Click HereClick Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5238 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 55 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 amigakit

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 amigakit:  2 mins ago
 noXLar:  6 mins ago
 amigappc:  12 mins ago
 kyle:  12 mins ago
 phoenixkonsole:  29 mins ago
 CosmosUnivers:  30 mins ago
 zzd10h:  31 mins ago
 olegil:  32 mins ago
 Phantom:  49 mins ago
 tbreeden:  51 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 4-Nov-2012 23:41:57
#1421 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 7999
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

Last poll prior to Tuesday voting in my state shows the majority rejecting creating a 1man/1woman Ammendment.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 6-Nov-2012 21:52:44
#1422 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 7999
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

The US Election counting isn't done. Polling going into the elections appears that gay marriage will break it's 0-32 losing streak. We'll see what the outcome is in likely a day. LINK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 0:20:06
#1423 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 3038
From: UK

@Nimrod

Quote:
I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.


Equality has already been granted (and then some) by the civil partnership act and the proceeding legal cases that prove that civil partnerships are legally comparable to marriage!

As to the evidence that redefining marriage is bad for society. There is already a large body of evidence from the countries that have already redefined marriage as to the negative outcomes it brings.

Canada; the redefinition of marriage doesn't stop at allowing two men or two women unions, as soon as marriage was redefined a polygamist launched a legal action to have his relationship recognised in law! When politicians meddle with marriage it all starts to unravel.

Spain; after gay marriage was introduced, marriage rates across the whole population plummeted.

Netherlands; marriage rates decreased substantially after gay marriage was introduced.

Brazil; a three-way relationship was given marriage like rights by a judge because of civil partnership laws.

France; the government is eradicating the words 'father' and 'mother' from all official documents.

Not only that but there is no call for the change amongst the homosexual communities in the UK; Polling shows that only 39% of gay people think that gay marriage is a priority. According to the government only 3% of gay people would enter same-sex marriage. Latest official data shows that only 0.7 per cent of households are headed by by a same-sex couple. Not all of them want or will enter a same-sex marriage. Why then should such a monumental change be imposed throughout society?

When approaching the public at large the picture is even clearer; seven in ten people want to keep marriage as it is. Other polling that purports to show public support for gay marriage fails to tell respondents that equal rights are already available through civil partnerships. When people are told this crucial fact, most people say to keep marriage as it is.

Ordinary people want the government to concentrate on reviving our economy and providing better public services, not meddling with marriage.

Last edited by BigD on 07-Nov-2012 at 12:21 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
T-J 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 3:51:59
#1424 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Aug-2010
Posts: 596
From: Unknown

@BigD

Quote:
Equality has already been granted (and then some) by the civil partnership act and the proceeding legal cases that prove that civil partnerships are legally comparable to marriage!


This is not the case.

If it were the case, you would have nothing to oppose.

Since you are all up in arms about this, the only logical conclusion is that some sort of preferential status for your lot exists that you wish to preserve.

The existence of a preferential status for any sector of society is sufficient cause for people like the majority of people on this board, and indeed the majority of the British population as measured by reputable pollsters such as Ipsos or Yougov, to work towards reform.

Quote:
Canada; the redefinition of marriage doesn't stop at allowing two men or two women unions, as soon as marriage was redefined a polygamist launched a legal action to have his relationship recognised in law!


And you care about these consenting polygamists because...? Again we have you sticking your nose into other peoples' bedrooms and telling them what they can and cannot do.

You should get help with that, its really not healthy.

And again I point out to you that until the Romans imposed their pre-christian notion of monogamous marriage onto their Middle Eastern conquests, Christianity was polygamy-neutral - it was seen as neither a good thing nor a bad.

Quote:
Spain; after gay marriage was introduced, marriage rates across the whole population plummeted.


This is not the case.

I refer you to the European Commission's pool of European statistics on marriage and divorce - the change in marriage rates in Spain is set against a long-term decline in marriage, due to the reduction in social pressures requiring women to get married, the availability of new co-habitation laws and a general postponement of the family-raising phase of life until later and later, caused by demographic changes including longer lifespans and longer childbearing periods.

