@BigD

Quote:

@Thread How about this STUDY; Quote: A July 2012 scholarly, peer-reviewed study in the journal, Social Science Research, by Professor Mark Regnerus, of the University of Texas, Austin, found that: • Children of lesbian mothers are nearly 12 times as likely to say they were sexually touched by a parent or adult as those raised in intact, biological families. • 31% of those raised by lesbian mothers and 25 % raised by homosexual fathers were raped, compared to 8% of those raised in intact, biological families. • 90% of children raised in a normative household were heterosexual, whereas 61% raised by a lesbian parent and 71% raised by a homosexual father were not.

Would that be the Mark Regnerus whose study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute, an organisation with ties to the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage. If you had bothered to check, you would have found the following facts.

1.) Regnerus later withdrew his allegations admitting that his research was flawed. EVIDENCE
2.) In 2010, the SPLC designated the Family Research Council as a hate group, based on their repeated propagation of known falsehoods that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities. EVIDENCE
3.) The National Organisation for Marriage is another organisation listed by the SPLC as a hate group that is perfectly willing to distort facts and tell absolute lies in order to advance its aims. EVIDENCE
4.) The Witherspoon Institute responsible for this "study" not only rigged the terms of reference for the study, but they also falsified and bypassed the peer review process. EVIDENCE.

I seem to remember this particular "study" being cited by you before but now that I have shown the EVIDENCE that it is fraudulent hate propoganda, perhaps you will stop citing this particular lie in future.

Last edited by Nimrod on 10-Nov-2012 at 10:39 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Why don't YOU read your own LINKS!

Dr. Holyfield calling for a retraction of Mark Regnerus' study is not the same Mark Regnerus retracting the study!!!

Quote:

I asked Dr. Holyfield if she wanted to make any other statements about the Regnerus study. “Yes,” she said. “I am calling for retraction of the Regnerus study from publication. I call for retraction, and I strongly encourage disclosure of the names of the peer reviewers who engaged in conflicts of interest. These are only some of the ways that integrity can be restored to the process. The Regnerus study must be retracted from publication.”

Since Dr Holyfield wrote the following

Holyfield, Lori. 2002. Moving Up and Out: Poverty, Education, and the Single Parent Family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

... I'd say she has an invested interest in promoting other 'family' units other than a married mother and father raising children. While she is entitled to her opinion, her opinions definitely haven't led to the retraction of the study!

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

I seem to remember this particular "study" being cited by you before but now that I have shown the EVIDENCE that it is fraudulent hate propoganda, perhaps you will stop citing this particular lie in future.

You are an entirely deluded individual if your think your failed attempt at rational debate and your flawed data processing proves anything. You are stuck in your 'new liberal' mindset and as such focus everything through your liberal prism. If you don't like the data you'll find some more qualified liberal moron to try and discredit it. How about you go back to college and learn how to process and interpret data properly? At the moment you can't see the 'wood for the trees'. You'll argue until your blue in the face that the redefinition of marriage won't harm our children, relationships or our society and yet the wealth of evidence and public opinion is against you.

Last edited by BigD on 10-Nov-2012 at 10:57 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Nimrod Why don't YOU read your own LINKS! Dr. Holyfield calling for a retraction of Mark Regnerus' study is not the same Mark Regnerus retracting the study!!! Quote: I asked Dr. Holyfield if she wanted to make any other statements about the Regnerus study. “Yes,” she said. “I am calling for retraction of the Regnerus study from publication. I call for retraction, and I strongly encourage disclosure of the names of the peer reviewers who engaged in conflicts of interest. These are only some of the ways that integrity can be restored to the process. The Regnerus study must be retracted from publication.” Since Dr Holyfield wrote the following Holyfield, Lori. 2002. Moving Up and Out: Poverty, Education, and the Single Parent Family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ... I'd say she has an invested interest in promoting other 'family' units other than a married mother and father raising children. While she is entitled to her opinion, her opinions definitely haven't led to the retraction of the study!

How? Was she part of this study? No she wasn't so how does she have a invetsed interest in this exactly?

This is a breakdown of the report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnCqAT_bcw

The guy even admitted the flaws and claimed it was impossible to get accurate findings. Also she is not claiming she will review it. So how, again, does she have a vested interest?

Do I need to add a rolly eye smily thing in order for it to make any sense for you? Or are you now saying that we are just deluded because we don't fit in with your views?

