The Queen of Europe (Politics)

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 17 2.10pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I'm not religious but certain aspects of the 'gay' marriage legal change annoyed me. If I had been forced to vote on it I would have still voted for it but with reservations.....it's annoying that if you have reservations...some people call you names...but that's for them. I do believe that the original term referred to a man and woman. I found the easy adoption and adapting annoying....As I do with most language changes. When civil partnerships were bought in the opposition said that this was a slippery slope to marriage. That was denied but they were in fact a hundred percent correct. Small fry really....To have voted 'no' on gay marriage (once religious protections were accounted for) would have sent out the wrong message. The slippery slope to equal rights... I kind of like your stance though, it annoys you, but you also know its probably also right. Oddly, it was issues with inheritance, probate and insurances that really ended up as the need for marriage. Then again I also believe that even when voting on something you're certain is right, you should probably take a closer look until you have reservations. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Jul 17 2.10pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not religious but certain aspects of the 'gay' marriage legal change annoyed me. If I had been forced to vote on it I would have still voted for it but with reservations.....it's annoying that if you have reservations...some people call you names...but that's for them.

I do believe that the original term referred to a man and woman. I found the easy adoption and adapting annoying....As I do with most language changes.

When civil partnerships were bought in the opposition said that this was a slippery slope to marriage. That was denied but they were in fact a hundred percent correct.

Small fry really....To have voted 'no' on gay marriage (once religious protections were accounted for) would have sent out the wrong message.

The slippery slope to equal rights... I kind of like your stance though, it annoys you, but you also know its probably also right. Oddly, it was issues with inheritance, probate and insurances that really ended up as the need for marriage.

Then again I also believe that even when voting on something you're certain is right, you should probably take a closer look until you have reservations.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jul 17 2.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The slippery slope to equal rights... I kind of like your stance though, it annoys you, but you also know its probably also right. Oddly, it was issues with inheritance, probate and insurances that really ended up as the need for marriage. Then again I also believe that even when voting on something you're certain is right, you should probably take a closer look until you have reservations. You say 'equal rights' I prefer to think of it as 'universal rights'. That's picky of me I know but I'm more a believer in fairness than equality. I think it's more realistic way to appeal to the realities of human nature. Plenty of people are terrified to recognise difference. I don't have a problem recognising that homosexuality has consequences that are different from heterosexuality. Insomuch as the differences in who you are attracted to sexually usually has a cascading affect into other life areas. It affects how sections of society treat you and how you treat them...the type of bubbles you insulate yourself with and so on.. I think many people seek to deny this out of a fear that...well as the old Japanese saying goes...'the stake that sticks out gets hammered down'. But modern western culture is generally accepting of harmless difference and I prefer a more honest approach that recognises that it's ok to follow your nature if it isn't harming others. I'd vote for gay marriage because I don't see why the state should treat you any differently when your difference is harmless. The alternation of the meaning of the word marriage is small irritation as the world is always moving and adapting regardless....still irritating though.....what's 'cat' going to mean next week. Still, I don't believe that all marriages have the same level of usefulness to society. For me, marriages that produce children have an actual point to them. Some people won't like that attitude but I think it's honest. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't access the same rights as the state should treat them equally. But nature doesn't and can't be controlled and so....unions that produce children are more important for society. So I've always regarded old, gay or infertile people getting married as more of a vanity project than as something with a particular point for society. It's obviously very important to them personally and them close to them and well....any excuse for a p1ss up for the rest of us. They all deserve the right to do it of course....it's just my unsentimental view of it. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 2.50pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Jul 17 2.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Then again I also believe that even when voting on something you're certain is right, you should probably take a closer look until you have reservations.

You say 'equal rights' I prefer to think of it as 'universal rights'. That's picky of me I know but I'm more a believer in fairness than equality. I think it's more realistic way to appeal to the realities of human nature.

Plenty of people are terrified to recognise difference. I don't have a problem recognising that homosexuality has consequences that are different from heterosexuality. Insomuch as the differences in who you are attracted to sexually usually has a cascading affect into other life areas. It affects how sections of society treat you and how you treat them...the type of bubbles you insulate yourself with and so on.. I think many people seek to deny this out of a fear that...well as the old Japanese saying goes...'the stake that sticks out gets hammered down'. But modern western culture is generally accepting of harmless difference and I prefer a more honest approach that recognises that it's ok to follow your nature if it isn't harming others.

I'd vote for gay marriage because I don't see why the state should treat you any differently when your difference is harmless. The alternation of the meaning of the word marriage is small irritation as the world is always moving and adapting regardless....still irritating though.....what's 'cat' going to mean next week.

Still, I don't believe that all marriages have the same level of usefulness to society. For me, marriages that produce children have an actual point to them.

Some people won't like that attitude but I think it's honest. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't access the same rights as the state should treat them equally. But nature doesn't and can't be controlled and so....unions that produce children are more important for society.

So I've always regarded old, gay or infertile people getting married as more of a vanity project than as something with a particular point for society. It's obviously very important to them personally and them close to them and well....any excuse for a p1ss up for the rest of us.

They all deserve the right to do it of course....it's just my unsentimental view of it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 2.50pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Queen of Europe (Politics)

Site Map

Sponsors