The marriage equality legislation does not force any religion to carry out same sex marriages. It allows them to (except in the case of the CoE), which is something entirely different.

So what we have is a bunch of religious people who aren't going to be forced to get married to a gay person, aren't going to be forced to conduct the marriage ceremony of a gay couple (unless they work as registrars), but still can't live and let live. The religious groups are not the ones being persecuted here.

Is law the same in America?

I think so, though I stand to be corrected. The opposition to the law over there, as here, seems to be that The Bible forbids it and that gay people can't possibly bring up normal, healthy children.

Don't get me wrong I'm an atheist, I'm just trying to strike a balance.

Forcing the church to do something against what they stand for I don't agree with, let them have their antiquated ways and let them slowly die off naturally when people get fed up of them and their ignorance and intolerance.

I don't believe a group of people with a core set of beliefs should have something they are dead set against forced down their throats (excuse the pun).

To me it's the same as the government forcing religion down mine like that of centuries ago.

I can cope with an element of intolerance for the greater good, they're not lynching them just not allowing them to get married into a belief system that thinks they're wrong.

But that isn't the issue. Religious groups aren't campaigning to prevent gay couples being married in their churches - they want to deny them the right to marry anywhere. This is where the line must be drawn. I fully support their rights to be as bigoted and hypocritical as they like within the confines of their own homes/churches. But when they start trying to influence public policy that really has nothing to do with them, they deserve no tolerance whatsoever.

Completely agree with your last two sentences, I need to read up more though I just thought they were trying to stop gays marrying into their belief system not a full stop altogether. That's none of their business.

I don't. I don't even remotely support their "right" to be bigoted in their own heads, and if anyone hears them express this bigotry, whether in their home, or their church, it should be challenged.

In my opinion the dangerous combination of (a) brainwashing children into being of a particular religion coupled with (b) family and peer pressure to attend regular religious ceremonies / services / assemblies and then (c) the confirmatory brainwashing that group religion engenders especially by playing very much to the herd/club mentality that is inherent in most people - the desire to belong to a gang/group, or failing that, scared of being seen to not belong and being ostracised or worse - is what gives all the religions their holds over their particular sections of societies.

So it's not OK (for example) for a hundred people in some church to all whip themselves up into some frenzy over god's punishment for gays etc.

If some religious zealot presumably respected as an authority preaches hate to their subjects from whatever pulpit I do NOT support this bigotry in the slightest, and if there is indeed a "right" to behave in that way then to me that is a misuse and abomination of what the word "rights" should be used for.

I don't support the bigotry, but I do accept that freedom of speech means that some people will ultimately say some very unpleasant things. I do take the point about indoctrinating children into this mindset, however. That is totally unacceptable. But if a group of consenting adults want to sit around assuring themselves that recent flooding is a direct result of God's vengeance on the 'fags', it is entirely their right to do so.

Edit: I agree that such behaviour should be challenged, too. Every single time. But I think there's a difference between telling someone their views are unacceptable, and flatly denying their right to hold those views.

I assume you also disagree with school children being indoctrinated by the state via sex education classes? Should our children be exposed to over-representation of minority views / activities?

There has been a very wide range of regularly changing sex education initiatives in schools and this continues.

My understanding of the general thrust of these (no pun intended) is to present facts and increase awareness.

I am unaware of any particular sex education policy which included "indoctrination". Indoctrination into what doctrine? Can you provide any particular specific example?

"I don't support the right of someone to be 'bigoted''

What a contradiction in terms. What does this even mean?!

So essentially you don't support someone who has views which you decide are bigoted.

Who decides which views are bigoted and which are not I wonder?

Essentially by taking such a stance you are bigoted yourself as you don't tolerate someone else's opinion.

Try it in small chunks, my dim witted friend. It's actually fairly simple.


Nearly. I don't support someone who has views which are bigoted.


Whether I tolerate someone else's opinion or not is irrelevant to bigotry. When I call someone a bigot, it’s not because I disagree with their opinion, or do not tolerate their opinion. It’s because they were being bigoted. It’s pretty simple.

But the novice-bigot's argument that intolerance of bigots = being bigoted against bigots is hardly novel, if self-evidently stupid. Disagreeing with a bigot, or trying to convince a bigot that he is wrong, is not bigotry.