NationStates Jolt Archive

There's so may threads on Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and all the rest of it. I'm british, and arguing about this has just bored me to death with the US Constitution which I really couldn't care less about.

This is an issue which extends beyond US Border Control, strangely enough. Three of the four countries in the world that have legalised same-sex marriage are in the EU, with more to follow. Over the next eighteen months most EU countries will be bringing in either same-sex marriage or the "comparable rights" that european law requires of them.

Next year, once the Civil Pertnership Act comes into force in the UK I'm going to 'marry' my boyfriend. Except for some minor detail to do with tax and insurance which is covered under other legislation anyway the Civil Partnership Act will give us exactly the same rights that my parents, and every other heterosexual couple, enjoy.

The US led threads are predominantly to do with religion. In Europe, and the UK in particular, we're nowhere near as religious. Because many european countries have no formal seperation of church and state, we're all on our guard against the overlap much more. We no longer view faith as a valid reason for government actions.

I, unsuprisingly, am in favour of same-sex marriage. I'd rather be a husband than a civil partner. I find the term a little degrading, but it is much better than nothing.

The other thing that has struck me about the US led threads is this. The Americans even more so than us seem to be stuck with the stereotypical images of people that they see on TV.

I think that alot of the issues that people have with Gay people and same-sex marriage in particular stem from fear of the unknown. All people know is the stereotypes, which aren't particularly endearing. This I think is a big issue which ought to be explored too.

So, from a less american perspective, what are everyones views?

There's so may threads on Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and all the rest of it. I'm british, and arguing about this has just bored me to death with the US Constitution which I really couldn't care less about.

This is an issue which extends beyond US Border Control, strangely enough. Three of the four countries in the world that have legalised same-sex marriage are in the EU, with more to follow. Over the next eighteen months most EU countries will be bringing in either same-sex marriage or the "comparable rights" that european law requires of them.

Next year, once the Civil Pertnership Act comes into force in the UK I'm going to 'marry' my boyfriend. Except for some minor detail to do with tax and insurance which is covered under other legislation anyway the Civil Partnership Act will give us exactly the same rights that my parents, and every other heterosexual couple, enjoy.

The US led threads are predominantly to do with religion. In Europe, and the UK in particular, we're nowhere near as religious. Because many european countries have no formal seperation of church and state, we're all on our guard against the overlap much more. We no longer view faith as a valid reason for government actions.

I, unsuprisingly, am in favour of same-sex marriage. I'd rather be a husband than a civil partner. I find the term a little degrading, but it is much better than nothing.

The other thing that has struck me about the US led threads is this. The Americans even more so than us seem to be stuck with the stereotypical images of people that they see on TV.

I think that alot of the issues that people have with Gay people and same-sex marriage in particular stem from fear of the unknown. All people know is the stereotypes, which aren't particularly endearing. This I think is a big issue which ought to be explored too.

So, from a less american perspective, what are everyones views?


I'm indifferent to it politically. If it falls on either side of the coin, I'm not going to bitch about it.

I'm against it religiously, although.

The same as my views in every other thread on this:

Anybody who has a problem with it needs to pull their head out of their ass.

Ditto to the above. It was a fairly non-issue in Canada because we aren't that religious, and really, on what other grounds would you bother opposing it?

I know, it's kinda been done to death. But it's important to me and I thought it might be good to discuss it without arguing a different countries constitution.

Hell the amount of times I've ended up doing that in various forums, I could probably pass the bar in the US by now.

what people decide to do in the bedroom is no business of mine

Ditto to the above. It was a fairly non-issue in Canada because we aren't that religious, and really, on what other grounds would you bother opposing it?

It's interesting here. Most of the population are atheists, or at least lapsed/non-practising.

But we have large immigrant communities which do practise a variety of different forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and everything else. We haven't got a particularly strong national identity. And we're stuck between the Americans on one side, who are increasingly evangenlical, and the devout meditaerranian states on the other, who are about 50 years behind the rest of europe.

It makes for lots of infighting and unexpected compromises.

i agree with the above, as long as your not hurting anyone then its ur business

Well, I am an American, and I realize that gay marriage isn't just an American issue. However, it is important to me that gay marriage becomes legalized within America, hence the American logic and arguements. On an international scale, I still can't see why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized.

The GLBT community is being treated unfairly in my country, due to differences which are the concern only of each individual, and not of each other. This is just like any other civil rights movement, only this time, America's having a hard time catching on. Our theocracy cloaked as a democratic republic is becoming more and more exposed. The supposed separation of church and state is nonexistant. Only one state out of 50 has legalized gay marriage and did so years ago; we have made no progress since then. I am ashamed of this nation, which constantly brags on its diversity and tolerance while preaching the evils of this or that group. How disgusting.

As far as international gay rights go, there's still much to be desired. Only four countries have legalized gay marriage. However, considering that last year, there were only half that many, I'd say the global progress on this issue is pretty impressive.

As far as international gay rights go, there's still much to be desired. Only four countries have legalized gay marriage. However, considering that last year, there were only half that many, I'd say the global progress on this issue is pretty impressive.

There is. Only four countries have legalised gay marriage, but, about a dozen more have legalised some kind of civil partnerships system which has the same affect, and that's set to double in the next year.

I'm against it religiously, although.
And you have no right to force your religious opinion on anybody else.


I'm glad that our parliment passed the gay marriage legislation. It makes me proud to be part of a progressive nation. :D

There is. Only four countries have legalised gay marriage, but, about a dozen more have legalised some kind of civil partnerships system which has the same affect, and that's set to double in the next year.
In my opinion, "civil unions" are just another way of saying, "God says you can't be 'married', fags! But really, we're tolerant... you can have 'civil unions.' Doesn't that sound pretty? It means we recognize your partnership, but you'll always be a second-class citizen. YAY!"

I'm sorry you live in Europe, but you shouldn't blame us. (JOKE!)

Only the US matters. (JOKE!)

And only American have real marriages. (JOKE!)

