@BrianK

Quote:

These two-faced Christians are far too common.

That's OK, in Jacksonville, Florida, they have found a great solution to all those child molesting pastors by banning kids from Church. That's right, instead of getting rid of paedo priests, they are instead getting rid of the kids.

While that's a step in the right direction, they should ban the kids all of the time, not just when he's preaching about morality.

_________________
"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

@BrianK

BigD is prolly ok with it since there wasn't gay sex on it. Funny how these thins come out weekly. Should we make a link between christianity and child molesting like BigD likes to do with homosexualiy. BTW.... Christian...

@SpaceDruid

banning kids from indoctrination is a good thing. Perhaps their rationality will develop stronger

@Rose

Quote:

Should we make a link between christianity and child molesting like BigD likes to do with homosexualiy.

If there is any child molestation link it is between struggling 'forcibly-celibate' Roman Catholic priests and cover ups by the Catholic church. This doesn't reflect on Christianity just RC priests being unjustifiably expected to abstain from sex their entire lives when the Bible says it is fine for ministers to marry. Just another weird and needless rule that the Roman Catholics made up. If men who have sexual attractions are needlessly told that they can't marry and then surrounded by vulnerable young people their entire lives then it is just a recipe for disaster if you ask me!!! Yes, some people are called to be celibate but I don't believe every priest that is ordained into the RC church has this calling! It is ridiculous to forcibly demand priests never get married!

And just to clarify again most Roman Catholics if asked about their faith will say their Catholic rather than say their Christian. There actions have nothing to do with Christian ministers (who can marry) or Christian churches (who don't worship Mary on par with Christ, don't believe the communion actually IS Jesus' flesh and blood and don't belive that the apostle Peter needs some German dude to take his place as head of the Church ). There are Christians within the Roman Catholic Church but the Biblical teaching and structure of the church is definitely corrupted.

In regards to the Baptist preacher you mentioned, there is no way a man that is a registered sex offender should be allowed to preach (even in a lay capacity) or to be seen to remain in a position of leadership within a church. The Bible is strict on what is expected from Elder and Deacons and being of upstanding moral character and keeping your house in good order are some of the stipulations.

Quote:

The qualifications of a deacon are similar to those of a bishop/elder/pastor. "Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:8-13). The word translated "deacon" in this passage is the same Greek word "diakoneo" as is used in Acts 6:2, and therefore we know we are talking about the same office.

Last edited by BigD on 22-Nov-2012 at 01:13 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 22-Nov-2012 at 01:11 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 22-Nov-2012 at 12:58 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 22-Nov-2012 at 12:56 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 22-Nov-2012 at 12:55 AM.

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

@Thread

Anyway back on topic..


David Cameron has misled the public over levels of support for gay marriage among Tory voters, according to the pollster whose survey he quoted.

Quote:

Andrew Hawkins, the chairman of ComRes, said it was “simply not the case” that “all published polls” say more voters support gay marriage than oppose it, as the Prime Minister had claimed. ... ...The Prime Minister added that more Conservative-leaning voters supported “equal civil marriage” than were deterred by it. However, Mr Hawkins said his polling suggested gay marriage was unlikely to win back disillusioned voters who had supported the Tories in 2010. Voters who stopped supporting the Conservatives since the last election were “by a margin of almost three-to-one” less likely to vote Tory than more likely to do so as a result of the policy on same-sex marriage, he said. “There does seem to be a desire to make the figures fit the narrative, and the narrative is slightly more complicated,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

More lies and ridiculous claims by the PM to try and justify his madness!

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

@BigD

I know you "missing the point" is now a time honoured tradition, but even so, I'd like to point out these church going paedophiles we keep bringing up are people standing on committee's, campaigns against gay rights, "prey the gay away" groups and, well pretty much people like you.

People that try to enforce their own personal views on the rest of the world as they claim the moral high ground given to them by their religion, only for their lies and deceit to be exposed for all to see when they proverbially get caught with their trousers down.

I'm not trying to suggest that you are a paedophile by any means, but you really should take a look around at the rest of the people you think are so morally superior. You have heard the term "methinks the lady doth protest too much" and understand it's meaning?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer why you still think homosexuality is a sin, but posting on a Sunday, letting your wife out alone without a veil, etc isn't. Who gave you the right to decide which of God's Law you follow and what you don't. It certainly wasn't God.

_________________
"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:

Andrew Hawkins, the chairman of ComRes, said it was “simply not the case” that “all published polls” say more voters support gay marriage than oppose it, as the Prime Minister had claimed. ...

That's a real politicians statement if ever there was one... “all published polls”

All you need is for 1 poll out of a billion to make that statement true.

