If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Gay Marriage
This discussion has been closed.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
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.
Strawman bullshit. Ironic.
Except that accusations of bigotry were aimed at people who actively oppose gay marriage, not those who couldn't give a shit either way.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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?
Which opinions do you want?
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 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?
Well I'd be very interested in the non-bigoted reasons for opposing gay marriage, whether or not you agree with them.
"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.
If they voted against I think we can reasonably assume they are against.
This was your question....
Which implies I've said that those voting 'no' were having their 'rights infringed' upon.
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.
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...
Fair enough, let's grab our pitchforks and hunt down anyone that doesn't attend the local Pride march.
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.
If you can't beat them....
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?
The only one who isn't a bigot so far is Teather.
Have you heard the personal views of all 126?
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."
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.