(JOKE! JOKE! JOKE!) :eek: :D

(sorry, but I'm having fun with hidden messages. *hijack over*)

what people decide to do in the bedroom is no business of mine

My hand is suing for sexual harassment :eek:

In my opinion, "civil unions" are just another way of saying, "God says you can't be 'married', fags! But really, we're tolerant... you can have 'civil unions.' Doesn't that sound pretty? It means we recognize your partnership, but you'll always be a second-class citizen. YAY!"
It is still better than nothing though, and a few years down the road, perhaps legislation will change and allow for same sex marriages in places where unions are now allowed. Politicians can only change things as quickly as the population will allow in democratic countries.

My hand is suing for sexual harassment :eek:

LOL

In america gay marriage should be legal.
The first ammendment specifically says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So according to this ammendment, Religion should have no say in what the government does. Law makers should not be able to ban gay marriage because it says it is wrong in any religous book.

In Norway, gay marriage is not allowed, but the Partnership Act lets them live together with the same rights as hetero couples.
"It's all a question of aesthetics, it's got fuck-all to do with morality." -Renton in Trainspotting, on the choice of gender to fornicate with.

In america gay marriage should be legal.
The first ammendment specifically says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So according to this ammendment, Religion should have no say in what the government does. Law makers should not be able to ban gay marriage because it says it is wrong in any religous book.
(Red & bold emphasis=mine)
And besides, there isn't anywhere in the bible that is clearly against homosexuality, despite what certain extremists may think...

It is still better than nothing though, and a few years down the road, perhaps legislation will change and allow for same sex marriages in places where unions are now allowed. Politicians can only change things as quickly as the population will allow in democratic countries.

Holland and Denmark were the first two countries to legalise gay marriage, and they had civil unions for a couple of years first untill people got used to the idea.

Being Canadian, and therefore constantly subjected to American political rhetoric, I believe that Canada has much more in common with Europe with regard to societal attitudes.

Why should anyone care what anyone else does provided they are not harming anyone else?

The right wing in the US just doesn't seem to understand that they are turning their own country in a "fanatical religious state" with every step they take.

Initially, I read the thread title and thought " :rolleyes: Oh no, not another Gay Marriage thread! :rolleyes: " but this one does contribute something the previous threads didn't really address. As a Canadian, I completely fail to see what the huge fuss is all about. I can understand some the semantic issues some groups have raised (on both sides) about a Civil Union vs. Marriage. There is something positive to be said for tradition, so I do appreciate that the more moderate religious groups have a valid point. It would make so much more sense, IMHO to just get Gov't out of marriage altogether and simply grant Civil Unions, allowing various churches to perform marriages in accordance with their doctrines. Churches sympathetic to Smae-Sex Marriage already exist, and I'm sure more would coalesce and grant marriages to same sex couples who sought one.

The hijacking of the issue by the religious right, using their doctrines as an excuse for discrimination and "seprate-but-equal" laws is just about the stupidest and most pointless thing I've encountered in past few years. By appointing themselves to dictate the laws of the nation based on their faiths they've just hurt their cause. Just live and let live I say.

One of my roomates recently moved out to share a home with his fiance, who happens to be the same sex as him. I gave him heartfelt congratulations and wishes of good luck in his new life as a married man. Whether or not somebodies scripture approves of it is not my business. I was quite happy when my country passed the Same-Sex Marriage bill, as it helps guarentee the freedoms the rest of the nation enjoys. Why anyone in their right mind would want to deny somebody those freedoms based solely on a difference in lifestyle is something I'm just not capable of understanding.

At this point, my feelings on the issue when raised on this weird little forum, could be best summed up as "Either shut the fuck up or find something NEW to talk about." I just don't care anymore. In my country at least, Same-Sex Marriage is a fait-accompli, and jawing on about it won't change a thing, except to add more hot air to the usual summer surplus.

Ditto to the above. It was a fairly non-issue in Canada because we aren't that religious, and really, on what other grounds would you bother opposing it?
Non-issue? It polarised your government, led to party crossovers and resignations! Not to mention the debates and calls from right-wing Americans!

But we have large immigrant communities which do practise a variety of different forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and everything else. We haven't got a particularly strong national identity. And we're stuck between the Americans on one side, who are increasingly evangenlical, and the devout meditaerranian states on the other, who are about 50 years behind the rest of europe.

Two points I wish to discuss here.

Ok, first, to say, Im bi, but I do have several gay friends. Quite frankly, if anyone has the right to complain its the gay population in those 50 year behind countries. I would know, since I live in one. Here, being gay is considered an abomination, a horrible mystake of nature, etc, etc. Here, gay people dont have the right to SAY "Im a homosexual" without getting beaten to a bloody pulp. Marriage and union is not even thought of yet. Gay relationships are a fairytale. All gay people can do is get in touch with each other over the net or something, have a one nighter, and thats it. Why? because relationships are far too risky.

Second point. Thanks for the comment on being 50 years behind the rest of europe. Those countries are mostly countries located on the Balcanian Peninsula. And what you said is true. And sorry, this is just some of my personal anger at the injustice of the world being expressed right now, but its not really our fault we're so behind. If west wing countries have kept their fingers out of our business a little more and taken care of their own, our countries wouldnt be an economic and social wreck today, and the west wing would have a hell of a lot less terroryst attacks (Im aiming at America with this one).

I appologize to all americans, I realize this isnt the thread for this kind of discussion. Its not the people's fault, its the governments. Rot, Bush, rot.

The gist of the Swedish perspective:

Sweden has had a "civil partnership" law since 1995. The law was a compromise on the behalf of GLBT organisations, who have always said that fully equal marriage was the only thing acceptable in the long run.

The partnership law gave gay couples all the same rights and privileges of marriage, except for the right to adopt, the right to medical insemination/fertility treatments, the "right" to get married in a church, certain international regulations and privileges that were dependant on the different genders of the couple.

Since 1995 most of those differences have vanished: gays can adopt in the same manner as straights, insemination/fertility treatments are equally available to gay couples, most of the international regulations have been dealt with and discrimination laws are now in place to see that discrimination based on gender in the cases pertaining to this subject is illegal. What remains is the "right" to get married in a church, which is a somewhat complex matter.

As a remnant of the old state church, the Swedish Church and its priests are lawfully allowed to legally wed couples, but not if it's a same sex couple. This has so far protected the church from being sued for violating anti-discrimination laws that protect gays. If this was not the case, the church could not refuse to wed homosexual couples, as the act of legally wedding people is an act of state, and those are not subject to the laws on freedom of religion. The conundrum is this: fully equal gay marriage would lead to the churches' not being able to refuse to wed gay couples.

