Should two people of the same sex, be allowed to marry?

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you're going to turn this into a ***** unfunny pun thread then at least read the other ***** unfunny puns so we don't end up with the same ***** unfunny pun twice.

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next

[stoneyburn hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next

And to add to that , what are your thoughts on your op MWC ?

[My_Wife_Camille]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next

Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?1...e-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

[My_Wife_Camille]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And to add to that , what are your thoughts on your op MWC ?

I am one of the 100% so far that have voted yes

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?1...e-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling





So eh... carry on

[My_Wife_Camille]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling





So eh... carry on

Can't begin to think why you would have thought that!

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't begin to think why you would have thought that!

I'm clearly just a small minded bigot living in a small bigotted land

Which is relevant to this thread actually as it annoys me on a daily basis that NI is the last remaining part of the British Isles still preserving marriage inequality despite MLA's voting in favour of change. Nice one DUP.

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm clearly just a small minded bigot living in a small bigotted land

Which is relevant to this thread actually as it annoys me on a daily basis that NI is the last remaining part of the British Isles still preserving marriage inequality despite MLA's voting in favour of change. Nice one DUP.

B.I. being DUPed again as it were?

(BTW, Mr Pedantic would like to point out the 'British Isles' actually include NI & Eire.)

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

B.I. being DUPed again as it were?

(BTW, Mr Pedantic would like to point out the 'British Isles' actually include NI & Eire.)

That was deliberate. Eire legalised same sex marriage 2 years ago. NI is officially the most bigotted region within the British Isles

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was deliberate. Eire legalised same sex marriage 2 years ago. NI is officially the most bigotted region within the British Isles

Where does the resistance to same sex marriage in Northern Ireland mainly lie? Is it within the harder line Unionist/ protestant christian communities? Is the position of the DUP representative of many people?

I wouldn't have thought that the harder line catholics would be much more in favour of same sex marriage than the protestants, and that this might be one of those (very many in my experience) situations where the opposite ends of the spectrum turn out to hold similar opinions.

Cheeks of the same erse and all that.

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Where does the resistance to same sex marriage in Northern Ireland mainly lie? Is it within the harder line Unionist/ protestant christian communities? Is the position of the DUP representative of many people?

I wouldn't have thought that the harder line catholics would be much more in favour of same sex marriage than the protestants, and that this might be one of those (very many in my experience) situations where the opposite ends of the spectrum turn out to hold similar opinions.

Cheeks of the same erse and all that.

I think that's broadly correct in that extremes on both sides would be against but the majority of ordinary folks are either in favour or don't care. ROI voted strongly in favour of allowing same sex marriage but that probably highlights a lessening of the catholic churches influence there in recent years perhaps?

Politically it's the DUP blocking it. Sinn Fein are in favour as are a lot of MLA's from smaller parties and independents. A vote was taken (about 18 months ago I think) at Stormont and it was passed in favour of changing the law. The DUP blocked it progressing by use of the "petition of concern" that was built into the assembly, ironically to protect the interests and rights of minorities.

Since losing their majority at Stormont the DUP can no longer use that mechanism to veto any future proposals to change the law. Of course Stormont isn't currently sitting and given their current role at Westminster I suspect the marriage issue is just one of the reasons the DUP are fairly happy with the current vacuum of governance within Northern Ireland. Absolute horrible creatures the lot of them IMO as they love blocking and twisting democratic process and the will of the people to suit their own narrow-minded bigotted agendas.

[Sir David Gray]

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

[Hugh Munro]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

you been listening to nigel again

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you been listening to nigel again

Yeah because I'm unable to make up my own mind of course.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you been listening to nigel again

Nigel Havers.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

What's your rationale?

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

Oh aye.....DUP Hibs supporters are in town...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's your rationale?

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

Despite my DUP joke above - fair play for explaining your views...what definition in your view states that marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman - is this a Christian belief or definition ?

For me it is simply a legally accepted form of a relationship between two people ...

[-Jonesy-]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

Why would only heterosexuals get the franchise of marriage?
Because of a verbal technicality?

[pontius pilate]

Yes they should I've been listening to Macklemore new album genisis and came across same love an older track pro gay rights and some lines jumped out at me for instance
And god loves all his children is somehow forgotten yet we paraphrase a book written 3500 years ago and another line is I may not be the same, But that's not important. No freedom till we're equal (. This could be used in a lot of things right now).
He may not be everyone's cup of tea he certainly wasn't mine but that is some powerful stuff and the new album is cracking

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?1...e-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

For what its worth i agree with you about thd hypocrisy many people and posters and show on certain subjects.

I fall the other way though, and that both should be allowed. Being offended is the prixe we pay foe freedom of speech.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

[Scouse Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

If you work in retail surely you have to accept that you provide a service to the public of which you will never know what or who tbe majority of them practice/believe or their sexual orientation.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

totally agree with the majority of your post, its also why I think that men only clubs (e.g. Golf) and similarly women only one (fitness etc) should be allowed to exist AS LONG AS THERE IS SCOPE FOR (in the golf example) A WOMEN/men/other equivalent.

I'm really conflicted by the last bit though and see where Scouse is coming from regarding it.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

By baking a wedding cake you are neither condoning nor condemning anything and unless your God explicitly stated "thou shalt not bake cakes for gays" then you're simply baking a cake. By refusing to bake a cake for certain groups in society you are discriminating against that group. Cake baking is not religious.

[Sergio sledge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?1...e-civil-unions

Ooft, I fairly went for it in that thread didn't I?

I have to say that my views and thoughts on the matter have evolved since those posts were written and I now realise that denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry is discriminating against them. Letting same sex couples have civil unions but not marriages whilst at the same time saying that LGBT people shouldn’t be discriminated against was a hypocritical view to have.

My personal viewpoint was formed from the position of my faith and view of marriage as a Christian institution, created by God to be between one man and one woman. However, marriage in this country has moved so far away from that definition and has so many different forms that I can't justifiably hold back the right of marriage from one group of people based on a view which may be the "traditional" view but is not something which should be forced on people who do not agree with it.

For what it is worth, I still hold the belief that Christian marriage should be between one man and one woman, however I am well aware of the fact that other people and other Christians will not agree with this view, so I would support allowing churches to choose whether they will conduct same sex marriages or not. Given what I have said above I’m not sure whether this is still a hypocritical viewpoint or not, but in all fairness, I would wonder why a same sex couple would want to get married in a church which viewed their relationship as sinful.

I’m not sure if that makes sense, but that’s where I am just now.

[SRHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling





So eh... carry on

Aye, the fact that it was quoted posts from the original argument went over my head too. It’s easy to be sceptical on the internet when there are trolls everywhere though.

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haha...

If someone wants to get freaky with a robot then that's up to them, but legally marry it? Naw, dinnae be silly.

Ghey have Scottish accents apparently!!

“Gies a shot at ye, big man!”