As it happens ukpollingreport.co.uk/ has a non partisan review of the various official polls in place and guess what? That's right, most people support gay marriage in unbiased polls and some media sources (guess which ones? That's right, the one's you quote) ask loaded questions to favour the result they seek. The Coalition for Marriage and Catholic Voices asked very loaded questions indeed. My flabber is certainly gasted by that revelation.

Who'd think that an MP would be deceitful to further his argument or that you would jump on his band wagon without him provided any evidence to back up his claims. That is so unlike you!!

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 22-Nov-2012 at 01:34 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 22-Nov-2012 at 01:29 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

Quote:

People that try to enforce their own personal views on the rest of the world as they claim the moral high ground given to them by their religion, only for their lies and deceit to be exposed for all to see when they proverbially get caught with their trousers down.

Christians are in no way the major part of society causing this sexual abuse. As stats show children brought up in homosexual couple households are under an increased threat of abuse;

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.

This is the real concern, that your proposing the dismantling of marriage and the promotion of homosexuality thereby making outcomes a lot worse for the children you pretend to care about!!!!

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

As it happens ukpollingreport.co.uk/ has a non partisan review of the various official polls in place and guess what? That's right, most people support gay marriage in unbiased polls and some media sources (guess which ones? That's right, the one's you quote) ask loaded questions to favour the result they seek. The Coalition for Marriage and Catholic Voices asked very loaded questions indeed. My flabber is certainly gasted by that revelation.

And yet that was the poll the PM decided to try and use to give entirely the wrong impression of how the majority of the public feel about this issue!

From the Telegraph article;
Quote:

Mr Cameron referred to ComRes results in a letter to Cheryl Gillan, the former Welsh Secretary, who criticised the Government’s plan to legalise gay marriage last month. Mr Hawkins has written to Mr Cameron to tell him he quoted “the wrong figures” and had ignored “the general detrimental impact on the party’s fortunes” of the policy.

That sounds a bit like you! Ignore the stats and keep spouting your world view until all children as just as screwed up and dysfunctional as you think is fitting!!

Presumably you don't think that overly sexed-up music videos and unrestricted use of porn on the internet is affecting our youth either?! Deluded!

The Mail Online: Internet porn and the rape suspects aged TEN: New fear for young after 24 police forces arrest under-13s for sex crimes in a year

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

@BigD

Quote:

That sounds a bit like you! Ignore the stats and keep spouting your world view until all children as just as screwed up and dysfunctional as you think is fitting!!

How is it, then, that you ended up so obviously "screwed up and dysfunctional"?

Also, can I ask, did you turn to faith as an adult, or were you brought up in a particularly Christian household?

AndyC

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer why you still think homosexuality is a sin, but posting on a Sunday, letting your wife out alone without a veil, etc isn't. Who gave you the right to decide which of God's Law you follow and what you don't. It certainly wasn't God.

Here is a selection of silly laws from the Bible that BigD would need to adhere to if he were a "true Christian"...

If you sleep with a man, you’ll be put to death.
~Leviticus 20

Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
~Leviticus 20:9

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
~Leviticus 11:7-8:

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.
~Leviticus 19:19

Kill anyone with a different religion.
~Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
~Ephesians 6:5

Priests must marry virgins, cannot shave their heads, daughters will be burnt alive if they are "whores," no lame or dwarven or blemished or handicapped priests. ~Leviticus 21

So, since BigD has elevated himself to Prophet, knowing as he does God's will, can we expect him to go out and dispense justice on Earth on His behalf for his reward in heaven?

Should he not be out killing sinners right, left and centre, as his holy book demands? Is it not mandated in the bible? Does that not mean that he too believes that homosexuals deserve to be put to death, because if not, then he is "no true Christian"?

So, BigD, since I am assuming that even you would not advocate the wholesale slaughter of homosexuals, non-christians (or non-Jews more specifically), children who swear at their parents, or that you don't worry about the combination of clothing textiles and materials, or the consumption of ham, that you are, by your own reckoning, "no true Christian"?

And, would this not torpedo virtually every argument you have made throughout this sorry tale of woe?

Cheers.

AndyC

Last edited by AndyC on 22-Nov-2012 at 01:10 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

If there is any child molestation link it is between struggling 'forcibly-celibate' Roman Catholic priests and cover ups by the Catholic church.

Certainly the power of the Church was used to cover up and sustain this. I wouldn't disagree with you that the Church is corrupt. There's another big area of Christians who molest. And a center of power - Boy Scouts of America demand their leaders and highest level of Scouts are demanded to be Christian. A fairly good number of molestation and cover ups.

