Exactly. 100%.

Your father is a bigot.

If Mulholland agreed with the basis of the legislation, i.e. that homosexual people should have the right to marry, why not vote 'aye', then set about seeking amendments that would eradicate what he perceives as the bill's weaknesses? Perhaps he was using those weaknesses as an excuse, in a bid to lose as few votes as possible.

Fair point, these are not religious ceremonies.
I'm changing my mind on that one.


I need to read-up on this.

Spot on.

And I'd say the same for doctors/pharmacists and so forth too.



Agree there too.

Sal Paradise: the 'problem' (let's call it that) is not with someone's individual beliefs, it's the relationship between those beliefs and the public domain.

Few MPs, for instance, are elected on the basis of their personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof). There are not many manifestos that contain pledges based clearly and specifically on a religious approach to any question. Where such manifestos do occur, the candidate is unlikely to get elected.

So the problem occurs when politicians (at all levels) attempt to make decisions on the basis of [itheir[/i individual religious beliefs.

This is an area where the lack of separation of church and state blurs some lines. Ideas/beliefs that were once entirely widespread as a way of understanding the world are no longer so – certainly not in most of the West (the US is an exception).

But most of us would want law to be made, as much as possible, on the grounds of logic and fact. And whatever the merits or otherwise of religious faith, it cannot, by its very nature, do that.

So there's that – and then there's the issue, already raised here, of the pick 'n' mix nature of much religious belief. For some Christians to claim that the [iBible[/i condemns homosexuality is, at best a very naive approach. The [iBible[/i condemns many things – and, in effect, says that others are acceptable. The latter includes the rape of children.

Yet taking the most important part of the word 'Christian', Christ is not reported, in the [iBible[/i, as ever commenting on human sexuality. So those Christians who do try to claim a [iBiblical[/i objection to homosexuality have to rely on [iLeviticus[/i and Paul.

In the case of the former, it is staggeringly selective to pick that from a book that contains countless things that even the most fundamental fundamentalist would not consider acceptable today. And in the case of the latter, it's also often selective too and ignores that Paul was (as even my father, an evangelical clergyman would out it) "a typical convert" (ie fanatical).

Few people today would expect, for instance, that no woman could have any teaching role within her church (that would include Sunday School etc), let alone that no woman should enter her church without her head being covered (which is interesting if we think of ideas of women covering their heads/faces in certain Catholic countries, at least at some times, and also attitudes of some Muslims to the same question. But that would need another thread

).

So the selective [iBiblical[/i approach is also at odds with any hope that our politicians might make law on the basis of reason and logic.

But as I said, we have blurred lines in the UK because of the link between the church and state, and there is also still, in general, at attitude whereby faith itself is treated as something rather special – an attitude I won't pretend to understand myself.

It's also worth noting that, as explained [url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/02/07/traditional-marriage-already-paves-the-way-to-polygamy/here[/url, those supporting 'traditional' marriage, and warning of a 'slippery slope', might wish to remember that the [iOld Testament[/i endorsed polygamy, so one cannot imagine them really objecting if such a thing were allowed again.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with polygamy that makes it illegal?

I mean, I reckon one spouse is more than enough but if some daft sod wants more than one, who are we to say no?

It should be classed as a mental illness.

Another point. Is it any worse than homosexuality?

You are bigoted against his father. You believe that he is morally wrong because he isn't of the same opinion as you.

Correct, he is intolerant of his views, so he is a bigot himself.

Is homosexuality "any worse" than heterosexuality?

Being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.

Homosexuality was once illegal though. Why should incest be illegal? Or bestiality? Theoretically, if you claim that marriage is an equality issue (ie equality of marriages, not equality within marriage, which is a different discussion) then in theory there should be no boundaries: everyone should have the opportunity to marry no matter what their inclination.

Quote ="Rock God X"Being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.'" Of course it does. Bigot simply describes 'a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong' (quoted from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... tish/bigot). Therefore, if you are intolerant of bigots then you are a bigot yourself. Unless your opposition towards bigots is very mild, in which case you wouldn't be. But then someone who mildly opposed gay marriage wouldn't be a bigot either.

Quote ="Rock God X"Being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.'" Of course it does. Bigot simply describes 'a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong' (quoted from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... tish/bigot). Therefore, if you are intolerant of bigots then you are a bigot yourself. Unless your opposition towards bigots is very mild, in which case you wouldn't be. But then someone who mildly opposed gay marriage wouldn't be a bigot either.

No, I believe he is a bigot because he would seek to deny other people the same rights as he has solely because of their sexuality. As has been pointed out numerous times, if a person doesn't agree with same sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex. What they should not do is oppress a minority based on their narrow-minded prejudices.

I have a narrow minded prejudice that men should not be allowed to marry farmyard animals. Are you saying that people partial to a bit of bestiality should not be afforded equal rights with you or I? If not, why not?

Quote ="SaintsFan" Quote ="Rock God X"Being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.'" Of course it does. Bigot simply describes 'a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong' (quoted from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... tish/bigot). Therefore, if you are intolerant of bigots then you are a bigot yourself. Unless your opposition towards bigots is very mild, in which case you wouldn't be. But then someone who mildly opposed gay marriage wouldn't be a bigot either.'" Did you miss the part where it said 'unreasonable'? It is not 'unreasonable' to be wholly intolerant of bigotry. Indeed, anyone who would argue that intolerance of bigotry is itself a form of bigotry is a total idiot.

Quote ="SaintsFan" Quote ="Rock God X"Being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.'" Of course it does. Bigot simply describes 'a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong' (quoted from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... tish/bigot). Therefore, if you are intolerant of bigots then you are a bigot yourself. Unless your opposition towards bigots is very mild, in which case you wouldn't be. But then someone who mildly opposed gay marriage wouldn't be a bigot either.'" Did you miss the part where it said 'unreasonable'? It is not 'unreasonable' to be wholly intolerant of bigotry. Indeed, anyone who would argue that intolerance of bigotry is itself a form of bigotry is a total idiot.

All your missing is a rant about peadofiles.

You are a disgusting example of humanity.

Why? I am simply exploring your rationale, which to me seems entirely illogical.

Now



Have we found the mystery express board contributor.

That's because you're a horrific scumbag.

Again, you do yourself no favours by your childishness.