@Tpod

Quote:

read through my first post it will direct you to them

That is what you wrote in your post 59:

Quote:

Should this become law it with lead to the teaching of same sex marriage in schools. For some, their sexuality is not as fixed as others & this kind of education could confuse them further.

You realy think school education about same-sex marriages will produce more non-heterosexuals?

I fear you highly exaggerate efficiency of your education system.

To be more serious, I´m not expert in the field of psychology of sexual identity, but I think your concerns in this regard are based on prejudice, not facts.


It seems that your main opposition is towards new name for such union of two people. In your point of view, marriage isn´t proper word for such act. Am I right?

@pavlor

Did you know that as well as teaching kids that Gay people are normal in society makes them more likely to be Gay, teaching kids about pregnancy makes more kids pregnant?

Oh, wait... Seems teaching kids about pregnancy actually lowers teenage pregnancy rates... My bad.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@Tpod

Quote:

You two clearly are just trying to be cleaver but looking just a tiny bit immature whist your at it! The subject hear is Gay Civil Marriage in the UK!

I wasn't being clever. I was emulating what you were/are doing. Which is the exact opposite of being clever as I was trying to point out.

And the issue I believe was wither a governmental policy was good value for money. I wasn't the one that turned it into an ethical debate.

Quote:

Quite amusing, if sad that I got accused of anti gay bigotry here (for no logical reason); the only Bigotry here is Anti Religious Bigotry.

So pointing out that the religious moral outrage being posted here as belonging to the majority of people on this island, when in fact it belongs to a minority of comparable size to the number of gay minorities the proposals are aiming to help, is bigotry?

If you have religious beliefs, great. Have them. Just don't expect me to share them or expect that you talk for the majority. You are a minority, picking on another minority for wanting to have the same rights as you.

Don't try to paint this as being anything other than what it is.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Just don't expect me to share them or expect that you talk for the majority. You are a minority, picking on another minority for wanting to have the same rights as you.

As already stated THIS ISN"T A POLARISED RELIGIOUS LOBBY VS HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY ISSUE!!

THE MAJORITY OF BRITAIN THINKS THE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS A BAD IDEA!

Think what you will about the creator God, but look at the stats/polls on this issue and ask yourself if it's democratic to go against the MAJORITY (yes, I said it again) and bring in this redefinition without mention of it in ANY MANIFESTO at the last election and without a PROPER CONSULTATION!!!

These are the issues. Your personal issues over the meaning of religious freedom, bigotry and equality are clouding the discussion. Focus on the fairness of changing an entire society because a few thousand people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle want to take part in (or destroy; whichever is easier) an institution that has nothing to do with them and yet contributes a great deal to the well being of our society

In this country there are plenty of friends who share a house, sisters who live together etc that would like the opportunity to enter into the tax/inheritance advantages of a Civil Partnership which is currently reserved for the homosexual minority. However, the Government isn't bending over backwards to give them a more 'equality centric' outcome!!!! That is the greatest inequality; that homosexuals are somehow the uber-minority. The new so called underprivileged 'gender' (even though no gay gene has been proved to exist and all the gay friends I know lacked a strong father figure growing up) who somehow wield untold power in the halls of Whitehall. That my friend is inequality. Leave marriage alone.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @SpaceDruid Quote: Just don't expect me to share them or expect that you talk for the majority. You are a minority, picking on another minority for wanting to have the same rights as you. As already stated THIS ISN"T A POLARISED RELIGIOUS LOBBY VS HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY ISSUE!! THE MAJORITY OF BRITAIN THINKS THE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS A BAD IDEA! Think what you will about the creator God, but look at the stats/polls on this issue and ask yourself if it's democratic to go against the MAJORITY (yes, I said it again) and bring in this redefinition without mention of it in ANY MANIFESTO at the last election and without a PROPER CONSULTATION!!! These are the issues. Your personal issues over the meaning of religious freedom, bigotry and equality are clouding the discussion. Focus on the fairness of changing an entire society because a few thousand people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle want to take part in (or destroy; whichever is easier) an institution that has nothing to do with them and yet contributes a great deal to the well being of our society In this country there are plenty of friends who share a house, sisters who live together etc that would like the opportunity to enter into the tax/inheritance advantages of a Civil Partnership which is currently reserved for the homosexual minority. However, the Government isn't bending over backwards to give them a more 'equality centric' outcome!!!! That is the greatest inequality; that homosexuals are somehow the uber-minority. The new so called underprivileged 'gender' (even though no gay gene has been proved to exist and all the gay friends I know lacked a strong father figure growing up) who somehow wield untold power in the halls of Whitehall. That my friend is inequality. Leave marriage alone.