Quote:

If men who have sexual attractions are needlessly told that they can't marry and then surrounded by vulnerable young people their entire lives then it is just a recipe for disaster if you ask me!!! Yes, some people are called to be celibate but I don't believe every priest that is ordained into the RC church has this calling!

All people have sexual attractions. We were born that way for the last 2 million years. It's interesting that you believe that straights somehow can't be celibate. But, on the other hand you seem to think gays can choose to be celibate. You went further to claim celibate gays aren't gay. They are gay it's just they 'retired' from sexual relations. Again your views are inconsistent.

Quote:

most Roman Catholics if asked about their faith will say their Catholic rather than say their Christian.

My experience in the USA is if you ask someone what religion they are, more often then not, they say the sect (Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or ... ) instead of a generic Christian title. What I do find is if the church is outside the norm - Mormons and Born Again Christians - tend the answer a generic Christian instead. So here that answer for Lutherans saying Lutheran is as common as a Catholic saying Catholic, for example.

What you haven't demonstrated is why Catholics do this. Do they really believe themselves to not be Christian? Or perhaps their ego is so inflated that they think Catholic is the best of the Christians so why would one not want to be part of the best and claim ownership? There's a large number of Catholics here. If you ask them if they're Christian they answer YES.

Quote:

Christians are in no way the major part of society causing this sexual abuse.

In the US Christians make up most of our society. They also make up most of the sexual abusers. Interestingly enough Christians make up a % of the prision population that's greater than their representation in society at large.

Quote:

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus

Interesting study. It was fairly small. I'd like to see a larger sample. Things like sexual behavior and molestation are very difficult to study. I find it troubling he used these numbers without consideration of large reporting errors. People aren't straight forward with answers on these topics. It'd be interesting to find out if kids from gay parents are more, less, or the same forthcoming.

EDIT: Anti-Gay Christian Senator going on trial for sexual abuse of a minor

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Nov-2012 at 02:05 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

And yet that was the poll the PM decided to try and use to give entirely the wrong impression of how the majority of the public feel about this issue!

That's hilarious! You've utterly failed to acknowledge the MP you quoted was deceitful and in direct contradiction you his and your claim that the British public didn't support Gay marriage when in FACT they do. While at the same time trying to divert attention away from this by saying the PM used a biased poll - a poll that was biased in favour of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

A fact that he was later corrected on by the man who commissioned the biased poll and that inspired this article.

So in effect, you are arguing that the criticism directed at the PM is entirely unjustified because the poll he quoted in error was highly misleading because it was highly biased towards the anti-gay marriage crowd whereas he should have used an unbiased poll that shows the British public are in favour of the proposals!

D, you are priceless! Your opinions change constantly to fit the latest newspaper quote you find. Even when they aren't in your favour!

Quote:

Presumably you don't think that overly sexed-up music videos and unrestricted use of porn on the internet is affecting our youth either?! Deluded!

And you attempt to change the subject again to something utterly unrelated to gay marriage or homosexuality in any way in an attempt to link me to a morally dubious news story in an attempt to detract the validity of my views that you could not argue against.

The image that I attempted to post that was too large was a chart showing all the unscrupulous tactics used by people that can't win an argument fairly based on evidence. There were about 25 of them, I believe what you've just done is the 20th one listed that you've used in this thread.

How exactly did you reach the conclusion that "Presumably you don't think that overly sexed-up music videos and unrestricted use of porn on the internet is affecting our youth either?" when I was talking about polling? What does that story have in common with a professional pollster talking about biased tactics used when conducting polls? And how did it suggest my views on an entirely unrelated story?

_________________
"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

@AndyC

I got him to talk about geology eventually, perhaps one day (we can only dream), he will get round to explaining why he follows some of his mighty unforgiving God's words, but not others.

_________________
"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

I think recent events in the UK are another sign that you're right to be worried about minorities gaining power. Afterall the Church of England seeks to continue to discriminate against minorities. It's clear how Churches see themselves above nations. That is an unfortunate approach. The Dark Ages shouldn't be revived.

@BigD

Quote:

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: • It's a duck. • It's a duck, it's a duck on the box, so it must be a duck. •IT'S A DUCK!!! This is the real concern, that your proposing the dismantling of marriage and the promotion of homosexuality thereby making outcomes a lot worse for the children you pretend to care about!!!! How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus

Pretend to care about? Oh yes, I forgot, I'm in this liberal conspiracy aren't I?

Yet again you provide a study that has doubious scientific merit.

OK, where to even start? I'll give you some quotes that you'll find if you enter "The New Family Structures Study" into any scientific review shall I?

