Hate crime against someone opposed to gay marriage

Nobody should have to subscribe to anybody's views or be forced to accept them. If you are for gay marriage then great, if you are against it then great (I do NOT agree with them). But the state should play no role in either giving people special privilages, or taking them away/banning them.

If a church doesn't want to marry 2 same sex people then fine, go somewhere else or a registry office. If there is a gay registary office and 2 straight people go and get turned away then that's fine, go somewhere else. Like I say, the state has no right forcing a view on either group of people to accept, and they have no right to prohibit them, INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE and BUSIENSSES/ORGANISATIONS make the decision.

The hate mate is truely awful, I can imagine what they were saying in it. He is prejudiced towards homosexuals and doesn't want them to marry, most likely because of his religion/career.

The church should not be influencing the government to totally ban gay marriage, that is very VERY wrong. In the same way other people that want the state to enforce churches to marry people, that is also VERY wrong. NO ONE should force anyone and the State can't prohibit or not-prohibit.

I also agree with multiple marriages, Polygamy, or incestious marriage. If people want to do that, then fine, the state should not stop the, they can go to churches or registry offices to do so. If the church doesn't want to marry those people, then the state can't force them to accept it.

You get the picture?

Anyway, these emails are disgusting, in the same way barring homosexuals from marrying is digusting and backward IMHO. But both parties free speech still remians.

Although I'd agree with most of the stuff you said, I'm unsure about the point I highlighted. I'd agree to a certain extent that the state has no right in forcing individuals or institutions to accept such ideas, it worries me that this type of attitude could lead to the kind of segregation that was in the USA during the 20th century. It's a tough dilemma.
Out of curiosity, why don't you agree with gay marriages?

Reply 21

Metrobeans

19

Original post by Snagprophet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-16908955

Lol.

------------------------

I call it poetic justice tbh.

I think it's stupid. A person who (presumably) abhors discrimination against homosexuals finds it acceptable to then racially abuse the Archbishop? That's no way to win an argument. Clearly tolerance and empathy are lacking in both the Archbishop and the individuals sending the abusive message.

Reply 22

MyJunkIsYou

9

I despair when things like this happen, it does nothing to help achieve equality whether that be marriage or just in the attitudes people hold towards people who are LGBT*. Being one of those people I do not condone the actions of those who sent the racist emails regardless of what I think of Dr Sentamu.

Many people who are LGBT* encouter varying forms of discrimination or bullying throughout their lives, it's a great shame when a tiny minority choose to inflict the same upon others. If anything those experiences should make us see the importance of tolerance and why hate crime is damaging.

Actions like these do nothing to help, in fact they actively aid groups or individuals trying to promote anti-gay sentiments who are likely to take the actions of a tiny minority and ignore the large majority of the LGBT* community who are decent and tolerant individuals

Reply 23

L i b

19

Original post by Marshyy

I would have just mentioned his teeth.

I think someone needs to have a word with him about it anyway.

Reply 24

prog2djent

Original post by RHod

Although I'd agree with most of the stuff you said, I'm unsure about the point I highlighted. I'd agree to a certain extent that the state has no right in forcing individuals or institutions to accept such ideas, it worries me that this type of attitude could lead to the kind of segregation that was in the USA during the 20th century. It's a tough dilemma.
Out of curiosity, why don't you agree with gay marriages?

I am 100% for gay marriage, polygamy etc etc. If 2 people want to get married, or anyone want to get married to anyone, or many people, or anything, then no-one should stop them, they are hurting no-one, it is their free choice and free will. That is on an ideological level. On a personal level, I am also 100% behind gay people married, why the hell not?

What I'm saying is the government can't force organisation to let gay people get married or force them to not allow gay marriage (church influence on the federal govt in America for example, or the fact most Americans/Christian American don't agree with it and want the government to stop gays from marrying, which is horrible).

I don't know why you got the impression I am against marriage. I am aginst the state forcing churches to let gays get married in their organisation, and vice versa.

A quote from my post "If you are for gay marriage then great, if you are against it then great (I do NOT agree with them)" Where I say I do not agree with them this is me saying, on a personal level, I do not agree with people who are against gay marriage. See?