Quote:
Netherlands; marriage rates decreased substantially after gay marriage was introduced.


This is not the case.

Again, refer to the EC's stats. The Netherlands has had gay marriage as a part of civil law for eleven years, over that period its marriage rates have been changing in line with the long-term statistical trend, a feature influenced by social and demographic changes, not by the acceptance of same-sex relationships in society.

Quote:
Brazil; a three-way relationship was given marriage like rights by a judge because of civil partnership laws.


Ah, the slippery slope - here you are arguing against civil partnerships because somebody in Brazil has had their polyamory recognised in law.

But, to address your point - its none of your damn business, stop poking around in other people's sex lives, its not healthy and its not polite.

Quote:
France; the government is eradicating the words 'father' and 'mother' from all official documents.


I don't care, and neither do my parents.

Quote:
Not only that but there is no call for the change amongst the homosexual communities in the UK; Polling shows that only 39% of gay people think that gay marriage is a priority. According to the government only 3% of gay people would enter same-sex marriage. Latest official data shows that only 0.7 per cent of households are headed by by a same-sex couple. Not all of them want or will enter a same-sex marriage. Why then should such a monumental change be imposed throughout society?


One or two bits of c4m misinformation that you've copy-pasted here that need to be addressed.

One, your C4M organisation has published its little poll that says only four in ten think gay marriage is the most important priority for the government's policy on LGBT issues.

Now, c4m have been quite cunning here - they've given people a question to rank issues pertaining to the LGBT community in order of importance. Personally, I would rank tackling prejudice in the workplace and schools higher than equal marriage. But that doesn't mean I don't also think that equal marriage is a very important step that the government must take.

Your lot are presenting an artificial choice - we do not have to choose between stopping bullying, and equalising marriage. The fact that we want to stop bullying does not mean that the government should not also act to equalise peoples' status under the law.

In fact, the government cannot adequately address this top priority until it has levelled out the inequalities in law, because inequality in law breeds prejudice in society.

Its sad that you and the 'c4m' cannot understand that.


Oh, and your figures are wrong, by the way. How did c4m get them? By polling the clientèle at some random gay scene nightclub? I personally doubt that heterosexuals would be any more inclined towards your 1950s mum, dad and 2.4 kids lifestyle, were you to ask them while they're out clubbing.

Quote:
When approaching the public at large the picture is even clearer; seven in ten people want to keep marriage as it is. Other polling that purports to show public support for gay marriage fails to tell respondents that equal rights are already available through civil partnerships. When people are told this crucial fact, most people say to keep marriage as it is.


And here we go again, redo from start and go back to square one - tell the lie and hope it can get around the world before the truth has its boots on.

Sorry, D, but you told that lie here a long time ago, the truth has its boots on and its already delivered a sound kicking to the falsehood you've built this argument on.

Equality is not currently provided under the law.

This is obvious to anyone, even to you, because if it was not the case you would have nothing to campaign about. Legally, civil partnerships aren't marriages.

Fundamentally, and quite apart from the various legal differences that we have been over many times before, what you are arguing for is a restriction to everyone elses' religious freedom - you are preventing a church that wants to perform a ceremony to mark a same sex union from doing so, because the civil partnership legislation expressly bans any and all such things.

The point of all this is that you've lied and the polls you quote have lied, making the false claim that equality exists to get the answers you want.

Those polls that have not done this indicate a 70% plus support for equalisation. When we are truthful and ask a question openly, we get a truthful answer.

Quote:
Ordinary people want the government to concentrate on reviving our economy and providing better public services, not meddling with marriage.


The rallying cry of every reactionary through history, that.

It was wrong when your lot were throwing it at governments trying to bring in civil rights for blacks, for women, for catholics, and it is wrong now.

Ordinary people want the government to run the economy, but they also want the government to protect them from being bullied by hatemongers like you.

