@bigD

What you describe is exactly what is happening to Gay rights right now. You are regurgitating history and falsified, flawed studies in order to portray the propaganda that certain communities within religious sectors wish to enforce upon all aspects of British Culture as Minitrue does. And when this fails you doctor things and sink them down memoryholes in order to make the works seem credible again. You are trying to enforce your view of goodsex and propose that anything that does not conform to this is sexcrime.

At no point have Chaplains been persecuted over their views. If anything they enjoy a rather rare freedom of speech. In that they could say anything and because they are protected under the laws designed to protect religion they know they can just say it's their personal religious view.

Public servants know that they are entitled to their own private views just like anyone else. But have to be professional in work environments. Much like myself, they are not allowed to persecute or deny people services if it is mandated by law. If someone in a position of authority within the public sector has a dispute with what is written into law then maybe they reconsider their profession. As much as it pains me at times, I still treat people who come to the hospital I work in that spout nothing but abuse at me. I do this with a smile on my face and grin and bare it. Many other people are professional enough to do this too. We keep our personal opinions to ourselves and leave it at that.

State schools have to work to guidelines set by government. However if a private school or religious school does not wish to teach certain things then they are entitled not to.

Again religious communities still have the right to refuse a marriage to anybody, gay or straight, if they do not wish to do so. Again I was refused marriage by a church because I was not baptised, even though my wife was. That was their decision and I respected that decision. And that would be the kind of decision that would not be revoked under EU law even for gay marriage. If a church does not wish to marry someone they don't have to. Which again makes me wonder why you think it will muddy your little pool unless your minister approves of gay marriage and you worry this will reflect badly on yourself in some way.

The only selfish people here are the kind of people like yourself that feel they have to demonise the Homosexual communities, and anything else you feel is “liberal” madness. The kind of people that feel that only one way of living is the way they live and so thrust their views upon the rest of the world regardless of their validity.

Now I am going to bow out of this madness for a while. My child is sick with something and both myself and my wife are going to take turns to stay up with him. I am pretty sure there will be some half arsed response to this and I will be dropping into the thread to check it but not reply. I seriously hope that what ever makes you think your been persecuted subsides and realise it is people like yourself that is persecuting a vulnerable aspect of society.

And that’s not an attack on religion. Far from it. That’s my personal view of a small sub section of those religious communities that feel they are been betrayed in some way. It is always the minority of a community that portrays the whole in a bad light.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@Nimrod

Quote:

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.

As you well know the limits of the equivalency of civil partnerships were not known until the Bull's case tested the law. This was and still is a developing section of the law that is rapidly moving into a position which says 'Gay Rights' trump all other rights whether they be freedom of religious belief or freedom of speech. The Bull's held that their policy was only to let people who were married to have a room with a double bed, which was ruled illegal only after the judge cemented the fact that civil partnership are now legally equivalent to marriage (something you dispute ).

In the Wilkinson's case the law was tested again this time with a homosexual couple that had made no commitment to each other. The Wilkinson's held that their B&B policy was that only a married couple should have a room with a double bed and the judge effectively ruled that Christian hoteliers should be persecuted for taking a stand on the Biblical belief that sex should be preserved for marriage. This has evolved beyond equality and into religious persecution.

Presumably the next case will be from a cohabiting heterosexual couple who feel wronged at Christian hoteliers not allowing them to have a double bed. The case after that will be two unmarried 16 year olds wanting to book a double room for the night to have casual sex after their prom night! Where does this perversion stop? Should Christians really be forced to support these activities going on under their own roof? I know of teenage girls who have been effectively raped because of hotels turning a blind eye to young men booking rooms for casual sex before the girl even knows what is happening. Your post-modernistic drive for us all to tolerate all these perversions and yet force Christians out of their jobs is persecution and an innate evil that is comparable to the rise of the Nazi party.

