Gay marriage thread

[Resurrection Man]

Like the homeopathy thread I think this one has been a fine example of a well-behaved thread until you start calling people children.....

Let's just take a little stroll back through this thread and examine your 'erudite' contributions to the debate, shall we ? ....

You really don't know much about people, do you scotty. When in doubt fly to 'natural'.

You always lapse into this pathetic pose when you're outmanoeuvred, scotty. It isn't big and it isn't clever

No scotty, I guess you may have met some lesbians & gay men with a clenched sphincter and a rictus smile

I'm happy with a fork and spoon. And where does your stricture leave the culinary cultures of China & Japan et al

Anything good on Sky Arts today, Mr Pee?

What a sad life, then Beefy. You must feel beleagured

"Constructive" comments as we can all see and which have really added value to the debate. Such precision of language. Such insight.

Mr Pee then posted


I must say, scottycelt, I admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up for your beliefs on this forum, despite the vicious invective that is spewed your way. It seems to me that many who complain about prejudice and intolerance would do well to look in the mirror once in a while

Which is a pretty fair comment based on your stream of pithy comments, wouldn't you say?

And Beef Oven agreed


Never a truer word said. In my life, I've found left-field people are anti-democratic and extremely intolerant. Such bullies too.

And I gave my first post in this thread in support of Beef Oven to which you replied....

Oh here he comes, the biggest bully on the board



I rest my case.

[amateur51]

Let's just take a little stroll back through this thread and examine your 'erudite' contributions to the debate, shall we ? ....

You really don't know much about people, do you scotty. When in doubt fly to 'natural'.


You always lapse into this pathetic pose when you're outmanoeuvred, scotty. It isn't big and it isn't clever


No scotty, I guess you may have met some lesbians & gay men with a clenched sphincter and a rictus smile


I'm happy with a fork and spoon. And where does your stricture leave the culinary cultures of China & Japan et al


Anything good on Sky Arts today, Mr Pee?

What a sad life, then Beefy. You must feel beleagured

"Constructive" comments as we can all see and which have really added value to the debate. Such precision of language. Such insight.

Mr Pee then posted


I must say, scottycelt, I admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up for your beliefs on this forum, despite the vicious invective that is spewed your way. It seems to me that many who complain about prejudice and intolerance would do well to look in the mirror once in a while

Which is a pretty fair comment based on your stream of pithy comments, wouldn't you say?

And Beef Oven agreed


Never a truer word said. In my life, I've found left-field people are anti-democratic and extremely intolerant. Such bullies too.

And I gave my support to Beef Oven to which you replied....


Oh here he comes, the biggest bully on the board



I rest my case.

At which point, Mr Mason, my lawyer would tell me that each of those quotations has been taken out of context, wouldn't she.

Once again, as MrGG has pointed out, rather than have a discussion, you choose to adopt the manner of a court room.

I wonder why?

My apologies for my tardy reply but I've been having a snoozle.

[scottycelt]

Yes that's pretty clear. You get a buzz from discriminating against people.

However I'd got the impression your line was that same sex marriage would be (yet another) form of discrimination against heterosexuals because civil partnerships aren't possible for heterosexuals.

And, of course, were we at the stage where civil partnerships were first suggested for gay and lesbian couples you would have found all sorts of reasons to oppose them. That's true isn't it?

Some different sex couples don't want to get married but do want some form of civil recognition of their commitment to one another. So what's your problem with civil partnerships for different sex couples?

Well, I'm glad you've finally 'got it' ... well most of it. It's not myself that gets 'a buzz' from discrimination here but the Law, whether I personally approve of the Law or not!

No, I wouldn't have 'found all sorts of reasons' to originally oppose Civil Partnerships. I already had one! I no more 'support' the existence of those than you, Mr GG, Amateur51 and Flosshilde might 'support' taxpayer-funded 'faith schools'? That's true, isn't it?

However, as the old saying goes, 'we are where we are' and I consider the current arrangement to be broadly equitable, and the proposed new laws are unnecessary and lop-sided, and, at the same time, upsetting and bewildering to a significant chunk of the population. As far as I'm concerned it's really about making the best of a bad job and not making it any worse.

I'm sorry but I simply find it almost impossible to believe you really got the impression that you claim you did regarding my views on CPs. I've been accused of many things here but not, I think, very much lack of clarity.

