. The point I was making is that law tends to be based on morality but that law does not cover all aspects of morality. Queue jumping is not illegal but is broadly seen as immoral. The rest was my point that not supporting gay marriage is not immoral nor is considering the law to be changed. Remember it is the progressive inch and a mile. Civil Partnerships were initiated to allow equality as regards partnerships and in that respect there was no major dispute to the morality of that stance. We then find that marriage is the next target and those opposed to gay marriage, but not opposed to civil partnerships, are denigrated as immoral. Yet there was no issue with equality. Disruption is not my preferred MO in any sphere and this is where morality works into this part. One should reasonably expect the protection of the law if one were to disrupt a gay wedding but one would probably be out of luck. JSO obtain the protection of the police yet are making many more people angry than would happen at a gay wedding disrupted. They are against the crowd yet their morality is not a sizeable majority yet people are forced to take notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 16:33:05 GMT
I'm sorry but now that the traditional meaning of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history it seems nonsensical to want to invent arbitrary new ones. No it hasn't. Marriage is the joining together of two people who love each other and wish to publicly announce that love in a formal ceremony. |
|
