Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:30 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

I'm neither particulary religious or homophobic.

OK, what would best describe you then?

Mad, stupid, bigotted?

You tell me. What is the problem you have with people of the same sex being married to each other?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:35 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

OK, what would best describe you then?

Mad, stupid, bigotted?

You tell me. What is the problem you have with people of the same sex being married to each other?

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:39 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

OK, what would best describe you then?

Mad, stupid, bigotted?

You tell me. What is the problem you have with people of the same sex being married to each other?

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

Okay, I'm calling Poe's law on this one.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:42 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

Marriage does not have to be for procreation. I know several couples who are married and have no children. People marry because they love each other and not necessarily to have children.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:47 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

So, tests before marriage to make sure that the prospective newlyweds are actually capable of producing brats, eh?

Serious grilling to make sure that any couple wishing to marry will actually breed?

Obligatory divorce for anyone who doesn't do their duty in this department?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:35 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

Only if you class medieval as tradition could you be labeled a traditionalist.

I think you are homophobic. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it doesn't mean that you hate homosexuals, it's a phobia just the same as any other. It is an irrational fear of homosexuality. There now, does that feel better?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:49 pm  

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.

Why? Surely societies need norms to hold them together. I would guess that most stable societies throughout human history have supported heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones. Just because the current trend pushed at us by the media is otherwise, doesn't mean that denying these 'rights' is wrong outside the current context.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:11 pm  

The fact that most stable societies have favoured heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships says nothing about the effect of homosexual relationships on society.

Correlation does not equal causation and there is nothing to suggest that societies which allow equal rights for gay people become any less stable than those that dont. In fact looking at the countries which allow gay marriage many of them seem to have a pretty decent standard of living and that doesn't appear to have been negatively affected by allowing gays to marry.

Your argument seems more like an excuse for homophobic bigotry than a rational argument against allowing gay people to marry.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:53 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

Marriage does not have to be for procreation. I know several couples who are married and have no children. People marry because they love each other and not necessarily to have children.

I know several couples that are not married but have children . I know several couples that are married and have no children . I know several same sex couples whose WEDDINGS I have attended . I highlighted 'weddings' because that is my opinion of what the ceremonies were . A celebration of the couple's love for eachother where they could pledge their futures to eachother . You know... like a WEDDING . I ain't having any of this civil ceremony bull . A wedding is a wedding . Or would it be more accurate (I may be wrong on this bit), and therefore more easily acceptable to just call them marriages ?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:22 am  

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Surely, they should simply just pilot one gay marriage, and if God is displeased, wouldn't he smote the participants, or send a plague of locusts, or whatever it is he does when he is not best pleased?