I going to say deluded probably knowing how your arguments pan out.

"they don't agree with so they are DELUDED LIBERALS!!!!" or to some extent.

Last edited by CritAnime on 10-Nov-2012 at 11:07 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@CritAnime

The point is that Nimrod claimed that the study had been retracted when it hasn't. One liberal sociologist who has a vested interest in promoting single mother families (having written a book on it) has issue with the study! SO WHAT! I have no interest in her grievances. If she doesn't like the report why doesn't she return to her department at the University of Arkansas and conduct her own study which can stand on its own merits. The findings still stand.

Last edited by BigD on 10-Nov-2012 at 11:20 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 10-Nov-2012 at 11:18 PM.

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

@CritAnime

P.S.

Who the hell is Zinnia Jones on YouTube?! Is she scientifically trained? Why drag her into this.

Oh yeah I see now. She is the self confessed;

Queen of Atheism

Thanks for your unbiased reporting there CritAnime!

Last edited by BigD on 10-Nov-2012 at 11:27 PM.

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

@CritAnime

Dr Lori Holyfield's 1st book summarised on Amazon;
Quote:

"Moving Up and Out" focuses on just such a program, the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship Fund, which has since 1984 provided scholarships for single parents interested in obtaining their post-secondary education. In this story of a highly successful nonprofit, Lori Holyfield (herself a recipient of a scholarship) draws upon the voices of single parents to consider the barriers and struggles faced as they attempt to obtain secondary education and change the lives of both themselves and their children. The help this program has brought to Arkansas residents is needed throughout the country. Author note: Lori Holyfield is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

So she's a single mother herself who had state funding to get back into education and eventually get a PhD. Inspired stuff for sure but this background probably makes her quite bias and opinionated against people with proof that a family led by a married mother and father leads to better outcomes for children.

Last edited by BigD on 10-Nov-2012 at 11:42 PM.

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

@BigD

You make me lol. Gonna dumb this down so you can understand it.

You are biased against anything that doesn't fit into your religious views. Doesn't matter if it true. You have given us a report. A report that has a lot of flaws. It doesn't take a genius to work that out as simply reading the results shows that it is completely weighted towards the one man one woman family model. Not enough information was taken in order to make a full analysis. The way that the information was collated was flawed. Many academics (once again I will provide a link to the letter sent from numerous academics stating the flaws and calling for it be pulled and a proper review done letter) state that it is flawed. You cannot come to any conclusive decision if your have flawed information. It is people like yourself that claim it's validity without looking at the actual bulk of it. You take the flawed information then wrap it in a way that fits into your way of thinking.

Oh and does it really matter that an atheist has ripped your little report to bits? Last time I checked it wasn't a religious video so I think that makes your point moot.

Just like you tried to warp the Jimmy Saville thing into a form that you could use to defend your arguments you are doing it again with this report. which only works if your a closed minded bigot.

But hey I am just the product of a "broken" family (even though both my parents where close in my life). I didn't get married in a church as we had a civil ceremony and my child is not baptised. I work in a job where I heal and help people even though I am an atheist and so should be the spawn of all things evil. So that probably means that I am biased anyway. But you know what stuff it. I know that Gay marriage is a good thing. And just like Heterosexual marriage people will either take it or leave it.

Gay people will fall in love, they will bang like crazy and they will fall out.... Oh wait that sounds just a straight relationship.

Gay people might have affairs or sleep around.... Wait that's a big Heterosexual thing too.

Gays will want to get married either as a civil thing or at church.... Wait thats a straight thing too.

And gays are people to. Just like me and you.

So screw it lets spend 3.7 million on something worth while and make some people gay!!! (happy you jerk before you try twisting that one)

YAY!!

(do you reckon I have thrown enough in there to piss him off?)

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

@Nimrod Why don't YOU read your own LINKS! Dr. Holyfield calling for a retraction of Mark Regnerus' study is not the same Mark Regnerus retracting the study!!!

EVIDENCE

Quote:

One liberal sociologist who has a vested interest in promoting single mother families (having written a book on it) has issue with the study! SO WHAT!

I might agree with you if it was just one lone voice if it were not for the fact that there is clear evidence of intellectual fraud, and deliberate rigging of the peer review system. This entire episode discredits both universities involved and shows them to be not institutes for learning, but establishments for the dissemination of hate propoganda. And also it is not just one biased member of an interest group EVIDENCE.

