@BigD

Quote:

I mentioned the rise of the Nazis as a comparison and warning by suggesting the same totalitarian attitudes are occurring today as happened in 1930s

The only one displaying totalitarian attitudes here is yourself. Like you, I have no wish to indulge myself in homosexual activity, and although you cannot understand this neither do those who will benefit from this legislation wish to involve you or me in their practices. The only ones who are seeking to impose their ideas on to others lives is the fascist front of religion.

I have no intent to force you to live by my rules purely on my say so, and I resent any attempt to force me and others to live by your rules simply because your invisible friend says so.

Quote:

On the same subject the rise in Greece of the 'Golden Dawn' fascist group is deeply troubling

This is true, but the rise of fascism in Greece has absolutely nothing to do with the advance of liberalisation. The rise of fascism in modern Greece mirrors its rise in Germany and Italy in the early 20th century, where after an economic collapse a group of thugs blamed a minority section of the population for the problem and lied to the people promising future prosperity that they could not deliver, based on a tissue of lies. The Greek fascists are an unholy alliance of the church seeking to regain absolute power, with street thugs looking for an excuse to beat up on gays, immigrants, jews, and all of the other usual victims. In short it is people like you.

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

A look what religion brings to the question of homosexuality. (Hint watch it all)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

@Nimrod

Your trying to impose your view of what 'marriage' should be on the rest of us who are quite happy with the current definition. If practising homosexuals want to live together, let them, if they want to acknowledge their relationship legally, fine let them sign up to a Civil Partnership. However, it is absolutely totalitarian to redefine marriage against the wishes of the majority of the population, ignoring a massive public response in favour of marriage during the recent consultation. The attempt to destroy this cherished and important institution is just to placate a vociferous and small liberal elite and to carry on where the Gay Liberation Front left off and forward the gay rights agenda!

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

@BigD

Quote:

it is absolutely totalitarian to redefine marriage

I do not think you know what the word 'Totalitarian' means. Totalitarianism is a governmental system where the government tries to control all aspects of society, including public and private life. You are 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Only straight marriage is more restrictive. It disallows and disqualifies a certain % of the society from taking part in marriage. People cannot decide for themselves what sort of marriage relationship to enter into. When gays are allowed to marry it results in a less restrictive system as it empowers all individuals within society to decide for themselves as who best qualifies for thier married partner. With gay marriage the State has removed restrictions to a minority group within society, equalizing the law for all. Less restrictions is clearly the opposite of Totalitarism. In summary, this is another of your lies.

Quote:

against the wishes of the majority of the population

You sir wish society to be built upon the worst aspect of a Democracy. That is Majority will and ignoring the minority. As hard as it may be for you to conceive the job of the elected officials is not to do the majority will. The job of the elected officials is to ensure the most fair and equable system under the law for all. Just because someone is of different color, different sex, different faith, or different sexual choice is NOT and never will be an acceptable reason for discrimination. In summary, if you want to be a bigot that's your right. However, you have no right to demand the government to enforce your bigotry onto the rest of us.

Why is gay marriage turning in the USA? The younger generations, those under 30, vastly support gay marriage. They also are the least likely to vote. The older generation, those over 50, don't support gay marriage. But, they carry the voting majority. This election we will see gay marriage ammendment requests denied for the first time. As the more aged die off you will see the USA overturning the discrimination, bigotry, and hate for another minority group.

@BigD

Quote:

. However, it is absolutely totalitarian to redefine marriage against the wishes of the majority of the population,

The majority of the population of this country either couldn't give a flying f*** either way or are in favour of the proposed redefinition. It is utterly totalitarian to state that a non-existent and totally impractical definition should be imposed, simply because you (and your invisible friend) say so. Your claim of majority support is a lie fostered by a group of people wanting to maintain an undeserved position of superiority over the rest of the population.

There is absolutely no attempt to destroy the value of marriage, and the only thing that is endangered here is your own totalitarian control over others. After the amended definition comes into effect you and I will still be free to remain married to partners of the opposite gender.
I will also point out that the rest of us are not following the orders of a manifesto put forward in the 1970's. Your claim that homosexuals are on some power trip based on this one document is like claiming that no black person should become an elected member of government based on the speeches and manifestos of the black power movements of the same time.