Still waiting for conclusive proof that the MAJORITY are against it as you keep insisting and I don't mean some dumb polls based on a tiny fraction of the population asked...

It's never stopped governments in the past to go against the MAJORITY and it's never been unknown for a government to push through a law that wasn't in their MANIFESTO, so your arguments there have just gone right out the window too...

If sisters who want to live together really want tax benefits then why don't they campaign for it like the gay community obviously has done...

You must be in a very strange part of the world where you grew up or a place of very few people if QUOTE: "all the gay friends I know lacked a strong father figure growing up" !!!

I know some very strong father figures (real nasty big hard men to be precise) who's sons or daughters turned out to be gay...

Marriage isn't what you simply think it should be defined as and nothing else is allowed because of your obvious biased beliefs and ideals why don't you instead of telling others to leave marriage alone, instead leave others alone to have what their beliefs are. After all whatever the outcome of it is, it won't have any personal affects on your marriage or life will it...

_________________

@BigD

You keep saying this...

This source you bring up is from a tabloid newspaper with very particular political leanings.

There were 62,218,761 members of the UK in 2010, the Telegraph in the same year had an average daily circulation of 634,113, of which some (The paper doesn't give figures for how many took the poll), 70 per cent agreed with a question posed by the religious campaign group Catholic Voices.

(Source in your link)

If you really believe this is an accurate gauge on which public opinion in the UK is thinking, then you are truly an idiot. I've made no bones about my belief you have lost all sense of reason due to your religious fanaticism, but I've never called you stupid before. If you truly believe you have the support of the British public, then I am saying to your face that you are an idiot.

To the average person, this is a non issue. The question this thread asked was if we thought the use of public money to change the rules was right or wrong. Most people in this thread say it was right.

Then the focus of this thread became about how marriage was some unbroken law dating back to the begining, but then people pointed out that some priests thousands of years ago decided to make up some new laws on marriage that have not stood the test of time, have been changed repeatably to reflect the public mood of the day and is about to be changed again to meet the public mood.

You don't like this direction, so now you try to make the case the public is against the change. Which is isn't. Most people don't care, they have their own problems to deal with. The only ones that give a damn are the people that want it and those opposed. Both groups are small in number. Don't you get this?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 01-Apr-2012 at 01:34 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 01-Apr-2012 at 01:31 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

I agree that there's plenty of people out there that are not that bothered about this issue. Like you say they have other things to worry about. However there are plenty of people who don't see any need for it (because there isn't any), & in-fact think there will be at least some negative impact from the change to the meaning of the word 'marriage.'

@all

Anyone who has formed the view that I'm some how prejudice because I oppose this change have come to the wrong conclusion. My two gay friends & the other gay people I know accept me for who I am as I do them.

I think this discussion has reached a natural end. Probably most UK amigaworld users who would be at all interested, have already taken a look by now. The ones that haven't can read through all the posts & will probably find their views already echoed.

Last edited by Tpod on 02-Apr-2012 at 07:25 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 01-Apr-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 01-Apr-2012 at 12:27 PM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@BigD

Quote:

THE MAJORITY OF BRITAIN THINKS THE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS A BAD IDEA!

Democracy, while the best option we have, is not problem free. One of the faults is it's ability to hold onto mass prejudice, aka tyranny of the majority.

I think Spacedruid hit the nail on the head.

This poll originally highlighted the cost of the proposed changes to marriage rights for homosexual couples, and used this as the basis for opposition to the change.

