You know it's not as simple as just being about gay rights. You know that religion plays an enormous part in this, even if plead ignorance you still know it's true.

Now I actually happen to be pretty much 100% atheist and think that the world would be massively better off if religion was abolished tomorrow. But I'm also tolerant of the fact that there are billions of people who believe strongly in the stupid 5hit they've been brainwashed with since they were kids and they have the right to believe that stupid 5hit.

Bringing in gay marriage will be a massive blow to churches in America. That, IMO, is kind of why gays want to take the traditional straight marriage as it is rather than actually coming up with a better, more suitable and intelligent version of marriage of their own.

There are issues with immigration should gay marriages be totally accepted. There will be huge issues inside prisons should two cellmates marry and the prison authorities have to move one of the prisoners into another wing or prison. There will be issues over bisexuals wishing to be married to a man and a woman at the same time. There will be people pushing for multiple marriages to be allowed.

So I'm for equal rights, and protections for gays.

I believe that marriage is an outdated sham and needs replacing.

If gay people want to marry and probably damage their lives I have no problem with that. But for the reasons I've listed there are so many issues with legalising gay marriage that I really don't care over this 5hit.

I want the world to be rid of religion, so because of that I kind of hope that gay marriages are fully accepted and religion is stunned so bad from it that common sense is able to follow it up with knockout blows.

But I'm also tolerant of the right of religious people to believe in their magic man in the sky. My atheist minority shouldn't be able to force our views on them because we are right.

So I am for gay rights. Pretty much don't care about the issue of gay marriages being made legal and wouldn't bother to vote. But I don't accept Jerry Chicken's blatant lie that a no vote over gay marriage = homophobe.

But the fact that the Mozilla CEO was hounded out of his job over a simple donation is completely and utterly wrong and it is disgusting that tolerance has disappeared pretty much as soon as gays seem to be winning their fight for acceptance.

The fact the Mozilla CEO was forced to resign is pretty much a repeat of the hunt for Commies in Hollywood. It's a return to the bad old days when blacks were second class citizens just because most whites felt that way. It's a return to the time when gays were beaten by groups of kids simply because of the fact they were gay.

I believe that everyone should believe in equality for gays. But you shouldn't be so wrapped up in rights for gays that you fail to see blatant and nasty bullying against people by the gay lobby.

He's just done the same with me.

He's answered lots of questions, unfortunately I never asked them

He's an head-the-baller.
I worked that one out last year.

The witch-hunters.

I thought this was a thread about the CPS prosecuting historic sex offences with a complete lack of evidence and no realistic prospect of conviction.

Having the right to believe something and having the right to deny rights to others based on those beliefs are two entirely different things.




This paragraph must be an attempt at a wind up. It just has to be.



That's the second time you've made that remark in this thread as though it's an accepted fact. Millions of people marry every year, and many of those marriages are happy and long-lasting. I've been married for nearly 11 years and haven't regretted it for a single second in all that time.




I'm not remotely tolerant of anyone who uses the Bible as justification for opposing gay rights. They're happy to quote Leviticus when it comes to oppressing homosexuals, but seem to forget it even exists when it comes to eating prawns, wearing polycotton and trimming their beards. Anyone who picks this one forbidden sin from Leviticus and ignores the other 137 or so things that it forbids is simply using the Bible to excuse their bigotry. This should never be tolerated.





I may be mistaken, but it looks like you're trying to equate one homophobe losing his job as a direct result of his homophobic behaviour with the subjugation of an entire race based solely on their skin colour. Please tell me I'm wrong.



Being intolerant of bigotry is not, in itself, intolerant. If your company prides itself on being inclusive and it comes to light that the CEO doesn't buy into that ethos, of course he should walk.

I've always been pro gay but I do worry that everyone is being pushed into having the same opinions on anything contentious. If he opposes it and he genuinely believes in the reasons (other than pure prejudice) then he shouldn't be hounded out of a job for it.
It's almost akin to the thought police of 1984.
I'm all for people challenging opinion but trampling peoples opinions into dust is too extreme for me.