I also note that you do not offer any EVIDENCE to support the lies put out by this falsified "research" document, or any explanation of the clear falsification and evasion of peer review, instead you simply complain that somebody who lays a complaint against their shady practices is biased. That is like saying that the victim of a crime cannot give evidence against the perpetrator because they do not accept that the accused is innocent.

Quote:

The findings still stand.

The findings are a deliberate lie perpetrated by an alliance of known hate groups funded by organisations that are illegally attempting to conceal their involvement in a variety of criminal conspiracies. The fact that their activities have destroyed the credibility of two universities, one of which was once highly respected, is entirely incidental to the matter. The fact that these findings were not struck out immediately shames the entire educational system of the USA

Incidentally, one of the groups behind this smear campaign is currently fighting a rearguard action over its failure to declare campaign contributions. EVIDENCE

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

@Nimrod

I guess sometimes the truth hurts too much. It seems much easier for liberals to stick their fingers in their ears and keep chirping 'equality' and 'love is love' and attempt to debunk anyone that comes with evidence against the precious liberal 'faith position' that somehow rewrites homosexual marriage as a human right!

It seems high time that you accept practising homosexuals aren't bothered about redefining marriage (39% at the last count), the general public are bothered about marriage being destroyed (611,000+ at the last count), and the government is trying to twist the consultation stats to attempt to justify pressing ahead!

Telegraph: Maria Miller spouts rubbish about Redefining Marriage

Quote:

Before Christmas Mrs Miller will respond to the recent consultation on same-sex marriage once civil servants have worked through the 228,000 responses – a record for a consultation.

The Government states it has received an stupendous 228,000 responses in the Redefining Marriage Consultation which equates to the largest number in British Government history.

It doesn't seem to include the names and addresses of the further 500,000 people, submitted by the Coalition for Marriage before the consultation deadline. I smell a rat Mr Cameron!

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 12:30 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 12:29 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 12:28 AM.

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

@CritAnime

Quote:

And gays are people to. Just like me and you.

Yes they are but they are not a distinct gender or a creed set apart from me, they are a group of people who choose to engage in homosexual activity. They are not restricted from getting married as they could choose to get counselling to help talk through and deal with the feelings of same sex attraction if they no longer want to have them and then they could find the person of the opposite sex that completes them and get married! However, if they choose not to take that track they can have a civil partnership and do you know what there's even a third option. They could live a life free of sex all together and live a life of celibacy. Wow, hard to believe it's an option in our sex drenched media overloaded culture but it is

So let's recap;
Choice 1) Get counselling and marry someone of the opposite sex
Choice 2) Have a civil partnership with someone of the same sex
Choice 3) Live a celibate life.

They could even stay as they are...

Choice 4) Do what they were already doing i.e. having casual sex with around 7 partners every year, thereby living a risky life style that will lead them to have a life expectancy at least 20 years less than the rest of us. And, we jovially refer to this as being part of the gay community! Choice 2 will probably lead back into this choice anyway due to an increase in civil partnership annulments.

If marriage is redefined it is also more than likely that temporary marriage contracts will be legalised in the next redefinition meaning the commitment element would probably cease to exist anyway! Wouldn't that be progress

The choice is theirs. The choice to destroy marriage however is not theirs or yours to take especially as only 39% of practising homosexuals see redefining marriage as a priority anyway! This begs the question if they don't care why do you?

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:09 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:08 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:06 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

EVIDENCE

That article you linked to is dated 1st August and the study is still available for download. It hasn't been retracted however much you want it to be. You are trying to use a blog by a guy called Ed Brayton to prove something that not even the blog is claiming is the case!

From Ed Brayton's very sciency blog
Quote:

and is going to essentially retract its publication and admit that the study is crap and should never have been approved.

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:25 AM.

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

@BigD

But again all this could be applied to straight people. Minus the insane counselling for something that even defined as a mental illness in the first place. So let me recap.

1) They screw and flirt and have no more relationships than most straight people that go out on a Friday and Saturday night and get wankered on cheap booze. And a good percentage of them actually want to settle down with one partner (shock gasp. I know it's hard to accept but it's true! I people like that!)
2) They could have a civil partnership but why not give them the choice to be married too. I have the choice between them.
3) Why don't you or any other straight person live a celibate life? Could it be you like sex and that intimate feeling you have?
4) Not get counselling for something that they don't need counselling for and instead get help for any abuse from the hands of people like yourself who think they are a blight on the world.

