Legislation for gay marriage

It IS straight and honest - it may be "discriminatory", but why has that got to necessarily have bad connotations? - I discriminate between nude and boudoir, horse events and football, adult and kiddy portraits - some I'm good at, some I'm not so good at.

I would say we have a perfect illustration why the present laws are flawed - they are assuming some form of hatred, when none exists - as I said, if people aren't "comfortable" for whatever reason they will be forced to do something against their will - or as I said be forced to take the coward's way out and say, "oooh sorry, I'm already booked" -that is hypocritical and plain wrong
 
big soft moose said:
No I said I would not do a mass traditional jewish wedding as first shooter - because that requires abilities and scale of service that i'm not able to deliver.

I have no problem offering the same service (ie a simple straight forward shoot with a limited number of participants) to a jewish couple as i would to those of any other religion or race.

Likewise someone who only shoots traditional weddings would be fine declining to shoot a massively alternative LGBT wedding (Like the one i did a couple of years ago where everyone was in fancy dress, and the reception was a softball match) because that style isnt what they do , but if they offer a package that covers a simple service, and straight forward group shots etc up to first dance then they can't not offer that to a LGBT couple who want that style of service/coverage
Click to expand...

Peter, surely you should say 'I won't shoot a mass wedding traditional wedding again' that way it excludes any notion that there is any religious bigotry?
 
Where I personally struggle with whole debate is with the notions of tolerance, opinion and the use of the term 'homophobe'...I'll explain.

Christianity believes that marriage is biblically defined as one man / one woman in a covenant in the sight of God. We could go into Levitical law, etc but that wont serve any purpose right now. This is the standpoint of most Christians the world over who believe that what is written in the bible remains true.

It's a given that many people DONT believe in God, but is it right that the moral viewpoint or lifestyle of the person who doesn't believe in God is forced upon those that do? There's a lot of rhetoric about 'you're entitled to your opinion', but that's only true inasmuch as they dont SHARE their opinion. If they do, they're seen as bigoted and intolerant.

Bigotry and intolerance themselves are a fairly laughable notion though. The very fact that people point the finger and get angry toward those who disagree with the recent vote is, in itself, bigoted and intolerant, isnt' it? You're ok to have your opinion and traditions only as long as they dont cut across what current culture is saying. After that, you're either a bigot or intolerant...or both.

What about the use of the term Homophobe? Surely a phobe is someone who is scared of something..like an claustrophobe? I'm not sure it's really that fair to equate disagreement with fear. I can disagree with you, but does that mean I'm scared of you? No, it doesn't. Perhaps what we do is equate disagreement with a fear of change. Some change is good, some isn't.

What, i feel, is starting to happen with a lot of these issues of morality, church, government, etc is that of a mob mentality. The ball gets rolled and if you dont jump on board with the 'new thing' then you're set up by so many people until you simply give up or give in.

I would say that, in itself is fairly bigoted and intolerant!
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
It IS straight and honest - it may be "discriminatory", but why has that got to necessarily have bad connotations? - I discriminate between nude and boudoir, horse events and football, adult and kiddy portraits - some I'm good at, some I'm not so good at.
Click to expand...

because it is a protected characteristic. the others are genres.
 
mikebeecham said:
Where I personally struggle with whole debate is with the notions of tolerance, opinion and the use of the term 'homophobe'...I'll explain.

Christianity believes that marriage is biblically defined as one man / one woman in a covenant in the sight of God. We could go into Levitical law, etc but that wont serve any purpose right now. This is the standpoint of most Christians the world over who believe that what is written in the bible remains true.

It's a given that many people DONT believe in God, but is it right that the moral viewpoint or lifestyle of the person who doesn't believe in God is forced upon those that do? There's a lot of rhetoric about 'you're entitled to your opinion', but that's only true inasmuch as they dont SHARE their opinion. If they do, they're seen as bigoted and intolerant.

Bigotry and intolerance themselves are a fairly laughable notion though. The very fact that people point the finger and get angry toward those who disagree with the recent vote is, in itself, bigoted and intolerant, isnt' it? You're ok to have your opinion and traditions only as long as they dont cut across what current culture is saying. After that, you're either a bigot or intolerant...or both.

What about the use of the term Homophobe? Surely a phobe is someone who is scared of something..like an claustrophobe? I'm not sure it's really that fair to equate disagreement with fear. I can disagree with you, but does that mean I'm scared of you? No, it doesn't. Perhaps what we do is equate disagreement with a fear of change. Some change is good, some isn't.

What, i feel, is starting to happen with a lot of these issues of morality, church, government, etc is that of a mob mentality. The ball gets rolled and if you dont jump on board with the 'new thing' then you're set up by so many people until you simply give up or give in.