I will reiterate that the only noisy elite here is the nasty, small minded individual, who is seeking to return us to the dark ages, when crusaders committed the most unspeakable acts of inhumanity "to show christ's love"

People all around the world are beginning to reject your doctrine of hate, and the more you fight it, the more you show yourself as what you truly are. It is only totalitarians that see it as their duty to oppose equality and freedom.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

Totalitarianism is a governmental system where the government tries to control all aspects of society, including public and private life.

Yeah, like destroying the institution of marriage contrary to the results of their public consultation on the matter and hence against the majority of public opinion.

@Nimrod

Quote:

The majority of the population of this country either couldn't give a flying f*** either way or are in favour of the proposed redefinition.

Not so; a HUGE response in favour of marriage on the government's consultation, many postbags full of letter to MPs in support of marriage and one of the biggest petitions ever would beg to differ.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Quote: Totalitarianism is a governmental system where the government tries to control all aspects of society, including public and private life. Yeah, like destroying the institution of marriage contrary to the results of their public consultation on the matter and hence against the majority of public opinion.

Perhaps you'll understand the concept of control if you look at how marriage changes over time.

At one time blacks couldn't marry, interracial couples couldn't marry, and gays couldn't marry. That is roughly 13% + 2% + 5% of the population (using USA Stats) Because the government dictated these rules the government was more controlling over these minority groups than they are today. 80% of couples could self determine their relationship the other 20% could not.

The government decided that blacks could marry. This gave black individuals the right of self determiniation that was not previously preserved. The government was less controlling (eg less totalitarianism). Now 93% of couples were self determining what marriage was while 7% was still denied. The government was still totaliarian as the same right of self determination was not extended to interracial or gay couples.

Time passed and the government reduced the restrictions on marriage again. They became less controlling and allowed interracial couples to marry. Similar to when blacks were allowed to be married, interracial couples could then decide for themselves what the state is of their relationship. Now 95 % of couples were self determining what marriage was while 5% is still denied. Again less control of the government and less Totaltarian in this aspect too.

Time has passed some more. Marriage is still controlled by the government on a minority. Again a 3rd group of minorities is still facing the lack of self determination and the totalarin government tells them no. Similar to blacks and similar to interracial couples the gay couples will gain the ability to marry. That be 100% of the population determining what marriage is and 0% not able to do so. A minimal point in government control. Once this is done the rules of the government have less restrictions and therefore are again less Totaltarian.

So as we can see each time the government reduced it's control. Once done the right of self determiniation of the relationship was in the hands of the couple. The government is therefore less restrictive. Being less restrictive means less Totaltarianistic in the right to self determine marriage.

....
To make your statement correct the government has to take more control of the private lives and that's not what is happening. Saying a limited set (even if a majority) can marry but 100% cannot is more Totaltarian because the government is setting public and private rules. Saying 100% of the people can define this as they will is less government restriction and therefore less Totaltrian.

In short you misapplied the definition and seem to lack understanding of what these concepts mean.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Oct-2012 at 08:24 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

Yeah, like destroying the institution of marriage contrary to the results of their public consultation on the matter and hence against the majority of public opinion.

Stop lying.

Nobody is doing anything to destroy the institution of marriage.
Nobody is forcing you to change your sexuality.
The majority of public opinion is against perpetuating bias and inequality.

Quote:

Not so; a HUGE response in favour of marriage on the government's consultation

You have found one, I repeat one bised poll carried out for and on behalf of the Catholic Voice comic, that claims a majority of support for the continuation of the status quo. Other polls carried out by reputable polling organisations have produced results that contradict this claim, but of course you choose to ignore this.

Your constant lies about the "end of civilisation as we know it" arising from the redefinition of marriage are totally unfounded, and show the lengths your totalitarian hate group are willing to go to maintain an unwarranted power base.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

You have found one, I repeat one bised poll carried out for and on behalf of the Catholic Voice comic, that claims a majority of support for the continuation of the status quo. Other polls carried out by reputable polling organisations have produced results that contradict this claim, but of course you choose to ignore this.

