Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:26 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

What is ... homophobic about that?

The simple fact that it denies access to recognition, tax breaks and equal treatment under the law to people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:26 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

Denying one group of people rights that are afforded to another group of people, solely because their sexual orientations differ, is wrong.

Marriage is available to everyone over 16.

No it is not. Unless you're suggesting that gay people who want to get married should just stop being gay and marry someone of the opposite sex. But you wouldn't be suggesting that, because you're not a fooking idiot, are you?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:48 pm  

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been. If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership? A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:53 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

No it is not. Unless you're suggesting that gay people who want to get married should just stop being gay and marry someone of the opposite sex. But you wouldn't be suggesting that, because you're not a fooking idiot, are you?

I've seen several republicans make the exact same point including Michelle Bachmann who claimed that gay people had the right to marry just as long as it was to someone of the opposite sex. In their bigotted minds gay people choose to be gay and they can simply choose to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex if they really want to get married.

I've even seen some social conservatives claim that by allowing gay marriage, gay people are being given "special rights", which ignores fact that gay marriage is open to everyone should these social conservatives suddenly "choose" to be gay.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:02 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been.

Because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it should continue to be that way. It wasn't that long ago that women had 'always' been subservient to men and black people had 'always' been seen as inferior to white people.

If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership? A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

A religious ceremony is a sham at any wedding, but that's not the point. There are plenty of religious people who are also homosexual, and they should be able to include the same content in their weddings as heterosexual couples.

That aside, it's not just about the religious angle. Gay couples should be able to declare themselves as 'married' just the same as heterosexual couples.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:02 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been. If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership? A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

It would not be a sham if homosexuals/lesbians got married in the slightest. It's about time the religions got their heads out of their bums and joined the 21st Century.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:12 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been.

And once upon a time voting was for men and always had been The fact that someone has always been a certain way does not mean that it should always remain that way. Besides marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman, for instance in some cultures men have been allowed to have multiple wives

If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership?

Perhaps because many gay people want have their relationships recognised by the state as marriages and want more than simply being allowed to have a civil partnership. Many people in same sex relationships may also prefer not to have the state infering that their relationships are inferior to that of opposite sex couples by not allowing same sex marriage.

A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

Civil marriages have existed in England since the 19th century and many non religious people have civil marriages free from religious observance. This is what gay people are asking for, they are not demanding that Catholic & Anglican churches suddenly start providing same sex marriages.

There are also many gay people who are religious and many religious denominations that have no issue marrying same sex
couples. For these individuals a religious ceremony would certainly not be a sham.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

It appears that you, like many religious and/or simply homophobic nutjobs have spectacularly missed the point that a gay marriage would only entail a civil ceremony. There is no requirement in the proposals for any religion to perform such a marriage. It would be conducted at a registry office or any suitable place sanctioned to perform the act of marriage.

But please don't let that fact prevent you from stamping your god-bothering little feet and feeling threatened.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:21 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

It appears that you, like many religious and/or simply homophobic nutjobs have spectacularly missed the point that a gay marriage would only entail a civil ceremony. There is no requirement in the proposals for any religion to perform such a marriage. It would be conducted at a registry office or any suitable place sanctioned to perform the act of marriage.

But please don't let that fact prevent you from stamping your god-bothering little feet and feeling threatened.

I'm neither particulary religious or homophobic.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:28 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

It appears that you, like many religious and/or simply homophobic nutjobs have spectacularly missed the point that a gay marriage would only entail a civil ceremony. There is no requirement in the proposals for any religion to perform such a marriage. It would be conducted at a registry office or any suitable place sanctioned to perform the act of marriage.

But please don't let that fact prevent you from stamping your god-bothering little feet and feeling threatened.

I'm neither particulary religious or homophobic.

So you're not homophobic, but you do support the idea of denying equal rights to homosexual people. Glad we've cleared that up.