On the other hand I am a child of the 1950s and so was brought up in an era when it was perfectly acceptable and reasonable to hold prejudiced views and to openly discriminate against black and Asian people, and the vast majority of the generation above me did, with no shame or embarrassment simply because thats what everyone did and it was very much reinforced by what was seen on TV most evenings.

It took the Race Relations Act of 1976 to change peoples viewpoint, to stop TV production company's from using race as a cheap shot or as the butt of a joke and even then the change was very slow - I was told in 1980 by a regional manager at the company I worked for to sack one electrician because he was Asian, no other reason, he'd spotted the name Patel on our weekly wages submissions and didn't want to see that name the following week and I can assure you that it was nothing to do with the quality of work as that particular manager had never met the bloke - he was based 300 miles away.

Sounds quite shocking now doesn't it but working for a building company at the time you could be barred from having a job just for having a scouse accent (have you read Ricky Tomlinsons biog ?) so the colour of your skin was always going to be a problem, christ knows what would have been said if being gay was mentioned - yes, you do need a change in the law and you do need to enforce the law quite firmly before some individuals will see the error of their ways.

What did you do when ordered to sack someone for the offence of being called Patel?

I didn't, we only had two electricians on that site and it was 100 miles away with two months left to run on the contract, financial argument meant that my boss had no justification for his opinion - it was still his opinion though.

We had quite a few incidents like it too including a black West Indian electrician of ours who was asked to leave an office building in Leeds while he was carrying out maintenance there, we got a phone call asking if we'd send "another" electrician the next day, by "another" they meant a white one.

Incidentally both of those were Approved Electricians, a higher grade than your run of the mill qualified electrician so both were most capable of doing the work and had taken time and money to gain their higher qualifications - thats the way it was in the 1970s, THATS why the law is often required to change public perception.

Religions being forced to marry people whose centuries old book has always been against it though?

I'm pro gay and atheist, there's nothing I wouldn't love more than equality and an end to superstition in the mainstream.

Either ban religion altogether or let them live it the way they want to live it. Forcing them to marry gay people isn't something I'd agree with myself.

I'm all for civil partnerships, I'm all for religious union if the heads of that religion changed thrir minds, but forcing them I don't agree with, why would a gay guy want to be part of a religion that believes their existence is an abomination?
Why force churches to do something their book teaches against?

The Mozilla guy is against gay marriage not necessarily against gays in general (I don't know though tbh).

I think this guy has issues, but he has his religion and he doesn't want things forced into it. How is it different to if a government makes them add vishnu in to be inclusive of Hindus?

I hate religion but it is what it is and I understand why they would fight it and give money to the cause.

I understand that too but my point is that changes in attitudes that are ingrained deep in society (whatever that society is) take a long time and will involve the use of the law given that the law is accepted as the will of that society - you have to accept the position otherwise there is no society and no concensus on anything.

I too don't understand why a gay person would want to be a part of an organisation that openly discriminates against them but that is the enigma and the draw of religion that on the one hand pulls followers in with the promise of "family" and then dictates what they can and can't do.

The marriage equality legislation does not force any religion to carry out same sex marriages. It allows them to (except in the case of the CoE), which is something entirely different.

So what we have is a bunch of religious people who aren't going to be forced to get married to a gay person, aren't going to be forced to conduct the marriage ceremony of a gay couple (unless they work as registrars), but still can't live and let live. The religious groups are not the ones being persecuted here.

Is law the same in America?

I think so, though I stand to be corrected. The opposition to the law over there, as here, seems to be that The Bible forbids it and that gay people can't possibly bring up normal, healthy children.

Don't get me wrong I'm an atheist, I'm just trying to strike a balance.

Forcing the church to do something against what they stand for I don't agree with, let them have their antiquated ways and let them slowly die off naturally when people get fed up of them and their ignorance and intolerance.