Oh and by the way the link that you gave to the news article. Do you even READ your links?

Quote:

“I would not introduce a Bill that would in any way impinge on a church’s power to decide who it marries. Faith groups should have the ability to control that. There are already clear protections within European law.”

Seems to me that if your particular brand of religious church doesn't want anything to do with it then they don't have to. Which begs the question why are you even worried? It's simply giving Homosexuals the same rights to marriage.

For example I wasn't allowed to be married in certain churches because I am not baptised or practice their religion and I respected that. That still didn't stop me from getting married or having that option to get married because a certain church told me no, now did it?

So again let people be happy and live in peace. I thought that was one of the main things of Catholicism and Christianity. Or have I read something wrong somewhere

Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:39 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:29 AM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@CritAnime

Quote:

Oh and by the way the link that you gave to the news article. Do you even READ your links? Quote: Quote: “I would not introduce a Bill that would in any way impinge on a church’s power to decide who it marries. Faith groups should have the ability to control that. There are already clear protections within European law.”

Such a shame that Maria Miller cannot implement the safeguards she is implying she can.

Telegraph: Gay Marriage is not a human right

Quote:

Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, told the Mail: "Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. "This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."

And anyway the changes to our laws required would not only affect churches but school curriculum, teachers rights to refuse to use unsuitable teaching material, parents rights to remove children from 'gay marriage' lessons, register offices, chaplaincy services, B&Bs, councils, church trustees, foster couples and many other professions, vocations and places of work before the 'Equality Police' catch up with the church. You really are suggesting a '1984'-type future full of persecution and suffering for those that stand up to this sick 'liberal agenda' nonsense!

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

@BigD

Seriously. Your comparing this to 1984? A book about tyranny, fascism, oppression, censorship, sexual repression and conversion. Sounds to me your way of thinking is more akin to it. Especially as your talking about repressing someone’s sexuality and personality and oppressing them, taking their rights away and trying to convert them into something they are not. Think you need to rethink that reference there.

What did you think I had not read that one?

Your other points can also be applied, once again, to any number of social situations. Regurgitated tripe springs to mind by a fear mongering section of society.



(this staying up all night lark with a teething baby is a joy on your typing skills *yawn*)
(screw it I am off to bed. )

Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:14 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:09 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:05 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:04 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:02 AM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

they could choose to get counselling to help talk through and deal with the feelings of same sex attraction if they no longer want to have them

This is not true, see the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the World Health Organisation, the AMA and whichever other reputable organisation of medical practitioners for the background.

On the other hand we have you, sticking your nose into other peoples' private lives and demanding the right to call the shots there, hating on the gays to cover your own insecurity.

Now, again referring to those organisations, you can choose to get counseling to help talk through and deal with the feelings of hate.

If of course you no longer want to have them. Doubtful, to say the least.

Quote:

Do what they were already doing i.e. having casual sex with around 7 partners every year, thereby living a risky life style that will lead them to have a life expectancy at least 20 years less than the rest of us.

I already linked you to the independent polling that indicates heterosexuals and homosexuals are not statistically more or less promiscuous than the other. The fact that you continue to spread the lie is just another example of your bearing false witness.

Quote:

If marriage is redefined it is also more than likely that temporary marriage contracts will be legalised in the next redefinition

And you care about the contracts governing other peoples' marriages because...?

Again, its your own insecurities projected onto society as a whole and covered over with a large dose of gay-bashing.

And we're the ones preaching '1984', while you're the one telling everyone else how they are and are not allowed to behave in their own bedrooms with their own spouses?? Truly incredible.

Quote:

The choice is theirs. The choice to destroy marriage however is not theirs or yours to take especially as only 39% of practising homosexuals see redefining marriage as a priority anyway! This begs the question if they don't care why do you?

Do you even read what the rest of these folk post? Remember the anti-womens' suffrage poster - 90% of women don't even want it!

Also, I refer you back to the bit where I pointed out how the top priority for government policy regarding LGBT people is preventing discrimination in schools and in the workplace. This does not reduce the argument for equal marriage, it merely widens our scope of understanding.

Its simply sad that you can't understand that.