It was quickly established that £3.7m was such a small amount of money, relatively speaking, that this couldn't be the main basis for opposition. It was a red herring really, and once this argument was dismantled it became obvious there was an ulterior motive behind the question.

The OP (supported by another main contributor) then moved the debate onto the moral issue of granting equal rights to homosexual couples, namely the longstanding definition of marriage, it's supposed roots in Judeo-Christian myth, and it's potential "devastating" impact on the future of our society.

We then had a further debate on the nature and origin of our laws. Obviously, our country's current laws are derived from Judeo-Christian principles, but like it or not, we are moving into a more secular society and our legislature needs to adapt to represent this.

The OP then trotted out the usual "I have loads of gay friends" argument and quoted famous homosexuals (e.g. Christopher Biggins) that are opposed to the change. Similarly, we were presented with biased, laughable, unrepresentative "evidence" that was given the consideration it deserved.

What's really funny is that the OP is really struggling to just let this one go.

As a final note, could I ask all the proponents for gay marriage to go to the following site and ensure that your views on the issue are captured in the consultation:

Official Government Consultation

Cheers,

AndyC

Lastly,

Having just completed the consultation survey, I can tell you that much of what has been said here against it has been unjustified scaremongering and outright fabrication.

@Tpod and @BigD... shame on you.

AndyC

@AndyC

For those not taking part of the survey, some interesting quotes.

"Currently, marriage law states that a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Couples in a same-sex relationship cannot, therefore, currently get married. There is, however, no legal definition of religious and civil marriage. Marriage is defined according to where it can take place, rather than being either specifically religious or civil."

"We are not proposing any changes to marriages conducted on religious premises. This means that in law, marriages conducted by the Church of England, Quakers, Jews and all other religious organisation (who have registered their religious premises to host marriages) would only be legally recognised if they are between a man and a woman."

"The government is committed to building a fairer society and ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities for all, including people of all religions. As we are only seeking to lift the ban on same-sex couples getting married through a civil ceremony, we would ensure that any subsequent legislation on equal civil marriage is clear that marriages conducted according to religious rites and on religious premises could not be between a same-sex couple. This would mean that no religious organisation, premises, or leader would face a successful legal challenge for failing to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, whether or not the religious organisation, premises or leader involved performs marriages for opposite-sex couples. Any changes to the legislation as a result of this consultation will not, legally, enable same-sex couples to have a marriage through a religious ceremony and on religious premises."

"We are also aware that the doctrines of many faiths hold the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and this belief is contained within the teachings of their faith. We are clear that no one should face successful legal action for hate speech or discrimination if they preach their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. "

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

THE MAJORITY OF BRITAIN THINKS THE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS A BAD IDEA!

There was a time when the majority thought slavery was a jolly good idea too. A majority in favor does not mean the current situation is not bigoted, discriminatory and oppressive.

It is a flaw of democracy that it still allows the majority an easy avenue to oppress.

Pretty much all of the arguments against allowing gay marriage could've been used by someone supporting continued slavery, and indeed quite a few, such as cost, *were* used.

_________________
Wiki for new/returning Amiga users - Projects: ACE basic compiler / FrexxEd / Git

@vidarh

Quote:

There was a time when the majority thought slavery was a jolly good idea too. A majority in favor does not mean the current situation is not bigoted, discriminatory and oppressive.

What a ridiculous comparison! How exactly are a homosexual couple being treated like oppressed slaves by ONLY having their inheritance and tax advantages brought about through civil partnerships and not marriage! Is the journey to the registry office reminiscent of a slave ship because they know they will be unable to conceive their own children? What planet are you from? Just to clarify the Cardinal O'Brien's comments comparing homosexual marriage to slavery were also misguided but there is no reason to jump on the bandwagon!