Today you prevent gay couples from expressing themselves. But its a slippery slope. You win here, and tomorrow your c4m lobbyists will be pushing women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen, or chucking the catholics back on the bonfire or who knows what else.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 7:47:16
#1425 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 3038
From: UK

@T-J

Quote:
Today you prevent gay couples from expressing themselves. But its a slippery slope. You win here, and tomorrow your c4m lobbyists will be pushing women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen, or chucking the catholics back on the bonfire or who knows what else.


That totally denies the fact that Christianity has been at the forefront of tackling social ills and sticking up for persecuted women including those trapped in sharia law administered communities that fail to provide or acknowledge UK legal protections should the husband divorce them.

Quote:
If it were the case, you would have nothing to oppose.


What I'm opposing is the pointless attempt to 'destroy' and unravel marriage law in the UK DESPITE the fact that equality already exists. I can think that there is no other reason for this miscalculated move than the drive by activists to continue what the 'Gay Liberation Front's Manifesto' set out in the 1970s and destroy the family and the scientifically backed up belief that ideally a mother and a father are required to raise a child.

Telegraph: Children raised by a mother and father do best

From the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto, 1971
Quote:
The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.


It is clear where you inspiration for not only the destruction a marriage but the destruction of the family unit comes from It doesn't make it right or beneficial to society and it certainly doesn't forward 'equality'.

Last edited by BigD on 07-Nov-2012 at 07:48 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 9:52:20
#1426 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1077
From: Untied Kingdom

@BigD

Quote:
Quote:
Today you prevent gay couples from expressing themselves. But its a slippery slope. You win here, and tomorrow your c4m lobbyists will be pushing women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen, or chucking the catholics back on the bonfire or who knows what else.


That totally denies the fact that Christianity has been at the forefront of tackling social ills and sticking up for persecuted women including those trapped in sharia law administered communities that fail to provide or acknowledge UK legal protections should the husband divorce them.
I will agree that one or two committed christians have acted for the benefit of society as a whole, but a far greater number of equally committed christians have opposed all forms of social progress. Or do you believe that Cromwells massacres of Irish Catholics was his way of "tackling social ills" just as modern "christian" practice of opposing sexual health education and protection in areas of high AIDS infection rates is clearly "protecting people from the ravages of poverty and disease" . As to the "persecuted women trapped in sharia communities" they are subject to and protected by the secular law of the land. Sharia law has no more influence or status in this matter than that of canon law.

Quote:
Quote:
If it were the case, you would have nothing to oppose.


What I'm opposing is the pointless attempt to 'destroy' and unravel marriage law in the UK DESPITE the fact that equality already exists. I can think that there is no other reason for this miscalculated move than the drive by activists to continue what the 'Gay Liberation Front's Manifesto' set out in the 1970s and destroy the family and the scientifically backed up belief that ideally a mother and a father are required to raise a child.
What you are opposed to is the ending of your privileged status allowing you to interfere with other peoples lives and freedoms. You express this by persistently lying about the consequences of people being permitted to "disobey" your instructions. The lie that you are attempting to perpetuate is the one claiming the destruction of marriage. You keep quoting the 1971 manifesto of the Gay Liberation Front, well I have got some news for you. It is no longer 1971 At the time of this document homosexuality had only been legalised for four years, and there were many more battles to be fought to gain equality, which is still a work in progress. We no longer judge racial minorities by the pamphlets of the Black Power movement of the same time, nor are we fearful of the Irish Nationalists or their counterparts in the Orange Lodges. This is merely a pathetic attempt to hunt down any tiniest excuse to justify your outpourings of hate. This is in direct contradiction of the supposed tenets of your assumed faith.
It is a scientifically backed up necessity that a mother and father are required to produce a child, but there is no biological requirement to have a permit from either state or church to achieve this result. There are many reasons that these individuals do not remain together to raise their offfspring, and not all of them deserving of criticism, but at no point do they have their offspring removed from their care, against their wishes purely to provide a toy for a wealthy gay couple as you keep implying.