@CritAnime

Quote:

Especially as your talking about repressing someone’s sexuality and personality and oppressing them, taking their rights away and trying to convert them into something they are not.

Destroying marriage and thereby persecuting those in our culture that still hold true to 'marriage' the relationship as laid out in the Bible and societies around the world for centuries rather than the mess of a fudge of weird liberal post-modern values that you are supporting is sick and totally in line with George Orwell's '1984'.

Do you remember the bit in the book where history is constantly regurgitated edited and retyped ad nauseum? That's what the future looks like. Marriage would be redefined ad nauseum with polygamy and temporary marriage contracts surely following.

Do you remember the bit where there are cameras and microphones everywhere listening out for counter cultural talk or politically incorrect actions? Well that's what teachers and chaplains and registrars and other public sector workers have to look forward to, as anyone who believes in marriage as being between one man and one woman will systematically be forced out of the jobs and persecuted by the authorities. So yeah, I'll stick with metaphor thank you very much.

What is more important that 39% of practising homosexuals (the ones that see it as a priority), equivalent to 292,500 people get the option to have 'gay-marriage' (despite already having all the legal rights in civil partnerships) or that well meaning people who have concern for the children in their care, the vulnerable people in their care or with concern to carry out their jobs honestly with a clear conscience are kept from being forced from their jobs?

This isn't the American Civil Rights movement where racial liberty was at stake. You are part of a small group of selfish people trying to demonise a large section of our society for standing up for a beloved and valuable institution that they don't want to see destroyed. They do this for the sake of our children, families and the country at large and don't deserve to be forced out of their jobs because they don't agree with your perverse and over the top 'gay rights agenda'.

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:35 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 02:32 AM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Franko My basis for that statement comes from the fact that no homosexual gene has been found.

In all the years I've been around that has got to be the worst reason I have ever been given by anyone as their "reason" for thinking something is "fact" (and I've met many strange & self delusional people in my time...

So you now base things you claim as being fact on the fact the "they haven't found a gene for that yet"...

They haven't found a gene that makes some people grow up to commit murder, adultery, or heck even be a gene that makes someone heterosexual...

So by your very own words and absurd way of thinking then because there is no gene that has been found for the above then being heterosexual is not natural either and by your logic that makes it a "fact" in your mind...

You really are genuinely crazy aren't you (and I thought I was the only one round here whom had been certified...

Quote:

Also all of the friends I have who have become practising homosexuals have had absent or bad father figures in their lives or suffered abuse at the hands of extended family which can't be a coincidence. A few have either dabbled in homosexuality following a bad relationship break down or a divorce and at least two tried the homosexual lifestyle for a couple of years before finding a partner of the opposite sex again. These are NOT the actions of people who are born with a predesignated homosexuality.

Well it must be coincidence because as I have told you before everyone I know personally whom is homosexual not a single one of them were abused or came from broken homes etc...

They all came from perfectly happy, caring heterosexual homes...


Quote:

Plus the programme; Gay to Straight clearly shows the young men attempting to come to terms with their unwanted homosexual feelings as far more well balanced and true to themselves than the men who gave into their homosexual lusts and joined the homosexual lifestyle. Despite a severely biased BBC presenter this was still obvious to the viewer.

You really are quite unintelligent after all aren't you, just like you try to claim the tiny number of people who signed the petition you support somehow in your mind represent the majority now you think that a few people on a TV program somehow also represent the majority...

You need help BigD, really you do...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

It seems high time that you accept practising homosexuals aren't bothered about redefining marriage (39% at the last count),

Do you remember this image that BrianK included in #1465

You are trotting out the same tired old lies now as your predecessors did then, with the exception that you are now adding the lie that homosexuality is entirely a matter of choice, based on ther fact that we have not foung a "gay gene". I am referring to the absence of a "gay gene" as a fact because that is not how genetic coding works. There is not a "gay gene" just as there is not a "religious bigotry gene", or a "hate gene", or even a "stupidity gene".

Quote:

That article you linked to is dated 1st August and the study is still available for download. It hasn't been retracted however much you want it to be

So what you are saying is that because a known and proven liar refuses to subsequently retract that lie, then the lie has to be accepted despite the clear and incontrvertible evidence that it is a lie. Have you ever heard of something called the ninth commandment, or does it not apply to "christians" Why is it that, in order to spread your "truth" you have to bury it in a cesspit of lies?
In 1989, the South Yorkshire police and the Sun newspaper lied about the Liverpool supporters actions at the Hillsborough stadium. The fact that they refused to retract those lies for over twenty years does not render those lies true, just as the fact that the pope only recognised that Copernicus and Galileo were right in 1992, does not mean that prior to 1992 the sun orbited the earth.