The law is so heavily stacked towards gay rights that even when homosexuals aren't the least bit interested in redefining marriage the frothing bellowing 'new liberals' can push the twisted agenda forward on their behalf!!! This effectively is a drive to outlaw Christians from running B&Bs, fostering services and to force them from the public sector all for a sake of a new gay-marriage provision that hardly any homosexuals will actually sign up to!

As to the breech of contract thing,Lillian Ladele did no such thing. The council were happy for her to continue to conduct solely marriage ceremonies because their legal responsibility to provide civil partnerships was still being met (because the numbers of civil partnership was and is so low that other staff without conscientious objections could conduct them). The only problem was when trouble making colleagues decided to make a political point of trying to oust her from her livelihood because of their over zealous interpretation of the equality guidance! The council never changed the terms of Lillian Ladele's contract when civil partnerships were introduced and could have quite easily and legally accommodated her conscientious objections. The same provisions are made for atheist teachers that don't want to take Christian assemblies and for Quakers who don't want to go to war, so your reasoning is highly flawed and your understanding of how case law evolves is non-existent!

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

@CritAnime

Since you are a nurse I think you above all people should take a good hard look at the health implications of promoting homosexuality to school children considering by pushing them into the 'gay community' you could be reducing their life expectancy by up to 20 years!

If this was another life choice like smoking or obesity you'd be printing posters and running seminars to stop people choosing to live like this. But because you're deluded enough to think people are born gay you pretend you're doing them a service

No wonder you have so much invested in your arguments because if you ever listened to your conscience I fail to see how you could live with yourself within the so called 'caring' profession you signed up to!

I pray that your child feel better soon, and hold nothing against you personally. I just feel sorry that you value the institution of marriage so little that you're prepared to allow it to be completely destroyed for no conceivable reason considering all the legal rights of marriage are already granted in civil partnership as demonstrated by the Bull's B&B case.

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 11:51 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The Wilkinson's held that their B&B policy was that only a married couple should have a room with a double bed

That may indeed have been their policy, but it never was enforcible in law. If my wife and I turned up at their establishment having booked and paid for a room they are not permitted to deny us that room because we had a civil marriage as opposed to a church wedding, They are not permitted to turn us away if we neglected to get the states permission and were cohabiting. If the Wilkinsons B&B policy contravenes the law against discrimination then the Wilkinsons are breaking the law, and claiming to be exempt from the law because you have an invisible friend is the last resort of a liar or a lunatic.

Quote:

Presumably the next case will be from a cohabiting heterosexual couple who feel wronged at Christian hoteliers not allowing them to have a double bed. The case after that will be two unmarried 16 year olds wanting to book a double room for the night to have casual sex after their prom night!

Since both of these examples have a legal right to spend a night in a hotel then they too could prosecute under discrimination laws. The law that protects these people from discrimination is the same one that protects my wife and I from persecution because radical christians do not recognise my right to be married to a christian, and also prevents an islamic hotelier from throwing you out into the street.

Quote:

The law is so heavily stacked towards gay rights

The law is not stacked in favour of "Gay Rights", although I note it is still "Rights" that you are seeking to challenge, it is tending toward equal rights. Unfortunately for your particular privileged minority that means an end to your protected status

Quote:

As to the breech of contract thing,Lillian Ladele did no such thing

Islington Council chose to designate all its existing registrars for civil partnership duties. That means that her job description was updated to accomodate changes in the law since she first started. She claims that her discrimiation could be accomodated without any adverse effect on the service, however ,Ladele’s refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues. I suppose that if you persist in telling your colleagues that they are disgusting godless perverts you should expect them to get a bit irritated.

Quote:

The council never changed the terms of Lillian Ladele's contract when civil partnerships were introduced

Yes they did. EVIDENCE and you know it. Remember the ninth commandment, and then tell me what happens to little boys who tell lies.


