[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090821/ap_on_re/us_lutherans_gays[/url]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186538]Consider:

S1: [I]"I have no respect for people who believe in fairy-tales."[/I]
S2: [I]"I have no respect for fucking idiots that believe in fairy-tales."[/I][/QUOTE]Would the removal of the word "fucking" make the statement any less factual? In that sentence it is used as an intensifier, I accept that, but it can also make the speaker appear to be somewhat less in control of their emotions. Sometimes resisting the urge to use words like "fucking" when it might be expected (depending upon the company one normally keeps) can also be a good way to give intensity to a statement.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186538]Do you believe that avoiding sacrilege and blasphemy at the expense of clarity makes anybody a better person?

Continuously swearing like a sailor is an obvious way to express disassociation from any religion: if one is always profane, one can never belong to a church. Additionally, it would in fact be dishonest for anyone to express his total lack of respect, while at the same time following conventions to show respect.[/QUOTE]Thus spake someone who was not as smart as he claimed to be. In particular, he failed to recognize and act upon a warning phrased as a polite suggestion.

Oh well. Darwinism in a microcosm.


Paul

Elton John
 

If only out of repect for Brian I should really have started a new thread.

But I can't resist....

Don't let the son go down on me

David

[quote=davieddy;190879]If only out of repect for Brian I should really have started a new thread.

But I can't resist....

Don't let the son go down on me

David[/quote]
No problem, we can discuss Elton John in this thread. He provides a relevant example.:smile:

Why was regular marriage not available to him and David Furnish? Why did they have to use the peculiar "civil partnership" construction instead of being able to marry like most couples? As someone from Britain can you shed any light on this, David?

[QUOTE]Why was regular marriage not available to him and David Furnish? Why did they have to use the peculiar "civil partnership" construction instead of being able to marry like most couples?[/QUOTE]As I understand it, he was married for four years. Then he chose to have a civil union with someone of the same gender, and doesn't want to be married. Nor does he want to call his union a marriage.

To answer the thread title, [I][B]Should Gay Marriage be Legal?

[/B][/I][SIZE=5][COLOR=DarkRed][B]No.

[/B][COLOR=Black][SIZE=1]My reasons are my own and not open for discussion. That's all.

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]:deadhorse:

[quote=Zeta-Flux;191004]As I understand it, [Elton John] was married for four years. Then he chose to have a civil union with someone of the same gender, and doesn't want to be married. Nor does he want to call his union a marriage.[/quote]
Yes, I see you are correct now that I've looked at a report of a quotation from Elton John from November last year. I've only found it translated into Dutch (does anyone have his English language version?), but the gist is that he thinks other people will reject his relationship if it's called marriage. Plus: he's satisfied because in practice a civil union (in Britain only available to same sex couples) gives the same rights to the pair as a marriage (in Britain only available to opposite sex couples).

I find this attitude hard to relate to. Is Elton John's apparent ease with union's between same sex couples being called something different to unions between opposite sex couples, shared by the majority of gay campaigners in the UK generally? Is there no serious movement there to open marriage up to same sex couples?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;191043]I find this attitude hard to relate to. Is Elton John's apparent ease with union's between same sex couples being called something different to unions between opposite sex couples, shared by the majority of gay campaigners in the UK generally? Is there no serious movement there to open marriage up to same sex couples?[/QUOTE]It has always been called something different: one is a homo-...ual relationship, the other is a hetero-...ual relationship (my censorship to fly under the firewall radar). Just pointing out a factoid.

[quote=Uncwilly;191057]It has always been called something different: one is a homo-...ual relationship, the other is a hetero-...ual relationship (my censorship to fly under the firewall radar). Just pointing out a factoid.[/quote]
Yes, but I was of course asking from the point of view of the legal status of the terms. (Does your firewall allow "inter-racial relationship" and whatever the opposite term is describing a union between two people of the same race? Fortunately they have been written out of the law in the places where they used to apply.)

[quote=Uncwilly;191057]It has always been called something different: one is a homo-...ual relationship, the other is a hetero-...ual relationship (my censorship to fly under the firewall radar). Just pointing out a factoid.[/quote]
The firewall lets you quote "same sex couples" but not post the word "homosexual"? Weird.