Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Homophobia - not homosexuality watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Do you think that there could be a situation where there is a hetrosexual couple but the gay couple would be better for the child?
    there's no point in discussing individual cases. if the mother was a mass-murderer and the father was a closet paedophile then they'd probably be better off with the gay couple .

    your statement implies the same relationship problems can't be found with gay couples looking for adoption, so is only really hypothetical in its most general form.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    vienna, stop hijacking!!
    I would have expected more from you
    more than to pick up on rude posting in the d+d forum? surely not. :eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Marriage, like the vast majority of life, is discriminatory by it's very nature. It discriminates against single people, children, and in the case of church weddings etc often atheists and members of other religions aswell. Marriage is one man, one woman, which is something anyone who does not fit this definition has had to accept for thousands of years.

    A bunch of ******s ***** about it, so we should change the whole definition of marriage? Be realistic. What about people who want to marry kids, members of their own family, animals, their car, and so on. They're NEVER going to go away EVER either, but it's okay to "discriminate" against them FOREVER?
    According to that argument theres nothing stopping a gay couple from defining their own private religion and marry. The issue is about financial benefits, not religion. I personaly hold the opinion that you should not have economical benefits for being married as it is discriminatory against several people ( including as you mention, those who chose to be single).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    A bunch of ******s ***** about it, so we should change the whole definition of marriage? Be realistic. What about people who want to marry kids, members of their own family, animals, their car, and so on. They're NEVER going to go away EVER either, but it's okay to "discriminate" against them FOREVER?
    I think the more sophisticated argument that many adopt regarding same-sex marriage is the financial one. I don't know the ins-and-out sof it but regarding inheritance tax there are advantages that you can gain if you are married and homosexuals have no chance of ever receiving these, unless there is a way they can legaly declare their relationship, call it marriage, call it a contract, whatever you want, but i really feel that homosexuals should have the option to receive the same rights as hetrosexuals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    more than to pick up on rude posting in the d+d forum? surely not. :eek:
    Do it in a PM!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    I think the more sophisticated argument that many adopt regarding same-sex marriage is the financial one. I don't know the ins-and-out sof it but regarding inheritance tax there are advantages that you can gain if you are married and homosexuals have no chance of ever receiving these, unless there is a way they can legaly declare their relationship, call it marriage, call it a contract, whatever you want, but i really feel that homosexuals should have the option to receive the same rights as hetrosexuals.
    IMO, lots of legalities need to be changed if same-sex marriage is to be introduced. i've got nothing against gay marriage, but it's where children start getting involved i hold my opinions (oh, not to mention the tax incentives that need to be changed )
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im glad, i need the established members to save me from the rabble.
    i only love you for your knack of typing sentences in the same uncapitalised format :cool:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    IMO, lots of legalities need to be changed if same-sex marriage is to be introduced. i've got nothing against gay marriage, but it's where children start getting involved i hold my opinions (oh, not to mention the tax incentives that need to be changed )
    I think for the sake of pleasing the moral and religious crew, i.e. those who believe it downgrades hetrosexual marriage, an alternative term for homosexual marriage should be found. All it needs to be is a contract which binds the people for life unless it is dissolved, which carries with it the fanancial benifits.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    I think for the sake of pleasing the moral and religious crew, i.e. those who believe it downgrades hetrosexual marriage, an alternative term for homosexual marriage should be found. All it needs to be is a contract which binds the people for life unless it is dissolved, which carries with it the fanancial benifits.
    I think in the UK it's offically called a "civil partnership" rather than marriage.

    But there's been some argument over whether civil partnership/civil union trivilises it to an extent, and makes it seem less "equal". A lot of gay people just want equality, and they don't think that a "civil union" would offer that. The religious opponants don't like the term marriage because that's the word used in the bible, where it's defined as between a man and a woman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    Do it in a PM!
    do both is what i say.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    I think in the UK it's offically called a "civil partnership" rather than marriage.

