@BigD

Quote:

Obviously, there is a silent majority represented by the large petition (390,000 is huge in comparison to any recent petition see HERE).

Your number may be bigger than some other petition that you can find, but it is still less than 0.75% of the adult population of the UK which means that it is not a majority (silent or otherwise), and your arrogance in assuming that your noisy and bigoted minority speaks for the the whole country is offensive. To make matters worse for you it has been demonstrated that this petition is open to ballot stuffing, while having no possibility of "voting" for the opposition. Thanks to BrianK's little experiment we know that at least two of the signatures on this petition are invalid, and since there is no mechanism in place to prevent it how certain can we be that there are not other equally spurious signatures?

Since you like to quote numbers, are you aware that the average church attendance is down to 960000 and the average age of churchgoers is 61, rising to 65 in rural areas. It is in the DT, so it must be true.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Since you like to quote numbers, are you aware that the average church attendance is down to 960000 and the average age of churchgoers is 61, rising to 65 in rural areas. It is in the DT, so it must be true.

Since C4M is a non-religious organisation I fail to see what relevance those stats have!?

Quote:

Thanks to BrianK's little experiment we know that at least two of the signatures on this petition are invalid, and since there is no mechanism in place to prevent it how certain can we be that there are not other equally spurious signatures?

I'm sure C4M have checking procedures in place and I have already emailed them regarding BrianK's time wasting antics!

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

"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."

The emphasis here needs to be on the word SHOULD; "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." However, the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that if Homosexual marriage were introduced there would be no right to refuse to carry out a ceremony in churches, so the Governments guidance isn't worth the paper it's written on;

READ THIS ARTICLE AGAIN; Gay marriage is not a human right but you can't refuse to carry out a ceremony if marriage is redefined

Quote:

The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples. It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

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

@BigD

Quote:

I'm sure C4M have checking procedures in place and I have already emailed them regarding BrianK's time wasting antics!

If you want a true count of support for your position you shouldn't see 5 minutes of error checking as a waste. There's some large problems with their construct which is easily fooled. Hopefully C4M will take it serious and really batton down to ensure they, and you, have a system that isn't so easily manipulated.

@BigD

Quote:

Since C4M is a non-religious organisation I fail to see what relevance those stats have!?

Just as you continue to ignore the mathematics that demonstrates your pet pressure group to be simply a very noisy minority attempting to impose their opinions on the entire country, because their invisible friend told them to.

Quote:

The emphasis here needs to be on the word SHOULD

Of course the emphasis is on the word "Should". It is after all not the job of any national parliamentary body, or international equivalent to prejudge any or every trial taking place at any time in the future. Any other term would force courts to acquit the most rabid, hate filled diatribes on the grounds of "religious freedom"

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Any other term would force courts to acquit the most rabid, hate filled diatribes on the grounds of "religious freedom"

Then by your own argument; lets leave the definition as it is and avoid the risk of sending church ministers to jail for reading and obeying the Bible!

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

@BrianK

Quote:

If you want a true count of support for your position you shouldn't see 5 minutes of error checking as a waste.

I'm sure they don't see it as a waste of time, however you are invariably wasting YOUR time by sending in fake details.

Last edited by BigD on 08-Apr-2012 at 12:04 AM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Then by your own argument; lets leave the definition as it is and avoid the risk of sending church ministers to jail for reading and obeying the Bible!

So once again having the majority giving in to a noisy and bigoted minority. And you have the cheek to call that democracy. If the organised church was so strongly agains sexual indecency they would have done something about paedophile priests other than organise cover ups. I am aware that it was a very small minority of priests behaved in this way, but the actions of the bishops and archbishops on this matter speak louder than words.
There is also the question of how does the church justify a known homosexual preacher condemning a same gender couple for wanting to live their lives in the same manner as the preacher does.
You may recall that I said that any church organisation can successfully defend against legal action if it has a known and enforced rule prohibiting certain behaviour.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

You may recall that I said that any church organisation can successfully defend against legal action if it has a known and enforced rule prohibiting certain behaviour.

Not really that comforting really since the European Court of Human Rights has a different take on this! Why would you want to take ministers through the ordeal of court cases to prove your academic point? Known paedophile & homosexual preachers would be removed from their posts in Bible believing churches so I don't understand your hypocrisy point there! The risk of court cases against ministers is real irrespective of your views on hypocrisy due to paedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church and churches like the Church of Scotland failing to apply Biblical teachings on homosexuality to their ministers!