You must know that I merely pointed to the discriminatory aspects of CPs in order to illustrate the totally bogus 'equality' argument put forward by politicians like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in favour of 'gay marriage'.

Nothing more or less ...

[amateur51]

So now let's see if I can achieve the seemingly impossible and gain your vital trust in proving to be 'honest and straightforward'.

Civil Partnerships discriminate against heterosexuals .... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want CPs open to heterosexuals, anyway, as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Marriage already ... FACT

Marriage discriminates against homosexuals ... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want Marriage open to homosexuals anyway as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Civil Partnerships already ... FACT

Honest and straightforward enough to abide by the Julien Sorel Forum Moral Code, and just as useful to know?

Four 'FACTS', two of which happen to be scottycelt OPINIONS masquerading as FACTS.

[amateur51]

Well, I'm glad you've finally 'got it' ... well most of it. It's not myself that gets 'a buzz' from discrimination here but the Law, whether I personally approve of the Law or not!

No, I wouldn't have 'found all sorts of reasons' to originally oppose Civil Partnerships. I already had one! I no more 'support' the existence of those than you, Mr GG, Amateur51 and Flosshilde might 'support' taxpayer-funded 'faith schools'? That's true, isn't it?

However, as the old saying goes, 'we are where we are' and I consider the current arrangement to be broadly equitable, and the proposed new laws are unnecessary and lop-sided, and, at the same time, upsetting and bewildering to a significant chunk of the population. As far as I'm concerned it's really about making the best of a bad job and not making it any worse.

I'm sorry but I simply find it almost impossible to believe you really got the impression that you claim you did regarding my views on CPs. I've been accused of many things here but not, I think, very much lack of clarity.

You must know that I merely pointed to the discriminatory aspects of CPs in order to illustrate the totally bogus 'equality' argument put forward by politicians like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in favour of 'gay marriage'.

Nothing more or less ...

Points noted scotty but I reiterate, the tide of history is against you as we sail into a more equal but apparently bogus future

[scottycelt]

Four 'FACTS', two of which happen to be scottycelt OPINIONS masquerading as FACTS.

My OPINIONS are FACTS, amsey ... these may be either true or false (or somewhere in-between) but are undoubtedly FACTS.

[Julien Sorel]

Well, I'm glad you've finally 'got it' ... well most of it. It's not myself that gets 'a buzz' from discrimination here but the Law, whether I personally approve of the Law or not!

No, I wouldn't have 'found all sorts of reasons' to originally oppose Civil Partnerships. I already had one! I no more 'support' the existence of those than you, Mr GG, Amateur51 and Flosshilde might 'support' taxpayer-funded 'faith schools'? That's true, isn't it?

However, as the old saying goes, 'we are where we are' and I consider the current arrangement to be broadly equitable, and the proposed new laws are unnecessary and lop-sided, and, at the same time, upsetting and bewildering to a significant chunk of the population. As far as I'm concerned it's really about making the best of a bad job and not making it any worse.

I'm sorry but I simply find it almost impossible to believe you really got the impression that you claim you did regarding my views on CPs. I've been accused of many things here but not, I think, very much lack of clarity.

You must know that I merely pointed to the discriminatory aspects of CPs in order to illustrate the totally bogus 'equality' argument put forward by politicians like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in favour of 'gay marriage'.

Nothing more or less ...

I don't, as it happens, think there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Provided they don't mislead their pupils by telling them God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, or that any form of sexuality other than heterosexual marriage is illicit, or that women should be subservient to men because God made Adam and then made Eve from one of Adam's ribs. My problem with much organised religion is how little it seems to have to do with the divinity or with putting right earthly wrongs (edit: you know, poverty and disease and ignorance - that sort of thing) and how much it has to do with making people's lives miserable on the flimsiest, most selective, pseudo-theological bases. The idea that a god or the God would give a flying ... squirrel about people's sex lives or domestic arrangements is farcical. IMHO.

I'm afraid I really did get that impression - together with a general sense that you'll pick up any handy argument when it suits you and drop it like a hot potato when it doesn't.

I find much of what you write clear as mud, but that might just be me.

[scottycelt]

I don't, as it happens, think there shouldn't be state funded faith schools. Provided they don't mislead their pupils by telling them God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, or that any form of sexuality other than heterosexual marriage is illicit, or that women should be subservient to men because God made Adam and then made Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

I'm afraid I really did get that impression - together with a general sense that you'll pick up any handy argument when it suits you and drop it like a hot potato when it doesn't.

