@BigD

Quote:

On the same subject the rise in Greece of the 'Golden Dawn' fascist group is deeply troubling and it is sadly a stark warning of where our own society is headed if we allow marriage to be destroyed and our social fabric further unravel.

I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying that 'gay marriage' will result in more fascists being created to fight against gay marriage? If so that's not a problem of gay marriage. It's a problem of small minded people that don't want freedom. It wouldn't surprise me as the KKK is Christian right-wing fascists group opposed to minority rights, such as blacks and gays, being treated on an equal basis with white straight men. Personally, I choose to choose freedom by giving gays and blacks the backing to ensure that 'all men are created equal'. Choosing freedom is always better than living in fear of 'what if' and thereby doing the fascists discriminatory bidding.

Last edited by BrianK on 13-Nov-2012 at 08:42 PM.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @BigD Oh now last years riots (which was mostly about stealing or looting stuff from shops) are part of your conspiracy?

BrianK was suggested Greece was ripe for the rise of totalitarian regimes like the Nazis because of economic recession and the break down of civil order. The London riots were an outpouring of aggression in our country caused by the recession and lack of aspiration in our youth and cultural minority groups beyond owning the next iPhone!

The same tinder keg is at the heart of our society ready to explode. This time it 'new-liberals' rising to power crushing freedoms and free speech while pretending to extend it for practising homosexuals. George Osbourne has even managed to convince himself of the need for the 'pink vote' to win the next general election despite all the evidence that shows support for the Tories is melting away because the plans to redefine marriage! As it stands a simple 3p rise in fuel duty in January could lead to public disorder. Social unrest is high and yet some are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage and damage social cohesion further at a time when our society is at breaking point.

The Times: George Osbourne tells Tories to support gay marriage to copy Obama's victory

... and all this despite warning of catastrophic support drop off in constituancies around the UK.

Telegraph: Drop your gay marriage plans Tory Chairmen tell Cameron

Quote:

The survey of Tory constituency chairmen, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, finds that 71 per cent think the proposal - which the Prime Minister has pledged will be law by 2015 - should be abandoned. Nearly half the chairmen claim their local parties have lost members as a result of the plans, while only three per cent say they have gained membership.

People need some social liberal masquerading as a man of faith like Tony Blair or Barack Obama to unite us all, George Osbourne thinks. Well the truth is the Tories have probably already severely damaged their chances of winning the next election unless they listen again to the majority and put a stop to these foolish and needless plans to redefine marriage.

Last edited by BigD on 13-Nov-2012 at 10:18 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 13-Nov-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 13-Nov-2012 at 10:14 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 13-Nov-2012 at 10:14 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 13-Nov-2012 at 10:12 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

This time it 'new-liberals' rising to power crushing freedoms and free speech while pretending to extend it for practising homosexuals.

So the rights that society have been pushing forwards are solely for the benefit of gay people? Or perhaps society has just recognised yet another minority group is entitled to the same rights and protections as the rest of society?

You are the one pushing an agenda here. You think homosexuality is a sin and therefore don't consider gay people to have the SAME (not more) rights as anyone else. Nobody else is pushing any agendas that stifle freedoms and free speech.

When was the last time your rights to practice your faith in private was taken away from you? When was the last time you were banned or denied your right to speak or protest? You've made a very big deal of one such protest with your repeated attempts to mention your petition.

Exactly what rights have been crushed here?

_________________
"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

Quote:

Exactly what rights have been crushed here?

The only 'right' crushed is taking away BigD's ability to crush the rights of minorities and to ensure inequality continues.

@SpaceDruid & BrianK

Obviously there is no inequality as civil partnerships are legally equivalent to marriage as made clear by the verdict in the case the Bull & Bull vs Hall & Preddy. What is also clear from that case is that Christians can no longer decide to run run a B&B in a way compatible with their Christian beliefs. They cannot hold Biblical beliefs and run a B&B hence Christians have already been marginalised by the civil partnership legislation and proceeding case law. Redefining marriage will make this situation worse and force more Christians from their jobs, this persecution.

The Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson ruling made NEW case law equating non-committed gay relationships with married couples. i.e. It basically said that a Christian could not have a conscientious objection to giving a double bed to anyone! This will include a Jimmy Saville type character bringing a 16 year old girl to have casual sex with, a older man grooming a younger man for sex and teenagers wanted a room for the night after prom. These non-committed relationships are no more compatible with Biblical teaching than is homosexual activity and society is therefore banning Christians from running a B&B. The irony is that there are 'gay B&Bs' which are run solely for practising homosexuals but because married couples are sensible enough not to want to stay there or go to court over the issue they are allowed to stay open. This bias being shown towards practising homosexual and persecution towards Christians will increase if the law is redefined.

Employment rights are just a important as the right to practise one's faith in private. As shown by William Wilberforce and Granville Sharp the Christian faith is not a private entity and motivates people to do great works of social good and charity. To limit Christian practise to private dwellings and churches is persecution and again would be set to increase if marriage was redefined.

Even now judges wrongly don't consider marriage a 'core belief' of Christianity, hence the Ladele ruling. This misconception again would worsen if the redefinition is allowed to proceed. Lilian has been robbed of her livelihood for no other good reason other than employer was more concerned about the sacred cow of 'Gay Rights' that it was about protecting Lilian's right to hold Christian beliefs on marriage! These are dangerous times for free speech and religious freedoms and you are proposing a new era of favourtism towards people who choose to engage in homosexual sex acts and persecution towards people who don't agree that the practise of homosexuality should be promoted. This is a far bigger group than just Christians as shown by the C4M petition which is now over 611,000! It's high time democracy was honoured and this warped little proposal was put out pasture.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Obviously there is no inequality as civil partnerships are legally equivalent to marriage

Until both are called marriage there is no full equivalence. It makes the best sense to avoid this confusion.

Quote:

What is also clear from that case is that Christians can no longer decide to run run a B&B in a way compatible with their Christian beliefs

The law of the land is above one's faith. This doesn't mean religious people can't hold their faith. They certainly can. What this does mean is people of faith can't foist their faith upon others in society. This is called the freedom of self determiniation. It produces the best good for the individual as it gives the individual the right to decide.

And yes what results may be an impact to faith. It's not only Christians that are impacted. No faiths can exclude B&B visitors based on their faith. Likewise Satanists can't steal your children for human sacrifices. Nor can Mennonites prevent you from using your computer within your home to get on the internet. But, certainly Mennonites can choose to not use computers within their own home. In short, it's good to ensure no one faith rules above all others. Society is not a monoculture but we both have nations with diversity of faiths. Establishing rules which enable people to choose the path of belief they wish to use is a good freedom.

Quote:

Even now judges wrongly don't consider marriage a 'core belief' of Christianity

Judges derive their law from the nation, not from any of the thousands of gods. Since marriage is across all religions, all societies, all people it cannot only be a core belief of Christianity.

Quote:

Lilian has been robbed of her livelihood for no other good reason other than employer was more concerned about the sacred cow of 'Gay Rights' that it was about protecting Lilian's right to hold Christian beliefs on marriage!

I think you'll agree that no one can reject the duties of employment and expect to keep their jobs.

Quote:

The Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson ruling made NEW case law equating non-committed gay relationships with married couples. i.e. It basically said that a Christian could not have a conscientious objection to giving a double bed to anyone!

Ah, well if its already equated then you'll have no problem with this law, because if you're right, nothing will change. Excellent, issue settled, lets move on to the next one. Yeah right.

You know what's actually funny here, though? The fact that you, the great self-appointed moral guardian, equate marriage equality to the right to have sex in a B&B.

Is that all marriage is to you?