The solution mostly favoured is to simply make it so that the church no longer has the legal right to wed people, making their ceremony just a religious one, leading to it being protected by laws on freedom of religion, meaning that it would be up to every church whom to offer the ceremony to, be it straights or gays.

And here is basically where we are now: A majority of the populace supports the equalisation of marriage and partnerships (making marriage laws gender neutral) and there is a majority for it in parliament. The government has started an investigation into how an equalisation would happen and a law proposal, probably containing the solution mentioned above, is expected in 2007. Religion has never been a big part of the debate, other than in the case of what solution to use to ensure religious freedom. The Swedish Church has, in fact, even shown signs of being willing to offer the ceremony to gay couples.

The discussion in this country has not been if it should be done, but how.

In Ireland we have a strong Catholic tradition but I think that most people under 60 would support gay marriage or at least civil partnerships.

In my country two Irishwomen who got married in Canada are going through the courts to get their marriage recognised here.

The same as my views in every other thread on this:

Anybody who has a problem with it needs to pull their head out of their ass.


Damn straight. It's despicable that our country claims to be this huge symbol of freedom and human rights and yet we deny our own citizens the right to get married. Honestly, all of the arguments people make against gay marriage on religious grounds make me very mad. And it doesn't seem that there are any arguments besides religion.

Damn straight. It's despicable that our country claims to be this huge symbol of freedom and human rights and yet we deny our own citizens the right to get married. Honestly, all of the arguments people make against gay marriage on religious grounds make me very mad. And it doesn't seem that there are any arguments besides religion.

I don't think there is.

Being from one of the countries where it's legal, all I can say is I don't get why some people think it's a problem...

Personally, I would prefer that the government had the civil unions, equal for everybody ofcourse, and marriage be up the the churches or ministers (or whoever who would decide that)

I'd prefer religious practises be held out of the government.

I'd prefer religious practises be held out of the government.

Marriage is not a religious matter.

I'm indifferent to it politically. If it falls on either side of the coin, I'm not going to bitch about it.

I'm against it religiously, although.

What exactly do you mean by that? That you believe that gay marriage is wrong but that nevertheless you do not want to argue against it because you have got no arguments?

What exactly do you mean by that? That you believe that gay marriage is wrong but that nevertheless you do not want to argue against it because you have got no arguments?

I think he means that he sees not real-world reasons against it, but because of his religion he instinctively thinks it's wrong himself.

A very good friend of mine has this problem. She calls it head and heart. In her head she knows there's no problem, and if anything it's good to see two people happy together, but because of the way she was brought up she instinctively thinks it's wrong.

I actually have great respect for people who can say things like that.

Non-issue? It polarised your government, led to party crossovers and resignations! Not to mention the debates and calls from right-wing Americans!


That's what I just love about this country : The bin tax debatte caused a lot more protests and rallies than the gay marriage issue ever will :)

My original country, Germany, legalised civil unions for gays a few years back, granting them the same rights as married couples. To be honest, I don't have a clue why they didn't go all the way and call it a marriage...

Marriage is not a religious matter.
What is it then?

It struck me, with reference to the fact that in Sweden they seem to be moving towards revoking the right of the Church to marry people. As far as I know, that is what they have done in Germany.

Furhtermore, I don't think religion is the trigger in the way most people think.
Look at Israel: they are technically a secular state, but the orthodox Jews excert considerable political force, yet homosexuality is not only legal, there are laws in place to ban discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. Or to take Norway as an example: they are officially a Christian state, they have a Christian Party (Krf,) who not only get a significant part of the votes, but from whose ranks six of the current ministers come, including the Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik (who is actually a priest.) And among the things they have done are opposing laws to allow homosexuals the right to adopt, the right to adopt spouse's child and the right to artificial insemination on scientifically disproven grounds. So in a way, Norway is also most definitely a theocracy. Yet at the same time the Minister of Finance, Per-Kristian Foss, is not only the second most powerful minister in times of peace, he is openly gay and in a civil union.

These two rather long examples are meant to illustrate the important fact: that what matters is not religion, but personality. I'm not trying to say that people who are against homosexuality on religious grounds are intrinsically bad people, but at the same time, one can only feel that the argument of religion is only an excuse for opinions that have a far more sinister aspect, namely those of violence and greed as leading moral goods, a tradition that the current United States administration comes from.

What frightens me more is not that there is such a strong religious movement in the US, which holds the power, but rather that this movement is rather Neo-Conservative, which really has little to do with religion.

And also, before we go on and on about marriage for us homosexuals, which I think is our right without question, I would like to draw your attentions to the fact that in a large number of non-western countries homosexuality is not even legal, and that in Mauritania, Sudan, Chechnya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen the penalty is death. THAT I find disturbing.

Just thought I'd mention it, since the thread seems to be about homosexuality , rather than gay marriage specifically.

... gays ...

A little off topic, I know, but this is a pet hate of mine.

Gay is an adjective, not a noun.

That's the spirit! Grammar is important. Keep going!

That's the spirit! Grammar is important. Keep going!

Well I'm sorry, but it really bugs me.

Gay is an adjective, not a noun.

No, gay is a noun, too. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gay)

What is it then?

A legal matter.

In Norway, gay marriage is not allowed, but the Partnership Act lets them live together with the same rights as hetero couples.
"It's all a question of aesthetics, it's got fuck-all to do with morality." -Renton in Trainspotting, on the choice of gender to fornicate with.
It's like that in all of the Scandinavian countries, isn't it?

Anyway, I myself think it's bollox to deny people marriage or the right to adopt because of who they're screwing.

..But! This is and has been a slow development. We likely won't see real equal rights in the next 20 years (I'm speaking of the EU countries), but it will happen. In 10 years, the churches who won't perform same-sex marriages will be regarded as backwards biggots. In 20 the children will have become adults, and people will have to admit that homosexual parents are every bit as good as hetero's.

I'm a firm believer that all the gay hating twits will end up being treated as second class citizens, simply because people will think them evil.

No, gay is a noun, too. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gay)

Hmmm....

It still bugs me. I'm sure there's another whole thread in that though. "What do homosexuals like to be called?"