Quote:

They are not restricted from getting married

Yes.
They.
Are.
They do not currently have the right to marry the partner of their own choosing, and that is what this change is all about. Once these proposals are signed into law, they will not be forced to accept the mealy mouthed concessions wrung out after a history of theocratic oppression, they will have equaliy in law, as will you.

From your Quote: Quote:

Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, told the Mail: "Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. "This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."

You seem concerned that the secular government will be unable to interfere in what happens on religious premises. Why??? Just as the government will be unable to prevent religious premises carrying out same sex marriages if the wish to, they will also be unable to force them to carry out such ceremonies against their will It is called freedom of choice, something that you seem determined to prevent at all costs.

Quote:

You really are suggesting a '1984'-type future full of persecution and suffering for those that stand up to this sick 'liberal agenda' nonsense!

The only ones attempting to impose their own life choices on others are yourself and you affiliated hate group. ( I notice you fail to defend the quoted "research" from this description) Nobody is seeking to force you into a homosexual relatonship, we simply seek to allow other people the same right of self determination that you have embraced for yourself. We want people to be able to CHOOSE not to be a closed minded, arrogant, self righteous, theo-fascist if they want, while not imposing that CHOICE on others.

You keep using the word liberal as though it were some kind of a swear word. Why are you so against the concepts of freedom of choice, freedom of conscience, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, among others.
You keep on referring to 1984, but I am wondering if you have ever actually bothered to read the book.1984 tells the story of one man's journey to find the truth and ultimately freedom in a very brutal totalitarian regime. Please note that he finds [/b]truth[/b] and he finds freedom, and the regime he starts out living under is not a liberal one. It is not liberals who demand that people surrender their right to think, but religions, and historically the worst periods of oppression have been under the auspices of theocratic rule.

EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE

This unaltered and unamended history shows that "Adolf the Catholic" was simply following the tradition of christianity when he presided over the extermination of more than six million people. an act that was not condemned by the pope at the time.

Last edited by Nimrod on 11-Nov-2012 at 01:29 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

or that well meaning people who have concern for the children in their care, the vulnerable people in their care or with concern to carry out their jobs honestly with a clear conscience are kept from being forced from their jobs?

Are you aware that well meaning people do not carry out policies of discrimination, prejudice and oppression, and standing up to these things is not "imposing tyranny"You have a right to your religious opinions, but you do not have the right to use them to oppress others, and denying somebody the full freedom of choice is oppression

Quote:

This isn't the American Civil Rights movement where racial liberty was at stake.

This statement is true enough on two counts.
1) it is not America, but Britain that will benefit from this legislation, although I note that certain advances were made in USA concurrent with the recent election. Congratulations USA
2) The liberty that is at stake is not racial this time. It was before, and it may well be again, but not this particular time and place.

Quote:

You are part of a small group of selfish people trying to demonise a large section of our society

The only people being demonised in order to justify prejudice and discrimination are the homosexuals. There has been no multi million dollar campaign to generate a fundamentally flawed piece of hate propoganda aimed at religious groups. This is despite religious groups having to admit that they shielded and protected paedophiles within their ranks, to the detriment of those that they should have been caring for.. It is the Family Research Council, and the National Organisation for Marriage that have been declared hate groups by the SPLC. and it was the National Organisation for Marriage that have been illegally concealing funding recieved from Mitt Romney. I assume that they thought Romney would win the recent election and would help cover up the dishonesty committed by Regnerus et al meaning that they would not have to retract the lies.

Quote:

They do this for the sake of our children, families and the country at large and don't deserve to be forced out of their jobs because they don't agree with your perverse and over the top 'gay rights agenda'.

Where people have lost their jobs, it is because they breached the terms of their contract of employment. Where people have lost their court cases, it is because they contravened the law. So yes, they do deserve everything that happens to them.
I also note that you accept that you are seeking to prevent Gay Rights, as opposed to Gay Supremacy. Is it ignorance or arrogance that makes you think that suppression of rights is a good idea? And would you be so enthusiastic if it were your rights that were being curtailed to levels less than those of the rest of society?

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