OK, how about from the man who conducted the study himself?

Quote:

Mark Regnerus Admits His ‘Family Structures’ Study Wasn’t About Gay Parenting Mark Regnerus’s “family structure” study has been a hot topic since it was released in June, namely because every single anti-gay conservative organization has cited it as evidence that same-sex couples are inferior parents. An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bullshit” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting. In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made: http://thinkprogress.org

Or from the people that actually deal with children professionally themselves?

Quote:

Reading the news lately? If so, you have probably seen coverage of a new study that claims to find negative outcomes for children of lesbian and gay parents. The paper that makes this claim is titled, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures study” and is authored by Mark Regnerus. This article, and several articles surrounding it, have received quite a bit of press and attention. I will not use this space to rehash the many criticisms that have been levied at the study; rather, I will briefly summarize the major critiques that have been made and to point the interested reader to some excellent articles that discuss these critiques in greater detail. http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Quote:

A recent study called into question the ability of gay parents to raise well-rounded children, but the report has been widely blasted as biased, manipulative, and agenda-based. Now the American Psychological Association has stepped in to reiterate its belief that gay parents are just as good as straight parents. "On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation," the APA announced on its website earlier this week. "That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." http://www.advocate.com

Quote:

Recently the journal Social Science Research published a paper by University of Texas Associate Professor Mark Regnerus entitled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” The controversial study has been described as reporting poorer economic, educational, social, and psychological outcomes among children of gay parents. But that conclusion has been widely criticized by scientists who point out that due to methodological problems those conclusions cannot be supported. A group of over 150 scholars from Sociology and Family Studies, Psychology, and other disciplines recently wrote a letter to the editor of the journal pointing out the flaws in the study and raising questions about the peer review processhttp://www.psychologytoday.com

And for some more general comments

Quote:

A flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents was roundly criticized today by organizations that protect and advance the freedoms and equality of Americans who are LGBT. The paper, "New Family Structures Study," written by right-wing author Mark Regnerus (of the Department of Sociology and Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin) and funded in large part by the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute, makes a number of claims about negative outcomes for children raised by gay and lesbian parents. However, for the most part, the paper doesn't even look at same-sex couples raising a child together in a long-term committed relationship. http://www.glaad.org

Quote:

There’s a new study out that purports to compare the well-being of children raised by gay and straight parents, concluding that children of gay parents have more negative outcomes. But the study is little more than a bad joke. As John Corvino points out, it was clearly designed to compare apples to hand grenades and to reach the desired result (the study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute, a religious right organization). Corvino notes how broad the sample group for gay parents is:http://freethoughtblogs.com

Quote:

What would make a study of how children raised by gay and lesbian parents do in life helpful? Rigor, valid comparisons, and a sense of what the words in that sentence—“raised,” “gay and lesbian,” and “parents”—might mean. None of those seem to be true of the latest work from Mark Regnerus, called the “New Family Structures Study” (a title that is itself misleading), which he writes about at Slate. It purports to show the very harmful effects of having gay and lesbian parents. This would be in contradiction to a whole series of studies in recent years that showed children in those families doing very well. Attacking the methodology of a study whose conclusions you don’t like can be a lazy default reaction. But, in this case, the way it was conducted is so breathtakingly sloppy that it is useful only as an illustration of how you can play fast and loose with statistics. http://www.newyorker.com

Quote:

The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study. The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”http://chronicle.com

See. that's the great thing about the scientific process. You can publish what you like, but after that, it is reviewed and studied by the scientific community and has to pass muster. This study isn't passing muster as you can see. So now D, you can't claim this as a fact anymore than you can claim your invisible friend makes all the rules that we all must obey.

I am not blinded by my views like you. If there was to come valid and credible research that showed same sex parents were more harmful than "normal" or single parents, I would no longer support that as an option. But the simple matter is, there is no credible evidence to show same sex parents are harmful in any way to a child.

And there is no evidence to support your claims that same sex marriages will destroy the concept or the reality of marriage and as such, I see no valid reason to oppose it.

Nor do I see any credible evidence that your god exists, any more that I see credible evidence that any of the thousands of other gods that are currently worshipped today, so I don't feel compelled to trust the word of humans that claim to speak in his behalf.

_________________
"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

Sorry if this has already been posted, I haven't read all 81 pages....

Bill Maher with Christopher Hitchens, Alec Baldwin & Tara Setmayer

That lady on there is the female version of BigD - they are both big it would seem too!

