Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

Zillah

markok84 wrote: »

This video was posted around the time of the Miss America debacle, I found it interesting, and I like cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

What a load of insidious nonsense. First of all, they start out pretending to take a neutral approach, and then close with recommending that you vote against gay marriage (their website is even called "whatisprop8" rather than "yestoprop8" etc). Secondly, they repeatedly use the term "life style choice", which is a reference to the extremely ignorant notion that one chooses one's sexuality. Thirdly, they ludicrously toss in the implication that the state will force a private institution such as a church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, which is just ridiculously blatant scare mongering.

So yeah, a venomous little video in innocuous packaging. ALSO:

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a great video, and it shows why people can be concerned about the issue of gay marriage without it being the result of homophobia. People often wrongly link opposition to gay marriage and homophobia and in a sense some people are interested in stifling free discussion on the issue by calling people bigots and homophobes for showing opposition when there are potential issues to society that could transpire. So thanks a lot for showing my position in a nice and easy manner

You're terrifyingly easy to manipulate my dear man.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Incest is slightly different due to the slightly increased level of genetic abnormality, but thats an issue for another day.

Yup, and for the exact same reason we don't let people with any inheritable medical condition have sex. After all, we use strict eugenics in our society, let's not compromise our values now.

Goodshape

Morlar wrote: »

You can not have gay marriage without gay adoption being the next logical step. Anyone who says you can is either naive or disingenous. Gay adoption is the part I would object to & that is why I voted no.

A discussion on gay adoption is the next logical step, yes. But it's a separate issue.

Dealing with the issue on the table - as a fellow human being I'd ask that, given the option, you grant me equal rights with regards partnership (marriage, that is) that you take for granted for yourself. We can all come back later to discuss adoption, the part you object to.

trout wrote: »

What would be next on the gay lobby groups agenda, after marriage and adoption rights ?

Well, after marriage and adoption rights are handed out the world spontaneously combusts into a rage of hell fire, obviously. So we haven't really bothered to fill out the rest of the agenda. No point .

GLaDOS

Zillah wrote: »

Yup, and for the exact same reason we don't let people with any inheritable medical condition have sex. After all, we use strict eugenics in our society, let's not compromise our values now.

I never said incest was wrong, I said it was a different issue, which it is.

The_Minister

Goodshape wrote: »

A discussion on gay adoption is the next logical step, yes. But it's a separate issue.

Dealing with the issue on the table - as a fellow human being I'd ask that, given the option, you grant me equal rights with regards partnership (marriage, that is) that you take for granted for yourself. We can all come back later to discuss adoption, the part you object to.

But...
...gay marriage would strengthen the argument for gay adoption immeasurably.
So if it ever went to referendum, it would make sense for him to oppose gay marriage, in order to stop gay adoption.

Goodshape

The_Minister wrote: »

For instance, the percentage of the population who are homosexual varies from country to country, which seems to indicate that it is not an in-born phenomenon.

Or a result of different societies levels of acceptance of homosexuals?

It's difficult for many homosexuals in developed countries, for personal and societal reasons, to stand up and be counted -- it's a lot worse in many others.

Zillah

The_Minister wrote: »

Ducks have sex with dead ducks.
Is necrophilia natural?

We see necrophilia in nature, so yes, of course it's natural, you'd have to be absolutely insane to claim otherwise. Just because the sky is blue does that mean the sky is blue?!

For instance, the percentage of the population who are homosexual varies from country to country, which seems to indicate that it is not an in-born phenomenon.

Could I borrow your magic psychic polling device some day please?

Because, y'know, if you didn't have one and yet made a claim like the one above then it'd be a pretty ridiculous thing to say, considering that people need to admit being homosexual, which is extremely difficult for people in the progressive west let alone Iran where it's illegal.

ScienceNerd wrote:

I never said incest was wrong, I said it was a different issue, which it is.

Yes but you specifically noted the slightly increased risk of genetic disorders as a relevant point. I'm pointing out that it's an irrelevant point because we don't mandate against other relationships based on their risk of genetic disorders. Unless you're in favour of discrimination.

Soulja boy

The_Minister wrote: »

But...
...gay marriage would strengthen the argument for gay adoption immeasurably.
So if it ever went to referendum, it would make sense for him to oppose gay marriage, in order to stop gay adoption.