Quote:
[quoteTelegraph: Children raised by a mother and father do best
In an ideal world this statement may well be true, but this is not an ideal world. It is however a better one than the part of the world run as a theocracy. In the minority of cases where children are separated from their natural parenst by the state there is always a better justification than simply providing a convenient child for a gay couple. The only reason that there are children available for adoption by homosexual couples not biologically related to the child, is because there are not enough "perfect" couples willing to adopt that particular child. I would also repeat my point that since my wife changed her religious affiliation, it is you, and not the LGBT community that consider my marriage as less than fully valid, and it is you that seeks to interfere with something that is none of your business.

Quote:
From the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto, 1971 Quote:

The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.

It is clear where you inspiration for not only the destruction a marriage but the destruction of the family unit comes from It doesn't make it right or beneficial to society and it certainly doesn't forward 'equality'.
I have already commented on this particular excuse for hate, or should we revert to carpet bombing German cities because of Adolfs speeches in the early 1940's. Unlike you, I have moved on from the seventies, but even if I hadn't, why should I as a heterosexual geriatric father of three be a part of a conspiracy to destroy something that I hold to be the most important thing in my life. Unlike you, I consider Family more important than some petulant figment of somebody elses imagination. I have raised my three sons to be far better behaved, and far less the petulant spoiled brat that your deity manifests as.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AndyC 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 10:30:19
#1427 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Oct-2002
Posts: 176
From: Edinburgh

Progress:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-07/gay-marriage-marijuana-backed-in-historic-votes

AndyC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AndyC 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 10:58:59
#1428 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Oct-2002
Posts: 176
From: Edinburgh

Slightly OT, but relevant nonetheless:

Daily Mash - God Ignores Idiots

AndyC

Last edited by AndyC on 07-Nov-2012 at 11:00 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 14:13:17
#1429 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 7999
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@BigD,

On Tuesday, 11/7/12, the USA had an election. There was the question of same-sex marriage on the ballots of 4 states. 3 States (Maine, Washington, and Maryland) were to allow same-sex marriage in their States. One state, Minnesota, was to ban same-sex marriage within our constitution.

As you noted before 0-32 is the score for same-sex marriage. Everytime this was passed to the people the State outlawed same-sex marriage. You took this to mean that the majority didn't support same-sex marriage.

I'm very happy to report this election went in favor of same-sex marriage. For the first time a majority rejected the exclusion of same-sex marriage. I'm proud of my fellow Minnesotans. As for support of same-sex all previous laws are based on judicial reading of their State constitution. For the first time 3 states put to the people the question if they wanted same-sex marriage. (The other 32 were all anti-same-sex bills). I'm proud again of my fellow Americans where all 3 States the right to marry a same sex partner won.

Turns out the youth support same-sex more than the aged. This isn't uncommon. We see other minority rights established the same way. As the new generation takes over the fears, uncertainity, doubts, and hatred of the old do get moved away for a more loving and accepting world.

Good job USA!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
T-J 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 15:57:42
#1430 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Aug-2010
Posts: 596
From: Unknown

@BigD

Quote:
That totally denies the fact that Christianity has been at the forefront of tackling social ills and sticking up for persecuted women including those trapped in sharia law administered communities that fail to provide or acknowledge UK legal protections should the husband divorce them.


And that totally denies the fact that other christians have been at the forefront of sustaining social ills, keeping women in the kitchen and away from the ballot box, sticking up the 'No Coloureds' signs and justifying the status quo as just part of god's plan.

Also, sharia law is irrelevant to this discussion. It will never be passed into British law.

Quote:
What I'm opposing is the pointless attempt to 'destroy' and unravel marriage law in the UK DESPITE the fact that equality already exists


This lie will not become any less false, even if you do keep on telling it.

Equality does not already exist. Your opposition is to religious freedom, the right to conduct a ceremony at a same-sex union and the equal access to recognition of peoples' relationships under the law.

Quote:
I can think that there is no other reason for this miscalculated move than the drive by activists to continue what the 'Gay Liberation Front's Manifesto' set out in the 1970s and destroy the family and the scientifically backed up belief that ideally a mother and a father are required to raise a child.