Quote:

The same provisions are made for atheist teachers that don't want to take Christian assemblies and for Quakers who don't want to go to war,

Not only has T-J given you anecdotal evidence that this is not the case, and you are fully aware of this, but choose to reiterate a lie anyway. If Quakers do not want to go to war, then I can only suggest that Quakers do not join the armed forces. The same applies to Jehovahs witnesses, Jainists, and any other pacifist religion or philosophy. Also Quakers have chosen to embrace the concept of same sex weddings but are currently prevented as a result of your choice. How does that equate to freedom of religious choice? Or is religious choice restricted to your small minded group of friends?

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Not only has T-J given you anecdotal evidence that this is not the case, and you are fully aware of this, but choose to reiterate a lie anyway.

That was a Catholic faith school and hardly an example of how things are handled across the board. Comprehensives and most private schools would accommodate atheist teachers by NOT forcing them to conduct Christian assemblies. The responsibility is passed to Christian teachers or teachers sympathetic to the Christian faith, the pupils don't suffer and the legal obligation to provide Christian assemblies is honoured. The same could and should apply to other walks of life. Common sense and tolerance used to be a central part of our society, now we just have insensitive totalitarian liberal whack jobs like yourself in power. The 'gay rights agenda' is out of control and attempting to usher in a new wave of intolerance and persecution, the very thing you claim to be trying to reduce

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 10:34 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Common sense and tolerance used to be a central part of our society, now we just have insensitive totalitarian liberal whack jobs like yourself in power.

It's quite remarkable how your warped mind works, that you would think you were in the position to make this claim as if you were the tolerant one and the rest of the world were the intolerant ones.

Do you even comprehend how far away from reality you are?

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

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid & the new-liberals

Do you know any history of how totalitarian regimes develop? Do you understand how the rise of the Nazi Party occurred? Do you understand the basis and value of free speech and how valuable marriage is to society. Are you so warped that you think that the mantra 'whatever is good for you?' is enough to base the whole governance of our society on? In my opinion you fail to grasp any of these things.

Marriage has served our society well for centuries and you simply want to discard it due to your bizarre sense of pseudo-equality! The Bull's case proves that civil partnerships have legal equality with marriage and yet you want to go one further and totally tear up the entire fabric of our society to appease around 292,500 people when over 611,000 stand against you and the majority of those 292,000 can't be bothered to reply to a government consultation or sign the C4EM petition. Staggering!!!

Non of the redefinition arguments stack up and yet you carry on with your 'new liberal' ranting anyway. Leave the homosexuals to fight their own battles on issues that they actually care about rather than masquerading this up as a civil rights battle when it's just you, Dave C, Alex Salmond and a few thousand new-liberal nutters thinking they know best

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

@Nimrod

From your EVIDENCE link
Quote:

For a year or so, Ladele managed to avoid civil partnership ceremonies. But then two gay registrars complained and she was eventually forced to resign. At the end of 2009, the Court of Appeal found against her. Why, then, does she say she was a victim of unjustified discrimination? Islington certainly treated Ladele in the same way as it treated its other registrars. But it did so without regard to the material difference between her circumstances and theirs: the conscientious objections she had, based on her religious beliefs. Such treatment amounts to indirect discrimination unless it can be justified.. ...That was not what the Court of Appeal thought. It said that Islington’s ‘legitimate aim’ was to minimise discrimination among its staff. ‘Ladele’s refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues,’ the court said. Her objection was ‘based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington’s requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished’. But this, argues Rose, is confusing aims with means..

Where does it say she breached her contract or that her contract was changed? READ YOUR OWN LINKS!

The Court of Appeal judgment was based on the fact the judge believed the teaching of marriage is not a core belief of Christianity!

Genesis 2:24

Quote:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

There's more to being a Christian than going to church on a Sunday;

Ephesians 2:10

Quote:

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I don't think doing good works stretches as far as promoting homosexual acts;

Leviticus 18:22

Quote:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Quote:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Last edited by BigD on 12-Nov-2012 at 12:08 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2012 at 11:46 PM.

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

@BigD

Wow, just wow.

The "new-liberals" you speak of are the majority of the people in the Western World.