:tongue:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 25

PendulumBoB

13

Racism to show opposition to homophobia :facepalm2:

Reply 26

DdotT

17

Original post by prog2djent

The UAF?

UAE is the United Arab Emirates haha.

yeah i noticed before but cba'ed to change it (people still got it)

Reply 27

RHod

Original post by prog2djent

I am 100% for gay marriage, polygamy etc etc. If 2 people want to get married, or anyone want to get married to anyone, or many people, or anything, then no-one should stop them, they are hurting no-one, it is their free choice and free will. That is on an ideological level. On a personal level, I am also 100% behind gay people married, why the hell not?

What I'm saying is the government can't force organisation to let gay people get married or force them to not allow gay marriage (church influence on the federal govt in America for example, or the fact most Americans/Christian American don't agree with it and want the government to stop gays from marrying, which is horrible).

I don't know why you got the impression I am against marriage. I am aginst the state forcing churches to let gays get married in their organisation, and vice versa.

A quote from my post "If you are for gay marriage then great, if you are against it then great (I do NOT agree with them)" Where I say I do not agree with them this is me saying, on a personal level, I do not agree with people who are against gay marriage. See?

:tongue:

Oh right yeah sorry, when you said "(I do NOT agree with them)" I thought you meant gay marriages, that's why I got confused because from the rest of your post you seemed like a libertarian/ classical liberal. But I'd totally agree with most of the stuff you've said. However, although I'd agree that the state should not force individuals to accept an opinion they don't wish to accept, if we let churches turn away gay marriages, then by that logic we must let shopkeepers turn away people because of their race or gender. This in turn would curb the liberties of so many.

Reply 28

prog2djent

Original post by RHod

Oh right yeah sorry, when you said "(I do NOT agree with them)" I thought you meant gay marriages, that's why I got confused because from the rest of your post you seemed like a libertarian/ classical liberal. But I'd totally agree with most of the stuff you've said. However, although I'd agree that the state should not force individuals to accept an opinion they don't wish to accept, if we let churches turn away gay marriages, then by that logic we must let shopkeepers turn away people because of their race or gender. This in turn would curb the liberties of so many.

Aaahh yes, this is an issue often raised with Libertarians. "But what if a shop said no black people???". Well, what if a shop said no black people? Obviously this is a horrible thing to do, but I defend their right to do so, even though I disagree with them. But this is where a cute little trick comes into it.

(right) Libertarianism is about liberty, free markets and peace.

This shop owner is excersing his liberty via his private property and free speech, within the free market.

He may have a coffee shop with a no African-American rule.

So What?

Well I'll tell you what.

That guy is going to straight out of business, no Black person is going to want to/be able to shop there, say this place is in a city center. Revenue will fall.

Revenue will also fall further because no one else would like to support this persons business because they are racist. Consumer watchdogs will be all over it, they will have an horrendous reputation, and competition will take the customer, as a minor and less likely event, suppliers may pull out.

He will be forced by the potential customer to change that rule and let them in, just to get some revenue and stay open. But by now his reputation is ruined, and no-one will go. Other businesses will not do this.

That is the iron fist behind the hand of the market.

Another against, well more precisely anarcho capitalism (I am not one) that "but with no government regulations, people selling lemonade might put acid in the cans to cut cost!! Misleading!!!!"

Well, who the hell is going to buy that? No one! The people working for the company will be like "WFT?". Consumer watchdogs will find them out before they release the product, private testing and inspection is much bigger than governmental inspection now-a-days. If it did somehow slip through that an find its way onto the market, well, no supermarket, or shop will sell it. If they sold the drink independently (which no business solely does, through the webiste for example) then revenue will just die since you are selling acid as lemonade.

You are out of business. No one buys your product. You are forced to actually put real lemonade in.

The iron fist dictating the outcome again.

The free market is much more efficient and provides a better service than any government monopoly, or government created monopoly.