A little off topic, I know, but this is a pet hate of mine.

Gay is an adjective, not a noun.


It is an adjective originally, but common usage has turned it into a noun, as well...

gay

• adjective (gayer, gayest) 1 (especially of a man) homosexual. 2 relating to homosexuals. 3 dated light-hearted and carefree. 4 dated brightly coloured; showy.

• noun a homosexual person, especially a man.

Source : Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com)

Don't get grammatical with a librarian ;)

Hmmm....

It still bugs me. I'm sure there's another whole thread in that though. "What do homosexuals like to be called?"
I don't mind being called any of the homosexual slurs (fag, arsepirate, queer etc.) so long as it isn't malicious. I regularly call my boyfriend "the amazing fagface."

It is an adjective originally, but common usage has turned it into a noun, as well...

gay

• adjective (gayer, gayest) 1 (especially of a man) homosexual. 2 relating to homosexuals. 3 dated light-hearted and carefree. 4 dated brightly coloured; showy.

• noun a homosexual person, especially a man.

Source : Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com)

Don't get grammatical with a librarian ;)

:(

My local library won't let me borrow books any more. Just because I don't give them back for six months.

I don't mind being called any of the homosexual slurs (fag, arsepirate, queer etc.) so long as it isn't malicious. I regularly call my boyfriend "the amazing fagface."

The Amaing Fagface? lol. Last of the great romantics, you are.

A legal matter.

Why don't you elaborate?

Why don't you elaborate?

What elaboration is there to be made? Marriage is a legal matter - it is law, not religion, that governs it.

That's what I just love about this country : The bin tax debatte caused a lot more protests and rallies than the gay marriage issue ever will
That's because it's more important.


I'm a firm believer that all the gay hating twits will end up being treated as second class citizens, simply because people will think them evil.
I don't think so. I think it will be even better: the homophobes will be either silently regretful, or just pretending that they agreed with us all along.

That's because it's more important.

*lol

Well, I can't argue with that... :D

Well, I can't argue with that... :D
Certainly. Not everyone needs to be gay or get married, but we all need our bins collected. :)

I don't think so. I think it will be even better: the homophobes will be either silently regretful, or just pretending that they agreed with us all along.

Nah, they'll sound like my grandmother.

While driving past a gay bar: "I know we're supposed to live and let live nowadays, nothing against that, but I just think that's disgustin. Makes you sick to see people acting like that."

And besides, there isn't anywhere in the bible that is clearly against homosexuality, despite what certain extremists may think...

Of course there is! Are you blind?
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Don't get me wrong. I think gay marriage should be legal. It's none of my business what you do, and you're sinning regarless, married or not.

What elaboration is there to be made? Marriage is a legal matter - it is law, not religion, that governs it.
Tell me why it is a legal matter and not a religious one. Surely, marriage is a far older tradition, with roots in culture and religion, then the laws concerning it?

Of course there is! Are you blind?
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Don't get me wrong. I think gay marriage should be legal. It's none of my business what you do, and you're sinning regarless, married or not.

Leviticus doesn't apply to christians because:

1) They weren't levites to begin with, and
2) St Peter dissolved the levitical order, thereby rendering the commandments of the book of leviticus void, and
3) If you're a christian then the new testament supercedes the old testament anyway

Edit:

Oh, and

4) I'm not a Christian so I don't care, and
5) In all the places where you have quoted the translation is unreliable and the meaning open to interpetation

Nah, they'll sound like my grandmother.

While driving past a gay bar: "I know we're supposed to live and let live nowadays, nothing against that, but I just think that's disgustin. Makes you sick to see people acting like that."

OMG, I just imagined my grandmother on Christopher Street day "Ludwig (my grandfather), isn't it nice to see those girls wearing some colourful clothes? All they ever wear these days are dark and dull colours, it's nice to see that changing..." (only, she would say that in her dialect, no way to get that into English...)

Of course there is! Are you blind?
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Don't get me wrong. I think gay marriage should be legal. It's none of my business what you do, and you're sinning regarless, married or not.

And you HAD to create a new account to write this..? Such intellectual honesty....

Leviticus doesn't apply to christians because:

1) They weren't levites to begin with, and
2) St Peter dissolved the levitical order, thereby rendering the commandments of the book of leviticus void, and
3) If you're a christian then the new testament supercedes the old testament anyway

Edit:

Oh, and

4) I'm not a Christian so I don't care, and
5) In all the places where you have quoted the translation is unreliable and the meaning open to interpetation

Well, technically, Romans is in the new testament. But my opinion about Paul is that he wasn't quite sane anyways after hitting his head when falling of that horse outside Damaskus.

Of course there is! Are you blind?
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Don't get me wrong. I think gay marriage should be legal. It's none of my business what you do, and you're sinning regarless, married or not.
If you would like to debate this, go to my thread-Homosexuality: Sin? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429036) This is not the place for that debate.

Well, technically, Romans is in the new testament. But my opinion about Paul is that he wasn't quite sane anyways after hitting his head when falling of that horse outside Damaskus.

Yes, but the passage from romans is the one with the translation issue.

Anyway, it's romans, written by Peter a long time after the event, so not really Gospel.

Tell me why it is a legal matter and not a religious one.

Because, as I recall writing not long ago, because it is law - not religion - that governs it.

Surely, marriage is a far older tradition, with roots in culture and religion, then the laws concerning it?

Marriage is older than most religions today. It has very much been more a political, economical and legal instrument than any sort of religious institution for the history of human kind. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)

It was a historically recent development that religions started to make claim to it. (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)

Fass, you kick ass. But don't get sidetracked with religious stuff. There's 20000 other threads full of it.

Yes, but the passage from romans is the one with the translation issue.

Anyway, it's romans, written by Peter a long time after the event, so not really Gospel.

And it was written by Paul, the guy who never even met Jesus. No, not gospel, but nevertheless part of the bible due to the infinite wisdom of the desicion of the Catholic church sometime in the 6th century AD

And it was written by Paul, the guy who never even met Jesus. No, not gospel, but nevertheless part of the bible due to the infinite wisdom of the desicion of the Catholic church sometime in the 6th century AD

Was it Paul? I'm sure it was Peter.

I'm getting my saints confused. It happens when you get to my age.

It's good to hear reasonable for and against opinions on the matter.

