UKIP candid Geoffrey Clark calls for disabled foetuses to be aborted

[aliceBB 10]

Yes it my opinion and is based on free will, why do you think the C of E should be forced to marry gay couples? And in what why is does it disadvantage gay couples if the church won’t marry them?

 

Where did I say the C of E should be forced to do anything?

 

It is however clear that to refuse to marry gay couples when you are willing to marry straight ones is a form of discrimination. Whilst discrimination is often arbitrary and unfair there may be situations in which it is inherent and inevitable. In public toilets, for example, or in the selection process for grammar schools. Funding your MA course when you are neither very rich nor very poor, but in between. Some discrimination is worse than others.

 

I don't actually feel very strongly about whether gays should be allowed to marry in the C of E or not; I just felt like having an argument about whether it was discriminatory or not.

[maxmaximus 10]

Where did I say the C of E should be forced to do anything?

 

It is however clear that to refuse to marry gay couples when you are willing to marry straight ones is a form of discrimination. Whilst discrimination is often arbitrary and unfair there may be situations in which it is inherent and inevitable. In public toilets, for example, or in the selection process for grammar schools. Funding your MA course when you are neither very rich nor very poor, but in between. Some discrimination is worse than others.

 

I don't actually feel very strongly about whether gays should be allowed to marry in the C of E or not; I just felt like having an argument about whether it was discriminatory or not.

 

It’s not discrimination because they are not disadvantaged and the church can't marry a gay couple because by the churches definition, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Some churches may well be happy to redefine marriage and the gay couple will be able to marry in that church. But the UK as a policy of Freedom of religion and if part of that religion is the belief that being gay is a sin then to marry a gay couple would be to condone that sin.

[ronthenekred 10]

It’s not discrimination because they are not disadvantaged and the church can't marry a gay couple because by the churches definition, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Some churches may well be happy to redefine marriage and the gay couple will be able to marry in that church. But the UK as a policy of Freedom of religion and if part of that religion is the belief that being gay is a sin then to marry a gay couple would be to condone that sin.

 

C'mon..the church condones sin every day.

Why doesn't the church expend its energy into refusing murderers, liars, adulterers, divorcees etc..? SOME priests think pedophilia doesn't "break celibacy" and that sins can be confessed away..how does that fit in with the churches "sin" theory?

 

Or is it a case of discriminatory selective sin?

[maxmaximus 10]

I didn’t say the church isn’t hypocritical; take the new rules which allow for gay bishops, they can be gay providing they remain celibate.

[ronthenekred 10]

I didn’t say the church isn’t hypocritical; take the new rules which allow for gay bishops, they can be gay providing they remain celibate.

 

I agree you didn't, it didn't stop you promoting the church's line though without the mention of said hypocrisy, thus suggesting you have a bias, otherwise you would have sympathy with some of the posts simply on the basis you now or have at sometime thought the church hypocritical, and because of that hypocrisy they are also quite capable of discrimination.

 

The reality of religious opposition generally, is not religious morality, but rather personal bigotry. People just cling to the "because the bible told me so". A lot easier than addressing their own bigoted view.

 

---------- Post added 07-01-2013 at 10:30 ----------

 

 

This is a discussion and I'm simply asking why some people think its discrimination just because gay people can't marry each other when a civil partnership gives them the same rights as being married, so they are not being disadvantaged, and if there is no disadvantage there is no discrimination.

 

Are opposite sex couples allowed a civil partnership?

[maxmaximus 10]

I agree you didn't, it didn't stop you promoting the church's line though without the mention of said hypocrisy, thus suggesting you have a bias, otherwise you would have sympathy with some of the posts simply on the basis you now or have at sometime thought the church hypocritical, and because of that hypocrisy they are also quite capable of discrimination.

 

The reality of religious opposition generally, is not religious morality, but rather personal bigotry. People just cling to the "because the bible told me so". A lot easier than addressing their own bigoted view.

 

 

 

I am capable of having a discussion and defending someone’s right to do something that I wouldn’t do. It makes no difference to me if a church will or will not marry a gay couple, I don’t understand why a gay couple would want to marry in a church that is opposed to gay marriage, and I don’t understand why anyone would want to force the issue, especially as a civil partnership gives a gay couple the same rights as being married. In this country we have freedom of religion, which I support even though I know God does not exist, and if part of that belief is that same sex sex is a sin then I will support their right to hold that belief, providing they aren’t actively going out of their way to make life difficult for gay people, which as far as I know they aren’t.

 

Tolerance makes for a peaceful society, not forcing one part of that society to accept something that they believe to be wrong.

 

 

Are opposite sex couples allowed a civil partnership?

 

No

 

Heterosexual couples should be allowed to have civil partnerships now that the government plans to introduce gay marriage, a Tory MP has said.

 

A heterosexual couple will request a civil partnership – available only to same-sex couples in the UK

[aliceBB 10]

I think we are arguing not about discrimination per se, but about semantics.

 

Something can be discriminatory without disadvantaging an individual or group disastrously; it simply means that for whatever reason one person or group is not allowed / enabled to do something that another person or group can do in the same context.

[LeMaquis 10]

Er, no. UKIP is not 'to the right of the [Conservative Party]'; and nor has it set itself to be so.

 

UKIP may then be a bit embarrassed about Dewsbury EDL pledging their support. The EDL took their motto In Hoc Signo Vinces from that bastion of the political centre-ground, the American Nazi Party.

 

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider dated yesterday 13 January.

[maxmaximus 10]

UKIP may then be a bit embarrassed about Dewsbury EDL pledging their support. The EDL took their motto In Hoc Signo Vinces from that bastion of the political centre-ground, the American Nazi Party.

 

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider dated yesterday 13 January.

 

Why?

It’s logical for EDL and BNP supports to support any party that wants out of the EU and wants more control over immigration.

[LeMaquis 10]

Why?

It’s logical for EDL and BNP supports to support any party that wants out of the EU and wants more control over immigration.

 

I know. That's my point. Jeffrey Shaw keeps arguing that UKIP is not a right-wing party. I and others have argued that it is. By highlighting that an EDL branch is supporting UKIP I'm underlining that UKIP is indeed on the right and to the right of the Tories if not as far right as the BNP.

[maxmaximus 10]

I know. That's my point. Jeffrey Shaw keeps arguing that UKIP is not a right-wing party. I and others have argued that it is. By highlighting that an EDL branch is supporting UKIP I'm underlining that UKIP is indeed on the right and to the right of the Tories if not as far right as the BNP.

 

No it doesn't it highlights that one policy of UKIP’s is very important to BNP and EDL supporters.

 

If labour decided next week that withdrawal from the EU was the best thing for the UK, would they suddenly become a far right party?

[LeMaquis 10]

No it doesn't it highlights that one policy of UKIP’s is very important to BNP and EDL supporters.

 

If labour decided next week that withdrawal from the EU was the best thing for the UK, would they suddenly become a far right party?

 

You're trolling now. Labour used to call for EU withdrawal in the 80s from a left-wing perspective and a fat lot of good it did them. Some left parties do it from an anti-capitalist stance. The BNP, EDL and UKIP do it from a right-wing nationalist perspective. Labour isn't likely to do that. Not with a Jewish leader.