I voted against abortion because I am against murdering random people becoming legal

philologos

sub-x wrote: »

YES...

Isn't funny how the Catholic Church like to give us lectures about the moral high ground.Its about time the Catholic Church fecked right off with itself.

This has nothing to do or a criticism on anybodies particular faith,this is against an out dated institution that still lives in the dark ages and is run by hypocrites and scumbags.

Nice Catholic-bashing (N.B I'm non-Catholic). However, there are numerous different religious groups which share this view of the ethics of homosexual relations such as Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox. Guess what? People of faith are entitled to their opinions just as much as the LGBT community are entitled to their opinions. It seems that the tolerance card only applies one ways. There has been cases of discrimination of those who have faith in the light of these court decisions in the USA. Particularly photographers who do not want to be involved with a gay marriage ceremony being brought to court, or people in registry offices who do not wish to be involved with gay marriage (in other countries there has been allowance for people of faith not to be involved in this particular area due to their consciences disagreeing). There are several reasons to be concerned given what we have seen so far in other experiences for people of faith so I can understand their concern while being one myself.

Zillah wrote: »

You're terrifyingly easy to manipulate my dear man.

Not really. I don't see anything wrong with that video at all. It presents the situation rather nicely and rather fairly. You don't have to hate homosexuals to oppose gay marriage. They're right, you don't. However the no side would have been out to say that you do. If anything is wrong that is wrong. Trying to silence people through pulling out the bigot card isn't reasonable when it has nothing to do with homophobia at all.

Goodshape

The_Minister wrote: »

But...
...gay marriage would strengthen the argument for gay adoption immeasurably.
So if it ever went to referendum, it would make sense for him to oppose gay marriage, in order to stop gay adoption.

I assume that's the reasoning behind it, yeah.

El_Dangeroso

The_Minister wrote: »

Ducks have sex with dead ducks.
Is necrophilia natural?

Some species eat other organisms alive.
Lions kill the children of the female in order to put her into heat.
When people are refering to what's natural, they mean natural for humans.

How do you know homosexuality is not natural to humans?

The_Minister wrote: »

For instance, the percentage of the population who are homosexual varies from country to country, which seems to indicate that it is not an in-born phenomenon.

Correlation does not equal causation.

allabouteve

Mac Masters wrote: »

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

Marriage is primarily a legal contract, and that is what is enacted in church weddings too, with the added spice of ''god's blessing''.

Anyone can get married, you don't need the imaginary friends approval to want to commit to someone. It doesn't lessen that commitment.

Jakkass wrote: »

How is that condascending. It's more respectful than calling those who disagree with you bigots because you don't feel the same as they do on a certain issue isn't it?

Its reasonable to call a persons opinion bigoted, if it is bigoted.

I think the KKK are a bunch of racist bigots for example.

Svalbard

The_Minister wrote: »

There are valid sociological concerns regarding messing around with marriage and how it is constituted.

Because straight people have been treating the institution of marriage as sacrosanct all this time. Genius.

Soulja boy

neddas wrote: »

Correlation does not equal causation.

Most people never grasp the fact that everything is subject to multivariate data and that statistics on stuff like this are completely meaningless.

That being said 20.66 percent of people in a certain poll seem to be correlating to ignorant fools right now.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. I don't see anything wrong with that video at all. It presents the situation rather nicely and rather fairly. You don't have to hate homosexuals to oppose gay marriage. They're right, you don't. However the no side would have been out to say that you do. If anything is wrong that is wrong. Trying to silence people through pulling out the bigot card isn't reasonable when it has nothing to do with homophobia at all.

I just explained what was wrong with the video, but I'll try it again:

1 - They are against gay marriage but they masquerade as a neutral party. Is dishonesty not bad Jakkass?
2 - They use the term "life style choice", which implies sexuality is a choice. Could you choose to be sexually attracted to men? Is ignorance (or more dishonesty?) not a bad thing Jakkass?
3 - They deliberately lie to people to scare them by pretending that prop 8 has anything to do with gay marriage in churches. Is deliberately scaring people by lying to them not a bad thing Jakkass?