I'm inclined to agree with my fellow Canucks that, while the Conservatives had very ruffled feathers over this, particularly Conservative leader, Stephan "I've got a stick up my ass" Harper, it was a relative non-issue with many. Many didn't care if it happened; many were in favour.

I do enjoy watching the religious pulling out those extremely obsecure Testatment passages that condemn homosexuality, since they can be interpretting in anyway. That and they are usually taken out of context and only partially quoted to suit their failing argument, which is backpeddling faster than 'liquid shit through a goose'. (If anyone can tell me where the quoted part conmes from, you get a cookie!)

In reading the CBC, I found an interesting quote from a Canadian senator... (if only I could remember where I found it)... but this senator said that she asked herself, what would Jesus do? And since he wasn't judgemental, he would've voted for it, and she voted in favour of it. I found that kind of interesting. (If anyone could find it...)

I'm inclined to agree with my fellow Canucks that, while the Conservatives had very ruffled feathers over this, particularly Conservative leader, Stephan "I've got a stick up my ass" Harper, it was a relative non-issue with many. Many didn't care if it happened; many were in favour.

I heard about Harper. Didn't he embarras himself horribly by claiming that the Gay Marriage legislation only passed because of the BQ members, and that they didn't really count? Or something like that anyway.

I heard about Harper. Didn't he embarras himself horribly by claiming that the Gay Marriage legislation only passed because of the BQ members, and that they didn't really count?
He said it was illegitament, and yet to bring down the government, he had sided with the Bloc to bring in a Motion of Non-Confidence. He really stuck his foot in his mouth on this issue. He then proceeded to commit political suicide by saying that if he got into power, he'd use the NotWithStanding Clause to override this bill.

He said it was illegitament, and yet to bring down the government, he had sided with the Bloc to bring in a Motion of Non-Confidence. He really stuck his foot in his mouth on this issue. He then proceeded to commit political suicide by saying that if he got into power, he'd use the NotWithStanding Clause to override this bill.

Wow! Your conservatives have the same survival instincts as a drunk lemming on a seawall.

Same as ours really.

Fass, you kick ass.

Thank you.

But don't get sidetracked with religious stuff. There's 20000 other threads full of it.

You're right. It is off-topic here, and I won't be dealing with that subject any more.

Wow! Your conservatives have the same survival instincts as a drunk lemming on a seawall.

Same as ours really.
Well, they used to be a lot more moderate. They were a lot more tolerable back in the days of Joe Clark; back in the day when they were thr Progressive Conservatives. They had progressive agenda, laced heavily with a good dose of fiscal conservatism. Then came the day when they merged with the former-Reform then-Alliance Party (also herein known as CCRAP; under the guidance of Stockwell Day; the guy is less of an asshole than Harper!). Now they're just as bad as most other neo-conservative parties that exist these days.

He said it was illegitament, and yet to bring down the government, he had sided with the Bloc to bring in a Motion of Non-Confidence. He really stuck his foot in his mouth on this issue. He then proceeded to commit political suicide by saying that if he got into power, he'd use the NotWithStanding Clause to override this bill.
And we're all grateful for it ;)

Must be great having such an utterly hopeless nutter leading the right wing.

And we're all grateful for it ;)

Must be great having such an utterly hopeless nutter leading the right wing.
He'll pay for it in the next elections.

It's nice to know that even the right in Canada actually is fearful of the rampant brand of neo-conservatism invading their preferred party.

The passage of the gay marriage bill will help the NDP, Bloc and Libs get votes. They pushed through to legalise what the courts already ruled on, putting it into practice.

He'll pay for it in the next elections.

It's nice to know that even the right in Canada actually is fearful of the rampant brand of neo-conservatism invading their preferred party.

The passage of the gay marriage bill will help the NDP, Bloc and Libs get votes. They pushed through to legalise what the courts already ruled on, putting it into practice.

I thought it went quite smoothly.

We had whips whipping madly over civil partnerships, and the CI were making a fuss too.

I thought it went quite smoothly.

We had whips whipping madly over civil partnerships, and the CI were making a fuss too.
That's quite true, and it's nice to know that civil rights won out over religious zealotry.

That's quite true, and it's nice to know that civil rights won out over religious zealotry.

Well no one worries much about the CI anymore, but the whips were quite controversial. Half the MP's rebeled against their parties anyway though.

Well no one worries much about the CI anymore, but the whips were quite controversial. Half the MP's rebeled against their parties anyway though.
I found that very interesting to see these MPs stand up for their beliefs.

I found that very interesting to see these MPs stand up for their beliefs.

I found it shocking. Good, but shocking.

Non-issue? It polarised your government, led to party crossovers and resignations! Not to mention the debates and calls from right-wing Americans!
How exactly did it polarize the government or lead to party cross overs?

One guy quit the liberal party because he wouldn't vote for it, but other than that...

Furthermore, the conservative party was already being a bunch of dicks before the gay marriage bill came before commons and every other party loved the idea from the get go.

Edit: Oh, and to hell with right wing americans butting into our country's business. If they want to deceide how things happen in Canada, they should move here.

There's so may threads on Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and all the rest of it. I'm british, and arguing about this has just bored me to death with the US Constitution which I really couldn't care less about.
This is an issue which extends beyond US Border Control, strangely enough. Three of the four countries in the world that have legalised same-sex marriage are in the EU, with more to follow. Over the next eighteen months most EU countries will be bringing in either same-sex marriage or the "comparable rights" that european law requires of them.
Next year, once the Civil Pertnership Act comes into force in the UK I'm going to 'marry' my boyfriend. Except for some minor detail to do with tax and insurance which is covered under other legislation anyway the Civil Partnership Act will give us exactly the same rights that my parents, and every other heterosexual couple, enjoy.
The US led threads are predominantly to do with religion. In Europe, and the UK in particular, we're nowhere near as religious. Because many european countries have no formal seperation of church and state, we're all on our guard against the overlap much more. We no longer view faith as a valid reason for government actions.
I, unsuprisingly, am in favour of same-sex marriage. I'd rather be a husband than a civil partner. I find the term a little degrading, but it is much better than nothing.
The other thing that has struck me about the US led threads is this. The Americans even more so than us seem to be stuck with the stereotypical images of people that they see on TV.
I think that alot of the issues that people have with Gay people and same-sex marriage in particular stem from fear of the unknown. All people know is the stereotypes, which aren't particularly endearing. This I think is a big issue which ought to be explored too.
So, from a less american perspective, what are everyones views?