Actually, D, I'd never read the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto 1971 until you stuck it up here as part of your little crusade.

And a further correction, studies of the family unit conclude that actually, children do best when raised in an extended family. Your mum, dad and 2.4 children model has proven to be quite harmful and incompatible with the realities of life.

Amusingly enough, history shows us that your nuclear family concept only ever really existed in any meaningful sense for the aristocracy, that bastion of such well balanced personalities, and for a brief period around the 1950s, with earlier families having to operate through necessity as an extended network.


I also find your choice of quote from that manifesto to be interesting. Obviously you have no problem with a society in which women are held as slaves. Very interesting, as Dr Freud might say.

Last edited by T-J on 07-Nov-2012 at 03:58 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 7-Nov-2012 23:34:54
#1431 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 3038
From: UK

@T-J

Quote:
And that totally denies the fact that other christians have been at the forefront of sustaining social ills, keeping women in the kitchen and away from the ballot box, sticking up the 'No Coloureds' signs and justifying the status quo as just part of god's plan. Also, sharia law is irrelevant to this discussion. It will never be passed into British law.


Christians helped to abolish slavery, stopped the second class citizen situation that blacks in America suffered after slavery was abolished and are at the forefront of helping women stuck in the sex-trafficking slavery rings still active today.

Sharia law courts are active in communties in the UK today and often usurp UK law in the decisions they make in regards to divorces in which technically they hold no jurisdiction and yet still hold great sway over the vulnerable women affected by their decisions.

Quote:
And a further correction, studies of the family unit conclude that actually, children do best when raised in an extended family. Your mum, dad and 2.4 children model has proven to be quite harmful and incompatible with the realities of life.


Utter tosh, yes grandparents, aunties and uncles can be important to family life but equally uncles and aunties can present a child abuse risk in some cases. Jimmy Saville, an English DJ and TV personality, never talked about his father's role in his upbringing and so we can assume it wasn't a particularly positive relationship. He also didn't have a close emotional/caring relationship with his mother. He became a risk to the children in his extended family (and wider afield) because his nuclear family was not providing the stable male and female/mother and father loving & nuturing role models he needed growing up. Yes, he chose to give in to the dark temptations presented to him but he was not given the best upbringing and hence developed a controlling and power seeking personality to make up for lack of control he sensed as a child;

Channel4: How Jimmy Saville revealed all in the psychiatrists chair

Your true colours have been shown by your lack of gratitude and respect for the institutions of marriage and the family headed up by a married mother and father. Our society is built on these institutions for the good of children and society at large. Yes, marriages are given up on without due effort and people are selfish and don't live up to the responsibilities that they have taken on themselves. However, that doesn't make the institutions themselves worthless and ripe for liberals to simply rip up the defintion just becasue your fed up playing Sim City and want to try your hand a real social engineering

Last edited by BigD on 07-Nov-2012 at 11:44 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 07-Nov-2012 at 11:42 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 07-Nov-2012 at 11:36 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
CritAnime 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 3:39:41
#1432 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 27-Jun-2011
Posts: 704
From: UK

@BigD

Did you just try and use Jimmy Saville as an argument in your marriage ramblings. And then go on to say that he has it all wrong because you claim t-j plays sim city and now has a complex.

That's a new one.

Think you need to lay off the sauce.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 7:40:06
#1433 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 3038
From: UK

@CritAnime

Quote:
That's a new one.


Well maybe you should actually consider the implications on society of unraveling marriage in the UK. People aren't just born 'devils' they are a result of their genetics, the environment they were raised in and the choices they make. You can't say that having less children raised in families headed by a married mother and father won't affect the UK negatively. And yet that is what you inadvertently advocating as shown by the rapid decline in marriages in Spain and the Netherlands once same-sex marriage was brought in.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 11:32:50
#1434 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1077
From: Untied Kingdom

@BigD

Quote:
Christians helped to abolish slavery,
By arguing with other christians who opposed the abolition of slavery. The best that can be said about christianitys attitude to slavery is that after a long time they finally realised that it was wrong. They have perpetuated and supported this and other crimes against humanity for too long to claim the moral high ground.