The_Minister

Soulja boy wrote: »

I voted against abortion because I am against murdering random people becoming legal

Logic fail.
There is a natural link between gay marriage and gay adoption - one strengthens the argument for the other.
The same does not apply to your example.

Zillah wrote: »

Could I borrow your magic psychic polling device some day please?

Because, y'know, if you didn't have one and yet made a claim like the one above then it'd be a pretty ridiculous thing to say, considering that people need to admit being homosexual, which is extremely difficult for people in the progressive west let alone Iran where it's illegal.

Excluding countries like Iran (obviously) even between Western countries the rates differ markedly, even where studies are anonymous.

neddas wrote: »

How do you know homosexuality is not natural to humans?

I never said it wasn't - I said that a bunch of male penguins forced to live together having sex proves nothing.

neddas wrote: »

Correlation does not equal causation.

That's very true, but it doesn't apply to what I said.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

1 - They are against gay marriage but they masquerade as a neutral party. Is dishonesty not bad Jakkass?

How? At the end they encourage people to vote yes. I certainly would have voted yes if I lived in California.

Zillah wrote: »

2 - They use the term "life style choice", which implies sexuality is a choice. Could you choose to be sexually attracted to men? Is ignorance (or more dishonesty?) not a bad thing Jakkass?

There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality as a choice isn't a hypothesis to be explored. But let's argue for now that it isn't.

There is a choice whether or not you want to:
a) be homosexually active,
b) come out and identify as gay

Both of these decisions could be viewed as major lifestyle choices. I don't think that is ignorant or dishonest, more the fact that you disagree with their opinion on something that hasn't been entirely cleared up factually. I am willing to be corrected on this.

Zillah wrote: »

3 - They deliberately lie to people to scare them by pretending that prop 8 has anything to do with gay marriage in churches. Is deliberately scaring people by lying to them not a bad thing Jakkass?

No they do not. In USA there have been lawsuits brought against people of religious conviction who do not wish to be involved in gay marriage. The Washington Post covered this a while ago. I don't think this is right, and it is a reason which would discourage me from supporting it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html

A link from the Pew Forum clarifying the potential impact this could have on religious communities who disagree with gay marriage.
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=216

allabouteve wrote: »

Its reasonable to call a persons opinion bigoted, if it is bigoted.

I think the KKK are a bunch of racist bigots for example.

Call me a bigot all you want because I actually have real concerns about the impact of this issue on my life, and on other peoples lives. Go nuts infact.

sub-x

Jakkass wrote: »

Nice Catholic-bashing (N.B I'm non-Catholic). However, there are numerous different religious groups which share this view of the ethics of homosexual relations such as Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox. Guess what? People of faith are entitled to their opinions just as much as the LGBT community are entitled to their opinions. It seems that the tolerance card only applies one ways. There has been cases of discrimination of those who have faith in the light of these court decisions in the USA. Particularly photographers who do not want to be involved with a gay marriage ceremony being brought to court, or people in registry offices who do not wish to be involved with gay marriage (in other countries there has been allowance for people of faith not to be involved in this particular area due to their consciences disagreeing). There are several reasons to be concerned given what we have seen so far in other experiences for people of faith so I can understand their concern while being one myself.

The only difference here is I don't live in a country strongly influenced by "Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox",hence my point about the Catholic church.Everybody does have a right to "their own opinion"not indoctrination.

As I said before this is not an attack on ones personal relationship with God but with the institution of the Catholic Church,a church that denies the right for people in Africa to protect themselves from deadly diseases,a church that sits on untold riches while people of their own faith die of starvation and disease.A man who sits on a throne not as Gods "representative" on earth but as God of the earth.An institution that destroyed thousand of childrens lives and rather than stand up for the lives of the innocent,they decided that sweeping under the carpet was the better option.

The catholic church has no right whatsoever to influence free thinking people with their out of date BS.When the catholic church changes and keeps its nose out of crap they know nothing about then maybe I will stop bashing but until then I repeat hypocrites and scumbags,I could go on.

Do you know the reason behind the celibacy law in the Catholic Church ???

Zillah

The_Minister wrote: »

Excluding countries like Iran (obviously) even between Western countries the rates differ markedly, even where studies are anonymous.

Some gay men are so intimidated by anti-queer beliefs in society that they won't admit it to themselves, let alone take part in a study (anonymous or no) where they have to put it down as a confirmed response.