@BigD

Quote:

This time it 'new-liberals' rising to power crushing freedoms and free speech

The only freedom that is being crushed is the freedom to oppress others, and the only speech being silenced is hate speech

Quote:

Obviously there is no inequality as civil partnerships are legally equivalent to marriage as made clear by the verdict in the case the Bull & Bull vs Hall & Preddy.

In that one narrow definition it has indeed been established that the two are equivalent however there is more to a marriage than sharing a bed in a B&B, however this claim is in direct contravention of the case of Kitzinger & Wilkinson, where a legal marriage in Canada was not recognised and downgraded in UK. Equality does not fully exist.

Quote:

What is also clear from that case is that Christians can no longer decide to run run a B&B in a way compatible with their Christian beliefs

What is clear is that B&B owners are required to obey the law, and are not permitted to discriminate against people regardless of what the form that discrimination takes.

Quote:

The Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson ruling made NEW case law equating non-committed gay relationships with married couples

Wrong again. It merely confirmed that a hotelier cannot impose his opinions on other peoples sex lives. The laws of this country are carefully decided by our elected representatives after much debate, not made up on the spot by any self opinionated bigot that wants to interfere in other peoples lives. The Wilkinsons would have lost their case if they had refused a room to a heterosexual cohabiting couple in exactly the same way, except that they would not have asked for proof of marriage if a male-female pair had been booking in. I am also curious as to which marriages these self appointed defenders of morality would accept. Would Jewish couples be turned away, or Islamic couples. Do they accept the validity of Hindu, or Zoroastrian marriages. Also do Pagans or Wiccans qualify for admittance into the sacred halls of a B&B.

Quote:

This will include a Jimmy Saville type character bringing a 16 year old girl to have casual sex with

While you may find the idea of a geriatric having sex with a sixteen year old distasteful, that may simply be jealousy. The simple fact that you are overlooking is that it is not illegal for sex partners to have an age gap. By referring to Savile in this post, you are attempting to imply that those who disagree with you are in favour of paedophilia. Currently the only person that would be committing an offence if a sixteen year old went to bed with Jimmy Savile would be the sixteen year old necrophiliac. If on the other hand somebody took a six year old into a hotel for casual sex, the hotelier would not be breaking the law by refusing, and would be praised by all if they reported it to the authorities.

Quote:

society is therefore banning Christians from running a B&B.

The law is not banning christians from running B&B's any more than it bans Muslims from running pubs and off licences. As the prorietor of my local corner shop says "My religion does not allow me to drink, but it does not stop me from making a profit from those who do." The couples in question were not requiring either the hoteliers or the registrar to strip off and join in.

Quote:

Even now judges wrongly don't consider marriage a 'core belief' of Christianity,

There are two main reasons why the judges made this assessment.
Firstly, marriage is not exclusively a christian concept. Other religions also have this concept, as do primitive tribal groups, prior to their discovery by christian missionaries.
Secondly, marriage is not adhered to more strongly by christians than by other groups. The rate of divorce, marital infidelity, premarital sex, and teen pregnancy are all higher in the "Bible Belt" states of USA, as BrianK has frequently informed you.

Quote:

you are proposing a new era of favourtism towards people who choose to engage in homosexual sex acts and persecution towards people who don't agree that the practise of homosexuality should be promoted

And again you lie. Nobody is promoting homosexuality, or campaigning to make it compulsory, what is happening is that homosexuality is being tolerated, and those who are campaigning for compulsory heterosexuality are being prevented from persecuting those that don't agree with that compulsion. The only fascists here are the theo-fascists who would deny everybody other than themselves from having any liberty to make their own decisions as to who they marry. Not only do you deny homosexuals the right to choose their own life partner, you also seek to deny me that choice.

Quote:

Lilian has been robbed of her livelihood for no other good reason ...

She lost her job because she coulnt accept that the same rules that applied to her co-workers also applied to her. I do not suppose that treating those fellow workers as disgusting perverts and abominations made her exactly popular, which may account for them not wanting to cover for her intolerance.