My view is, Blair stated this morning on the news after the London attrocitys, that they, the muslim fanatics, are attacking our beliefs and way of life. After reading the above, I'm starting to see why.

My view is, Blair stated this morning on the news after the London attrocitys, that they, the muslim fanatics, are attacking our beliefs and way of life. After reading the above, I'm starting to see why.
Because Europe isn't full of raving religious fanatics?

Why hasn't Canada been attacked then? We just legalized it?

At any rate, the UK being attacked by "islamist" extremists probably has more to do with the whole going along with the war in Iraq thing.

[QUOTE=Dakini]Because Europe isn't full of raving religious fanatics?

It is actually, their called Muslims.


Why hasn't Canada been attacked then? We just legalized it?

Exactly, just, dont wish it apon, just because it has'nt so far.
But to be frank, Canada is a backwater, and I cant see any terrorist organisation taking the time and effort to attack there, for whatever reason, when there are much more larger and tempting fish in the ocean.
I am hoping the same for my own country, but given our present involvement in the middle east, and our governments outspoken view on Al Queda, and rightly so I guess, I hold little hope.


At any rate, the UK being attacked by "islamist" extremists probably has more to do with the whole going along with the war in Iraq thing.

Its an attack against the west in general, our 'open mindedness' and growing acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream western society, goes totally against their religous beliefs.

In my opinion, "civil unions" are just another way of saying, "God says you can't be 'married', fags! But really, we're tolerant... you can have 'civil unions.' Doesn't that sound pretty? It means we recognize your partnership, but you'll always be a second-class citizen. YAY!"
In France they desided to go with civil unions. From what I heard on the NEWS, most heterosexual couples have accually canceled their marriages and all got civil-unions. Marriage is basicly reserved for the religious and is the second class union.

In France they desided to go with civil unions. From what I heard on the NEWS, most heterosexual couples have accually canceled their marriages and all got civil-unions. Marriage is basicly reserved for the religious and is the second class union.

What a ridiculous claim, give me a Church, or, even Cathedral wedding(if only) any day over a insipid, and dull civil union.

My view is, Blair stated this morning on the news after the London attrocitys, that they, the muslim fanatics, are attacking our beliefs and way of life. After reading the above, I'm starting to see why.

Because the west is progressive?

What a ridiculous claim, give me a Church, or, even Cathedral wedding(if only) any day over a insipid, and dull civil union.

In Germany, the piece of paper that counts is the one issued by the state. The Civil Union.
Some people still get married in church, but fewer and fewer, actually. Only those who look to show off, really.

Edit: Oh, and to hell with right wing americans butting into our country's business. If they want to deceide how things happen in Canada, they should move here.

At the rate things are going, I am most assuredly considering it.

We're 2 skips and a jump away from theocracy rearing its ugly head.

As far as non-american and non-religious arguments go, the most common I've heard is that the legal institute of mairrage was designed to promote the welfare of children and ease the burden of raising them properly upon the parents.

I don't agree with this reasoning (what about hetero couples with no kids then, why do they get to be married?) but I have heard it.

At the rate things are going, I am most assuredly considering it.

We're 2 skips and a jump away from theocracy rearing its ugly head.

As far as non-american and non-religious arguments go, the most common I've heard is that the legal institute of mairrage was designed to promote the welfare of children and ease the burden of raising them properly upon the parents.

I don't agree with this reasoning (what about hetero couples with no kids then, why do they get to be married?) but I have heard it.

Yeah, that one's really popular, isn't it. Shame it doesn't make much sense.

well, being a gay single father (no plans to remarry, but who knows?) that argument sticks with me because it implies that I'm not fit to raise my daughter.

Its an attack against the west in general, our 'open mindedness' and growing acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream western society, goes totally against their religous beliefs.
May I ask a question?
You are saying that the terrorists are attacking us because we are progressive. I do not know your stance on gay marriage, but it seems to me as though you are against it. Are you trying to state that we should not allow gay marriage because the terrorists don't like it, and will attack us if we don't?
That doesn't seem like a very valid reason to me...

Sorry, I can already picture an extremist ad-campaign centered around the slogan.

"When gays get married, the terrorists win!"

complete with the W.A.S.P. family looking horrified at the gay couple in vaguely nazi-like gear getting married.

yeah... I kinna have a wierd sense of humor.
:headbang:

How exactly did it polarize the government or lead to party cross overs?

One guy quit the liberal party because he wouldn't vote for it, but other than that...

Furthermore, the conservative party was already being a bunch of dicks before the gay marriage bill came before commons and every other party loved the idea from the get go.
Well, you had that woman who crossed over from the Conservative Party, that guy who resigned his post as minister over a small issue like this, not to mention the months of angry debate.

Because Europe isn't full of raving religious fanatics?

If we don't start controlling Muslim immigration we soon will be knee-deep with them.

Its an attack against the west in general, our 'open mindedness' and growing acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream western society, goes totally against their religous beliefs.
Never concede to religious fanatics. There is no compromise and we should open up our society to homosexuality. Pissing off the zealots is just an added bonus.

Well, you had that woman who crossed over from the Conservative Party...
That wasn't over any one issue, though. I think it was a clash of personalities. Plus, she was offered a cabinet position by the Liberals.

What is wrong with it? why is the church against it? because only 1 in 10 people are gay? because it's a minority it must be bad? It's disgusting and i'm appalled with religion over this subject. We need a pope with modern views

There's so may threads on Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and all the rest of it. I'm british, and arguing about this has just bored me to death with the US Constitution which I really couldn't care less about.

This is an issue which extends beyond US Border Control, strangely enough. Three of the four countries in the world that have legalised same-sex marriage are in the EU, with more to follow. Over the next eighteen months most EU countries will be bringing in either same-sex marriage or the "comparable rights" that european law requires of them.

Next year, once the Civil Pertnership Act comes into force in the UK I'm going to 'marry' my boyfriend. Except for some minor detail to do with tax and insurance which is covered under other legislation anyway the Civil Partnership Act will give us exactly the same rights that my parents, and every other heterosexual couple, enjoy.

