Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[ideologue08]

how is that even relevant?

It isn't. You're hardly a bastion of relevance. The quote below is case in point.

I read it as, "Gay people are gross."

[Faith No More]

Hehe...I tend not to take arguments based solely on prejudice too seriously.

[ideologue08]

Actually, if you read the article carefully, it only states that Stonewall,"said it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down' and urged MPs from all parties not to 'play politics' with it." While it may be true that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals, nothing in the article actually indicates this.

In English, when you say to someone not to get "bogged down" with something, it means that you don't want them to make progress with it. This is from the Collins English Thesaurus: If you get bogged down in something, it prevents you from making progress or getting something done.. So, in plain English, it means Stonewall do not want progress on the heterosexual civil partnership cause. It's the exact same phrase used by our defence secretary when he justified his reasoning for opposing the gay marriage cause sighting other more worthy causes, they shouldn't be "bogged down" on gay marriage.

[Tiberius]

Just look at the words you're using, it's a "delay" issue, "not a civil rights issue", "invented to delay", "no reasons" for heterosexuals to have civil partnership, there isn't "any point". Forgive me but it sounds like you don't have any justification for this opinion.

I've already justified my opinion! Marriage is a legal and government controlled process that gives heterosexual couples all the same rights as civil partnership does, with the added ability to have the ceremony anywhere they like.

The only thing that is different is the name.

How would you like it if I said there's "no point" for gays to marry or that the gay marriage issue is just a distraction (which it is).

There is a point to gay marriage. I've pointed it out in this thread: civil partnerships are not equal, even if you continue to pretend they are so.

Either you want equal rights or you don't, am I wrong?

I want equal rights. I want same-sex couples to have the right to marry, and then we can get rid of the silly civil partnership status once and for all.

If heterosexuals don't want to marry but have a civil partnership, you would say no to them, you would say gay rights come first because heterosexual rights is just a "delay" tactic. How condescending.

Firstly, I wouldn't say no. I said this above, which you quite neatly ignored:

This doesn't mean I'm against civil partnerships for heterosexuals. If heterosexuals want them instead of marriages, fine...

Secondly, I wouldn't deny a civil partnership to anyone, but my point was, why even have it in the first place if a marriage does everything a civil partnership does, and more. It's like going to a burger shop, where they are selling a single patty burger and a double patty burger for the same price. You get double the meat in the double patty burger, and for no extra money, so why would you go for the single? At the very least, even if you don't want the extra patty, you could give it to someone else.

Thirdly and finally, I did not say heterosexual rights were a delay tactic. Don't make a strawman of my position. I argued that this particular issue (that of heterosexual civil partnerships) is a delay issue. It serves only one purpose, which is to push the legislation of this bill back by a few years. And no, gay rights don't come before any other rights.

[rexbeccarox]

Are you hoping I'll just give up and go away?

It's not going to happen. I'd really like an answer to my question. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it? OK, how about...

Ideologue08, how do same-sex or other alternative-type marriages affect you?

[davidMC1982]

Are you hoping I'll just give up and go away?

It's not going to happen. I'd really like an answer to my question. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it? OK, how about...

Ideologue08, how do same-sex or other alternative-type marriages affect you?

If he's religious (and I take it he is) and his religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong (and I guess it does) then the only honest position he can take is to oppose gay marriages "because God says so". There's nothing surprising here.

Of course, what most subjects such as these lack is honesty. Rarely will you get a straight answer to a simple question and rarely will someone give their true thoughts without hiding them within a cacoon of pseudo-philosophical quasi-rational ramblings.

[rexbeccarox]

Are you hoping I'll just give up and go away?

It's not going to happen. I'd really like an answer to my question. Maybe you don't like the way I worded it? OK, how about...

Ideologue08, how do same-sex or other alternative-type marriages affect you?

If he's religious (and I take it he is) and his religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong (and I guess it does) then the only honest position he can take is to oppose gay marriages "because God says so". There's nothing surprising here.

Of course, what most subjects such as these lack is honesty. Rarely will you get a straight answer to a simple question and rarely will someone give their true thoughts without hiding them within a cacoon of pseudo-philosophical quasi-rational ramblings.

Thanks David. I do want to hear it from him though. Especially now, when he's so willfully ignored me multiple times.

[ideologue08]

If he's religious (and I take it he is) and his religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong (and I guess it does) then the only honest position he can take is to oppose gay marriages "because God says so". There's nothing surprising here.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. My religion does teach that homosexuality is a sin yes, so my argument against homosexuality would be "because God says so". But gay marriage being legalised in what is a secular democracy -not an Islamic state- it is not really acceptable to force the issue in a public discourse in such an environment simply because the Qur'an says something, we do have a separation (for the most part at least) between religious influences and civil laws, so to cite religion for an issue which affects the non-religious or even those who do not share my religion isn't tolerant or conducive to the debate.

The idea that Islamic law can be imposed upon citizens that are neither Muslim, nor chose to live in an Islamic state is something which is rejected by Islamic orthodoxy by unanimous consensus.

[davidMC1982]

So you're saying that your reasons for being against homosexuality are religious (as I stated - and thank you for having the honesty to say so) but your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...... I'm not sure what your post is saying.

What is your overall position on marriage in the UK? Who should be able to marry who, should the government be involved, should polygamy be allowed etc, etc? This isn't a loaded question. I'm genuinely curious.

[NoraBrimstone]

Did you just refer to the UK as a "Secular Democracy"? Lol