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

So once again having the majority giving in to a noisy and bigoted minority. And you have the cheek to call that democracy.

The majority disagree with the redefinition of marriage because lots of different groups disagree with it not just religious organisations, even Christopher Biggins is against it!! But now that you mention it there are more church goers than there are homosexuals, so on both counts you are wrong! The aggressive and vociferous minority are the homosexual and liberal lobby groups!

The pro-redefinition petition only has 41,105 so again this seems like the redefinition has apathetic support from the homosexual community and the attempt to get marriage redefined is for no other reason than for the 'principle' of equality for homosexuals seemingly overarching everything else! I would rather see a logical balanced decision made after a unbiased consultation, based on considering the benefit's to society in general of marriage as it stands and whether some equalities can be forced into law even though they seem biologically/theologically and socially exclusive to one man and one women such as child birth/parenting and marriage? And also to ask the question as to whether marriage can be redefined without dire consequences for marriage stats, ministers being litigated against, number of children growing up in stable homes dropping and further redefining of marriage down the line? Marriage is of great benefit to the UK as it stands and it should be left alone. David Cameron should listen to the voice of the majority and stop pandering to pink votes he'll never collect anyway!!

Last edited by BigD on 08-Apr-2012 at 05:07 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 08-Apr-2012 at 03:30 AM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The majority disagree with the redefinition of marriage because lots of different groups disagree with it not just religious organisations, even Christopher Biggins is against it!!

As I have tried to explain and you refuse to understand less than 1% ( that is one in one hundred) of the eligible population of this country have registered disapproval of the simplification and streamlining of the definition of marriage to "two people". The fact that one of that minority is a z list TV "celebrity" does nothing to alter the simple mathematics of the situation. Until such time as you can provide evidence that the L&G lobby is about to have my marriage annulled and requiring me to marry some man, I see your scaremongering as nothing less than bigotry of the worst kind.
Once upon a time people like you tried to block poor people from being educated as it would give them ideas above their station, tried to maintain that black people were property, denied women and working class people the vote, all the time claiming that changes were unnecessary, undemocratic, unnatural, and against the will of their invisible friend.

Quote:

Marriage is of great benefit to the UK as it stands

This is absolutely true, and I can see no reason why the clear and obvious benefits should not be extended to a minority group who have been discriminated against by a loud mouthed group of bigots for far too long.

Quote:

David Cameron should listen to the voice of the majority

The job of the politician is to do what is right, not merely what is popular. Simply following the votes is nothing more than a variant of mob rule. But even if he does blindly follow the votes, less than one in one hundred is not a majority.

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

@BigD

Turns out 46% of people frome Mississippi want to ban interracial marriage.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/

So yeah there are still quite a few of your bigot brethren who are sad that slippery slope was crossed.

@BigD

Homophobia is A pronounced self-phobia
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

@Nimrod

Quote:

As I have tried to explain and you refuse to understand less than 1% ( that is one in one hundred) of the eligible population of this country have registered disapproval of the simplification and streamlining of the definition of marriage to "two people". The fact that one of that minority is a z list TV "celebrity" does nothing to alter the simple mathematics of the situation.

If you want to continue to drive home the point the the C4M petition is so small and unrepresentative even though it is now running at 408,794, then can I just point out that the Coalition for Equal Marriage petition has a factor of 10 less signatures at 42,032

Therefore, your own arguments are more true of your own stance. Homosexuals are apathetic on this issue and it is quite clear this is purely political point scoring with David Cameron going after the pink vote that won't be swayed by this foolish crusade and trying as he will to appease the Liberal Democrats before the Coalition rips itself apart. This is nothing to do with equality!

THE MAJORITY OF THE UK ARE AGAINST THIS REDEFINITION! THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEEPLY DAMAGE OUR SOCIETY!!

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

@BigD

Quote:

THE MAJORITY OF THE UK ARE AGAINST THIS REDEFINITION!

Actions due to tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority you promote, are pathetic and are where the true damage in society is happening.

Quote:

THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEEPLY DAMAGE OUR SOCIETY!!

