The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Union of sameness versus union of difference > Comments

Union of sameness versus union of difference : Comments

By David Palmer, published 8/2/2012

Same-sex marriage is not going to happen any time soon, if at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All
'Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights'

Yep, I think all of those would pretty much describe your bigotry, individual.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 10:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks David Palmer for your common sense. Children are made by a man and a woman. Children need their mums and a dads. Marriage recognises a natural union where the desire of a man and a woman for children coincide with the best interests of children. (And just because a married couple are not able or willing to have children doesn't mean that they are any less a natural reproductive union, the kind of union that is always best for children.) A radically redefined concept of marriage, like the one proposed by the Greens, will work like acid on the vital natural link joining men and women and the children they may bear together. And women and children will suffer for it.
Posted by Campbell, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 11:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish, your initial post implied that the lobbying of MP's by "highly motivated ideologues" (religious people) "is not an accurate gauge of what the public thinks."

Leaving aside that I think that your premise, that these "highly motivated ideologues" hold opinions contrary to general public opinion, is false, it is still a prejudgement of religious people.

It is implying that religious people are "ideologues" who only follow ideological directions (which is true enough) and that they are highly motivated (also reasonably accurate.) But accurate or not, it is still a prejudgment.

Lesson?

Everybody prejudges. Every one of us forms opinions about people, and of groups of people, every day, based upon what little we know of them. You can criticise the accuracy of a pre judgement, but you can not criticise the act of prejudgement itself.

The claim that people must not prejudge, label or stereotype, are the silliest arguments I have ever heard. Because everybody does them, every day, in social situations where the forming of opinions about groups of people are necessary, or even essential.

But if you say it is wrong, then I am going to amuse myself by pointing out to you when you do it in your own posts. And believe me, Clownfish, you are going to do it. Because it is normal thinking, not just for heterosexuals, but for everybody.

That is one bit of sexual equality that does exist.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 9 February 2012 3:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But what's the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?"

The principle is that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless there is some compelling reason not to.

And what you think your Sky Daddy said three thousand years ago is not a compelling reason.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 9 February 2012 6:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish,
there's no mention of poofters in your list of prejudice ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 9 February 2012 6:27:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But that's the issue, Clownfish, no one is forcing Christians to eat shellfish, shave beard, (insert strawman). This is what religious freedom is all about. As far as I know, no Christian's have been persecuted for saying that you shouldn't eat shellfish, but, we have seen cases where religious people have been fined, fired, lose rights, etc. if they don't endorse gay marriage/ rights.

Recently, Obama made it compulsory for Catholics to pay for abortion pills. It's a similar issue to gay marriage, we should have freedom of conscience, and my original point was, what guarantees are there that religious freedom on marriage will continue to exist if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Some MPs in Britains 'conservative' party have even suggested that churches should be forced to marry gay couples, so it's a valid concern -

http://www.christianpost.com/news/british-mp-force-churches-to-perform-same-sex-unions-or-close-them-down-55371/
Posted by progressive pat, Thursday, 9 February 2012 9:14:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy