Gay marriage thread

[Pabmusic]

I do not understand why a gay couple would wish to declare such a commitment in an institution that is almost universally opposed to such relationships in the first place. It's like a vegan applying to work in a slaughterhouse.

In certain states of 1950s America it was illegal for black people to (say) sit in a diner or restaurant. During the 1960s, black people increasingly wanted to share the right to sit in such restaurants.

Presumably you would have posted (had you been able to then) "I do not understand why a black person would wish to sit in diners or restaurants that are almost universally opposed to such a thing happening in the first place. It's like a vegan applying to work in a slaughterhouse".

[amateur51]

Ho capito benissimo (anche meglio di lei).

What a pointless right!!!! Is that what this business is all about!!!

Oddly enough this isn't about you, Beefy - or me for that matter - but that doesn't mean that isn't important.

[amateur51]

In certain states of 1950s America it was illegal for black people to (say) sit in a diner or restaurant. During the 1960s, black people increasingly wanted to share the right to sit in such restaurants.

Presumably you would have posted (had you been able to then) "I do not understand why a black person would wish to sit in diners or restaurants that are almost universally opposed to such a thing happening in the first place. It's like a vegan applying to work in a slaughterhouse".

Well put, Pabs - many thanks - Old Hooky

[Mr Pee]

Your knowledge of the wide variety of gay people excuses your massive ignorance, Mr Pee. There are plenty of gay Christians, Jews, Muslims etc.

And there are large majorities within the three religious groups you mention who insist that such a combination of lifestyle and beliefs is incompatible.

[amateur51]

And there are large majorities within the three religeous groups you mention who say that such a combination of lifestyle and beliefs is incompatible.

Yes they're not happy I'm sure. Me, I'm past trying to explain it to them

Point of interest - how can you possibly know there's a majority and that ii is large - where does one find reliable stats on religious membership, I wonder?

I think you made that up, Mr Pee

[Beef Oven]

In certain states of 1950s America it was illegal for black people to (say) sit in a diner or restaurant. During the 1960s, black people increasingly wanted to share the right to sit in such restaurants.

Presumably you would have posted (had you been able to then) "I do not understand why a black person would wish to sit in diners or restaurants that are almost universally opposed to such a thing happening in the first place. It's like a vegan applying to work in a slaughterhouse".

Not the same, is it?

An indescribably evil apartheid treatment of human beings versus a symbolic political/ideological 'last chapter' issue that will make little or no tangible difference. It's almost shameful that the treatment of black people at the hands of evil racists can be compared like this.

[Mr Pee]

Yes they're not happy I'm sure. Me, I'm past trying to explain it to them

Point of interest - how can you possibly know there's a majority and that ii is large - where does one find reliable stats on religious membership, I wonder?

I think you made that up, Mr Pee

Erm...a majority is by definition large. The clue's in the name......

[amateur51]

Erm...a majority is by definition large. The clue's in the name......

Well you coined the term, not I

A majority of one is not large, Mr Pee - it may be sufficient but it's not large

[Mr Pee]

Not the same, is it?

An indescribably evil apartheid treatment of human beings versus a symbolic political/ideological 'last chapter' issue that will make little or no tangible difference.

Absolutely.

[Beef Oven]

Yes they're not happy I'm sure. Me, I'm past trying to explain it to them

Maybe they just don't buy it amateur51. Has that ever occurred to you?

[amateur51]

Not the same, is it?

An indescribably evil apartheid treatment of human beings versus a symbolic political/ideological 'last chapter' issue that will make little or no tangible difference. It's almost shameful that the treatment of black people at the hands of evil racists can be compared like this.

What a strange argument - where do you find this source of comparable 'evils'?

[amateur51]

Maybe they just don't buy it amateur51. Has that ever occurred to you?

Oh Beefy you still haven't got it, have you? - I DON'T CARE

[Beef Oven]

Oh Beefy you still haven't got it, have you? - I DON'T CARE

You mean I just don't buy it? True.

Treating people the same is not how to treat people equally, especially if they are different in the first place. It requires more sophisticated thinking than the SSM mantra.

[amateur51]

You mean I just don't buy it? True.

Treating people the same is not how to treat people equally, especially if they are different in the first place. It requires more sophisticated thinking than the SSM mantra.

Well I'm off to enjoy the sunshine and I hope you enjoy your oh so sophisticated thinking too

[Pabmusic]

Not the same, is it?

An indescribably evil apartheid treatment of human beings versus a symbolic political/ideological that will make little or no tangible difference.

The 'apartheid' treatment was evil - and I expect almost all would now agree so. But it was not universally seen as evil at the time (that is, of course, why change came slowly and violently). In South Africa at the same time it was backed wholeheartedly by the Dutch Reformed Church, a Calvinist group that had clear biblical justification for it (it has to do with Noah's sons, I understand).

Our morality has changed a lot and we now see the brave people who stood up for their rights as being heroic. But that's with the benefit of hindsight. Maybe in fifty years time, people will be talking about the 'evil' way society actively discriminated against gays. It will be no use pointing out then that others who came before were worse.