Tory MP 'causes controversy' by bravely speaking sense on gay marriage.

But equally, isn't the public perception totally saturated with sympathy for homosexual couples? I'd imagine that anyone who disagrees with gay practices would be less likely to be vitriol if gay couples weren't using the word 'marriage'. Words are words, their meanings shouldn't change due to popular opinion, they should just invent new words.

My point for not allowing them to use the word 'marriage' (I'm not preventing them from marrying, if by the word 'marry' you mean undergo a process to be tied as a couple until death/divorce) is that, by moving in and forcing concessions over semantics isn't going to do them favours for integration.

You see all the time how people get in a frothing rage when minorities are reported to be creating a slippery slope of allowances, I hate to bring it up, but public opinion against Muslims is far worse than against Sikhs. And I put a large part of it down to how the newspapers always publish these stories on how Muslims are kicking up fusses because they're moving into situations and demanding that changes be made to accommodate them.

I don't want this to turn into a Muslim thread, it's purely mentioned to show how minorities can get alienated by asking for concessions to be made on their behalf.



To your last sentence, marriage defines a relationship between man and woman. That's all I was saying is at odds, it's not related to their feelings or w/e

You really don't get it. Neither do most people, it seems.

Gay people are not asking to be allowed to get married in any religious building. Getting married does not mean having a ceremony in a religious building. Millions of heterosexual couples get married in registry offices and all sorts of random places that are not religious buildings.

But it's OK for a straight couple to subvert nature and use the wonders of modern medicine to have a baby using, for example IVF, because their son is sticking his weewee in a woman right?

Of course.

As a libertarian I wouldn't attempt to prevent homosexuals using modern techniques to start a family, but as a realist I don't think we should be encouraging it or pretending that its nothing out of the ordinary. Its pretty weird to be frank, and probably a little bit selfish.

Ah the Nick Griffin argument...
And don't call yourself a libertarian because you obviously don't have a clue

My question was more rhetorical, I very much doubt there are a high percentage of gay people asking to be married by a religion that disapproves.

Of course.

As a libertarian I wouldn't attempt to prevent homosexuals using modern techniques to start a family, but as a realist I don't think we should be encouraging it or pretending that its nothing out of the ordinary. Its pretty weird to be frank, and probably a little bit selfish.

Two things:

Marriage shouldn't exist in the eyes of the law full stop. It's a form of social engineering to bribe people to couple up in order to make census results and taxes easier to identify. The whole gay marriage debacle is simply a crusade of semantics. It's an argument to change the definition of a word.

Secondly, there shouldn't be such a thing as gay rights, women's rights, religious rights etc. Instead people should talk about a right to individual liberty, for everyone.

It's pretty weird and selfish when heterosexual couples do it too then right? If that's your argument then it's pretty poor. There's nothing to suggest homosexual couples would be worse parents than straight couples, so what's the issue? Again, you thinking it's weird is not a valid answer to that question.

Libertarians don't have to agree with the lifestyle choices of others, all that's asked is that we show tolerance and promise not to lobby the state in an attempt to force our own prefences onto them. I think you're confusing libertarianism with liberalism, I'm certainly not a liberal!

"Most parents would prefer their children not to be gay"

First of all, what does this have to do with gay marriage? Secondly, all parents are homophobic? What right does he have to claim this and speak on behalf of all parents?

Unfortunately these Tory MPs have archaic views which are not representative of their constituents.

Prefering to have straight children rather than gay ones does not make you homophobic!

I suppose if I want my kids to be able bodied I'm prejudiced against disabled people too, right?

Well yeah so show tolerance of gay marriage as gay people should have the freedom to do that and churches etc should have the freedom to perform or not perform the marriages. And Libertarianism should be extremely liberal as its all about freedom and rights , the difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism is that Libertarianism is much more on the economic right because Liberalism is centre/left

if everyone was a homosexual we wouldn't continue to exist, therefore there is something fundamentally wrong with this concept of homosexuality. People can accept it a sad hard fact of life, but most will not at all be jubilant of it as it contributes to the discontinuation of humanity.

This doesn't matter as the vast majority of the worldwide population is heterosexual. Furthermore, we've never encouraged people to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. As of now, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

I wish people would get over this myth that homosexual = infertile. If literally everyone ended up homosexual we would still be able to reproduce as necessary.

SO MUCH PC.
I'm far from homophobic - I've campaigned for different rights for different people, and 2 of my closest friends are lesbians; both of them are in homosexual relationships. Why does that mean I'm not allowed the view that I would prefer straight children as much as I would prefer children who had an interest in music? Just because there are certain aspects that I would choose over others, why does it mean that any aspect but one here is a disadvantage? I would have no qualms if said lesbian mates wanted gay children - and why should I? I wouldn't love my children any less if they were gay, and it would bother me no less if they decided they wanted gay children too.