Quote:
Sharia law courts are active in communties in the UK today and often usurp UK law in the decisions they make in regards to divorces in which technically they hold no jurisdiction and yet still hold great sway over the vulnerable women affected by their decisions
Been reading the Daily Fail again have we? If people agree to accept a sharia courts decision in a matter requiring arbitration then that courts decision can be legally binding in much the same way that decisions by Judge Judy are. They do not supersede or overrule the law of the land, any more than my local golf club can. It too has rules and ordinances that it enforces on its members, but as a non member I am not affected by these, and any person leaving the golf club and terminating membership is also no longer subject to their rules. In the example from the Fail, the "court" would be charged as accessories to child rape, and they and the "husband" would be placed on the register of child sex offenders.

Quote:
Utter tosh, yes grandparents, aunties and uncles can be important to family life but equally uncles and aunties can present a child abuse risk in some cases
The same can be said about Scout leaders, Schoolteachers in both state and private sectors, or even child care professionals. There are even unconfirmed allegations building against a senior political figure. And of course there is always the priesthood, whose activities have too many examples for me to pick just one to link to.

Quote:
never talked about his father's role in his upbringing and so we can assume it wasn't a particularly positive relationship.
Can we really? Why? Savile was born in 1926, and in those days the father frequently had little or no part in raising the children, and as such those children would have little or nothing to say unless they had been particularly badly treated, in which case they would be very vocal.

Quote:
He became a risk to the children in his extended family (and wider afield) because his nuclear family was not providing the stable male and female/mother and father loving & nuturing role models he needed growing up.
By your reasoning everybody whose father served during the second world war, and was away from home between 1939 and 1945 is a risk to children because they lacked the presence of a firm father figure during their formative years.Just out of curiousity, is there anybody who you will not demonise in the furtherance of your ignorant litany of hate against a minority group who are causing you no harm?

Quote:
Your true colours have been shown by your lack of gratitude and respect for the institutions of marriage and the family headed up by a married mother and father
Indeed T-J has shown himself to be a caring and considerate person who is doing his bit to improve the world and make sure that it will eventually be a better place than when he entered it. He has this feature in common with almost every other person posting on this thread, with the notable exception of yourself. What I do not see in his posts is any form of evidence that he is seeking to disparage the benefits of stable relationships, or seeking to destroy those relationships, or reclassify them as somehow less than valid. This also stands in contrast to your attitude that other peoples feelings and relationships are somehow not worthwhile.
I will also reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence that the proposed changes to allow yet another widening of the definition will cause a total breakdown in the concept of marriage, and no, post #1248 ...and more recently #1308 are not evidence

Quote:
And yet that is what you inadvertently advocating as shown by the rapid decline in marriages in Spain and the Netherlands once same-sex marriage was brought in.
A decline that is matched, or even exceeded in places where liberalisation is being resisted by authoritarian theocratic regimes. BrianK 's statistics for marriage failure rates and teen pregnancy rates in the USA show your claims to be knowingly dishonest. As a "christian" are you not supposed to follow the instructuions contained in the ten commandments, specifically number 9.

Last edited by Nimrod on 08-Nov-2012 at 11:40 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SpaceDruid 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 12:48:05
#1435 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2007
Posts: 1743
From: Inside the mind of a cow on a planet that's flying through space at 242.334765 miles per second.

@BigD

Quote:

Utter tosh, yes grandparents, aunties and uncles can be important to family life but equally uncles and aunties can present a child abuse risk in some cases. Jimmy Saville, an English DJ and TV personality...


... was a Catholic who was made Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great by Pope John Paul II in 1990...

_________________
"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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
CritAnime 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 14:35:26
#1436 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 27-Jun-2011
Posts: 704
From: UK

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote:
@CritAnime

Quote:
That's a new one.


