You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[Galaxiom]

they should not be prejudiced against because of that, but neither should they expect their lifestyle to be accepted as the norm and taught as such in our schools or over influence our way of life in any way.

Looks exactly like what I described.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You clearly stated that homosexuality should not be discussed as part of "the norm". That is, it is OK but don't mention it.

I will acknowledge you are broadminded compared to Rainlover.

I can't find the post you are referring to.

Have to go and buy my grub now so bye

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Looks exactly like what I described.

Looks like we posted together.

We currently do not actively promote a heterosexual lifestyle in our primary schools, why should we promote a homosexual one?

Admittedly the children in the books have a mother and a father, but this is very much the norm and to broaden these simple stories we need to address issues probably beyond the scope of these young children, thus I agree with the educationalists who believe that it is a step too far too quickly.

The books need to casually introduce one parent families, adoption, and same sex parents and if it leads to a discussion so be it, but to actively promote a particular lifestyle, I cannot agree to that.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

Men and women can marry. How does affording the same right to same sex couples constitute a "special right"?

The special right they want is for Women to be able to marry women.

I don't have that right so that becomes something special for the Lesbians.

 

[RainLover]

TBF to Brian, Civil Unions/Partnerships in the UK grants all legal rights that come with Marriage. The key point in the UK is that they can now get married in a church if that church agrees to marry them. If it is against the churches beliefs they cannot be forced into marrying a gay couple.
I dont want to speak for Brian but it seems there is a lot of money and effort being wasted for very little change as such. His extremest comment probably refers to certain organisations who would like to force all churches to perform the ceremonies even if it goes against there beliefs.

Rod

You are writing things about Brian that have not been said by him.

e.g. His extremist comment ........... force churches etc.

Please exercise some form of honesty here.

Please also could you point out this "extremist comment" as I could not see one.

 

[RainLover]

I am against this. If someone wants to belong to a stupid club then they play by the rules of the stupid club.

But public policy should be non-discriminatory.

Did you realise that Churches in Australia have the legal right to be discriminatory.

I for one totally agree with this.

 

[RainLover]

Discussion of heterosexual behaviour makes some people want to throw up. Therefore heterosexual behaviour should not be acceptable?

Did you reply correctly or is there a typo.

If there is no typo then I do not understand what you mean.

In any case I don't understand.

EDIT

This post is upside down or perhaps back to front.
In any case I should delete it but it has been out there to long to do that. But please consider it as such.

 

[RainLover]

Discussion of heterosexual behaviour makes some people want to throw up. Therefore heterosexual behaviour should not be acceptable?

It is interesting that in the next post #53 that Brian said you make up things.

Have you have done the same with me.

I did not say "Therefore heterosexual behaviour should not be acceptable? "

Are you inferring this or is this someone else's opinion.

 

[rodmc]

Rod

You are writing things about Brian that have not been said by him.

e.g. His extremist comment ........... force churches etc.

Please exercise some form of honesty here.

Please also could you point out this "extremist comment" as I could not see one.

It's not necessarily just a religious belief but a definition of marriage according to ones language, dictionary , etymology or whatever, in the UK a civil partnership conveys all of the legal rights that a marriage does, why aren't the homosexual community happy. Some are of course only extremists aren't.

Brian

I think you need to re-read what I and Brian have both said. Being we are both in the UK I can understand what he saying in regards to the legal changes here in the UK, and I am actually in a way pointing out that what Brian is saying is in no way (IMHO) bigoted, he's just pointing out the situation here as far as I can tell.

 

[Fifty2One]

Governments should just agree with the rights for same sex marriages by just removing all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges afforded to every one who is currently recognized as married.
It would save a bundle in public money.

 

[Vassago]

Where do these people get the right to steal the word "Gay"

Gay means happy. Can my 90 Year old plus mother no longer be gay.

Fred Flintstone was out for a Gay old time.

Not any more. The pillow bighters have stolen that.