The century you live in is over. It ended a long time ago. You really need to either accept this and evolve, or find a country where the majority still hold your views. Not many left, maybe Iran? No, Iran is far more progressive than you...


@Thread

See? Back to him spewing out quotations from the Bible. It's an endless cycle. He's trapped in his own hellish ground hog day, hopefully it will take him less time to break free than the 10,000 years Bill Murray's character was trapped in the film with the same name (according to the film scripts).

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 12-Nov-2012 at 04:24 AM.

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

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Nimrod claims that Ladele, the Bull's and Wilkinson's simply broke the law, open and shut cases, end of, but that simply wasn't the case. Someone has to shine the light of truth in this thread and it certainly isn't going to be you.

Ladele was just practising her faith by having a conscientious objection to carrying out civil partnerships just as Christian B&Bs can't promote homosexual activity by giving homosexuals double beds, just as they wouldn't give two unmarried heterosexual 16 year olds (or heterosexuals of any other age) a double room after their prom! If people don't like the house rules they can go elsewhere.

By your intolerant attitudes people like you are attempting to exclude Christians from a large section of jobs and public services. That my friend is persecution and discrimination. As already discussed 'gay-marriage' is NOT a human right and due to the fact the redefinition will actually increase intolerance and persecution rather than reduce it, it should be stricken from the governments agenda.

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

@BigD


Quote:

y she breached her contract or that her contract was changed? READ YOUR OWN LINKS!

I did. End of paragraph 7.

Learn to read!
Quote:

But Islington chose to designate all its existing registrars for civil partnership duties.

That means that Ladele, as an existing registrar was re-designated to carry out all parts of the job, just as I and others have to carry out all duties that our employers deem to be part of the job.

Talking of jobs, I'm off to work now and will sift through the rest of your lies and hate speech later.

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

The "new-liberals" you speak of are the majority of the people in the Western World.

That is an illusion orchestrated by a liberally biased media. In reality you are very much in a minority, focused around London and urban conurbations. The c4em petition is stuck on 63,000 and only a few thousand of you bothered to fill in the government consultation. The C4M petition stands at over 611,000, swamping your numbers and given you an idea of the minority you find youself in. Even in America only nine states out of 50 recognise homosexual marriage i.e. a minority!

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

For a year or so, Ladele managed to avoid civil partnership ceremonies. But then two gay registrars complained and she was eventually forced to resign. At the end of 2009, the Court of Appeal found against her. Why, then, does she say she was a victim of unjustified discrimination? Islington certainly treated Ladele in the same way as it treated its other registrars. But it did so without regard to the material difference between her circumstances and theirs: the conscientious objections she had, based on her religious beliefs. Such treatment amounts to indirect discrimination unless it can be justified.

There is NO mention of a change to her contract.

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

all kinds of threads....

Anyway. The bibel defines (holy) Marriage to be between man and woman, so it should be like that. For gay couples something else can/should be invented, that gives similar/same tax benefits/burden/whatever earhly things. +a priest could give blessing, but the Marriage defined in bibel should not be mixed in gay "weddings"...
That's just my 0.2 cents.

(me not being overly religious person, just have my own silent belief and relation to the guy upstairs)

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@BigD

Quote:

Ladele was just practising her faith by having a conscientious objection to carrying out civil partnerships just as Christian B&Bs can't promote homosexual activity by giving homosexuals double beds, just as they wouldn't give two unmarried heterosexual 16 year olds (or heterosexuals of any other age) a double room after their prom! If people don't like the house rules they can go elsewhere.

Ladele had no right to object on the grounds of her faith. Ultimately, the law of the land will always trump God's law. And that's the main issue here, isn't it. The idea that people can just legislate away your God given laws. The so called "liberalisation" you constantly refer to is gradually eroding that thing you hold so sacred.

Also, what if a proprietor of a B&B decided that it was against their faith to permit Jews into their establishment? By your reckoning, that would be just fine. And thus endeth your argument.