I would say that, in itself is fairly bigoted and intolerant!
Click to expand...

Mike, the last paragraph is how Christianity has used its stance over the years.
 
cambsno said:
Turning it on its head... if you were a gay couple would you want someone who was not comfortable shooting it? If i was choosing a tog I would want to feel a rapport.
Click to expand...

true - and this is why the circumstance martin is worried about doesnt occur in real life

cambsno said:
What if Nick Griffin wanted a wedding tog and approached you? Would you turn it down as you dont like his views?
Click to expand...

if he wanted a style of wedding i can deliver i'd take the money - if he wanted a mass restaging of a third reich rally then i'd say no sorry i'm not able to shoot a historic recreation of that scale - why don't you call...
 
big soft moose said:
No I said I would not do a mass traditional jewish wedding as first shooter - because that requires abilities and scale of service that i'm not able to deliver.

I have no problem offering the same service (ie a simple straight forward shoot with a limited number of participants) to a jewish couple as i would to those of any other religion or race.

Likewise someone who only shoots traditional weddings would be fine declining to shoot a massively alternative LGBT wedding (Like the one i did a couple of years ago where everyone was in fancy dress, and the reception was a softball match) because that style isnt what they do , but if they offer a package that covers a simple service, and straight forward group shots etc up to first dance then they can't not offer that to a LGBT couple who want that style of service/coverage
Click to expand...

totally understand, but is there not a fine line there? It would be very easay to decline a LGBT wedding (or even a large Jewish one) and people think you may be discriminating?
 
mikebeecham said:
Where I personally struggle with whole debate is with the notions of tolerance, opinion and the use of the term 'homophobe'...I'll explain.

Christianity believes that marriage is biblically defined as one man / one woman in a covenant in the sight of God. We could go into Levitical law, etc but that wont serve any purpose right now. This is the standpoint of most Christians the world over who believe that what is written in the bible remains true.

It's a given that many people DONT believe in God, but is it right that the moral viewpoint or lifestyle of the person who doesn't believe in God is forced upon those that do? There's a lot of rhetoric about 'you're entitled to your opinion', but that's only true inasmuch as they dont SHARE their opinion. If they do, they're seen as bigoted and intolerant.

Bigotry and intolerance themselves are a fairly laughable notion though. The very fact that people point the finger and get angry toward those who disagree with the recent vote is, in itself, bigoted and intolerant, isnt' it? You're ok to have your opinion and traditions only as long as they dont cut across what current culture is saying. After that, you're either a bigot or intolerant...or both.

What about the use of the term Homophobe? Surely a phobe is someone who is scared of something..like an claustrophobe? I'm not sure it's really that fair to equate disagreement with fear. I can disagree with you, but does that mean I'm scared of you? No, it doesn't. Perhaps what we do is equate disagreement with a fear of change. Some change is good, some isn't.

What, i feel, is starting to happen with a lot of these issues of morality, church, government, etc is that of a mob mentality. The ball gets rolled and if you dont jump on board with the 'new thing' then you're set up by so many people until you simply give up or give in.

I would say that, in itself is fairly bigoted and intolerant!
Click to expand...

because britain is a secular state , the church doesnt get a say in making civil law.
 
cambsno said:
totally understand, but is there not a fine line there? It would be very easay to decline a LGBT wedding (or even a large Jewish one) and people think you may be discriminating?
Click to expand...

people might think that but as i could demonstrate that ive shot LGBT weddings before a discrimination suit wouldnt stand up
 
big soft moose said:
because britain is a secular state , the church doesnt get a say in making civil law.
Click to expand...

No, and until recently Britain was a predominantly Christian nation. Does that mean that politics should determine what Religion should believe or how it should work that belief out?

Of course not!

I did chuckle to see an earlier post that said something to the effect of "What the hell has marriage got to do with the Church"....umm you might want to think that one through again :)
 
mikebeecham said:
No, and until recently Britain was a predominantly Christian nation. Does that mean that politics should determine what Religion should believe or how it should work that belief out?

Of course not!

I did chuckle to see an earlier post that said something to the effect of "What the hell has marriage got to do with the Church"....umm you might want to think that one through again :)
Click to expand...

Wasn't people getting married before the church had any input?
 
big soft moose said:
because britain is a secular state , the church doesnt get a say in making civil law.
Click to expand...

The Lords Spiritual?
 
joescrivens said:
take yourself out of the situation thats personal to you for a moment martin and consider a different example.

Would you think it was ok to refuse a wedding based on the couple being black? Does your same rationale apply or would you think the photographer was in the wrong
Click to expand...

I believe that we are all 'bigoted' in some way, and certainly racist.