You have absolutely no idea what the term 'Government consultation' actually means do you? Both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments asked the public's opinion on this very issue, that's right democracy in action!

The Scottish consultation had 80,000 individuals respond and over 50,000 informed the Government that they want marriage protected in it's current form. The Westminster consultation closed in June and has not had the results published yet. The Westminster results are again likely to show yet again that the majority of respondents and hence the majority of people that are concerned about this issue are in favour of protecting marriage and keeping its current legal definition. This is not the same as a poll. They are both Government administered consultations which you'd expect the Government to pay attention to in a free democracy.

Since the Westminster Government hasn't even published the results of their consultation and yet David Cameron is heard publicly committing himself to a redefinition in 2015, I'd say he's getting ahead of himself. That or our leaders really don't care what the British public think and will start to govern the UK in an increasing totalitarian manner. Either way this is not good for democracy.

Last edited by BigD on 20-Oct-2012 at 08:27 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

You have absolutely no idea what the term 'Government consultation' actually means do you? Both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments asked the public's opinion on this very issue, that's right democracy in action!

What you are describing is not democracy but the tyranny of the majority. There are as many homosexuals in this country as there are regular chuch attendees. Do you think that it would be fair if legal recognition of religious marriage were to be withdrawn, or reduced to that of "civil partnership"? By your own rules that you are applying to homosexuals it would but I somehow doubt that you would accept it, just as the homosexual community do not accept being denied equal treatment.

Consultation implies seeking opinions to guage the depth of feeling, but it does not require abdication of responsibility. The final decision remains in the hands of the politicians, not people whose opinion is indistinguishable from the poison spread by neonazis like Nick Griffin.

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

Jeebus freekin christy.... bamstick pastor makes a public speech supposedly against gay rights, only to discover he didn't even understand he was reading the wrong ruddy notes...

This Is funny & sad...

Talk about making a complete arse of yourself...

_________________

@Franko

I'd say all church ministers who are welcoming the redefinition of marriage are making fools of themselves.

Look at these confused souls!

Bishop of Buckingham : Out4Marriage

Dean of St Albans: Out4Marriage

I don't understand why these unbiblical so called Christians can speak out against the position of the Bible and their own church's position and still keep they jobs!! In the regular workplace many people are being demoted to sacked for having pro-marriage views;

Independent: Peter Tatchell back Christian demoted for pro-marriage views

BBC: Green Councillor Will be Expelled from Green Party over Pro-marriage views

The list goes on and on. Persecution and intolerance is indeed here but it is not against practising homosexuals.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The list goes on and on. Persecution and intolerance is indeed here but it is not against practising homosexuals.

The one simple fact that you are deliberately ignoring and misrepresenting is that these people were not sacked/prosecuted for being "christian", they were disciplined for their belief that being "christian" exempted them from any requirement to obey the law of tha land.

When you make these comments there is nothing that distinguishes you from this frothing lunatic who sees criticism of his bigotry as a hate crime against his deity. When the "pilgrim fathers" and other puritans left this country to seek religious freedom, what they sought was the freedom to continue persecuting others. Today, six percent of the population of this country will toddle off to their various churces for weekly prayer meetings, and afterwards will go home with absolutely no fear of persecution or prosecution. This is because holding religious beliefs is not a criminal offence. What you need to have explained to you in words of less than one syllable is that while it is not a criminal offence, neither does it bestow special privilege, or immunity from prosecution for other offences.

The bible is a set of stories illustrating lifestyles and opinions of two thousand years ago, not a diplomatic passport granting immunity from prosecution in the twenty-first century. This is something that the Bishop of Buckingham, and the Dean of StAlbans have realised and that you refuse to accept.

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

@Franko

Quote:

Jeebus freekin christy.... bamstick pastor makes a public speech supposedly against gay rights, only to discover he didn't even understand he was reading the wrong ruddy notes...

