that you shouldn't open a hotel if you only want straight married couples to stay in it?

[JoanofArgos]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/christian-couple-barred-gay-couple-shut-hotel

Horrid old bigots, say I.

It's true that so much of this "flaunting" talk is due to perfecly normal talk ("I went to Glastonbury with my girlfriend") being noticed and interpreted as somehow sexual. No that person hasn't said "...and we'll be doing filthy lezzo things all naked on the pyramid stage AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME HAHAHAAA". But because for some reason homophobes are hypersensitive to the sex aspect of gay relationships, that's what they hear.

I mean, when someone straight announces their engagement, do you go "oh yuck you two are going to be having horrid straight sex with cocks and fanjos and euurrrgh, FLAUNTERS"? Or do you think "aah, how nice, they love each other and want to spend their lives together"?

God knows I'm sure some gay couples don't have sex at various points in their lives - SHOCKER! Just like some straight couples. Doesn't that just do your head in?

at 'horrid straight sex with cocks and fanjos'

I find Christians and their stance on marriage irritating. When will they learn that marriage has NOTHING to do with god?
Why on earth does god insist on a couple signing a marriage certificate in order to one another? Is he not happy enough that they live together in a loving relationship?
Christians, take note: Marriage is a man-made institution created to legally formalise a couple's relationship. Invented because CLARITY as regards the nature of a couple's relationship is required for the courts. Not good enough to say 'We're a couple' Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? The marriage provides proof that legally/financially the couple made a statement to be seen as one
THAT'S what marriage is and there is absolutely no reason AT ALL why gay people should be denied same legal/financial protections as heterosexual people.
These stupid, ignorant people deserved to be taken down a peg or two.

It's also a bit weird IMHO to have this 'it's OK by me so long as they don't shove it down my throat' attitude. What you're failing to realise is that the world doesn't actually revolve around you. Your appeasement is not the foundation stone of our society. So if you accidentally think of furious frottage when someone (female) says they'll be having a quiet dinner with their girlfriend THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

I say again, it is noteworthy that the vast majority of unpleasant language and insults on this thread hail from those apparently espousing tolerance/acceptance/welcoming of people from minority groups.

"Anachronisms", "bigots", "nasty people" - all attacking the people whose views do not chime with those that think the hotel owners were wrong.

A - "I believe X".

B - "I do not believe X, I believe Y".

A - "You are a bigot/fascist/anachronism/embarrassment".

B - "Why is that? Can we not have a civilised discussion?"

A - "No, you are evil and I will not do your views the honour of considering them and/or responding to them".

Oh come come pascoe, have you been on MN before under a different name? We had a lovely poster who was constantly citing ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with them.

Luckily in this country we are at a stage where many, hopefully most, people consider it unacceptable to make ridiculous, rude & stereotypical comments about gay people. Isn't that nice? So if you are homophobic (which is not an insult in itself, some people may well be proud of their homophobic views, it's an observation), lots of people aren't going to agree with you. That's life.

Disagreeing with you is not the same as attacking you. Whereas disagreeing that gay people should have the same rights as straight people IS an attack on them.

Haven't read the entire thread but;

"its bloody unfair if you ask me..

why are these people legally allowed advertise their hotel as "gay only"

typical of this country with its' one rule for one, and one rule for another... "

What.The.Fuck?

Honestly Lenin - loving "furious frottage" eh? Shoving! Face! Honestly. :o

ElephantsandMiasmas - yes, I do welcome the increased levels of acceptance of LGBT people and dislike it when people insult them or indeed any minority group.

However, I dislike with equal measure the way in which many people feel the need to criticize the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself.

That's good.

Well, I'll say it again, calling someone homophobic or bigoted for holding homophobic or bigoted views - it's not actually an insult, it's an observation. If they were saying homophobic people all have dandruff and kick puppies on Tuesdays and are pure evil, that would be an ad hominem attack. But just commenting on their homophobic views, and saying they don't like it? That's got to be fine, surely.

Pascoe entirely missing the point again. Its not about tolerance or acceoptance or anything else. Theres no need for any of that, because there is n distinction between gay people and straight people.
You don't need to tolerate or accept them in the same way you don't need to tolerate people with curly hair. They just ARE.