Giving women and blacks the right to vote, allowing blacks to marry, allowing interracial marriages didn't damage society equality made it better. This too will make it better. AKA enough of you selling FUD.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Apr-2012 at 02:32 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

If you want to continue to drive home the point the the C4M petition is so small and unrepresentative even though it is now running at 408,794

That number is considerably less than the number of regular church goers in the UK, so it seems the majority of regular church goers are perfectly happy with Gay marriage going ahead.


Oh and please stop saying majority. Is this a religious thing where if you chant something enough times it comes true? For your information, a majority would have to be higher than 31,109,381 votes (2010 UK population figures) and your poll is somewhat short of that target.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 09-Apr-2012 at 01:56 PM.

_________________
"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:

can I just point out that the Coalition for Equal Marriage petition has a factor of 10 less signatures at 42,032

The number of signatures on some other petition is totally irrelevant, but the disparity is probably because they were not so desparate to whip up a frenzy of support for their cause that they even took their campaign to a website dedicated to a 25 year old computer OS.

Quote:

THE MAJORITY OF THE UK ARE AGAINST THIS REDEFINITION!

Less than one percent does not constitute a majority. more than 99% of the adult population are sufficiently relaxed about the proposals that they will simply sit back and allow them through. The fact that I have not bothered to add my name to a petition in support of the proposal does not mean that I oppose it, and since my support is not needed to bring it about, my failure to sign an opposing petition does not indicate apathy.

Quote:

HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEEPLY DAMAGE OUR SOCIETY!!

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly how giving equal rights to a minority group will damage society. Since you see fit to repeat this fallacious assertion, I will repeat that this is exactly the lie put up as an argument against liberating slaves, education for working class children, votes for women, universal adult suffrage, and womens property rights. Your statement was a lie then, and it is a lie now. May I suggest that you peddle your bigotry elsewhere.

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

For your information, a majority would have to be higher than 31,109,381 votes (2010 UK population figures)

Because the petition claimed to be excluding children from signing I worked on figures for the adult population as 52,042,113. As BrianK demonstrated, their validation leaves much to be desired, but even with ballot stuffing techniques like repeat signatures, etc they still haven't reached 1% of the fair, lower target.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Because the petition claimed to be excluding children from signing I worked on figures for the adult population as 52,042,113. As BrianK demonstrated, their validation leaves much to be desired, but even with ballot stuffing techniques like repeat signatures, etc they still haven't reached 1% of the fair, lower target.

I think you are confusing a petition with a polling card!! Petitions never reach the entire population in the way our voting system does because petitions to the Government are not administered by the Government. You are deluded if you think the intention was ever to petition every single adult in the UK. The petition is doing its job in bring to the attention of the Government that there are more people that disagree with its stance than agree with it and they are not just religious groups.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The petition is doing its job in bring to the attention of the Government that there are more people that disagree with its stance than agree with it and they are not just religious groups.

I'm sorry what?

How can you possibly know the public mood about the change? The only source you have is two biased petitions (pro and against) which only show a tiny minority of people who have cared enough and are aware of the petitions (And bear in mind how much organisation and effort has gone into the anti-change campaign).

All the newspapers dropped this story pretty much after a couple of days. What does that tell you? I'll tell you what I think it says. It says the great unwashed doesn't care two figs about this subject (apathy is NOT disagreement). The Leveson Inquiry (Into media corruption) still gets coverage, Abu Hamza and other controversial extremists get continual coverage, even the Costa Concordia shipwreck gets the occasional mention. Gay marriage? None of your newspaper links are current. This is a non issue for most people.

However hard you try to spin this, this is a vocal minority, not a majority, not a zeitgeist, just a bunch of narrow-minded bigots trying to force their (your) opinion on the rest of us. It's not working.

Even in the age of social media, where revolutions in the Arab world were born, where millions of people downloaded a rubbish song by a teenager about Fridays, where 75 million youtube viewers watched a cat play a piano, the best you can offer is a non scientific and poorly regulated petition with less than half of the number of votes than people that watched Darth Vader playing bagpipes whilst riding a unicycle this week. (Link for those that wish to watch said video).

Incidentally, your petition website has been up since 10 Nov 2011, so it's sudden explosion of numbers stinks of organised protest rather than a fair and balanced gauge of the public mood.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 10-Apr-2012 at 04:48 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 10-Apr-2012 at 04:47 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 10-Apr-2012 at 04:46 PM.

_________________
"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