Look at how many communities in the uk are so insular. We all have types of people we like and dislike. When I managed a sales team a few years ago, we found that certain ethnic groups did better in some areas than others - so we put the 'right' people in the 'right' area! That was led by the customer (the public) who you could argue were racist as they would be less likely to respond to a white person!

So, while you dont think its ok to refuse a wedding based on colour, do you agree that the Society of Black Lawyers should also refuse members based on colour?

You cant have it both ways. If you want everyone to be non discriminated against you have to ban groups like that, and organisations that are gay/black/whatever!
 
mikebeecham said:
No, and until recently Britain was a predominantly Christian nation. Does that mean that politics should determine what Religion should believe or how it should work that belief out?

Of course not!
:)
Click to expand...

no - but as no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriages whats the problem - why should the church object to them being performed in civil premises ? anymore than they object to heterosexual couple becoming married in civil premises
 
Last edited:
But Martin, there are other rights you seem to feel gay people should not have, eg having children. So hiding behind your reason of 'being uncomfortable' doesn't really hold water - it would seem that you have a deeper problem with people being gay than simply you not wanting to be confronted with it.
 
cambsno said:
So, while you dont think its ok to refuse a wedding based on colour, do you agree that the Society of Black Lawyers should also refuse members based on colour?
Click to expand...

has this ever happened though?

I don't think they would be able to refuse a white lawyer based on the color of their skin.
 
big soft moose said:
no - but as no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriages whats the problem - why should the church object to them being performed in civil premises ?
Click to expand...

Moose, I kid you not...give it 2-3 years and that stance will change. I can easily see a time when it will be a legal requirement for Church buildings to perform same-sex marriage. You will hear one of the following arguments:

  • I want to have a dream church wedding. You not allowing me that is a breach of my human right
  • The C of E is now out of step with culture and MUST change its stance
  • The 'homphobe' rhetoric will become such as there will be no other option than to change or be sued

I can EASILY see this taking place.

Rarely will you see dramatic change imposed immediately. If the government imposed such bold legislation in such a way, there would be a backlash and knee-jerk reactions. No, what happens is smaller, more bite-sized chunks are set out because they are easier to swallow. After a while, society has moved so far in a direction that those who refuse to adopt the change will be ostracised as bigoted and irrelevant.

It happens more often than we would like to admit.
 
Hasn't the Church of England always been out of step with other churches? Wasn't the whole purpose of its invention for one man to be allowed to divorce and re marry?
 
can you name a time where that has happened and it was a bad thing mike?
 
Hi Organnyx
I don't see how this is too much of a problem for you. Personally I share your distaste at two men snogging, but it's not a problem to me as I rarely get blokes making out in my living room. It doesn't affect my relationship with my gay and lesbian friends.
If you prefer not to shoot a gay wedding noone is going to force you to. All the nonsense about legal stuff is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
Hi Organnyx
I don't see how this is too much of a problem for you. Personally I share your distaste at two men snogging, but it's not a problem to me as I rarely get blokes making out in my living room. It doesn't affect my relationship with my gay and lesbian friends.
If you prefer not to shoot a gay wedding noone is going to force you to. All the nonsense about legal stuff is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

how do you mean it is irrelevant?

If someone booked martin and then he cancelled the wedding when he found out they were gay, they could sue him, could they not?
 
Headless Lois said:
But Martin, there are other rights you seem to feel gay people should not have, eg having children. So hiding behind your reason of 'being uncomfortable' doesn't really hold water - it would seem that you have a deeper problem with people being gay than simply you not wanting to be confronted with it.
Click to expand...

Well, thats a sensitive issue, was it Rotherham Council who thought that supporting UKIP was wrong and that you should not adopt/foster???

There are people of all races who agree and disagree about whether you should have a white baby with black couple and vice-versa.
 
mikebeecham said:
Christianity believes that marriage is biblically defined as one man / one woman in a covenant in the sight of God. We could go into Levitical law, etc but that wont serve any purpose right now. This is the standpoint of most Christians the world over who believe that what is written in the bible remains true.

It's a given that many people DONT believe in God, but is it right that the moral viewpoint or lifestyle of the person who doesn't believe in God is forced upon those that do? There's a lot of rhetoric about 'you're entitled to your opinion', but that's only true inasmuch as they dont SHARE their opinion. If they do, they're seen as bigoted and intolerant.
Click to expand...

and those writings were made many thousands of years ago, therefore completely out of date socially and morally.

times change, but unfortunately written word cannot. after all when was the last time you heard of someone riding a donkey to an inn rather than driving a car to a travelodge :D what we need is bible v2.
 
joescrivens said:
how do you mean it is irrelevant?