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

@T-J

Quote:

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.

I don't know why he does on about the BBC, I always found them very biased towards religion rather than against it.

@CritAnime

"If GOD could see us now"


LOL, I have forwarded that cartoon to a few of my friends.

Very funny - yet so true.

@BigD

Quote:

What a lot of intolerant hate filled Bible!

No truer has ever been said, that book should be banned in civilised societies.

@BigD

Quote:

You really don't hear the goose-step marching in the background and see the swastikas being lofted high?

You mean like this one ?



Also have look at:

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/swasticross.html

or:

http://www.swastikaphobia.com/christian.html


Yes the Swastika was amongst other things a CHRISTIAN symbol. Not surprising really, the evil of [fundamentalist]Christianity and Nazi'sm is not far removed.

@BigD

Quote:

The London riots were an outpouring of aggression in our country caused by the recession and lack of aspiration in our youth and cultural minority groups beyond owning the next iPhone!

No. They were caused by a bunch of ignorant and criminally minded yobs. Do not make pathetic excuses for those criminals who were just out to nick stuff and cause mayhem.

This has NOTHING to do with the current topic, I doubt any of the rioters wer gay nor from single parent families, it is only your bigotted bias that makes such stupid assumptions.

I bet well over 50% of them were Christians too !

@BigD

@BrianK

You're hardly a beacon of freedom and light if what you're proposing forces Christians out of work and destroys marriage for the majority of the public that think it's fine as it is.

Look, I know civil partnerships in the USA don't offer equality with marriage due to DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) but in the UK they do. Inheritance, tax benefits and rights to goods, services and provision etc are all directly equivalent with marriage in the UK. This thread is about the UK's law so bear that in mind before spreading your FUD.

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

@BigD

Quote:

what you're proposing forces Christians out of work

There are no special treatments for Christians or any other faith. No matter the faith one should not be discriminating. As discrimination ends in our societies it will invariably be that people of any faith are pushed out of work. Has this impacted Christians? Yes there are historical examples - Christians had to give up their slaves. Christians had to remove black only water fountains. Christians had to hire women.

Quote:

destroys marriage for the majority of the public

We have a good test case in the USA. We have States where gay marriage is legal and States where gay marriage is illegal. Since States where gay marriage is legal have lower divorce rates and lower single parent household rates the worst thing one can spin is gay marriage has no impact. The best thing is that gay marriage may actually improve those conditions which you claim to be most against. Additionally, of all the other nations with Gay Marriage exactly 0 have devolved in the way you present as happening.

Quote:

that in mind before spreading your FUD

Living in acceptance, love, and respect is 'FUD'? Wow are you twisted 180 degrees the wrong way.

@BigD

Just what you asked for! - Gay men will marry your girlfriend!

Post removed. Image too big I think.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:41 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:40 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:39 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:39 PM.

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

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

You're hardly a beacon of freedom and light if what you're proposing forces Christians out of work

This law will not force christians out of work, because no true christian would discriminate against others, or act in a hateful or prejudicial manner. This claim of yours is like claiming that our drink-drive laws are unfair because they do not permit drunks to drive buses for a living.
Quote:

and destroys marriage for the majority of the public

Just how many time does it have to be explained to you that they are not making homosexuality compulsory. Nobody is going to annul your marriage and force you to marry an eighteen stone hairy biker, or an indian chief, or any of the other Village People. All they are doing is permitting those that want to make this choice to be free from persecution.

Incidentally, you often imply that christians have some form of monopoly on caring and compassion, so how do you reconcile the death of a Hindu woman denied basic medical aid on religious grounds. It seems to me that the doctors cannot spot the difference between the Hippocratic oath, and a hypocritical statement.

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

I removed previous post due to my new gigantic monitor making everything look tiny, even when the image isnt and has probably broken the internet or something.

Instead, have a picture of a cute piglet.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:59 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 16-Nov-2012 at 06:55 PM.

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

Google Translate