@Nimrod

Quote:

If, as you claim, you have no hate for homosexuals, why do you describe them in such hateful terms?

Unsubstantiated. I have no hate towards practising homosexuals, I just don't see why we should have to completely destroy and redefine marriage when they already have a perfectly serviceable institution themselves called the Civil Partnership which they can mould in their own image. Marriage has a specific meaning, is very much a heterosexual institution which is specifically relevant as the best family unit in which to bring up children - this does not apply to a family unit comprised of two men or two women. They deprive the child of either a mother or a father for one thing i.e. it's not the same in practise but they both provide equal legal privileges. This is how it should remain.

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

@BigD

unsubstantiated - unsupported by other evidence

You have labeled gay people as being pedophiles, perverse and not fit parents. Nimrod's post is entirely substantiated.

As for the rest of you post, did you just cut & paste it from one of your recent posts? You are saying nothing that hasn't already been proven false.

Are you even trying anymore?

You should go back to books in schools. That's a new one. I'm sure you can get more millage out of that one before you start to repeat again.

_________________
"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:

You have labeled gay people as being pedophiles, perverse and not fit parents. Nimrod's post is entirely substantiated.

That's other one of your lies. Forcing gay agenda rubbish on vulnerable children is what's perverse and encouraging them to experiment with their sexuality from the ages of 5 and 6 years old opens them up the risk of being groomed by pedophiles. In the same way that single parents bringing up children are not ideal, neither are same sex couples bringing up children. But bearing in mind same sex couples can't biologically have children and the fact that children do best when nurtured by their biological parents; we should not be in the business of providing made to order IVF and surrogate babies to homosexual couples that want to add a baby to their list of acquisitions.

In the case of vulnerable children on the adoption register there is simply no need not to give them the best start in their troubled lives by placing them with married couples. Red tape, bureaucracy and political correctness are no excuses for compromising on that.

Quote:

Are you even trying anymore?

You never even started trying to justify the change to the law. You seem to think it's inevitable and your only role is to try and diffuse any possible challenge to that eventuality! The law is fine as it stands, the government doesn't understand the massive negative implications of this foolhardy maneuver and neither do you.

Last edited by BigD on 03-Feb-2013 at 12:30 AM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

You never even started trying to justify the change to the law. You seem to think it's inevitable and your only role is to try and diffuse any possible challenge to that eventuality! The law is fine as it stands, the government doesn't understand the massive negative implications of this foolhardy maneuver and neither do you.

What negative implications D? What negative implications?

100 pages of posts later and you've yet to provide one.

_________________
"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:

What negative implications D? What negative implications? 100 pages of posts later and you've yet to provide one.

1) Teachers in state schools will be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage. Those that refuse could be disciplined or even dismissed. Such action would be legal.

2) Parents will ultimately have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum.

3) NHS/University/Armed forces chaplains could be lawfully fired by their employers if they express, even outside work time, the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

4) Foster carers could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage.

5) Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing support for marriage between one man and one woman.

6) Registrars who have a conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs.

7) Churches/mosques/synagogues could ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government opt-in policy on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by European courts.

8) The Church of England may have to disestablish or face the prospect of court action because, as the established church, it must provide a wedding to any person who is legally eligible to get married.

9) Faith-based charities could be banned from hiring public facilities if they refuse to endorse the new definition of marriage.

10) Clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage,but who are in a denomination which has no such objection, could be taken to court if the Government allows religious same-sex weddings.

There's ten for starters. Where are your reasons FOR the redefinition?

Last edited by BigD on 03-Feb-2013 at 12:50 AM.

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

@BigD

Since you chose to go back and edit your post after I replied, I'll answer the changes separately.

Quote:

Quote: You have labeled gay people as being pedophiles, perverse and not fit parents. Nimrod's post is entirely substantiated. That's other one of your lies.

So you are going to state as fact, that you have never said gay people are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual people or suggested that gay people can't be trusted with children?

Or that you have never said that homosexuals are perverse and morally wrong?

Or that gay couples make bad parents, or provide a harmful environment for children?

Are you really going to make me go back through this thread and quote your exact words where you say these exact things? (I'll do it tomorrow, it's late)

I know you have real problems with the concept of evidence, but surely even you know how utterly wrong you are to call me a liar over this? Your own words condemn you.

Quote:

Forcing gay agenda rubbish on vulnerable children is what's perverse and encouraging them to experiment with their sexuality from the ages of 5 and 6 years old opens them up the risk of being groomed by pedophiles.