Even if we exclude extreme examples like south east asia and the middle east variances in polling results can be far better explained by the fallibility of polling methods and degrees of acceptance rather than being an indicator that homosexuality is not a in born condition.

I never said it wasn't - I said that a bunch of male penguins forced to live together having sex proves nothing.

It proves absolutely one thing: That those who claim homosexuality is an immoral invention of selfish/deviant human beings are wrong.
"Why are you against gay marriage?"
"Homosexuality is unnatural."
"Well no it isn't so blow it out your ass".

El_Dangeroso

The_Minister wrote: »

I never said it wasn't - I said that a bunch of male penguins forced to live together having sex proves nothing.

The penguins were offered female company and ignored it. Doesn't sound forced to me. Also, I'll re-iterate that homosexuality is present in more than 1,500 wild species.

I think the unnatural argument is really irrelevant actually, so it's pointless going down that route.

What really perplexes me is what people are afraid will happen if this is allowed?

The_Minister wrote: »

That's very true, but it doesn't apply to what I said.

Yes, it really really does, you said that the fact that rates of homosexuality 'vary' indicates that it is 'not in-born'. You are saying A (varience) proves B (not in-born). Please explain how you made that leap of reason?

philologos

sub-x wrote: »

The only difference here is I don't live in a country strongly influenced by "Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox",hence my point about the Catholic church.Everybody does have a right to "their own opinion"not indoctrination.

Yes, but that isn't my point. My point is just as the LGBT are going to have their position, people of faith in these religions are going to have theirs. I think there is room for peaceable disagreement rather than people branding the others as bigots because they do not agree with them on an issue. Infact it's a rather childish way of dealing with an issue.

sub-x wrote: »

As I said before this is not an attack on ones personal relationship with God but with the institution of the Catholic Church,a church that denies the right for people in Africa to protect themselves from deadly diseases

Infact many researchers have concluded that initiatives that do not also provoke changes in sexual behaviour are not effective. The Catholic Church are not responsible for giving people AIDS. I think it's quite frankly hilarious that people argue this point for the following reason:

If people are so concerned about what the Pope was saying about not wearing condoms in Africa, why aren't they as concerned about monogamy to their wives which is also taught by the Catholic Church?

Now, as someone who was never formally involved with the Catholic Church I think that is one of the dumbest points one can argue.

sub-x wrote: »

a church that sits on untold riches while people of their own faith die of starvation and disease.A man who sits on a throne not as Gods "representative" on earth but as God of the earth.

Despite the fact that Catholic groups are working in the developing world right now on several projects to provide clean water, to educate children who have no other means of education, amongst other things. Do you mind me asking what are the atheists doing in comparison to what Catholics and other people of faith have done?

The Pope in Catholic theology is never put across as the "God of the earth". For someone who claims that the Catholic Church has had such a big impact on Ireland you are lacking on your knowledge of it. I disagree with the role of the Papacy as a non-Catholic, but I do think that the Catholic Church should be encouraged to reconsider the Biblical vision of Jesus Christ rather than people outwardly trying to destroy it.

sub-x wrote: »

The catholic church has no right whatsoever to influence free thinking people with their out of date BS.When the catholic church changes and keeps its nose out of crap they know nothing about then maybe I will stop bashing but until then I repeat hypocrites and scumbags,I could go on.

There is a whole other thread on this.

sub-x wrote: »

Do you know the reason behind the celibacy law in the Catholic Church ???

Yes, I know how Catholics generally defend it:

Basically for them it goes like this. We are trying to follow Jesus' example as priests of the Church. Jesus was celibate all His life. Therefore to live like Jesus we should be celibate.

Problem for me is, Jesus never said that ministers had to be celibate. Infact the Biblical position on the issue from the 1st century was that you were to be married only once (1 Timothy, Titus) and in Judaism it was permitted as long as your wife was a virgin (Exodus).

Anyhow, do you mind keeping it on topic?

El_Dangeroso

Jakkass wrote: »

Basically for them it goes like this. We are trying to follow Jesus' example as priests of the Church. Jesus was celibate all His life. Therefore to live like Jesus we should be celibate.