Also, no-one is talking about excluding Christians from "a large section of jobs and public services". These people exclude themselves as a result of their out-dated views and opinions - they have only themselves to blame.

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

Ladele was just practising her faith by having a conscientious objection to carrying out civil partnerships

Ladele signed up to be a Public Servant. As such her job is to follow the law and make the services the government provides accessible to the people. She decided that her faith was above her job. Now, she's free to do that. However, she went about it the wrong way. She should have quit and taken a job whose duties she was capable of fulfilling. As you say if she didn't like the rules she can go elsewhere.

Quote:

By your intolerant attitudes people like you are attempting to exclude Christians from a large section of jobs and public services

If history teaches us anything it's that 'morals' as defined by Christians and Christianity are inconsistent. Many Christians support minority rights and many Christians do not. And it doesn't matter the faith - Jews and Muslims have the same sort of conservative and liberal moral value split in their faith. The attempt here is not to exclude Christians. Though it is true that members of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or other beliefs whose core values are divisivness and discrimination will be impacted. If you are a member of faith that feel you must foist your beliefs upon non-faith member or faith members who disagree with your point of view you are acting as a dictator.

Am I intolerant? I'll agree I am. I am tolerant of most everything. I am strongly intolerant of intolerance. I am strongly intolerant of the dictatorial attitudes and demands that I and the rest of society must follow your faith. Your faith isn't in charge of society it's only in charge of you.

Quote:

That is an illusion orchestrated by a liberally biased media. In reality you are very much in a minority

Perhaps true of the UK. You claimed this to be true of the USA as well. In the 2012 USA election 3 States passed gay-marriage rights. In the 2012 USA election, Minnesota, was the first State to reject a same-sex only law. It's clear the majority is tilting to gay rights. Your failure to see this is resulting in your Bearing False Witness against your Neighbors.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Nov-2012 at 02:14 PM.

@BigD

I wanted to respond to your attack on my professionalism in my job. I have a clean conscience and there is no guilty little thing nagging at me. I go to work and come home knowing that I have helped people. I do not discriminate against anyone even when they are been the hatemongers we are seeing you as. Attacking my professionalism just shows how low you are going to sink in order to score nonexistent points.

As for that report you linked. I assume your using that outdated Cameron report where obituaries f om gay newspapers were used to project life spans. A report that was conceived in 1993 at the hight of the hiv epidemic that was affect both straight and homosexuals. A report that is so flawed that NO one actually takes it seriously. The same report that was done by a heavily biased researcher who now heads some family organisation in the US. The same report he likes to dust off, rework and then tout like its new. Or are we talking about the new Canadian report that is also just as flawed and tried to do the same thing?

I am sorry but I don't buy it for some reason. Can't put my finger on exactly why.

Now I am going to get ready for work and help some sick people. How about you use some of that Christian spirit and help some needy people. Instead of venting rage for some nonexistent bull that you claim to be the truth.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

Genesis 2:24 Ephesians 2:10 Leviticus 18:22 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And in all that, not a single word that Jesus Christ actually wrote or said, and not a single reference to any specific act of his. Just opinions from Paul, from you and from an assortment of others shouting their prejudices down the generations.

Shame.

Seems you're more a Levitican than a Christian. And even then, you're cherry-picking which bits of Leviticus ought to be enforced. You still haven't satisfactorily explained why you are exalted above all men, indeed above Jesus Christ himself, and authorised to deliver your testament on which bits of the Bible are right or wrong.

Quote:

That was a Catholic faith school and hardly an example of how things are handled across the board.

I never mentioned it being a Catholic faith school. In fact, it isn't. And in fact more closely represents how things are handled across the board than you would ever admit. Regardless, just another example of you picking the 'facts' that fit your bias and hang the reality of the situation.

