Antlion Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 And of course the corollary is that there are a significant number of people who look around at the poverty, deprivation and inequality that has been produced by 300 years of Westminster rule and think, "more of the same, please". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Do you have any evidence of this? He has kept his counsel on the matter. Wee Willie hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Wee Willie hasn't. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 *sigh* Self whooshed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Maybe a new opinion poll might come out an this thread will get back on track *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Why were they opposed to gay marriage? What possible reason can there be to oppose gay marriage that is not deeply bigoted? It's usually been down to religious reasons I've found. That somehow marriage is a kind of exclusively religious ceremony / covenant. And people are free to live how they choose but they don't want marriage 'redefined' because they think it somehow cheapens it. I'm not for one second defending that argument. As I said, I think it's entirely wrong-headed and tends to come from a very deep conservatism or religion-induced ignorance. But I do think that a lot of people are "genuinely" wrong about this and actually believe what they say rather than using that argument as a smoke screen to cover their vile bigotry. I also don't want John Mason anywhere near Holyrood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The use of the term 'vile bigot' maybe doesn't help the debate, but folk who oppose gay marriage are in my opinion homophobic. Homophobia, again in my opinion, involves denying non heterosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. It's a fair point of view. Like i said, I'm overwhelmingly on your side on this argument. In the right mood, I'd probably call them all homophobic bigots as well but I don't think something like homophobia is a purely binary thing. I'm quite happy for their stupid views to be trampled all over when it comes to law-making and decision making and I don't have any sympathy for people who think others gaining equal rights is somehow diminishing their view of how the world should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It's usually been down to religious reasons I've found. That somehow marriage is a kind of exclusively religious ceremony / covenant. And people are free to live how they choose but they don't want marriage 'redefined' because they think it somehow cheapens it. I'm not for one second defending that argument. As I said, I think it's entirely wrong-headed and tends to come from a very deep conservatism or religion-induced ignorance. But I do think that a lot of people are "genuinely" wrong about this and actually believe what they say rather than using that argument as a smoke screen to cover their vile bigotry. I also don't want John Mason anywhere near Holyrood. There was a lot of outright lies going about that churches would be forced to introduce same sex marriage into their rituals against their wishes. All the law said was that it would not be illegal for them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I'm still waiting to hear of these six civilisations that homosexuality brought down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I'm still waiting to hear of these six civilisations that homosexuality brought down. Me too. Whatever happened to the Kingdom of Fife btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It's usually been down to religious reasons I've found. That somehow marriage is a kind of exclusively religious ceremony / covenant. And people are free to live how they choose but they don't want marriage 'redefined' because they think it somehow cheapens it. I'm not for one second defending that argument. As I said, I think it's entirely wrong-headed and tends to come from a very deep conservatism or religion-induced ignorance. But I do think that a lot of people are "genuinely" wrong about this and actually believe what they say rather than using that argument as a smoke screen to cover their vile bigotry. I also don't want John Mason anywhere near Holyrood. That argument is: a) Not an argument against civil marriage being extended to same-sex couples b) Still vile and bigoted and homophobic You don't see these people arguing for the abolition of civil marriage so it's clearly not just that it's a "religious ceremony" that shouldn't be redefined by the state. They are homophobes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 That argument is: a) Not an argument against civil marriage being extended to same-sex couples b) Still vile and bigoted and homophobic You don't see these people arguing for the abolition of civil marriage so it's clearly not just that it's a "religious ceremony" that shouldn't be redefined by the state. They are homophobes. And I'm sure I'd find all this incredibly enlightening if I hadn't stated numerous times that I'm completely opposed to their argument. What people are you talking about? I'm sure there are plenty of people who are, to some degree, opposed to civil marriage. I'm not blanket defending people who are against gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 A) Quite a lot of the weirdo God-botherers are indeed hostile to civil marriage itself: I'm not sure why you think that issue was just waved through without religious opposition in the first place. B) Safe to say that absolutely no-one, whether a Wee Freer or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will be taking any lectures on "vile" stances on moral issues from the busted flush who cheerleads in favour of incest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 A) Quite a lot of the weirdo God-botherers are indeed hostile to civil marriage itself: I'm not sure why you think that issue was just waved through without religious opposition in the first place. B) Safe to say that absolutely no-one, whether a Wee Freer or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will be taking any lectures on "vile" stances on moral issues from the busted flush who cheerleads in favour of incest. It was ok for the Targaryens. You can't apply a one size fits all policy to adult human sexual behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It was ok for the Targaryens. The Busted Flushes of Westeros IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 You can't apply a one size fits all policy to adult human sexual behaviour. That's what she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 And I'm sure I'd find all this incredibly enlightening if I hadn't stated numerous times that I'm completely opposed to their argument. What people are you talking about? I'm sure there are plenty of people who are, to some degree, opposed to civil marriage. I'm not blanket defending people who are against gay marriage. Look, you were the one that said: I've met and talked with a fair number of people who certainly aren't homophobic but were opposed to gay marriage. All that's being asked is for you to explain exactly how these people weren't homophobic if they were opposed to legalisation of civil marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 And of course the corollary is that there are a significant number of people who look around at the poverty, deprivation and inequality that has been produced by 300 years of Westminster rule and think, "more of the same, please". What an absolutely bizarre post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 What an absolutely bizarre post How so? If there are Scottish nationalists who want independence at any cost, there are Scottish regionalists who want dependence at any cost. The difference is that we know that the problems people are currently complaining about (poverty, inequality, deprivation) exist under the latter - it is the system which has ruled Scotland for centuries, and, out of Scottish independence versus British sovereignty, it's the only one that anyone has actually experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 C.f. Failed 2015 Labour candidate Jimmy Hood: "Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.