Who is encouraging them to explore sexuality? Where in these books do they mention sex? Please provide the evidence to your claim.

And right there again, in the very same post where you are denying labeling gay people as pedophiles, you label them pedophiles. It truly is astonishing how blind to your own actions you are.

Quote:

In the same way that single parents bringing up children are not ideal, neither are same sex couples bringing up children.

There is zero evidence that a person raised by same sex parents fair any better or worse than heterosexual parents. The only thing that has ANY importance is the environment should be loving and safe.

If there was a shred of evidence to the contrary, it would be splashed on the biggest posters the churches could find and you would be posting it in this thread. So where is it?

Quote:

But bearing in mind same sex couples can't biologically have children and the fact that children do best when nurtured by their biological parents; we should not be in the business of providing made to order IVF and surrogate babies to homosexual couples that want to add a baby to their list of acquisitions.

And there you go on a wild tangent again. Where in the government proposals, or where in the books being provided to schools does it talk about IVF or surrogate babies? If a person wants that now, they can. Marriage isn't a requirement to have children, naturally conceived or otherwise. This has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

Quote:

In the case of vulnerable children on the adoption register there is simply no need not to give them the best start in their troubled lives by placing them with married couples. Red tape, bureaucracy and political correctness are no excuses for compromising on that.

It's not red tape stopping children being adopted by properly vetted heterosexual couples. It's the lack of heterosexual couples wishing to adopt. What has gay marriage got to do with this? Again, this has NOTHING to do with gay marriage other than the possibility that more places with loving families can be found for the approximately 65,000 children in care currently waiting in England at this precise moment.

_________________
"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:

1) Teachers in state schools will be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage. Those that refuse could be disciplined or even dismissed. Such action would be legal.

Sigh... There is no legal requirement in school for the definition of marriage to be taught currently. Why would that change?

Quote:

2) Parents will ultimately have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum.

Invalid as there is no such curriculum. (Oh and by the way, anyone can withdraw their child from ANY lesson. There is no law that prevents this. You can even withdrawn your child completely from school if you wish to teach them at home).

Quote:

3) NHS/University/Armed forces chaplains could be lawfully fired by their employers if they express, even outside work time, the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

No they can't. The law protects your personal beliefs in the UK. As long as they don't impede the rights of others. Failing to perform the job you are paid to do is another matter and the government has already written into their proposals that religions cannot be forced into conducting same sex marriage.

Quote:

4) Foster carers could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage.

Again, false. Gay people can already adopt children, so the marital status will have ZERO influence on this.

Quote:

5) Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing support for marriage between one man and one woman.

This is the same thing you claimed in number 3.

Quote:

6) Registrars who have a conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs.

This is already the case and there has been a grand total of one case of this happening. The result of the ruling means everyone who is a registrar is fully aware of any future changes and thus far, there has not been any mass resignations or sackings.

Quote:

7) Churches/mosques/synagogues could ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government opt-in policy on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by European courts.

No such proposal has been made and I've already addresses this issue above. Religions will have constitutional protection.

Quote:

8) The Church of England may have to disestablish or face the prospect of court action because, as the established church, it must provide a wedding to any person who is legally eligible to get married.

You've just repeated number 7 again. Read my reply to that.

Quote:

9) Faith-based charities could be banned from hiring public facilities if they refuse to endorse the new definition of marriage.

How? Nothing is forcing religion to do anything here. The law being changed is civil law, not religious. Unless they are trying to hire a gay bar, what possible scenario would result in your claim?

Quote:

10) Clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage,but who are in a denomination which has no such objection, could be taken to court if the Government allows religious same-sex weddings.

That is a matter for the religion, not the courts. Not all priests currently support the inclusion of women or gays in their ranks. Where are the lawsuits?

Quote:

There's ten for starters. Where are your reasons FOR the redefinition?

You are trying to sound like you have lots of examples, but you obviously struggled hard to come up with them and they are all bullocks. But since you asked, I'm not the one wanting the redefinition. Gay people that want to get married are the ones wanting it. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

You haven't provided any. Though I did notice you have scaled back your claims somewhat. Where is the end times you were claiming before? You were claiming the end of society earlier and now the best you can come up with is a couple of people loosing their jobs?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 03-Feb-2013 at 01:29 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 03-Feb-2013 at 01:21 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

@BigD

All ten of those 'negative implications' (in fact just the same implication reworded ten times) are nothing more than you complaining about being required to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

If a religious person cannot function in a job because of their misinterpretations of their holy scripture, they should not apply for that job. I don't go applying to be a priest and then campaigning to get the whole 'god' thing disposed of. They shouldn't go applying to be a civil servant and then start picking and choosing which bit of civil society to serve.