Quote:

If this was another life choice like smoking or obesity you'd be printing posters and running seminars to stop people choosing to live like this. But because you're deluded enough to think people are born gay you pretend you're doing them a service

If this were another fact of biology like being black or being female, you ought to be printing posters and running seminars to stop people abusing and ostracising people who are born like this. Although I doubt you would. But because you're deluded enough to think that sexuality is a choice, you hate away and pretend you're doing god's work.


And the rest of your posts have just been a reassertion of discredited 'research', and of course your Nazi analogy, which I think is so ludicrous and clearly false that it needs no rebuttal. Anybody putting forward such assertions seriously is clearly suffering from some form of paranoid delusion, so I can only repeat my earlier advice - get professional help.

@BrianK

Quote:

Perhaps true of the UK.

Hmm... Nah.

Most media in the UK is controlled by News International or the Daily Mail Group, both really rather conservative.

I guess D is talking about the BBC, but even then it only looks liberally biassed if you've just switched over from a Rush Limbaugh broadcast or some other such stuff.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @SpaceDruid Quote: The "new-liberals" you speak of are the majority of the people in the Western World. That is an illusion orchestrated by a liberally biased media. In reality you are very much in a minority, focused around London and urban conurbations. The c4em petition is stuck on 63,000 and only a few thousand of you bothered to fill in the government consultation. The C4M petition stands at over 611,000, swamping your numbers and given you an idea of the minority you find youself in. Even in America only nine states out of 50 recognise homosexual marriage i.e. a minority!

Again with this petition... In case you hadn't noticed, the number has stuck for a few months now at that number. That means that even the majority of regular church going Christians (which themselves are a small minority of people who selected Christian as their religion in the census) have not signed.

Meanwhile in the real world...

It used be to socially acceptable to torture people for not sharing your religious view. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.

It used be to socially acceptable to lynch black people for attempting to flee from slavery. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.

It used be to socially acceptable to discriminate against somebody because of their religious views. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.

It used be to socially acceptable to discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.

It used be to socially acceptable to go "queer bashing" on a Friday night. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.

It used be to socially acceptable to discriminate against somebody because they were gay or lesbian. Western society evolved to outlaw that practice.


There is no illusion occurring. Society evolves because the majority of people within it are no longer prepared to accept the status quo. People like you have always been overruled by society once the true nature of the message you preach becomes apparent.

You discriminate against gay people. The only way these people can avoid your contempt is to live in isolation and celibacy, or denial. Why should people who can share a life with another individual that is as rewarding as any straight couple, deny themselves happiness?

Because it says homosexuality is a sin in a book written thousands of years ago in a time where there wasn't much tolerance going around. So much so, that a chap called Jesus spoke up and was killed by that society for his views.

Lots of things are a sin according to that book, but you no longer put any stock in them. You post here on a Sunday, so you obviously ignore the whole day of rest thing. I'm sure you wear clothes made of more than one cloth and I'm assuming you let your wife out in public on her own and without a hijab and don't stone her to death for speaking to another man.

That you chose to ignore then, but not homosexuality shows you are a hypocrite.

That you choose to persecute one set of individuals shows you are a bigot.


Society once shared your views on homosexuality, now it no longer does. Your paltry 611,000 signature petition doesn't count for anything when the 56+ million people that live here have overwhelmingly chosen to stop discrimination against one group of people.



Your twisting of the facts about American recognition of marriage is yet another sign of desperation. The reason "only" 9 states recognise gay marriage isn't because 50 states had a vote to outlaw gay marriage. It was because some states chose to ask if they wanted it and 9 states said yes. That's progress. That's society evolving.

If you choose to invent plots to explain the changing world, then don't complain when people point out to you that you are delusional.

The idea that the western media has a liberal bias? What, because some media outlets have left leanings? Some news for you, the top selling newspapers in the UK are right wing, the most visited news website on planet Earth is the Daily Mail, a right wing paper and the largest news organisation on the planet is owned by the very right wing News Corporation.

In terms of bias, the news is firmly to the right in the western world.


Stop inventing excuses and wake up to the changing world in which you live.

_________________
"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