[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

Ok but does her not wanting to change the definition of the word marriage reduce her as a person in any way

No, but not wanting gays to be allowed civil partnerships, marriage or adoption rights shows she believes homosexuals are lesser people in many ways.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No, but not wanting gays to be allowed civil partnerships, marriage or adoption rights shows she believes homosexuals are lesser people in many ways.

She is in some ways kinda right that kids should have a mother and father

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

She is in some ways kinda right that kids should have a mother and father

It would have saved a lot of hassle if you'd just said outright that you're defending her because you agree with her views

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No, but not wanting gays to be allowed civil partnerships, marriage or adoption rights shows she believes homosexuals are lesser people in many ways.

She doesnt think they are 'lesser' people she is a Roman catholic and follows her religion also a traditionalist, and prudish which might seem dated now but she brought up in that time.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by MB.

It would have saved a lot of hassle if you'd just said outright that you're defending her because you agree with her views

Well its not agreeing with her but children do work better if they have both sexes as role models something that single parents or same sex parents cant giv them

[Jase.]

Brb, VOMITING at certain posts.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

She doesnt think they are 'lesser' people she is a Roman catholic and follows her religion also a traditionalist, and prudish which might seem dated now but she brought up in that time.

I'm not sure why you think the reason behind her homophobia changes the fact she is homophobic?

We all have reasons and experiences that shape our opinions and views on the world. Religion and a prudish attitude being hers doesn't change anything.

She does think they are lesser as she doesn't believe they deserve equal rights. If people are NOT equal then there is a tier going on and homosexuals are below heterosexuals (don't be rude ).

If you don't believe in equality and believe people's sexuality or age or sex or race dictate how many rights they should be afforded then you are prejudiced.

Whether that prejudice is formed by your religion or not doesn't change this.

[Lilac hills]

Originally Posted by MB.

It would have saved a lot of hassle if you'd just said outright that you're defending her because you agree with her views

I mean it’s been documented the adverse psychological effect not having both a mother and a farther figure growing up can have. Not saying anyone should be deprived of rights because of it just trying to show there’s some merit to that sentiment

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

I mean it’s been documented the adverse psychological effect not having both a mother and a farther figure growing up can have. Not saying anyone should be deprived of rights because of it just trying to show there’s some merit to that sentiment

Well, there you go. That's the difference between a non-prejudice opinion (your post just now) and a prejudiced one (Ann using this to vote against gay rights).

You hold that sentiment but don't think it means gays should be less than equal. Ann clearly does.