Reply 29

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by Mad Vlad

Hardly. While I find his opinion objectionable and his argument hackneyed and flawed, I don't feel the need to racially abuse him - why should I? It shouldn't be celebrated that opponents to his point of view have resorted to racism to try and win the argument. :no:

This.
I wouldn't racially abuse someone who disagree's with gay marriage. The way forward with such people with their beliefs is to debate and discuss. The moment you start racially abusing people is the moment people switch off and stop listening, and you pretty much negate your own argument.

Reply 30

chefdave

When I was at school we had a saying that went along the lines of: "sticks and stones may break may bones but names will never hurt me". How on earth have we got to a point where fully grown adults are now running to the police and reporting "hate crimes", isn't this just a legalised overreaction to name calling?

If he's genuinely in fear for his life (which I doubt) then fair enough, but I wish people would stop acting like such big babies. He's supposed to be a role model FFS!

Reply 31

ScheduleII

11

Original post by Nix-j-c

Two wrongs don't make a right . . . but it does serve him right, he should've expected retalliation for his outdated views.

You're disgusting. It's not outdated as marriage was decreed to be man/woman by God, on an everlasting basis.

It is impossible for any view on marriage to be "outdated" as time has nothing to do with the issue.

Reply 32

ScheduleII

11

Original post by PendulumBoB

Racism to show opposition to homophobia :facepalm2:

Dr Sentamu IS NOT HOMOPHOBIC.

Enough with your ridiculous definitions of "homophobia". Believing that it's wrong for non-straight couples to marry or be in a sexual relationship because the Bible and Christian tradition prohibits is a moral view. It's not hatred or fear of gays.

Reply 33

PendulumBoB

13

Original post by ScheduleII

You're disgusting. It's not outdated as marriage was decreed to be man/woman by God, on an everlasting basis.

It is impossible for any view on marriage to be "outdated" as time has nothing to do with the issue.

Um, some cultures include same-sex partnerships under the umbrella of marraige it differs from people to people; as for your other point, I'm sure that in reality he's not racist and I support the choice of a Church not to marry two members of the same sex, but feel he should be more polite about it.

Reply 34

mmmpie

12

Original post by ScheduleII

Dr Sentamu IS NOT HOMOPHOBIC.

Enough with your ridiculous definitions of "homophobia". Believing that it's wrong for non-straight couples to marry or be in a sexual relationship because the Bible and Christian tradition prohibits is a moral view. It's not hatred or fear of gays.

It's an irrational aversion. That falls within the definition of phobia.

Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian tradition. Marriage exists as a secular institution, not just a religious one.

Tell you what, I won't compel your religion to alter it's ludicrous dogma, and your religion stops trying to dictate the lives of people who don't adhere to it. That means, no intervention in secular matters.

Reply 35

Einheri

18

"o noez sum1 insultd mi on t3h interwebz!!!1one! CALL THE POLICE!" Overreact much? :rolleyes:

Reply 36

silent ninja

19

Original post by chefdave

When I was at school we had a saying that went along the lines of: "sticks and stones may break may bones but names will never hurt me". How on earth have we got to a point where fully grown adults are now running to the police and reporting "hate crimes", isn't this just a legalised overreaction to name calling?

If he's genuinely in fear for his life (which I doubt) then fair enough, but I wish people would stop acting like such big babies. He's supposed to be a role model FFS!

Names will never hurt? There's a reason they tell that to children-- it's stupid.
Would you not get offended if I insulted your mother or your family? Perhaps spread lies about you? Maybe write something inflammatory on the wall about you or your beliefs or your skin colour? Verbally and psychologically abusing someone is often worse and leaves long term scars.

Reply 37

Nix-j-c

15

Original post by ScheduleII

You're disgusting. It's not outdated as marriage was decreed to be man/woman by God, on an everlasting basis.

It is impossible for any view on marriage to be "outdated" as time has nothing to do with the issue.

You're disgusting for having such homophobic views and not accepting people for who they are. Times move along, other matters in the bible and church have changed such as letting women be vicars and whole tonne of other stuff, so why not this? It's showing that the church can move with the times, else no-body will want to be part of it in a couple of hundred years time if no-body agrees with it's rules and thinks they're silly . . .

You're silly amount of neg reps shows how much people think your views are wrong . . .