    But there's been some argument over whether civil partnership/civil union trivilises it to an extent, and makes it seem less "equal". A lot of gay people just want equality, and they don't think that a "civil union" would offer that. The religious opponants don't like the term marriage because that's the word used in the bible, where it's defined as between a man and a woman.
    I don;t think calling it a civil union is discriminatory and i think homosexuals need to respect that traditionally, and for many marriage is between a man and a woman, but if it offers the same right as a marriage I feel that is equality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    The religious opponants don't like the term marriage because that's the word used in the bible, where it's defined as between a man and a woman.
    maybe it also meant woman in the Nadia sense of the word
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    According to that argument theres nothing stopping a gay couple from defining their own private religion and marry. The issue is about financial benefits, not religion. I personaly hold the opinion that you should not have economical benefits for being married as it is discriminatory against several people ( including as you mention, those who chose to be single).
    I think you misread. I mentioned religion as one single way in which marriage discriminates, as atheists and members of other religions often cannot have church weddings. I did not say gay people should not be allowed to marry simply because it doesn't fit religious ideals. Learn to read.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I think you misread. I mentioned religion as one single way in which marriage discriminates, as atheists and members of other religions often cannot have church weddings. I did not say gay people should not be allowed to marry simply because it doesn't fit religious ideals. Learn to read.
    So why do you mean gays should not be allowed to marry then ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    Exactly. Gay marriage needs to be legalised, because it's completely discriminatory. Why can't people accept that homosexuality is NEVER going to go away. EVER.
    im with most of the things that you say, but i disagree wiv this point as the definition of marriage is:The union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So why do you mean gays should not be allowed to marry then ?
    I didn't actually touch on that, and don't plan to, I've had this discussion before and have tired of it. The previous poster had said gay marriage should be legalised "because is is discriminatory", conveniently ignoring all the other possible situations where the same applies. If we really want to please them all, marriage will soon mean nothing atall - heck, why not just call it "going out" and hold hands in the playground instead of exchanging rings in a church.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I didn't actually touch on that, and don't plan to, I've had this discussion before and have tired of it. The previous poster had said gay marriage should be legalised "because is is discriminatory", conveniently ignoring all the other possible situations where the same applies. If we really want to please them all, marriage will soon mean nothing atall - heck, why not just call it "going out" and hold hands in the playground instead of exchanging rings in a church.
    why not?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I didn't actually touch on that, and don't plan to, I've had this discussion before and have tired of it. The previous poster had said gay marriage should be legalised "because is is discriminatory", conveniently ignoring all the other possible situations where the same applies. If we really want to please them all, marriage will soon mean nothing atall - heck, why not just call it "going out" and hold hands in the playground instead of exchanging rings in a church.
    It's not the marriage that is discrimanatory but the financial benifits that hetrosexuals get.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    If we really want to please them all, marriage will soon mean nothing atall - heck, why not just call it "going out" and hold hands in the playground instead of exchanging rings in a church.
    Right. So you believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will render the whole concept of marriage meaningless? Could you please explain to me in what way giving couples homosexual couples who want to commit to each other in the same way as heterosexual couples the option to marry would do this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    You think it is rude for me to agree with someone that you will contradict everything someone posts?
    no. i find the tone of this rude, "No, she didnt' get it. She will contradict everything anyone she doesn't like posts. Get used to her, she obviously isn't going anywhere."

    if you have a problem, which im aware you do have, address it directly and leave the sniping and loaded remarks for the subscriber forum.

    I think it is rude of you to do the contradicting.
    i disagree with a great deal. if i disagree i say so. i particuarly raise my objection if i disagree with unsubstantiated personal accusation of intolerance and bigotry. if that is what you consider to be rude then you find debate rather offensive.

    Even if someone has a valid point, such as this post, you will contradict it.
    if i dont agree with it. if i agree with it, i wont. everyone is entitled to disagree, why am i different? other than being the subject of a grudge. what is the difference between contradict and disagree, for you?

    I think the award for most controversial member needs to be taken back because it is going to your head.
    what was the need for that?
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.