I find much of what you write clear as mud, but that might just be me.

'Provided' ... I think that single word maybe sums up your idea of 'equality' ... as long as "religionists" basically subscribe to the Julien Sorel view of the world then JS can be quite relaxed about 'faith schools' and anything else these annoying "religionists" expect as a human right.

Well, thankfully for a lot of the rest of us, I have some very bad news for you ...

[Simon]

My problem with much organised religion is how little it seems to have to do with the divinity or with putting right earthly wrongs (you know, poverty and disease and ignorance - that sort of thing) and how much it has to do with making people's lives miserable on the flimsiest, most selective, pseudo-theological bases.

Hello Julien. I hope you are keeping well. Reading your comments again takes me back years...

I shan't be bothering trawling through this thread, as I expect I have a fair idea what people will have written and I doubt there'll be much new. But I couldn't resist looking at your post as it was showing up as the last one, and I have to say that it's pleasant to be able to agree with a chunk of it, reproduced above. Must be a first.

Organised Christian religion, in my view, despite the selfless good works that many of its adherents undoubtedly do, often seems more about protecting the power and influence of the organisation than about following the teachings of its founder. That's a shame. Vivat the Salvation Army.

[Black Swan]

A very interesting thread. To bad it is clouded with religiosity. But I am guessing that scottycelt would have supported the Spanish Inquisition as a faith based initiative. Enough said let's agree that all people have a right to live their lives. We should be more concerned about child abuse by religious institutions than Gay Marriage.

[MrGongGong]

'Provided' ... I think that single word maybe sums up your idea of 'equality' ... as long as "religionists" basically subscribe to the Julien Sorel view of the world then JS can be quite relaxed about 'faith schools' and anything else these annoying "religionists" expect as a human right.

Well, thankfully for a lot of the rest of us, I have some very bad news for you ...

Even though (as I said before ) there are some cases where "religionists" do wonderful things in education (I did a great music project at an Islamic school for girls a few years ago ) I think that given the dreadful way that the churches (of all types ) have treated young people (I have a very close friend who is still, over 30 years later, trying to come to terms with how the "christian brothers" messed him up as a teenager ) it would be better for us all and our children that they withdrew from education. "Faith schools" , even though sometimes are great institutions (as with some of the Islamic schools and ones like the Catholic primary school I wrote about previously) are not what we should be encouraging as a society.

[MrGongGong]

A very interesting thread. To bad it is clouded with religiosity. But I am guessing that scottycelt would have supported the Spanish Inquisition. Enough said let's agree that all people have a right to live their lives. We should be more concerned about child abuse by religious institutions than Gay Marriage.

[scottycelt]

A very interesting thread. To bad it is clouded with religiosity. But I am guessing that scottycelt would have supported the Spanish Inquisition. Enough said let's agree that all people have a right to live their lives. We should be more concerned about child abuse by religious institutions than Gay Marriage.

The Spanish Inquisition was a bit before my time but, during my own lifetime, I've never met a single Catholic who would have supported it. Then again I'm sure many liberals today could not have supported many of the atrocities that went on much later in human history such as during the French Revolution.

Oh, if only it were not for the sins of our fathers!

On a point of fact, I was the very one who refused to cloud this thread in 'religiosity' as you would have quickly discovered if you had read each and every post instead of jumping in regardless.

However, you seem to be yet another here utterly obsessed with 'religion' !

[Julien Sorel]

'Provided' ... I think that single word maybe sums up your idea of 'equality' ... as long as "religionists" basically subscribe to the Julien Sorel view of the world then JS can be quite relaxed about 'faith schools' and anything else these annoying "religionists" expect as a human right.

Not in the least. God didn't create the world in six days and rest on the seventh. It's untrue as well as hate-provoking to claim that any form of sexuality other than heterosexual marriage is illicit, and God didn't create Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. That's why no school should teach any of the above. Because they are untrue. If a school ran geography classes insisting that the earth is flat and the sun and all the other planets revolve around the earth it would be teaching something incorrect. Not something that's to do with a view of the world.

Massive fail, I'm afraid scottycelt.

Hello Simon. I trust you are well.

[Flosshilde]

But I am guessing that scottycelt would have supported the Spanish Inquisition as a faith based initiative.

Enough said let's agree that all people have a right to live their lives. We should be more concerned about child abuse by religious institutions than Gay Marriage.

Couldn't agree more.