Well maybe you should actually consider the implications on society of unraveling marriage in the UK. People aren't just born 'devils' they are a result of their genetics, the environment they were raised in and the choices they make. You can't say that having less children raised in families headed by a married mother and father won't affect the UK negatively. And yet that is what you inadvertently advocating as shown by the rapid decline in marriages in Spain and the Netherlands once same-sex marriage was brought in.


That made me chuckle. Your using Jimmy Saville, a man that is been used for every argument under the sun to do with degredation of society (to the point that it renders arguments moot), as a spring board for one man one woman happy christian family where they raise the perfect child. Even though I could go to any public library and get a stacks of books on muderers and find that a big proportion come from "sterotypical loving christian family units" as one book put it (I like reading about stuff like this).

Oh and before you throw it in as an argument don't be using whats happened in Corronation Street, a fictional show for those that don't know, as an argument that homosexuals are all just confused. That entire scenario made myself and my wife laugh with how utterly backwards it all was.

Last edited by CritAnime on 08-Nov-2012 at 02:36 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 14:52:20
#1437 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 7999
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@BigD

Did you notice recent happenings in the USA? Within the 3 States with ballot questions concerning supporting gay-marriage passed with majority support. Along with for the first time the 1 state with 'one man - one woman' on the ballot failed with majority of support. You had previously claimed the majority in the USA is against gay marriage. IMO, your data was old (late 20th century) and now in the 21st indeed the tide is changing. An important thing to notice is the younger the voter the more likely there is support. This happened with women and black rights too. The older more discriminatory practice died away.


Also @Nimrod wrote
Quote:
By arguing with other christians who opposed the abolition of slavery. The best that can be said about christianitys attitude to slavery is that after a long time they finally realised that it was wrong. They have perpetuated and supported this and other crimes against humanity for too long to claim the moral high ground.

You need to review the history of the church to see this is true. I had posted links already on this area for you. The Catholic clergy and popes owned slaves. At one time it was ok for Christians to own other Christians as slaves. The church later outlawed this practice. The church saw it still ok for Christians to own non-christians as slaves. And after the church ended the practice of slavery marriage was still impacted. Many churches saw it ok to disallow mixed race marriages. The historical record speaks loudly that Christians morals on slavery and on marriages has changed through the last, roughly, 2K years.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BillE 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 20:33:54
#1438 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Nov-2003
Posts: 1122
From: Northern Scotland

@BigD

Quote:
however because they are not in a personal relationship with Christ, are not born again and are not technically Christians; they are simply church goers.


You are in a personal relationship with Christ ?

Now that does sound very homosexual. Not to mention necrophillic as Christ been dead for about 2000 years. You do have very weird beliefs indeed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BillE 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 21:07:08
#1439 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Nov-2003
Posts: 1122
From: Northern Scotland

@BigD

Quote:
The Bible has issue with Christians marrying non-Christians i.e. people who are not God's people.



That sounds rather fascist/racist. |Yours is not a nice religion at all

Mind you come to thimk of it, I certainly would not want to marry a frothing at the mouth Christian, that believes the ramblings of a fantasy novel and thinks the entire universe is only 6000 years old. That would be dreadful and so mind numbing.

Thank goodness I am not in a mixed-religion marriage and we are both aetheists !


BTW. Good news the religious nutters did not get into power in the US

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 22:17:31
#1440 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 3038
From: UK

@Nimrod

Quote:
I will also reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence that the proposed changes to allow yet another widening of the definition will cause a total breakdown in the concept of marriage, and no, post #1248 ...and more recently #1308 are not evidence


Perhaps you failed to read post #1415

Here we go again QUOTE of post #1415:

@Nimrod

Quote:
Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage in law. and do not confer equal status.


That is exactly what was deduced by the verdict of the Bull vs Hall and Preddy case. Hall and Preddy's civil partnership was deemed equivalent in law to marriage hence why the Bull's had to pay damages for not allowing the homosexual couple to share a double room in their B&B. How quickly you forget. You can't have it both way; persecuting Christians for living by their faith and then denying the implications of the ruling!