If someone booked martin and then he cancelled the wedding when he found out they were gay, they could sue him, could they not?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I doubt if a couple who booked you as their wedding tog is under any obligation legal or otherwise to state I'm marrying another man is this a problem?
 
joescrivens said:
how do you mean it is irrelevant?

If someone booked martin and then he cancelled the wedding when he found out they were gay, they could sue him, could they not?
Click to expand...

If he had any brains (not a dig btw, applies to anyone in a similar situation), he would simply say he was double booked, has decided to go away on holiday, or when the day gets discussed, says he is not experienced for large weddings, or doesnt like small ones...
 
joescrivens said:
has this ever happened though?

I don't think they would be able to refuse a white lawyer based on the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

Dont know, but I do feel its wrong to have black or gay groups... if we are all equal and non-discriminatory it should go both ways
 
I only shoot church weddings would probably be an okay stance as well (so long as its true) - if your policy is you don't cover any kind of civil ceremony then theres no discrimination involved in not shooting a gay one.
 
big soft moose said:
I only shoot church weddings would probably be an okay stance as well (so long as its true) - if your policy is you don't cover any kind of civil ceremony then theres no discrimination involved in not shooting a gay one.
Click to expand...

Or a large Jewish one as opposed to a large one........see earlier post for clarification. #242
 
cambsno said:
If he had any brains (not a dig btw, applies to anyone in a similar situation), he would simply say he was double booked, has decided to go away on holiday, or when the day gets discussed, says he is not experienced for large weddings, or doesnt like small ones...
Click to expand...

Exactly, to discriminate on the basis of gender is illigeal so someone in that position would have to give a dishonest reason or face prosecution. The same as when breaking any other law.
 
cambsno said:
If he had any brains (not a dig btw, applies to anyone in a similar situation), he would simply say he was double booked, has decided to go away on holiday, or when the day gets discussed, says he is not experienced for large weddings, or doesnt like small ones...
Click to expand...

he could say those things but it wouldn't stop them suing if they could prove that he only changed his mind once told they were gay.

Whether they would win or not might be irrelevant, he'd already have his reputation damaged in the media for the case occurying. Its not worth going down

cambsno said:
Dont know, but I do feel its wrong to have black or gay groups... if we are all equal and non-discriminatory it should go both ways
Click to expand...

having black or gay groups I dont think is a bad thing, not allowing others to join would be.
 
neil_g said:
and those writings were made many thousands of years ago, therefore completely out of date socially and morally.

times change, but unfortunately written word cannot. after all when was the last time you heard of someone riding a donkey to an inn rather than driving a car to a travelodge :D what we need is bible v2.
Click to expand...

Ok, I take your point. So what we're saying here is that nothing should remain set in stone but should always be open to change if times and culture demand it? If something you believe becomes out of step with culture then you're going to have to change with it.

But then, again, this argument is flawed because it demands the same of everyone and can ask no-one to remain resolute on their own belief. Let me cite you an example...

It wasn't that long ago that homosexual rights were being discussed and pushed through the American court system on the basis that this was 'normal' and homosexuality is simply 'who I am', and 'who are you to tell me what I feel is wrong'. Now, my beliefs on the subject are irrelevant, I am simply stating some facts here. As we know, equal rights were passed for all those of homosexual persuasion as we have also experienced in the UK.

Now, being discussed in the American court system at the moment is the issue of some crazy paedophiles who are arguing for certain rights, using the same argumentation of 'I cant help how I am, I was born this way'. Now, of course this churns our stomach and rightly so. But what if, in some way, legalisation is passed because it is recognised that we dont have a right to intolerance based on how someone was born? If they cant help how they feel who are we to tell them they are wrong.

Now, you see we have an issue with this, because that small part of culture will have changed and you will have to adapt to this change because you dont have a right to tell someone they are wrong.

I want to be careful here. I am NOT equating homosexuality with paedophillia...not in any way whatsoever. What I am merely doing is pointing out the fact that just because culture is transient, does not mean that we should all just jump on the ship and sail with it. Some things SHOULD be set in stone and kept, irrespective as how culture changes, because culture will always change and you'll be hard pressed to keep up.
 
joescrivens said:
he could say those things but it wouldn't stop them suing if they could prove that he only changed his mind once told they were gay.

Whether they would win or not might be irrelevant, he'd already have his reputation damaged in the media for the case occurying. Its not worth going down



having black or gay groups I dont think is a bad thing, not allowing others to join would be.
Click to expand...

Are 'white' groups OK?
 
Weren't black and gay groups formed in the era when black and gay people were shunned by society, precisely because they were being shunned?
 
neil_g said:
and those writings were made many thousands of years ago, therefore completely out of date socially and morally.
Click to expand...
Things being socially acceptable definitely changes but why would/should morals? :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top