I don't believe a group of people with a core set of beliefs should have something they are dead set against forced down their throats (excuse the pun).

To me it's the same as the government forcing religion down mine like that of centuries ago.

I can cope with an element of intolerance for the greater good, they're not lynching them just not allowing them to get married into a belief system that thinks they're wrong.

But that isn't the issue. Religious groups aren't campaigning to prevent gay couples being married in their churches - they want to deny them the right to marry anywhere. This is where the line must be drawn. I fully support their rights to be as bigoted and hypocritical as they like within the confines of their own homes/churches. But when they start trying to influence public policy that really has nothing to do with them, they deserve no tolerance whatsoever.

Completely agree with your last two sentences, I need to read up more though I just thought they were trying to stop gays marrying into their belief system not a full stop altogether. That's none of their business.

I don't. I don't even remotely support their "right" to be bigoted in their own heads, and if anyone hears them express this bigotry, whether in their home, or their church, it should be challenged.

In my opinion the dangerous combination of (a) brainwashing children into being of a particular religion coupled with (b) family and peer pressure to attend regular religious ceremonies / services / assemblies and then (c) the confirmatory brainwashing that group religion engenders especially by playing very much to the herd/club mentality that is inherent in most people - the desire to belong to a gang/group, or failing that, scared of being seen to not belong and being ostracised or worse - is what gives all the religions their holds over their particular sections of societies.

So it's not OK (for example) for a hundred people in some church to all whip themselves up into some frenzy over god's punishment for gays etc.

If some religious zealot presumably respected as an authority preaches hate to their subjects from whatever pulpit I do NOT support this bigotry in the slightest, and if there is indeed a "right" to behave in that way then to me that is a misuse and abomination of what the word "rights" should be used for.

I don't support the bigotry, but I do accept that freedom of speech means that some people will ultimately say some very unpleasant things. I do take the point about indoctrinating children into this mindset, however. That is totally unacceptable. But if a group of consenting adults want to sit around assuring themselves that recent flooding is a direct result of God's vengeance on the 'fags', it is entirely their right to do so.

Edit: I agree that such behaviour should be challenged, too. Every single time. But I think there's a difference between telling someone their views are unacceptable, and flatly denying their right to hold those views.

I assume you also disagree with school children being indoctrinated by the state via sex education classes? Should our children be exposed to over-representation of minority views / activities?

There has been a very wide range of regularly changing sex education initiatives in schools and this continues.

My understanding of the general thrust of these (no pun intended) is to present facts and increase awareness.

I am unaware of any particular sex education policy which included "indoctrination". Indoctrination into what doctrine? Can you provide any particular specific example?

"I don't support the right of someone to be 'bigoted''

What a contradiction in terms. What does this even mean?!

So essentially you don't support someone who has views which you decide are bigoted.

Who decides which views are bigoted and which are not I wonder?

Essentially by taking such a stance you are bigoted yourself as you don't tolerate someone else's opinion.

Try it in small chunks, my dim witted friend. It's actually fairly simple.


Nearly. I don't support someone who has views which are bigoted.


Whether I tolerate someone else's opinion or not is irrelevant to bigotry. When I call someone a bigot, it’s not because I disagree with their opinion, or do not tolerate their opinion. It’s because they were being bigoted. It’s pretty simple.

But the novice-bigot's argument that intolerance of bigots = being bigoted against bigots is hardly novel, if self-evidently stupid. Disagreeing with a bigot, or trying to convince a bigot that he is wrong, is not bigotry.

Seeing as the definition of bigotry involves intolerance of the opinion of others I'd say it is quite relevant.

Then you'd be either concentrating on the wrong thing, or going off on a tangent as you can't win the main argument, and so want to deflect or sidetrack it.

It's not working.

I qualified that statement with "When I call someone a bigot, it’s not because I disagree with their opinion, or do not tolerate their opinion." You would be better off addressing that, instead of selectively ignoring the point and hoping nobody will notice what you're doing.