Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Gay Marriage

245678

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's no absence of reasons at all. The reasons to oppose gay marriage are widely publicized, and every one of them is steeped in bigotry.

    Some people you just can't get through to. Yeah why not. Anyone not lobbying their local church to DEMAND they accept gay weddings is an evil bigot!!!

    If you can't beat them join them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Again, so in the absence of a reason it's easier to assume one. Hell you might even be right. But this stinks of a witch-hunt.

    Is it a shite a witch hunt.

    The only one who has publicly come out with reasons other than "eeh, it's disgusting, think of the kids!" is Sarah Teather.

    There's been no absence of reasons, but they have all been bigoted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Some people you just can't get through to. Yeah why not. Anyone not lobbying their local church to DEMAND they accept gay weddings is an evil bigot!!!

    If you can't beat them join them.

    Strawman bullshit. Ironic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Some people you just can't get through to. Yeah why not. Anyone not lobbying their local church to DEMAND they accept gay weddings is an evil bigot!!!

    Except that accusations of bigotry were aimed at people who actively oppose gay marriage, not those who couldn't give a shit either way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Strawman bullshit. Ironic.

    No more bullshit than the post I was replying to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    No more bullshit than the post I was replying to.

    Hence ironic.

    But this is just typical of apologetics for bigoted opinions. Not only should people have the right to their bigoted opinions (as they do in a democratic country) but they should also be immune to criticism, and any criticism of their opinions should be misrepresented as an attempt to remove their free speech. How is my opinion that people voting against gay marriage are probably bigoted infringing on their rights in any way? It's just a way of deflecting the debate, because people have no coherent argument against gay marriage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is my opinion that people voting against gay marriage are probably bigoted infringing on their rights in any way?

    So not only happy to make assumptions based on what you don't know, you're now moving on to putting words in my mouth? Sheesh....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think everyone needs to calm down now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think everyone needs to calm down now.

    Why?




    On topic, I have yet to see a single argument against equal marriage that doesn't boil down do something logically flawed. I do think that people opposed to equal marriage are either ignorant (that is, not knowing that civil partnership isn't equal) or bigotted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    On topic, I have yet to see a single argument against equal marriage that doesn't boil down do something logically flawed. I do think that people opposed to equal marriage are either ignorant (that is, not knowing that civil partnership isn't equal) or bigotted.

    You're probably right - but I'd rather reserve such vitriol for what we know, not what we assume. I always thought this place was against generalisations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    So not only happy to make assumptions based on what you don't know, you're now moving on to putting words in my mouth? Sheesh....

    You've got a funny definition of "putting words in my mouth." How is asking a question putting words in your mouth?

    But well done in keeping it about how people debate rather than the actual issue. Wouldn't want you to have to break out any of your actual opinions now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You've got a funny definition of "putting words in my mouth." How is asking a question putting words in your mouth?

    You quoted and replying to me when you asked a question - is it too much to a stretch of the imagination to think you were actually asking me a question?
    But well done in keeping it about how people debate rather than the actual issue. Wouldn't want you to have to break out any of your actual opinions now.

    Which opinions do you want?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    You're probably right - but I'd rather reserve such vitriol for what we know, not what we assume. I always thought this place was against generalisations.


    Of course we're not, but I've heard and read an absolute shit brick load of the things those MPs against are saying. They have no business being ignorant, so they must be bigotted. I have no time for that kind of person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    You're probably right - but I'd rather reserve such vitriol for what we know, not what we assume. I always thought this place was against generalisations.

    So your argument is that despite the fact that during the entire history of this debate, we've only ever heard anti-gay marriage opinions that we consider to be bigoted, we can't rule out the possibility that many MPs who voted against it were doing so for some as yet undisclosed argument that isn't bigoted (that for some reason they refused to reveal throughout the debate), despite a great many of them being on record as being opposed to gay marriage for reasons we consider to be bigoted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    You quoted and replying to me when you asked a question - is it too much to a stretch of the imagination to think you were actually asking me a question?
    I was asking you a question. I just don't understand why you think asking you a question is the equivalent to putting words in your mouth.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Which opinions do you want?
    Well I'd be very interested in the non-bigoted reasons for opposing gay marriage, whether or not you agree with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Of course we're not, but I've heard and read an absolute shit brick load of the things those MPs against are saying. They have no business being ignorant, so they must be bigotted. I have no time for that kind of person.

    "So if you're not with us, you're against us".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    "So if you're not with us, you're against us".

    If you're a bigot and a fool you're not worth my time.


    Edit: plus, I am gay, so technically, they're against me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    "So if you're not with us, you're against us".

    If they voted against I think we can reasonably assume they are against.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was asking you a question. I just don't understand why you think asking you a question is the equivalent to putting words in your mouth.

    This was your question....
    How is my opinion that people voting against gay marriage are probably bigoted infringing on their rights in any way?

    Which implies I've said that those voting 'no' were having their 'rights infringed' upon.
    Well I'd be very interested in the non-bigoted reasons for opposing gay marriage, whether or not you agree with them.

    Ah, so now we're getting to the crux of the matter, am I also one of these nasty bigots. Well let's not forget I've not suggested what any of their reasons might be, just that people are happy to make insults and assumptions based on what they don't know or understand.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    If they voted against I think we can reasonably assume they are against.

    No doubt about that. But do we know their reasons for being against?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    No doubt about that. But do we know their reasons for being against?

    Give me a single reason to vote against that bill that isn't logically flawed...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Give me a single reason to vote against that bill that isn't logically flawed...

    Fair enough, let's grab our pitchforks and hunt down anyone that doesn't attend the local Pride march.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Ah, so now we're getting to the crux of the matter, am I also one of these nasty bigots.
    Another ironic statement from someone who not 10 minutes ago was accusing me of putting words in his mouth.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Well let's not forget I've not suggested what any of their reasons might be, just that people are happy to make insults and assumptions based on what they don't know or understand.
    They do know and do understand. That's the point. The debate has been widely publicised. The views of those involved are well known. If you have some new information, then kindly add it to the debate. If you don't, then we'll all carry on assuming that what these people have said in the past is in fact their opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Fair enough, let's grab our pitchforks and hunt down anyone that doesn't attend the local Pride march.
    Avoiding the question?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Another ironic statement from someone who not 10 minutes ago was accusing me of putting words in his mouth.

    If you can't beat them....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Avoiding the question?

    It's not for me to answer it - I'm not sticking up for them or justifying their vote.

    Let me ask a question in return: can we at least agree that your calling them bigots is based on an assumption?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't an assumption though. It's based on their public voting record together with their public statements.

    The only one who isn't a bigot so far is Teather.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't an assumption though. It's based on their public voting record together with their public statements.

    The only one who isn't a bigot so far is Teather.

    Have you heard the personal views of all 126?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only one who isn't a bigot so far is Teather.

    Yeah, she was just following official Lib Dem rules that state that you have to vote against something you were publicly in favour of before you were elected.

    Incidentally, why are you letting her off the hook? I've read her justification, and it basically boils down to "everyone else should have to follow the rules of my personal religious beliefs."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Have you heard the personal views of all 126?

    Its called logic. Logically if there were a non-bigotted reason, we would have heard it. We haven't, mainly because there isn't one. Ergo, voting against means you're a bigot or a moron.
This discussion has been closed.