[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by paper-cut-exit

lol

well he is a trophy afterall.

[Mr XcX]

How do you know GOD does not discriminate have you met him.
hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm?????

[Livia]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

yes im saying he has sex for money.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with him for free.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Livia

I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with him for free.

lol agreed.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

In fact, rarely has there ever been any laws anywhere forbidding what is called 'interracial' marriage.
You can find a handful of examples (south africa, nazi germany, some US states).
If a handful of kooks did attempt to justify these using the Bible they were quiet obviously failures as the Christian Abolitionists (in the US case) used the Bible to conquer them with massive public support (most Christians).

One thing you can try and do is visit some community in Harlem New York and announce that black men are the same as gays.
Also mouth off about the Bible.
See how long you can remain an 'atheist' as you are being beaten to death within maybe.. maybe you will have 10 minutes of slow death before finally being eliminated.

I'm not recommending it but its something you could try and do?
If you believe 'blacks' are the same thing as gays in that sense.

Just so you know (you can google this) but gay marriage is NOT VERY POPULAR in the black communities.
Not at all.
In fact you can find plenty of USA blacks on youtube VERY OFFENDED by your idea that their civil rights are the 'same thing' as Gay Agenda goals.

Just so ya know.

Wow, talk about knocking down a straw man. When did I ever say black is the same thing as gay? I'm talking about the specific issue of blacks marrying whites and the same sex marrying, and even more specifically about their justification with the same arguments from the same book. I am not comparing the civil rights struggles of both groups.

I live in the US. I've lived really close to Harlem, it's actually not as bad as your grotesque Hollywood picture, so I'd **** about that. And I'd be much more worried expressing my atheism in the south than NYC. Blacks that get offended by atheists or gay marriage are also either A) not thinking about their own beliefs or B) assholes. They should empathize with stigmatized minorities, as they are a stigmatized minority themselves, however incomparable their suffering may be.

[mikopale]

People on this forum that say Dave is discriminating gays, don't u think that u are discriminating him for his beliefs. Gays have their beliefs and Dave has his beliefs. Just because they differ doesn't mean that Dave is discriminating. If a gay copuple ask Dave to marry them and Dave says 'no', then the gay couple raise a big hoo hah about it, then surely the gays would be discriminating Dave.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by mikopale

People on this forum that say Dave is discriminating gays, don't u think that u are discriminating him for his beliefs. Gays have their beliefs and Dave has his beliefs. Just because they differ doesn't mean that Dave is discriminating. If a gay copuple ask Dave to marry them and Dave says 'no', then the gay couple raise a big hoo hah about it, then surely the gays would be discriminating Dave.

No. So if my beliefs were that black people were evil would I be respected for my beliefs or would I be called a racist??

And "gays" don't have their "beliefs" they simply want to be treated the same as everyone else, what is wrong with that??

[Livia]

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

It's shocking discrimination!

[mikopale]

If a gay person wants to get married or have a civil partnership, then they don't have to get Dave to do it. They can easily find someone else.

Dave doesn't treat gays differently, he's only following his beliefs which he is entitled to have. I know Christian doctors who refuse to operate abortions, that doesn't mean that they are discriminating against the mother, it just means that they don't want to kill innocent babies.

My point is, if people can choose what they do and don't do, then Dave should have the right to say that he wouldn't conduct gay marriages or civil partnerships.

Everyone makes decisions that hurt others at some point or another, and this is a decision that Dave has made. Plus, what has Dave's choice got to do with anyone on this forum. If you want to moan about someone then moan about people in your own lives, not somebody you don't even know.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

It's shocking discrimination!

I'm not arguing with you.

This is why it surprises me when people say they are not interested in politics. It affects all of us all the time and it's only through politics that outdated, archaic laws can be changed. I mean it's only a little over fifty years since homosexuality was legalised; before that you could be sentenced to prison for being gay. So things are changing. But reeeeally slooooowly.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

one of these things is not like the other!

[Mr XcX]

But isn't marriage a religious ceremony.
Why not let Gay get married.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by stonedape

one of these things is not like the other!

No, I know that. That was my point. That was a point someone else made earlier in the thread.

I'm happy to discuss with with you seriously, but we're probably not going to agree totally because you're looking at it idealistically and I'm looking at it from a legal point of view. I'm not trying to antagonise you and I hope you feel the same.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by mikopale

... Plus, what has Dave's choice got to do with anyone on this forum. If you want to moan about someone then moan about people in your own lives, not somebody you don't even know.

Erm because this is a BIG BROTHER forum honey & we are discussing what he has said in the house...

If you want to discuss your friends & family I suggest you go chat on Facebook...

[mikopale]

Dave to win.

[flamingGalah!]