The Wilkinson's case seems to have tipped the balance even further towards a complete 'Gay Rights' trumping of all other rights by making homosexuals not in a civil partnership equivalent to marriage. The Wilkinson's had a clear policy of only allowing 'married' couples to share a double bed in their B&B and yet the judge ruled in favour of two homosexual men who have not publicly or legally committed to each other in any way, shape or form.

Quote:
I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.


Equality as shown in the Bull vs Hall & Preddy case is already in place. The destruction of marriage has already been outlined.

Back to post #1248 we go...and more recently #1308

Quote:
Redefining marriage in reality means it is for all intensive purposes destroyed. More so with passing decades as the inevitable push comes to redefine it again to include polygamy. The fact you haven't taken that on board is not surprising as you are blinded to the effects this will have on our society should it come into force. The fact that you look at this through rose tinted & liberally biased spectacles as an 'equality' exercise despite the fact there is no further 'equality' required due to Civil Partnerships being legal has completely escaped you so it is not surprising the bigger picture seems to have as well! There are plenty of case studies to look at and discuss before signing up to the big social experiment here. Why don't we do the sensible thing and see what damage occurs to social cohesion in Canada and New York etc over the next fifty years before we do anything so rash and unadvised as Boris and Dave are suggesting for our country? Marriage will no longer be 'consummated' and as such will be more of a 'friendship' and 'adult contract' rather than a selfless bond and the ideal relationship for raising children. Selfish adults will become the centre of this Frankenstein experiment not vulnerable children. Heterosexual couples will increasing shirk marriage should this go ahead and instead choose to cohabit as everything that was unique and special will have been attacked and watered down by liberal activists fixated on an 'equality' problem that doesn't exist!! The very basis of marriage as being, "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." ..would be removed and replace by generic 'thinkspeak' language along with the 'marriage' certificate nomenclature of 'husband' and 'wife' being replaced by the politically correct 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B'!!! The list goes on. The institution we know and love will be mauled and in all intensive purposes destroyed.



In addition, an editor-in-chief of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion and law professor Julian Rivers also suggests that the redefinition would be the start of marriage law unraveling completely..

The case for caution by Professor Julian Rivers

Quote:
The proposal to change the current definition of marriage depends on a sense that the man-woman criterion confers no distinctive social goods and represents an arbitrary limitation. But this is not the case. Marriage affirms the equal value of men and women, and promotes the welfare of children. Moreover, the logic of equal recognition and radical choice means that the boundaries of any new definition will be far more vulnerable. Challenges to its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature will be unavoidable. Marriage risks becoming any formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time. On such a trajectory, marriage will eventually unravel altogether.



... A few more points to add:
Let's not forget the evidence from Spain and the Netherlands that show they have suffered catastrophic reductions in marriage rates following the introduction of same-sex marriage! You can say that the rates were already dropping but they completely tailed off exponentially once marriage was redefined!

Let's also not forget that in Brazil that a judge effectively legalised three-way relationship by giving marriage-like rights to a polygamous relationship because of
civil partnership laws.

What would any sensible society do when presented with marriage and the family under threat? Surely to introduce marriage tax benefits and increasing incentives for couples who are prepared to commit to each other. For the sake of children, for the sake of society and for the welfare of the individuals themselves. The worst thing a society could do is attempt to deconstruct marriage and lower it to on par with any other relationship! What next, short term marriage contracts? It wouldn't really be marriage would it? Two men or two women attempting to mirror a heterosexual 'married' lifestyle by pledging monogamy and publicly announcing their commitment for life might constitute the relationship we now call a 'civil partnership' but it does not constitute a 'marriage'.

Marriage is set aside as special and it is simply not worth the repercussions of 'destroying' this valued institution to appease a segment of the homosexual community that stands at around 39%!

Last edited by BigD on 08-Nov-2012 at 10:25 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 08-Nov-2012 at 10:20 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright © 2000 - 2011 Amigaworld.net.

Page took 0.22951 seconds to load.