h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As az has pointed out, definitions are subject to the present environment and as time passes let us only hope that these definitions, which do descriminate, have same meaning across the globe. Call me an optomist, but I, as a human being, believe that all paople have the right to define their own lives and not be stiffled by powers that have no idea what the real world is all about.

PEACE AND GOOD WILL TO ALL PEOPLE!!
A great sentiment for the time of year.

Xander

Xander what you said - 'all people have the right to define thier own lives' is almost a word-for-word quote from the UN Universal Declaration On Human Rights. It shouldn't be some hope, it is something written down in black and white and people should respect that. The UDOHR is a defining document of the current world order, people should pay more attention to what it says

To summarise, then:

There's nowt wrong with homosexuality per se.
Some of us (OK, me) have a difficulty with homosexual marriage.
We all use different dictionaries.
We all agree that UDOHR is a GOOD THING.
Regime means government; some are "democratic", and we just don't like some of them.
None of us has crystal balls (oo-er, matron!).

Is your objection a personal objection, based on your moral code, or is it a semantic one, based on the OED?

"Cyzaki, by insisting on calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage", you are insulting the deeply-held religious beliefs of several billion people."

When did I call a same-sex relationship a marriage?

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, a marriage is when two people who are in love stand up infront of their friends, family, and the law and say that they are in love and want to be together forever. How is that offensive to anyone? Are you saying civil ceremonies between hetrosexual athiests are offensive to religious people?

Unfortunately this is not the case, what is written in black & white is just that, writing on a piece of paper, what it takes are for the people of this tiny planet, the racists, sexists, homophobic etc, to realise and accept that all people have the right to become and express themselves in which ever way they choose and until (OR IF) that ever occurs, the UN, or whomever, can write as many ideals, on pieces of paper, as they like.

This is my point...what is written does not matter, it's US, human beings, that need to change.

Xander

HonestIago, I never said it was the OED! Honest! Anyway, it's based upon morality, not dictionary. There are clear reasons for this which I am compiling as we speak, but, being the only one defending this position, I find myself having to send of quickfire replies to new postings, and change my response to take in new postings all the time. Please be patient...

I'm gonna have to go so I'll check them tomorrow

As anyone who'd taken an ACCURATE reading of my reply to this would know, I wasn't accusing Cyzaki of insulting billions of people. What I was replying to was the use of the word "marriage". Which was roughly where Cyzaki came in to the conversation. I was objecting to the use of a religious term, held as a sacred ceremony by billions of people around the world, to legitimise a relationship which those self-same billions of people find abhorrent to their religion.

As there don't appear to be too many religious people on this thread, I thought I'd stand up for their rights.

Goodnight, HonestIago!

And to make a final point before I go. Does that mean that that the rights of millions of people should be infringed, just because the masses say so. I am forever offended by what is deemed as religion, having others telling me, as a human being, how I must live my life, what gives them the right to demand that I must be anything other than ME!!!

Xander

Taxation.

In the UK, iniquitous though it may seem, if one member of a partnership dies, the other partner is liable for death taxes at the rate of 40% for all assets once the value exceeds £255,000. This includes, unless you've made legal provision otherwise, the house that you jointly owned. If your partner's estate totals £499,999, you owe the Government nothing. If it's worth £255,000, you owe the Government £102,000. NOW. Not when you sell the house, but immediately, whilst you're also trying to sort out probate, the funeral, and grieving; HM Customs and Excise are harrassing you, in the nicest possible way, for 40% of your cash assets.

Unless you're married. In which case the property automatically passes to the surviving partner.

It is, in fact, the only tax break left to married people in the UK. Marriage, and families, are the basis of society, as I'll remind you, if you haven't read Article 16 of the UDOHR, or the religious text of your choice.

Also, there is continuing pressure on insurance companies and pensions to pay out benefits to "married partners" of the same sex. Sounds fair, you may say. But, sorry to say, homosexual males are at (profoundly) higher risk of death, due to their reckless lifestyles. I know, I know, all you lefty liberals are going to jump on my back for saying so; don't stop it being true. So what? Well, your insurance premiums go up. Why should you pay higher premiums because some members of your insurance company are deliberately reckless? Come back to me on that one.

The net result of these measures is lower income for the Exchequer from (i) lower death taxes and (ii) reduced corporation tax caused by lower profits from insurance companies.

How will the Chancellor make up the difference? Increased taxation, either by stealth (fuel, VAT, airports, insurance, any of Gordon's other new taxes), increases in the basic rate of taxation, or (Gordie's favourite) not increasing tax thresholds in line with inflation.

Any way, you're gonna pay.

I'm hoping that you're beginning to get some kind of insight into why gay people want their marriages recognised from this.