DAVE TO BE EVICTED FRIDAY

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by stonedape

I'm talking about the specific issue of blacks marrying whites and the same sex marrying, and even more specifically about their justification with the same arguments from the same book. I am not comparing the civil rights struggles of both groups.

You were comparing the 'civil rights' of these two different groups as if the same idea and principles were involved,
and,
you also compared some opponents in the different issues.

What I wanted to do was explain to you how most people (including many in the Black Civil Rights issues) do NOT agree that there are comparable principles here.
One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.

I also wanted to clarify something:
Christian groups were what headed Abolitionist movements and did so by arguing from the Bible.
They used the Bible to end slavery.

Aside trivia - many of those same Christian orgs who ended slavery and discrimination in whatever 'interracial marriage laws' were the SAME CHRISTIAN ORGS AND PEOPLE who got women the vote.
Christian movements.
They used the Bible and Jesus teachings to argue and appeal for their civil rights causes.

David's position is common in the west because most have a 'Christian basis' for their thinking and culture and laws and philosophy.
It is that idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and that everyone is imperfect.
That homosexual behavior is just another 'bad thing' that an otherwise valuable (to God) person can do.
This is quite different from many other cultures today and through history which would just consider the person themselves to be 'broken' and the very person themselves to be less valuable as a human being. They may even be killed or reduced to something like an animal (in how they are viewed or rights given etc).
Other cultures may suppose the person is inherently evil and to be killed for the good of the rest of society.

So Davids angle is amazingly friendly to someone in homosexuality and is one reason why people like you can even discuss this as a 'right' and why you live in a society where homosexuality can be 'open' and tolerated.

[Mr XcX]

GET John James out

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.

Bullsh*t.

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

[Mr XcX]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

Bullsh*t.

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

You go Galah, report them.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

You were comparing the 'civil rights' of these two different groups as if the same idea and principles were involved,
and,
you also compared some opponents in the different issues.

What I wanted to do was explain to you how most people (including many in the Black Civil Rights issues) do NOT agree that there are comparable principles here.
One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.

I also wanted to clarify something:
Christian groups were what headed Abolitionist movements and did so by arguing from the Bible.
They used the Bible to end slavery.

Aside trivia - many of those same Christian orgs who ended slavery and discrimination in whatever 'interracial marriage laws' were the SAME CHRISTIAN ORGS AND PEOPLE who got women the vote.
Christian movements.
They used the Bible and Jesus teachings to argue and appeal for their civil rights causes.

David's position is common in the west because most have a 'Christian basis' for their thinking and culture and laws and philosophy.
It is that idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and that everyone is imperfect.
That homosexual behavior is just another 'bad thing' that an otherwise valuable (to God) person can do.
This is quite different from many other cultures today and through history which would just consider the person themselves to be 'broken' and the very person themselves to be less valuable as a human being. They may even be killed or reduced to something like an animal (in how they are viewed or rights given etc).
Other cultures may suppose the person is inherently evil and to be killed for the good of the rest of society.

So Davids angle is amazingly friendly to someone in homosexuality and is one reason why people like you can even discuss this as a 'right' and why you live in a society where homosexuality can be 'open' and tolerated.

I am not debating the civil rights struggles of blacks vs. gays, however badly you want me to. I will not be debating whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. I will not be debating whether the Bible was used to justify or end slavery or discrimination against women.

I will say that seeing homosexuality as just one bad sin committed by an otherwise good person, like lying or stealing, is progress. But we can't pretend the entire world adopts this Western view today. And just because it's progress doesn't mean it's entirely correct. I'd hope one day people look back and see this gay marriage "issue" or "sin" of homosexuality as silly as witchcraft (or interracial marriage), because in the end what type of genitalia you prefer is as irrelevant morally.

And to Livia: No hard feelings, just got a little heated at the beginning.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by stonedape

And to Livia: No hard feelings, just got a little heated at the beginning.

No hard feelings at all. I've enjoyed talking to you, and to Flaming Galah.

[mikopale]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

Bullsh*t.

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

What objective reason do you have to be offended? I don't think you are born gay. It is something that develops later on in life. I know people who have been gay and are now straight, so what does that mean in your view if you don't mind me asking? They couldn't have been born gay if they are straight now.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by mikopale

What objective reason do you have to be offended? I don't think you are born gay. It is something that develops later on in life. I know people who have been gay and are now straight, so what does that mean in your view if you don't mind me asking? They couldn't have been born gay if they are straight now.

I am offended because that poster was insinuating (as some wrongly do) that people can choose their sexuality, you cannot...

If you know people that were gay but are now straight then they are Bi...

Unless they are those weirdo religious types who believe they have been somehow "cured" of their gayness, then they are just *******ed up & in denial...