By the way if we're talking about social rights I feel the need to point out that Ben Summerskill of Stonewall and Equalities Minister; Lynne Featherstone are not the modern day Martin Luther King or William Wilberforce! Do you really think two people who decide to partake in homosexual sex together constitutes a new gender that needs a Civil Rights Movement!! Get away! This is about an angry minority group (yes I mean angry; the way the vocal few slander and intimidate anyone that stands against their demands is sickening see this clip from Will Young's appearance on Question Time) who want to completely warp and destroy marriage! Don't redefine the foundations on which our society is built to appease these individualistic, angry and self centred bullies! It's not even as if many of the homosexual community would actually want to get married! This is all about the 'principle' of the argument rather than the reality of the situation. Will Young wants to redefine marriage because he never understood that it was only for heterosexual couples, so on principle he now wants to change the definition. Grow up Will! Marriage is for ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN only, so now you know please stop trying to destroy the society which made you a star.

Last edited by BigD on 02-Apr-2012 at 07:16 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

You really are obsessed with homosexuals aren't you (trying to tell us something... eh)...

The proposed law changes aren't directed at one group as you clearly think ie: homosexuals, here's a newsflash for you the "Gay community" has women in it too, they are called Lesbians, bet that's came as a surprise to you...

The only angry minority are the loony tuness who think their current definition of "Marriage" is the only definition, happily for the rest of us sensible folk who know better, Marriage has many different definitions all over the world and here in the UK the definition of Marriage has changed numerous times and will do so again despite what you or I have to say on the matter...

You should be glad you weren't born and living in Britain of the past as the various definitions of marriage that there have been would surely have got you really upset...

As there was no modern instant communications back then your letters you would have had to send to express your wrong & inaccurate viewpoints would have taken weeks and even months before you got a reply pointing out how wrong you were...

It's not just about homosexuals as you keep referring to, give the lesbians a chance too...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: so now you know please stop trying to destroy the society which made you a star.

So he became a star only by people who were "straight" & "Married" supportiing and liking him...

You really do live in a fantasy and very closed off world don't you...

_________________

@Franko

Look at Wikipedia;

Quote:

The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for women and gay for men, though gay is also used to refer generally to homosexual men and women.

I used the term homosexual so it stands up just fine to cover both gay men and lesbian women

Quote:

So he became a star only by people who were "straight" & "Married" supporting and liking him...

True, but I bet they didn't expect him to try and destroy marriage in his down time between recording sessions, touring & writing his next album!!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Thanks for the link to Question Time. Being on the other side of the pond I don't find all UK shows. Will's statements were very well thought out and presented. Keep it up Will!

@BigD

Quote:

Don't redefine the foundations on which our society is built to appease these individualistic, angry and self centred bullies!

The only angry and self centred bullies that I can see are the religious bigots who insist of forcing their minority opinions down everybody elses throats. Allowing same gender couples to marry will not redefine the foundations of society, nor will it have any detrimental effect on my own marriage.

Quote:

Marriage is for ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN only,

Yes, that is the current definition, just as it was once permissible to be ONE MAN and SEVERAL WOMEN (please note thew correct use of the plural) and will become the union of two people. Time marches on, and things change, as has always happened. One of the best changes is that religious bigots are no longer permitted to use dissenters as kindling.
You keep claiming that this move has majority support, yet less than one percent of the population of this country have bothered to even click a mouse on a petition despite your current campaign of scaremongering and mudslinging.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

yet less than one percent of the population of this country have bothered to even click a mouse on a petition despite your current campaign of scaremongering and mudslinging.

Do you realise how many people normally sign petitions in everyday life? In order for people to sign up in this sort of magnitude (384,000 and counting) means that people care and they care A LOT!

In comparison the e-petion which stated that; “Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.” Received 258,250 signatures and took a lot longer to get to this number. LINK

This is one of the biggest petitions of recent years! THIS IS HUGE AND SHOULD GIVE DAVE CAMERON SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT! Lynne Featherstone and her cronies cannot ride roughshod over our democracy without severe consequences at the next election. This could be Cameron's biggest mistake.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Certainly the bigots care about retaining the current discrimatory status quo. This is something we saw in the USA with respect to equal rights for women and racial minorities. Just because someone cares doesn't make them right. As for Cameron sometimes politicians need to do what is correct more so than what is popular. While elected officals are our reprsentatives they should not become lickspittles ensuring tyranny of the majority.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Apr-2012 at 02:28 PM.