It has NOTHING to do with "equality". It is cash-grabbing, mercenary motives driving the whole campaign. Where DO they get their money??

You know, there's an old joke about "rights": "Your right to swing your fist about stops at the end of my nose." Well, I say: "Your right to 'gay marriage' ends at my increased insurance premium".

I love you all, gay people. I'm just not prepared to pay for your lifestyle. Just as I don't pay for bad drivers on my car insurance.

Xander, all I ask is that you respect their rights, just as they trample all over yours!

The true demonstration of your tolerance is that you respect the right of others to disagree with you, and yet continue to engage in debate! I know that myself, az and HonestIago have come close to blows over some of the issues raised here...and yet we've managed to remain civil, respect our differences and argue our points of view without desending to abuse (must be a first for a hootoo thread! )

ReddyFreddy...

Im going to jump on just a small part of your previous posting.

How can you say that? Just because some gay men are incredibly promiscuous and take chances with their lives does NOT mean that every gay male does.
'Straight' males are equally promiscuous and rather than being shunned for it are, more often than not, praised for their sexual prowess and AIDS and HIV are also alive and well in the 'straight' community!


Now I dont hold with religion of any type, at the end of the day, people can and will believe in whatever it is that they see fit. I have no problem with that. The thing is why should I live my life according to their rules? I cannot legally marry my girlfriend, and will not recieve the same benefits as a 'conventional' married couple, based on something that I have absolutely no control over!
Gay people do not want special rights or priviledges, just the same as every other person.
I would like to be able to walk down my road and not be sworn/spat at, I would like to be able to hold my girlfriends hand when I walk down the street without being verbally abused, stared at or beaten up.
This country is still suffering with intense homophobia, no matter what the government or anyone says. Just look at the Points Of View shoe for example. When Buffy the Vampire Slayer aired a kiss between two lesbian characters, people went crazy! There were complaints from one woman I remember in particular who said it had damaged her children!
The fact that the show has people being killed, beaten up and in a episode previous to the aforementioned an attempted rape, seemed to have bypassed her altogether. But showing a loving relationship and, in paricular, two women in a loving relationship kiss has damaged her children?? How is the show of love and affection damaging if its between two consenting adults??
The same reaction came when two male characters in The Bill kissed on screen.
This sort of attitude is shown towards 'straight' actors playing the role of entirely fictional characters, how is the gay community expected to feel any sort of equality?

In the future I may wish to stand up in front of my friends and family and in the eyes of law, be able to marry my girlfriend. Not because its a controversial thing to do but because I love her deeply and want to express that love and devotion to her in a public forum, as many 'straight' couples do but until this country deals with its attitudes and problems with the issue of homosexuality, I cant do that!

And at the end of the day, what the hell has who I sleep with got to do with anyone else! Im a consenting adult and Im doing nothing illegal, Im not sleeping with children, for crying out loud!

I would hope that a subject of this magnitude would not resort to petty arguements and back biting.

As to your remarks about careless life styles, I do entirely disagree, it has never been proven that homosexual people lead any kind of different lifestyle to any other person, other than their sexual preferences...a bad driver is a bad driver ( for want of better words )...whether he is gay, straight, male female, black or white...people jump out of a perfectly good airplane every day, people jump off of bridges with nothing other than a rubber band to stop them from going SPLAT!!, 19 year old boys drive around city streets doing 100MPH, ETC ETC ETC...Are you trying to say that all or atleast most of these people are GAY, excuse me, but I DON'T THINK SO!!

A person is reckless, because it is part of their nature to be reckless, as it is to be gay...These people, as I, are just being true to their natures, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

I do respect others views, I just get upset when it is suggested, that because others say so, I should be anything less than the person that I am and choose to be.

'To mine own self be true'
GREAT WORDS

Xander

Reddyfreddy,

<>

But marriage is *not* a religious term.

az

I agree - if we had said 'holy matrimony' then it would be different, but marriage isn't really religious at all, otherwise how could you have civil ceremonies?

RF,

<>

No, people jumping on your back doesn't stop it from being true. It is simply not true full stop.

<>

Ah, let me see if I've got this straight (no pun intended). Homosexuals are plotting to rip off the heterosexuals in the UK by driving up their insurance rates and taxes and then somehow cashing in on this by . . . getting married?

az

Oh, good morning Cyzaki, I thought I was here on my own. Want some ? I just made a fresh pot.

Yes, of course civil marriage ceremonies produce marriages, just as religious marriage ceremonies do. Mind you, I also see no problem with homosexuals getting married in a church and there are some religions that would not object to this.

az

Morning! Ta for the ! Just what I need to wake me up before settling down to revise...