As far as these equal right are concerned. They have the same rights as me and I have the same as them. But equal rights is not what they want. They want special rights at my expense.

I don't want to do what they do. BTW you can't discuss this at a gathering of respectable people. Could you imagine my dear old mum when I explained exactly what a Homosexual does to another. It is enough to put one off their dinner for years.

I want my rights. The same rights that have existed for decades. If you are a Homosexual or Lesbian you can share my rights if you want. They are given freely. But if you want special rights because you have chosen a different lifestyle then that is your problem.

Please don't drag me into your world.

I doubt it was them that chose to use the word "gay" to describe themselves. LOL

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US there are certain rights granted only to married couples. Dozens of them actually. Most of them are federal rights requiring more than a state statute allowing gay marriage. Until the federal government recognizes these marriages, they will not have equal rights that heterosexual couples have. This is the issue we face here. It's not special rights, they aren't looking for anything more. They are only looking for the same.

 

[Vassago]

Governments should just agree with the rights for same sex marriages by just removing all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges afforded to every one who is currently recognized as married.
It would save a bundle in public money.

Partially agreed! But there are other issues involved than financial ones. What about health decisions? What about visitations in hospitals? Insurance benefits only given to married partners?

 

[Vassago]

Discussion of heterosexual behaviour makes some people want to throw up. Therefore heterosexual behaviour should not be acceptable?

Truth! Depending on the individuals involved.

 

[RainLover]

It is late and I intend to log off ASAP.

There are a few Laws that have come into being that affect only certain people.

A good example is the laws passed for the aboriginal people. For example Aboriginals have the right to vote but do not have to if they don't want to. All other Australian citizens must vote. This still applies to people who are extremely sick. There are various others for good reason.

However this Homosexual community want special laws passed just for them. They currently have the same rights as I do, but to them this is not good enough. This is the sticking point of this argument. Because they have the same laws I feel that they have the same rights. What they want is special consideration at great cost to create special laws that only affect them.

If we put it to the vote, "Should we pass and fund special laws for the Homosexual community". I very much doubt that those laws would grow legs. We have not even seen any draft Legislation as yet. How can we say we agree when we don't know what we would be agreeing to?

As I have said before. These are new laws especially for one community. It does not create one bit of equality.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Governments should just agree with the rights for same sex marriages by just removing all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges afforded to every one who is currently recognized as married.
It would save a bundle in public money.

Not in the UK where there are no financial advantages.

Vassago is correct in saying there is more to it than money, but in the UK that has been addressed by the civil partnership legislation.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

I will acknowledge you are broad minded compared to Rainlover.

Brian,
Fancy saying that about little old me. I almost cried when I read that.

I have never seen anywhere legislation that does not offer exactly the same rights for both types. It may not allow special consideration in favor to the Homosexual community. But it certainly does offer the exact same rights.

Man on Man or Woman on Woman is a different situation and is not catered for either side. So we have equality again. The minority group wants special consideration. This is not equality.

 

[RainLover]

I just realised that no Homosexual has come into the argument. But then I thought. They say that in a group of 3 men one will be Homosexual.

I know it is not me so one of you two had better confess.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Brian,
Fancy saying that about little old me. I almost cried when I read that.

I didn't say that Glaxiom did post#60

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Not in the UK where there are no financial advantages.

Vassago is correct in saying there is more to it than money, but in the UK that has been addressed by the civil partnership legislation.

Brian

Exactly the issue we have in the US. We haven't addressed it at a federal level. States are now legalizing gay marriage or civil unionship, but we don't have a federal recognition to guarantee the same federal rights to these individuals, even if they have the state benefits. That is not equal rights.

They are not asking for special laws for just them. They are only asking to be included in existing laws. Federal recognition of gay marriage would ultimately lead to no need for special laws. The definition of marriage would include them and all would be well.

 

[Vassago]

Here's another for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Inheritance taxes don't apply to married couples, but they do to others.