Cameron's said that nobody would be prosecuted for refusing to host a ceremony so I'm not quite sure what 'loss of freedom' you're referring to...Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Printable View
Cameron's said that nobody would be prosecuted for refusing to host a ceremony so I'm not quite sure what 'loss of freedom' you're referring to...Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Which, if you look at past examples such as gay adoption and anti-discrimination laws, people have ended up going to court. And as i've said before, Cameron promises the world yet none of his promises ever turn out to be true - not to mention that after he is gone, who's to uphold this promise?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
And thats without even mentioning the ECHR and the Equality/Discrimination Acts.
So you'd rather we just refuse same-sex couples the privilege of marriage? love hypocrites, maybe we should revoke women's right to vote too whilst we're at it...Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
"I'm not racist, I buy a newspaper from the guy in the corner shop everyday" lolol that gay boxer thing is a bit weird.
Not entirely convinced that most parents wouldn't want a gay child. I'd say most parents would want their children to be happy and would try their hardest to accept their child's sexuality. That being said, they do exist, I'd just question the 'most' aspect of that.
As for gay marriage, I believe it should be up to churches although if marriage is defined by the state then it logically follows that they would have to do something first before churches that would accept gay marriages could legally do so?
If it means protecting the freedoms and liberties of a higher majority who could be put at risk of losing their jobs and homes, then yes I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Again, i'm not the one putting the choice forward - i'd like to do the simple thing and get the state out of it.
I'm pretty sure there's no majority at risk of losing their jobs and homes if gay people are given the ability to marry - unless you believe that the majority of people in this country are employed as sleuths checking that gays aren't married, living in houses paid for entirely by the Archaic Nonsense Society
I don't mean the majority of everyone here as you know fully well, I mean all the people who would be put at risk from this sort of legislation - the numbers of teachers, civil servants and Church associated people. For example and this was given at the UKIP conference by a member, it's likely that Christian churches who oppose gay marriage will be barred from using Council venues due to them not allowing homosexual 'weddings'.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
All it takes is one complaint or a court case.
1)If you don't mean majority then don't say majority, you can't make statements and then say "yeah well I didn't actually mean it"
2) In what way are teachers to be affected? They have nothing to do with the marriage system and it's already very much illegal to discriminate against pupils based on sexuality
3) The same goes for civil servants, and the only reason their overpaid cushy jobs might ever be at risk over this is if they're too bigoted to want to work in a government which allows freedom of choice - their fault, not the fault of people who are in love
4) Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and the UKIP statement about barring churches from council venues should make absolute sense to you considering you seem to approve of letting the owners of establishments do as they will with them - if the council owns a building, they own the right to set the rules for its use
I mean majority as in the majority of people have their rights put at risk against the homosexual minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
A teacher will be forced, against his or hers will, to teach that homosexual marriages are equal to traditional marriages.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
So what about a Christian lady who works in a registry office but whom doesn't want to perfrom gay 'marriages' as its against her beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Indeed, however with the state i've always argued it ought to be netural in these matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
No-one has their rights put at risk by enabling homosexuals to marry, because no-one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex in any sense of the term. There is no majority opposition hereQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
They may be required to teach that in a secular society it is an equal option, but that's no more oppressive than a conservative philosophy lecturer having to teach socialist theory. When you teach your job is to explain the subject, not your personal views on itQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Again that is her problem and she is limiting herself by her beliefs. Jews don't believe they should work on the Sabbath and are thereby confined by their own faith, but they don't attempt to force everyone else to stop working, and them being unable to work a saturday job is down to their choices rather being the fault of the employerQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Every single building in the country if not the world has legal restrictions on what can be done inside it, state owned or privateQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-