NZ gay marriage act

Originally posted by stellspalfie
of course reading posts of youtube is an excellent way to get an even distribution of current social opinions. do you look at lots of youtube clips that result in debates around homosexuality? what kind of clips are you watching?

I dont go looking for any but those that i have come across while looking for other things were quite telling, I generally watch chess videos on you tube and I am subscribed to about twenty chess channels and one spaghetti western channel.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed, gays are generally held in derogatory terms, gay ass etc etc etc etc

By people who feel prejudiced against homosexuals?

Originally posted by FMF
The "moral stance" in question here is to seek an end to discrimination, not to codify your distaste or disapproval of other people's sex lives. If provision was made to address the concerns of privately owned businesses, would you then support the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals?

you have FAILED to answer the question, what guarantees have been furnished to those who do not accept the legitimacy of gay marriage that they will not suffer prosecution?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont go looking for any but those that i have come across while looking for other things were quite telling, I generally watch chess videos on you tube and I am subscribed to about twenty chess channels and one spaghetti western channel.

One only needs to read any kind of discussion on youtube, although you yourself have seen or read relatively little of it? Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont go looking for any but those that i have come across while looking for other things were quite telling, I generally watch chess videos on you tube and I am subscribed to about twenty chess channels and one spaghetti western channel.

so while you are searching for videos you read the comments on videos you dont watch??? what kind of videos do you stumble on that have these comments? do you think the poster on these videos represent an even distribution of young people and their views?

Originally posted by FMF
By people who feel prejudiced against homosexuals?

whether they are prejudiced i do not know, the point is that despite the disproportional representation of gays and their supporters on television etc, people uninhibited by political correctness still view it as contrary to nature, that is why you get derogatory terms like gay ass!

Originally posted by FMF
The "moral stance" in question here is to seek an end to discrimination, not to codify your distaste or disapproval of other people's sex lives. If provision was made to address the concerns of privately owned businesses, would you then support the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals?

Gay people have the same rights anyone else has. There is no discrimination by the government against them now. If they wish to get married, they are free to do so as long as the do like everyone else that gets married. That is, marry someone of the opposite sex, which some gay people have done.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have FAILED to answer the question, what guarantees have been furnished to those who do not accept the legitimacy of gay marriage that they will not suffer prosecution?

I don't agree with owners of private businesses facing prosecution over who they do and don't offer their services to. You know this. This is maybe the third or fourth time I have made this point to you. So, once again, with that sorted, if provision was made to address your concerns about the liability of privately owned businesses conducting business with whom they want, would you then support the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether they are prejudiced i do not know...

You look at YouTube clips and read comments and you c,aim/admit that "gays are generally held in derogatory terms" but you don't know "whether [the people using derogatory terms] are prejudiced"?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so while you are searching for videos you read the comments on videos you dont watch??? what kind of videos do you stumble on that have these comments? do you think the poster on these videos represent an even distribution of young people and their views?

what i view on youtube is your business why? i have already told you what i generally watch on youtube not that it is of course any of your business, you got that? People surf the web, they come across things that they were not initially looking for.

Originally posted by FMF
You look at YouTube clips and read comments and you c,aim/admit that "gays are generally held in derogatory terms" but you don't know "whether [the people using derogatory terms] are prejudiced"?

whether they are prejudiced or not is your affair, i did not introduce it nor do i care whether they are prejudiced or not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
People surf the web, they come across things that they were not initially looking for.

How representative is what you come across on the web when you surf? Does it give a more valid picture than properly conducted polling on the issue?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't agree with owners of private businesses facing prosecution over who they do and don't offer their services to. You know this. This is maybe the third or fourth time I have made this point to you. So, once again, with that sorted, if provision was made to address your concerns about the liability of privately owned businesses conducting business with whom ...[text shortened]... ould you then support the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals?

your personal feelings I am sure have meaning to you, but the question is, what guarantees have been furnished to those who do not accept the legitimacy of gay marriage.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether they are prejudiced or not is your affair, i did not introduce it nor do i care whether they are prejudiced or not.

But you said they use "derogatory terms". You introduced this information.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't agree with owners of private businesses facing prosecution over who they do and don't offer their services to. You know this. This is maybe the third or fourth time I have made this point to you. So, once again, with that sorted, if provision was made to address your concerns about the liability of privately owned businesses conducting business with whom ...[text shortened]... ould you then support the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals?

They are mainly interested in changing the definition of marriage. That is what we object to. We don't want to discriminate against them and we don't want them to discriminate against us. They have there civil rights now in the U.S.A. For now they are even free to serve in the military, if they wish. It seems to me that they want more civil rights that the rest of us.