Source please?

andrew

The whole 'its not natural' argument seems weird. Human beings are born, and are, for whatever reason, attracted to a member of the same sex. Does the fact that they're humans and not robots not make this attraction inherantly natural? Just because it doesn't give an evolutionary advantage (at least not an obvious one) doesn't mean it's not natural.

KeyLimePie

I've some information that may shock you.

Gays can adopt.

And by next year they can marry.

no need to debate it !
And we can finally do away with those damn pride parades.

dr.bollocko

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I've some information that may shock you.

Gays can adopt.

And by next year they can marry.

no need to debate it !
And we can finally do away with those damn pride parades.

Hey. Lets not go crazy. Those parades are fun.

The_Minister

neddas wrote: »

The penguins were offered female company and ignored it. Doesn't sound forced to me. Also, I'll re-iterate that homosexuality is present in more than 1,500 wild species.

The female penguins were removed due to lobbying by gay activists. In the past, gay penguins have been 'turned' straight, indicating that homosexuality is not a permanent condition, and can be cured by the right environment. So if gay penguins are evidence of homosexuality, then surely the fact that they can be turned straight indicates that homosexuality is a condition that can be changed?(

Tongue firmly in cheek for the last bit

).
Also, if only 1500 species have been found to exibit homosexuality, and we have studied tens of thousands, then surely that doesn't indicate that homosexuality is innate in all species, and not necasserily innate in humans?

neddas wrote: »

I think the unnatural argument is really irrelevant actually, so it's pointless going down that route.

So do I, and I do think homosexuality is inborn, but the 'penguins sometimes gay' argument for gay marriage bugs me, especially when people don't address the fact that several species of animals seem to show that sexuality can be altered to straight.

neddas wrote: »

What really perplexes me is what people are afraid will happen if this is allowed?

I posted an article by a libertarian earlier in the thread (near the start), which looks at one possibility.

neddas wrote: »

Yes, it really really does, you said that the fact that rates of homosexuality 'vary' indicates that it is 'not in-born'. You are saying A (varience) proves B (not in-born). Please explain how you made that leap of reason?

I said 'seems to indicate', I did not state is as fact.
I made no leap of reason, I suggested that the difference in rates may have been due to cultural differences, because if homosexuality was purely biological, then you would expect to see a roughly even distribution between countries (assuming the biological different was not due to genes, if it was, then like with genetic anomolies such as cystic fibrosis, the figures would be expected to vary from country to country).

I want to reiterate - I support gay marriage.
I just don't think that people who oppose it don't have some legitimate concerns.

philologos

neddas wrote: »

Source please?

Well one would encourage you to use your own initiative to look up the debate between theologians on it. If Jesus did have a child however I would have expected there to be more knowledge of it within the early church (1st century). However, please bring the Christianity related stuff to the Christianity forum as it will just detract from discussing gay marriage.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

Gays can adopt.

I think the Government needs to rethink about this, as to whether or not the child has a right to both a mother and a father. I think they do. They also have the right to know and be able to contact their biological parents.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

And by next year they can marry.

A civil partnership is not a marriage.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

no need to debate it !
And we can finally do away with those damn pride parades.

There is a need to debate it because gay marriage isn't on the agenda in Ireland.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

How? At the end they encourage people to vote yes. I certainly would have voted yes if I lived in California.

Yes, they reveal their position in the end, but they set out deceitfully. The tone of the start of the video is simply informative rather than partisan (nothing wrong with partisan videos, just don't pretend to be otherwise), and their website is called "whatisprop8" not "voteyesprop8".

Do you not think they could run their campaign without this non-partisan veneer, and would it not be better for them to be upfront about their position?

It's really not that big a deal, and I fully appreciate that you have valid concerns, but do you really don't think they could approach it a little more honestly?

There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality as a choice isn't a hypothesis to be explored. But let's argue for now that it isn't.

There is a choice whether or not you want to:
a) be homosexually active,
b) come out and identify as gay

Both of these decisions could be viewed as major lifestyle choices. I don't think that is ignorant or dishonest, more the fact that you disagree with their opinion on something that hasn't been entirely cleared up factually. I am willing to be corrected on this.

But they went to no lengths to explain these variables, did they? They seem all too happy to leave their audience with the impression that homosexuals choose to live the way they do. Again, it's not a huge deal but they are being manipulative. If you were making such a video would you not try to be more honest?