The US led threads are predominantly to do with religion. In Europe, and the UK in particular, we're nowhere near as religious. Because many european countries have no formal seperation of church and state, we're all on our guard against the overlap much more. We no longer view faith as a valid reason for government actions.

I, unsuprisingly, am in favour of same-sex marriage. I'd rather be a husband than a civil partner. I find the term a little degrading, but it is much better than nothing.

The other thing that has struck me about the US led threads is this. The Americans even more so than us seem to be stuck with the stereotypical images of people that they see on TV.

I think that alot of the issues that people have with Gay people and same-sex marriage in particular stem from fear of the unknown. All people know is the stereotypes, which aren't particularly endearing. This I think is a big issue which ought to be explored too.

So, from a less american perspective, what are everyones views?


All I got to say is its good to hear others working towards equality maybe between you guys and Canada we will get the hint that it is not alright to discriminate

Well, I am an American, and I realize that gay marriage isn't just an American issue. However, it is important to me that gay marriage becomes legalized within America, hence the American logic and arguements. On an international scale, I still can't see why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized.

The GLBT community is being treated unfairly in my country, due to differences which are the concern only of each individual, and not of each other. This is just like any other civil rights movement, only this time, America's having a hard time catching on. Our theocracy cloaked as a democratic republic is becoming more and more exposed. The supposed separation of church and state is nonexistant. Only one state out of 50 has legalized gay marriage and did so years ago; we have made no progress since then. I am ashamed of this nation, which constantly brags on its diversity and tolerance while preaching the evils of this or that group. How disgusting.

As far as international gay rights go, there's still much to be desired. Only four countries have legalized gay marriage. However, considering that last year, there were only half that many, I'd say the global progress on this issue is pretty impressive.

I completely agree with this statement, and could not have put it better or more eloquently myself. Bravo!

It is still better than nothing though, and a few years down the road, perhaps legislation will change and allow for same sex marriages in places where unions are now allowed. Politicians can only change things as quickly as the population will allow in democratic countries.

HA! And you think the US is a democracy ... laughable. More like a poorly run old white boy fan club with lots of money and no room for others outside their group. OK, maybe not that bad anymore, but still pretty lame.

I completely agree with this statement, and could not have put it better or more eloquently myself. Bravo!
Thank you. *Bows.*

May I ask a question?
You are saying that the terrorists are attacking us because we are progressive. I do not know your stance on gay marriage, but it seems to me as though you are against it. Are you trying to state that we should not allow gay marriage because the terrorists don't like it, and will attack us if we don't?
That doesn't seem like a very valid reason to me...

Progressive.. is this the new pc buzz word is it?
I see western acceptance of gays marrying a very real threat to Islam, because as far as I know, it is an issue they are profoundly against, interesting to note, that despite the continued attacks on Christianity for being against homosexuality, there is never one against Islam, which has an even more hardline attitude towards not accepting
it.
It seems gays and supporters of gay rights are caught here in their own web, as that critiscising Islamic values could be viewed as racist.

Progressive.. is this the new pc buzz word is it?
I see western acceptance of gays marrying a very real threat to Islam, because as far as I know, it is an issue they are profoundly against, interesting to note, that despite the continued attacks on Christianity for being against homosexuality, there is never one against Islam, which has an even more hardline attitude towards not accepting
it.
It seems gays and supporters of gay rights are caught here in their own web, as that critiscising Islamic values could be viewed as racist.

Or it could simply be that, as Islam has little influence over the laws of western societies --particularly the US -- it is simply a non-issue.

Some Christians wish to deny fundamental rights and equal protection to homosexuals based solely on religious dogma. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself. If the shackles are forged by religious dogma, then that dogma becomes "subject to continuous attacks." When Christians embrace equality and tolerance and othe Christian values supportive of gay and lesbian rights, then there need not be any hostility. But don't blame to oppressed for not embracing oppression forever.

Or it could simply be that, as Islam has little influence over the laws of western societies --particularly the US -- it is simply a non-issue.

Some Christians wish to deny fundamental rights and equal protection to homosexuals based solely on religious dogma. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself. If the shackles are forged by religious dogma, then that dogma becomes "subject to continuous attacks." When Christians embrace equality and tolerance and othe Christian values supportive of gay and lesbian rights, then there need not be any hostility. But don't blame to oppressed for not embracing oppression forever.

You seem to think Christians hold some kind of monopoly on being against homosexuality.
And I cant see how gays are oppressed in western society, your making it out as if their being whipped in the cottonfields.

You seem to think Christians hold some kind of monopoly on being against homosexuality.
And I cant see how gays are oppressed in western society, your making it out as if their being whipped in the cottonfields.


Christians do have a relative monopoly on anti-homosexualtity in the west, particularly in the US.

I already listed in aother thread many many rights that homosexuals are denied on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation in the US.

Maybe I'll do that again here. But your glib reference to slavery actually fackfires as the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr. was past those days and it is undeniable blacks still had a long way to go to reach equality.

Christians do have a relative monopoly on anti-homosexualtity in the west, particularly in the US.

I already listed in aother thread many many rights that homosexuals are denied on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation in the US.

Maybe I'll do that again here. But your glib reference to slavery actually fackfires as the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr. was past those days and it is undeniable blacks still had a long way to go to reach equality.

Thats bullshit, tell me how blacks have along way to go to reach equality, last time I looked they had more rights than us.
As far as Christians being the majority in the west against homosexuality, theres a whole world out there that is more or less against recognising homosexuality as equal to a relationship between only a man and a woman.

Thats bullshit, tell me how blacks have along way to go to reach equality, last time I looked they had more rights than us.

More rights? Then you have a very warped view of the world. Care to name some?

Anyway, he said "had", not "have".

As far as Christians being the majority in the west against homosexuality, theres a whole world out there that is more or less against recognising homosexuality as equal to a relationship between only a man and a woman.

Not all Christians are against it. Not all Muslims are against it.

But in the west Christianity exerts more influence than every other religion put together, even in secular Europe. That's why we fight against Christianity more than any other faith to get our civil rights.

You seem to think Christians hold some kind of monopoly on being against homosexuality.
And I cant see how gays are oppressed in western society, your making it out as if their being whipped in the cottonfields.
I don't suppose gay hate crimes register in your book...