As I saw it this was a deliberate mistake, as he explained the substitution of sexual orientation for colour, in speeches from the 50's and 60's supporting a policy that is now seen as ridiculous (except for the lunatic fringe, of course).

It is the point that BrianK has also made but BigD has rejected because apparently being homosexual is a matter of choice, because you can "pray away the gay". Considering the legal penalties that there have been, I cannot understand why people have consistently "made the choice" to be homosexual, unless of course it is not a matter of choice.

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

@Nimrod

It was funny though...

"Pray away the gay"... eeek... you shouldn't have posted that one, now BIgD and all the other fanatics will have T'shirts made up with that catchy little slogan on them...

_________________

@Franko

Quote:

"Pray away the gay"... eeek... you shouldn't have posted that one, now BIgD and all the other fanatics will have T'shirts made up with that catchy little slogan on them...

Many people have unhelpful desires and lusts over a whole range of different issues.

This includes unwanted same-sex attraction as prominent Christian author Vaughan Roberts has recently spoke out about;

Vaughan Roberts interview: A battle I face

Quote:

Julian: Does the disclosure that same sex attraction is one of your personal battles mean you are defining yourself as a homosexual? Vaughan: No, it doesn’t. It’s important to reiterate that I have acknowledged a struggle in all eight of the areas the book covers and not just in one. The brokenness of the fallen world afflicts us all in various ways. We will be conscious of different battles to varying degrees at different moments of a day and in different seasons of our lives. No one battle, of the many we face, however strongly, defines us, but our identity as Christians flows rather from our relationship with Christ. All of us are sinners, and sexual sinners. But, if we have turned to Christ, we are new creations, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These awesome realities define me and direct me to the kind of life I should live. In acknowledging that I know something of all eight battles covered in my book, therefore, I’m not making a revelation about my fundamental identity, other than that, like all Christians, I am a sinner saved by grace, called to live in the brokenness of a fallen world until Christ returns and brings all our battles to an end.

The first stage of dealing with these unwanted feelings is to except that you have the thoughts and work through them. They don't define who you are and you don't have to CHOOSE to act on them. In time you may not even have the lustful thoughts any more.

Last edited by BigD on 21-Oct-2012 at 05:42 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

They don't define who you are and you don't have to CHOOSE to act on them.

Some of us have been trying to tell you that being gay does not define who you are. Sure you can choose to or not to act on such feelings but it doesn't change your sexuality. Nikola Tesla choice a life of abstinence because he believed it helped his scientific abilities. Did his celibacy make him not heterosexual.

@BigD

Quote:

Many people have unhelpful desires and lusts over a whole range of different issues. This includes unwanted same-sex attraction as prominent Christian author Vaughan Roberts has recently spoke out about... [...] The first stage of dealing with these unwanted feelings is to except that you have the thoughts and work through them. They don't define who you are and you don't have to CHOOSE to act on them. In time you may not even have the lustful thoughts any more.

Well. By the very same reasoning, couldn't black people have been talked out of marrying white people? I mean, yes, they are born black, but they don't need to act on these unwanted feelings, right?

_________________

@Franko

That was definitely deliberate on the pastor's part. He was highlighting, perhaps too subtly, the alarming similarities with the arguments for racial segregation and against gay marriage.

The problem is, like yourself, I think many people thought he actually made a mistake.

Personally, I think he was a genius!

AndyC

@jaokim

Quote:

Well. By the very same reasoning, couldn't black people have been talked out of marrying white people? I mean, yes, they are born black, but they don't need to act on these unwanted feelings, right?

I think people's racial identity has more substance to it than just a predesignated attraction to black people of the opposite sex! Are you for real? They have genes that give them a black skin colour irrespective of who they marry! Acting on homosexual thoughts however is a choice, having black skin isn't. No comparison. In no way can finding someone of a different race to you attractive be seen as 'unwanted' unless the other person is already married or somehow closely related to you. Unless of course both those categories are both now fair game in the ever evolving 'Brave New World' of jaokim's sexuality social experiment? The liberals seem to be calling the shots so what constitutes incest these days in your head? Is adultery fine in your twisted universe as long as the two parties 'felt' they were in love?

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