Not to mention that this "life style choice" is in reality a toss up between "I will express my sexuality and be a happy person" or "I will suppress my sexuality/lie to myself and be a emotional train wreck".

No they do not. In USA there have been lawsuits brought against people of religious conviction who do not wish to be involved in gay marriage. The Washington Post covered this a while ago. I don't think this is right, and it is a reason which would discourage me from supporting it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html

A link from the Pew Forum clarifying the potential impact this could have on religious communities who disagree with gay marriage.
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=216

Your first link references people discriminating against homosexuals in their professional lives. A quote from the article: "In their role as a participant in the marketplace, they are being required to do that in a non-discriminatory way," said Brian Moulton, Human Rights Campaign senior counsel. Let me ask you this, would you be linking such websites if the people being discriminated against were black, or old, or, dare I suggest, Christian?

Is discriminating against homosexuals ok just because it's a bigotry you happen to share? If you protest to me describing that position as bigoted, then please do clarify why this form of discrimination is in anyway different from racial or religious discrimination?

Zillah

The_Minister wrote: »

The female penguins were removed due to lobbying by gay activists. In the past, gay penguins have been 'turned' straight, indicating that homosexuality is not a permanent condition, and can be cured by the right environment. So if gay penguins are evidence of homosexuality, then surely the fact that they can be turned straight indicates that homosexuality is a condition that can be changed?

Clearly they were bi-penguins.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the Government needs to rethink about this, as to whether or not the child has a right to both a mother and a father. I think they do. They also have the right to know and be able to contact their biological parents.

Should the government ban divorce, seperation and parents dying then?

Huge numbers of children are raised by a single parent due to circumstance. The vast majority of them turn out no different to those raised by both parents - and most certainly better than those raised by an abusive mother and an abusive father, a situation the state will almost never intervene in.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, they reveal their position in the end, but they set out deceitfully. The tone of the start of the video is simply informative rather than partisan (nothing wrong with partisan videos, just don't pretend to be otherwise), and their website is called "whatisprop8" not "voteyesprop8".

This is trivial. They made their position clear in the video when they told people to vote yes.

Zillah wrote: »

Do you not think they could run their campaign without this non-partisan veneer, and would it not be better for them to be upfront about their position?

They were. See above.

Zillah wrote: »

It's really not that big a deal, and I fully appreciate that you have valid concerns, but do you really don't think they could approach it a little more honestly?

You appreciate that I have valid concerns and yet call me a bigot at the end of this post for disagreeing with you?

Zillah wrote: »

But they went to no lengths to explain these variables, did they? They seem all too happy to leave their audience with the impression that homosexuals choose to live the way they do. Again, it's not a huge deal but they are being manipulative. If you were making such a video would you not try to be more honest?

Yes, but you are as bad to imply in your post, as are many who would have argued this on the No on 8 side that there is no choice at all when this hasn't been substantiated to any degree. We don't know, that's the honest answer.

Zillah wrote: »

Not to mention that this "life style choice" is in reality a toss up between "I will express my sexuality and be a happy person" or "I will suppress my sexuality/lie to myself and be a emotional train wreck".

I'm not sure if it is as black or white as you think it is.

Zillah wrote: »

Your first link references people discriminating against homosexuals in their professional lives. A quote from the article: "In their role as a participant in the marketplace, they are being required to do that in a non-discriminatory way," said Brian Moulton, Human Rights Campaign senior counsel. Let me ask you this, would you be linking such websites if the people being discriminated against were black, or old, or, dare I suggest, Christian?

It refers to discriminatory judgements by courts because people hold certain religious beliefs. That's outright wrong and it should be condemned. As such that website is merited to be linked, and if any gay marriage result could bring out similar courtcases here which are discriminatory I will actively be on the no side.

Zillah wrote: »

Is discriminating against homosexuals ok just because it's a bigotry you happen to share? If you protest to me describing that position as bigoted, then please do clarify why this form of discrimination is in anyway different from racial or religious discrimination?

No, it is religious discrimination to force people to be a part of a gay marriage ceremony when their religious conscience doesn't allow them to do so. Arrangements even exist in the UK where people who have disagreements of conscience do not have to sign civil partnerships or be involved in any form with tehm.