[QUOTE=Atlantitania]More rights? Then you have a very warped view of the world. Care to name some?

'Positive discrimination' for one, meaning anyone can get a position in the workplace, or University, provided they are not white. Even if their less qualified.
Tokenism is discrimination against better qualified people.

Not all Christians are against it. Not all Muslims are against it.

All true Christians are, any 'Christian' that wasnt, I wouldnt see as a real Christian.
I'd say the same would apply for Muslims.

But in the west Christianity exerts more influence than every other religion put together, even in secular Europe. That's why we fight against Christianity more than any other faith to get our civil rights.

And why do you think Christianity does? There surely must be a damn good reason for them to do so, don't you agree?
I'd say the real reason you fight against Christianity, is because its now seen as a soft target compared to Islam, you could try this out for yourself, by going down to a Mosque and venting gay rights to the congregation in there.

I don't suppose gay hate crimes register in your book...

What you see as Gay hate crimes I see as people not willing to tolerate perversion in their community.
I'm sorry its come to this, but surely you must have expected some kind of community backlash, it will get worse too.

Of course there is! Are you blind?
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Don't get me wrong. I think gay marriage should be legal. It's none of my business what you do, and you're sinning regarless, married or not.

Well, you're wrong, because going by the 'Gay Bible' here, in the 'Book of Bruce' Chapter 1, paragraph 3, following after the rules related to colours one should never paint ones house with:

"For it is written, those who do not comitt sodomy and/or felatio with a member of the same sex shall surely be sent to eternal hell, where they will be tortured day and night with non-stop yodelling and banjo music"

Apollo Beach - my book take priority over yours! fall to your knees and plead for forgiveness and hopefully you can convert from your perverted 'lifestyle choice'.

<this is a parody for those idiots who can't understand a parody when they see it>

What you see as Gay hate crimes I see as people not willing to tolerate perversion in their community.
I'm sorry its come to this, but surely you must have expected some kind of community backlash, it will get worse too.

And there are many straigh and gay folk who are pissed with your perversion - the fact that us, are forking the bills for your lifestyle choices - having more kids than you can afford, then expecting free health care, free this and that just because you were stupid enough to have more children than you could afford.

I pay $90 tax per week; if I were stupid enough to be married and have kids, I'd be receiving more benefits than I could shake a stick at, and yet, because I'm wise enough not to put myself in that financial trainwreck, I am punished by my government each week.

If there is going to be a backlash, it will be against the lower 20% of society who seem to think that every other bastard should pay for their lifestyle choices, and expect every other bugger to foot the bill for the costs.

What you see as Gay hate crimes I see as people not willing to tolerate perversion in their community.
I'm sorry its come to this, but surely you must have expected some kind of community backlash, it will get worse too.
If I'm understanding this correctly, you are saying that you are okay with anti-gay hate crimes?
Is it perfectly fine to not want those you don't like in your community or your country? And to kill them for it?

Funny, I thought there was something about equality under the law and such in the Constitution...

What you see as Gay hate crimes I see as people not willing to tolerate perversion in their community.
I'm sorry its come to this, but surely you must have expected some kind of community backlash, it will get worse too.
There is a difference between working to correct something and commiting crimes based on hate.
Thoes crimes are NEVER acceptable whatever light you try to put on it

All true Christians are, any 'Christian' that wasnt, I wouldnt see as a real Christian.
I'd say the same would apply for Muslims.


"true christians"? Sheep that blindly follow what the church says.

Why do you think we have suicide bombers and terrorists claiming to be freedom fighters?

It seems gays and supporters of gay rights are caught here in their own web, as that critiscising Islamic values could be viewed as racist.
Not at all. I'm a supporter of gay rights, and in favour of limiting Muslim immigration for the purpose of protecting civil rights including gay rights, from religious zealotry.


I'm sorry its come to this, but surely you must have expected some kind of community backlash, it will get worse too.
Are you advocating some kind of "Kristalnacht" against gays?

Jeez, I turn by back for five minutes and look what happens...



'Positive discrimination' for one, meaning anyone can get a position in the workplace, or University, provided they are not white. Even if their less qualified.
Tokenism is discrimination against better qualified people.



Positive discriminations is not practised widely in the EU, since the ECHR ruled a couple of years back that white people can be victims of discrimination and racism too.

All true Christians are, any 'Christian' that wasnt, I wouldnt see as a real Christian.
I'd say the same would apply for Muslims.

Cliché by now I know, but:



Judge not, lest ye be judged.



I won't say what I see you as, it'd probably get me deleted.

And why do you think Christianity does? There surely must be a damn good reason for them to do so, don't you agree?
I'd say the real reason you fight against Christianity, is because its now seen as a soft target compared to Islam, you could try this out for yourself, by going down to a Mosque and venting gay rights to the congregation in there.

Yeah, there's a damn good reason. Because christians turned out to be the best at pursecuting people in western europe over the last 2000 years.

I have spoken about Gay Rights in a mosque before. They didn't agree with a word I said, but they listened and asked some good questions, and gave good answers to my questions too. I thought that was fair enough.

Tell me why it is a legal matter and not a religious one. Surely, marriage is a far older tradition, with roots in culture and religion, then the laws concerning it?
Wrong ... almost from the inception of a governement it has been a secular matter as well
We are talking about the legal and social contract not the religous one

Although this may have been said before, I think the biggest problem is the terminology.
To call it Gay Marriage mixes two largely incompatible idealogies, Fundamentalism and Homosexuality.

I personally do not have a problem with it and support the rights of gay people to have access to the same legal staus as married people, but calling it marriage is asking for problems. What I fail to see is fudamentalists giving a good reason to stop it.

Although this may have been said before, I think the biggest problem is the terminology.
To call it Gay Marriage mixes two largely incompatible idealogies, Fundamentalism and Homosexuality.

I personally do not have a problem with it and support the rights of gay people to have access to the same legal staus as married people, but calling it marriage is asking for problems. What I fail to see is fudamentalists giving a good reason to stop it.
1) Christians do not own the term marriage … it has been a social construct from day one and remains such
2) Separate but equal (terms) does not sit well with me or anyone else familiar with such attempts to force “separate but equal” on the African American community