And its not a matter of belief either. You cannot simply say "I believe gay people are wrong/different/evil etc" and expect people to say fair enough, your belief, in the exact same way you can't expect any other ridiculous offensive prejudice. Its not an available option in a modern society.

I'm not being intolerant or insulting bu calling these people bigots. Its an objective fact, they fit the definition of bigot as least as much as they fit the definition of people.

I think the point is this: legally, there is no difference in the eyes of the judge between civil partnerships and marriage, therefore it is wrong to distinguish between married heterosexuals and civil partnerships between homosexual people.
He is right.
If they were cohabiting gay people, perhaps the judge would have ruled in favour of the owners of the guesthouse.
(Although just why the marital status of their guests is important is beyond me- as long as they believe nothing illegal is taking place, I don't really see why they have a problem).
Perhaps this will go some way in helping people to see what marriage is REALLY about: a legal/financial transaction between two adults that need not be about procreation, love, huge weddings, or religion.
About time this happened for a huge number of reasons.

BuzzLightBeer - interesting point (and I am glad the tone of this board has now mellowed somewhat) but I wonder whether this is just a question of semantics.

Don't we hear all the time (from politicians of many hues, the Equality Commission etc) that we want a "more tolerant society"?

Look here, for example

If it's the case that such people "just ARE", then why do we have "hate crime" laws? The law isn't showing itself to be above differentiating between types of people there, is it?

And I well understand the argument that such laws are an attempt to right the wrongs of former years etc. I disagree with said argument but at least understand and respect it.

With regard to "bigot" and "homophobic" being statements of fact, I'm not so sure about that. I think many people would consider them to be pejorative, not least those using said terms.

A similar example would be that of, "spastic". It's a medical term, relating to a neuro-muscular disorder - you can look it up

Yet most people, here in the UK at least, would now consider it to be pejorative and avoid its use for fear of causing offence.

Interesting subject.

Re Christianity and marriage: isn't there a bit in the Bible (excuse me, don't have a copy to hand) where the religious authorities were doing one of their regular "let's catch Jesus out" sessions, so they posed the scenario where a woman is widowed, then marries again, widowed again; when she dies too, they asked, who is rightfully married to whom in the Afterlife? Jesus said something like "None of them, because in Heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage". So um... is getting married so very Christian? Especially if you don't do it in a church? (I did, and for purely religious reasons as it happens. However I don't believe I was any more "legitimately" married than my bro and SIL who did theirs in a registry office for anti religious reasons! And now I'm divorced anyway...)

Bigot and homophobic can both be statements of fact and perjorative. I certainly don't mean it kindly when I say those hotel owners are bigots! However I do not CARE if I cause them offence in the same way as I would care if I caused offence to, say, a mugger by calling him 'aggressive'. Do you follow?

would not care, I mean!
I wish you had edit on here!

Yes, I think you can say that calling someone a bigot/homophobe is a personal attack and is definitely pejorative. However calling an expressed view bigoted or homophobic is not, and it is possible to defend strongly the use of those terms in relation to official definitions. I do, for example, believe that you, pascoe28*, have expressed a number of views on this forum which are bigotted. However I do not say that you yourself are a bigot because I do not know you. It is, after all, not based on what you are (short, thin, black, female, gay etc) but only on what you choose to say in others' hearing. You could for example just be stirring things up for the sake of an argument. I had a friend (entertaining but exhausting) who would argue six different viewpoints before breakfast just to see how other people would take them. Where his actual views lay was extremely difficult to tell. Some of them were pretty unpalatable, but were they really him^?

However, if you consider calling someone "a bigot" as being shorthand for "a holder of views which I consider bigoted", then it's fair enough.

Damn, where did all those italics come in? :(

Anniegetyourgun, I don't believe that Christianity really gives a monkey's whether people have signed a legal contract to love one another, marriage is all about legal and financial rights. Indeed marriage as we know it in this country (UK) stemmed from an argument about who was the legitimate wife of a deceased man. In the end it was decided that if a couple wished to be seen as being in a union a marriage ceremony and documentation of such had to be made-just to eliminate confusion and doubt.
If people could get their heads around this, we'd have less nonsense spouted by religious types about the 'sanctity' of marrriage and less (ludicrous) calls for 'cohabitee rights'.