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

@BigD

Quote:

Christians are in no way the major part of society causing this sexual abuse. As stats show children brought up in homosexual couple households are under an increased threat of abuse; 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. This is the real concern, that your proposing the dismantling of marriage and the promotion of homosexuality thereby making outcomes a lot worse for the children you pretend to care about!!!! How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus

Just to enlighten you a little bit, repeating a lie does not magically convert it to something other than a lie.
You tried to sell this lie before, in post #1479, and I pointed out that this so called "research" had as much validity as the studies from the tobacco companies in the 1970's stating that smoking was not a prime cause of cancers, and could even be beneficial. This particular fabrication of lies and innuendo was deliberately conieved by a listed hate group to lend spurious "credibility" to their theo-fascist stupidity, in the same manner that the original fascists misinterpreted the phrase "survival of the fittest" in a futile attempt to justify their policy of exclusion, torture and murder. Not only is the science behind this study being questioned, but also the honesty and integrity of all parties associated with it. The perpetrators of this travesty were not merely wrong, they were deliberately evading honest peer review.
To cite this lie once is evidence of poor research, to cite it a second time is evidence that you are knowingly seeking to spread falsehoods.
Of course it is easy for somebody like you to perpetually resort to lying because your personal deity will always forgive you. You do know who your personal deity is, don't you. He is the one whose face you see every morning in the shaving mirror.

Quote:

Presumably you don't think that overly sexed-up music videos and unrestricted use of porn on the internet is affecting our youth either?! Deluded!

This particular claim first started appearing when Denmark first legalised pornography. The theofascist tendency started ranting that Scandinavia would degenerate into hairy palmed idiots, raping and pillaging at random. If you were actually interested in the truth as opposed to your prejudices you would learn that the opposite was the case, and the already low sex crime rate fell. It is amazing how sensibly people react if you treat them as intelligent adults as opposed to telling them that you know best because your imaginary friend says so.

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

That's hilarious! You've utterly failed to acknowledge the MP you quoted was deceitful and in direct contradiction you his and your claim that the British public didn't support Gay marriage when in FACT they do.

You really have not read what the most recent ComRes poll shows;

Quote:

The ComRes poll, published by the Coalition for Marriage campaign against the reforms, surveyed 2,000 adults earlier this month. Asked whether "marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong exclusive commitment between a man and a woman", 62 per cent of respondents agreed. Sixty – five per cent agreed with the statement: "David Cameron's plan to legalise gay marriage is more to do with trying to make the Conservative Party look trendy and modern than because of his convictions." Only 23 per cent thought that the Chancellor, George Osborne, was correct to argue that legalising same-sex marriage would help the Tories win the next election.

Looks fairly conclusive to me; 62% of think marriage should remain as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. 65% think Cameron is just trying to be trendy!!

George Osbourn is just delusional to think the Tories can push ahead with this ridiculous redefinition and still win the next election and 77% of respondents agree.

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

@BigD

Quote:

You really have not read what the most recent ComRes poll shows; Quote: The ComRes poll, published by the Coalition for Marriage campaign against the reforms, surveyed 2,000 adults earlier this month. Asked whether "marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong exclusive commitment between a man and a woman", 62 per cent of respondents agreed. Sixty – five per cent agreed with the statement: "David Cameron's plan to legalise gay marriage is more to do with trying to make the Conservative Party look trendy and modern than because of his convictions." Only 23 per cent thought that the Chancellor, George Osborne, was correct to argue that legalising same-sex marriage would help the Tories win the next election. Looks fairly conclusive to me; 62% of think marriage should remain as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. 65% think Cameron is just trying to be trendy!!

Just as your dishonest repeat of a known lie does not make it magically true, Comres repeating the same dishonest poll using loaded questions presented to a carefully selected sample in order to confirm the bias that they already have does not change the basic invalidity of the poll.

This excerpt from the UK polling report that Spacedruid linked to explains why this particular poll is not a reliable, reputable poll. Quote:

Finally the 70% figure being quoted by opponents of gay marriage comes from this poll by ComRes for Catholic Voices, which asked if people agreed with the statement that: “Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman” 70% of people agreed, with 22% disagreeing. Here we have a statement that doesn’t even mention same-sex marriage, being rather overinterpreted by people for their own ends. Perhaps the logical inference is that anyone agreeing to this statement must be opposed to the laws on marriage being changed so that same sex-couples can marry (though, by the same rather tendentious logic, one could infer that 70% of people must think that divorce should also be made illegal), but in this case, we have other questions in other polls that actually asked directly about gay marriage, so we can be fairly certain that 70% of people are not interpreting the sentence that way.

Why is it that religious people who claim to be in favour of truth and decency always resort to spreading lies in defence of their prejudice.

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