PDA

View Full Version : Bigot of the Year



Phil D. Rolls
02-11-2012, 06:07 PM
I'm not in favour of much of Keith O'Brien's views, but calling him a bigot is a bit off. He seems like a decent man that stands up for what he believes.

This is coming from an organisation that purports to stand against bigotry, discrimination and bullying. They've not done anyone any favours with this nonsense.

ancienthibby
02-11-2012, 06:33 PM
I'm not in favour of much of Keith O'Brien's views, but calling him a bigot is a bit off. He seems like a decent man that stands up for what he believes.

This is coming from an organisation that purports to stand against bigotry, discrimination and bullying. They've not done anyone any favours with this nonsense.


This is a spectacular own goal for Stonewall.

Free speech and all that is what we want but giving prizes for calling each other names deserves no place in a democratic society.

Gatecrasher
02-11-2012, 06:38 PM
petty stuff IMO

VickMackie
02-11-2012, 09:25 PM
I listened to this on the way to work and the guy from stonewall was on and a representative of the church.

Both are tossers but I've got to agree with the stonewall guy.

Just because the cardinal is in a public position with set beliefs doesn't mean he can come out with some of the statements the do.

The argument that he's speaking up for what he believes in by declaring war on gay marriage etc is no different from a racist declaring war on blacks.

What I will support the cardinal on is that gays should not have the automatic right to marry in churches. If gay marriage is legalised then it should not be in a church.

And I dislike religion and don't think I've ever supported them in any stance but gay marriage in a church is fundamentally wrong.

CropleyWasGod
02-11-2012, 09:33 PM
I have had a few experiences of Stonewall over the years, and I'm not a fan.

Whilst it's right to fight for equality and against discrimination, Stonewall have always come across to me as an organisation that don't accept the rights of opponents to a valid opinion. They are right, and everyone else is wrong. In short, I have consistently found them to be as closed-minded as those they profess to oppose.

Hibbyradge
02-11-2012, 09:45 PM
gay marriage in a church is fundamentally wrong.

Why?

lucky
03-11-2012, 08:51 AM
O brien's views on gay marriage have been bigoted and shows the church is out of touch with the modern world but Stonewall have went to far with this crass award.

Pretty Boy
03-11-2012, 09:03 AM
O brien's views on gay marriage have been bigoted and shows the church is out of touch with the modern world but Stonewall have went to far with this crass award.

Pretty much this.

The 'Bigot of the year' award just seems petty to me. Surely there are far more proactive and effective ways of denouncing the Cardinals views.

VickMackie
03-11-2012, 09:38 AM
Why?

It's a place for a man and a women to be married. The churches belief, and mine, is that a traditional church marriage is for a man and a woman.

I'm not sure how to say it without getting into a debate about homosexuality etc but te church is for man and woman 'just cos it is'.

I like to stomp over religious beliefs of all kinds but forcing a church to marry same sex marriage is wrong.

CropleyWasGod
03-11-2012, 09:55 AM
It's a place for a man and a women to be married. The churches belief, and mine, is that a traditional church marriage is for a man and a woman.

I'm not sure how to say it without getting into a debate about homosexuality etc but te church is for man and woman 'just cos it is'.

I like to stomp over religious beliefs of all kinds but forcing a church to marry same sex marriage is wrong.

The current proposals don't force the churches at all. If a minister or priest doesn't want a couple married in his or her church, then it won't happen.

heretoday
03-11-2012, 11:16 AM
Surely it's up to the church and its congregation whether to allow gay marriages?

Personally, I don't go for church weddings in general, unless both parties are regular attenders.

VickMackie
03-11-2012, 12:00 PM
The current proposals don't force the churches at all. If a minister or priest doesn't want a couple married in his or her church, then it won't happen.

They'd be hauled up immediately for discrimination if they refused. From a legal standpoint the church should be no different from the registrars office. But it is IMO.

I'm not religious but if I get married I'd probably like it to be in a church. Can't explain why though!

CropleyWasGod
03-11-2012, 12:12 PM
They'd be hauled up immediately for discrimination if they refused. From a legal standpoint the church should be no different from the registrars office. But it is IMO.

I'm not religious but if I get married I'd probably like it to be in a church. Can't explain why though!

No they wouldn't. The draft legislation makes that clear... there will be no forcing of clergy or churches to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

Nicola Sturgeon:- "The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages and we reiterate that today. Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287

Hibernia&Alba
03-11-2012, 08:50 PM
It's a place for a man and a women to be married. The churches belief, and mine, is that a traditional church marriage is for a man and a woman.

I'm not sure how to say it without getting into a debate about homosexuality etc but te church is for man and woman 'just cos it is'.

I like to stomp over religious beliefs of all kinds but forcing a church to marry same sex marriage is wrong.


It's the churches that are wrong, not the concept of gay marriage. After all, the churches make their rules on this issue according to what their supposed God never said. Christ never made any comment about homosexuality. Man made rules are taken by all monotheistic religions as thw word of God, which just isn't true. Why anybody lives by a man made code which claims to speak on behalf of a God who has never been proven, always amazes me.

VickMackie
03-11-2012, 10:11 PM
No they wouldn't. The draft legislation makes that clear... there will be no forcing of clergy or churches to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

Nicola Sturgeon:- "The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages and we reiterate that today. Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287

Thanks. I thought that was forming part of the churches argument.

What are they greeting about then? Did the church 'found' marriage?

GhostofBolivar
04-11-2012, 06:50 AM
Slightly off topic, but it always amuses me when some talking head from the Church of England starts droning on about traditional marriage being between a woman and man and that allowing gay couples to get married will destroy the institution.

One of the major reasons why the CofE became the official state religion of England is because Henry VIII took the huff with the Catholics when the pope refused to grant him a divorce so he could get married to Anne Boleyn. The nascent Anglican church, however, were more than happy to accommodate him.

Sanctity of marriage? Aye, right.

Future17
04-11-2012, 11:06 AM
It's the churches that are wrong, not the concept of gay marriage. After all, the churches make their rules on this issue according to what their supposed God never said. Christ never made any comment about homosexuality. Man made rules are taken by all monotheistic religions as thw word of God, which just isn't true. Why anybody lives by a man made code which claims to speak on behalf of a God who has never been proven, always amazes me.

Agree with this.

I believe in God but religion isn't for me. Humankind simply can't be trusted in such things.

Phil D. Rolls
04-11-2012, 08:40 PM
Seems to me the competition for who is the most righteously indignant has pretty much excluded both parties from any meaningful contribution to the debate.

johnbc70
05-11-2012, 09:04 PM
Stonewall want to change the legal definition of marriage and update the law so that the words 'Husband' and 'Wife' are no longer included in a legal sense, but change it to 'parties to a marriage'. Seems silly to change the law that I am sure 90% of the population are more than happy with. The words marriage, husband and wife appears thousands of times in the laws of this land and I am sure the government has better things to do than spend money on things like this. All these changes they propose would lead to no further 'rights' for anyone, just changing the laws cause they don't agree with the terms husband and wife.

I am sure Stonewall do some valuable and worthwhile things but this is a step to far, just like calling the Archbishop a bigot was unnecessary and petty.