It really is as simple as that.

@1Mouse

Quote:

Just wondered if there are any gay Amigans out there apart from myself?

There's a few people past and present on the Amiga forums who've mentioned they are gay at some time or other, so you are definately not alone. I guess it's pretty irrelevant here anyway so there's probably some people who've never felt it necessary to mention.

Quote:

After 13 years together my partner and I have just decided to get married.

Congratulations. I remember meeting you both at Mag Bash a few years ago and it was clear that you had great affection for each other.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @1Mouse Quote: After 13 years together my partner and I have just decided to get married. Since marriage is between one man and one woman I think we can deduce by your statement that you mean to have a Civil Partnership. Since you refer to that as to 'get married' anyway, it again raises the question why the gay rights agenda sees the need to push for the redefinition of marriage?!

You really are vile.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@1Mouse

Quote:

1Mouse wrote: @all After 13 years together my partner and I have just decided to get married.

Congratulations and all the best!

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

You really are vile.

You're not the most moderate of moderators are you? That's quite an extreme comment from someone trusted with keeping the peace! A sign of the authorised persecution that will be ushered in in the near future should the law change? Progressive and and anti-discriminatory seem to be liberal buzz words but that's not how you operate in practise. All I see are threats that people with a pro-marriage view point will not be tolerated.

Lots of practising homosexuals mean a Civil Partnership when they say they're going to 'get married'. That's a fact. The BBC uses the same language. There is simply is no good reason to mess with our laws, discriminate against pro-marriage public sector workers and to confuse vulnerable children in sex ed lessons just to 'officially' give the gay community a word they use colloquially anyway!

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

@BigD

Quote:

Unsubstantiated. I have no hate towards practising homosexuals,

I judge you by the wording of your posts, not the lie that you tell when you say you have no hate for homosexuals. Calling somebody a pervert is not an action of caring and consideration. I know this for a fact because you implied that I am a pervert simply because you and others like you disagree with my right to remain married to my wife. Actively campaigning to prevent equality and maintain somebody as a second class citizen is about the best evidene of hate that there is.

Quote:

I just don't see why we should have to completely destroy and redefine marriage

And again you lie when you claim that giving equality to a minority will bring the entire edifice of civilization crashing to the ground. This fearmongering to lay blame for all of societys ills at the door of the homosexual community is as much an act of hate as was Adolfs accusation that the Jews were to blame was back in Nazi Germany. One holocaust later the rest of us have moved beyond demonising minorities, you however have simply shifted the focus and now seek to oppress the queers. If your relationship with your wife is so fragile that it is threatened because 1Mouse gets equal legal status with me then I can only recommend that your wife divorce you and then runs like hell to a place of safety.

Quote:

they already have a perfectly serviceable institution themselves called the Civil Partnership

The civil partnership is not a perfectly servicable institution because it does not give equal legal status As long as you keep repeating the lie that civil partnership is "good enough for the queers" you continue to practise hate speech that contadicts your ridiculous claim that " I have no hate towards practising homosexuals"


Quote:

Forcing gay agenda rubbish on vulnerable children is what's perverse

Nobody is forcing gay agenda on to kids, they are being told that it is OK to be different from the mainstream. We do not all have to conform with some hypothetical "perfect standard" set by a paedophile male in a dress. And yes, there is more evidence of paedophile priests having protected status, than there is that homosexual = kiddiefiddler

Incidentally your ten reasons boiled down to ten variants of the complaint after race relations legislationwas introduced, that people who insisted in calling coloured people "wogs" or "niggers" or any other derogatory terms could be penalised. When former colonies of the British Empire changed their names on gaining independence, schoolteachers had to teach about them using their new names. When my children were at school their geograpy lessons did not include information about Siam, Ceylon, or Rhodesia.

Quote:

There is simply is no good reason to mess with our laws, discriminate against pro-marriage public sector workers and to confuse vulnerable children in sex ed lessons just to 'officially' give the gay community a word they use colloquially anyway!

The laws need adjusting because they are discriminatory, Discriminatory laws are unfair, and it is the duty of politicians in parliament to ensure that the laws are for the benefit of all. Nobody is discriminating against pro marriage workers. I am pro marriage and this proposed change in the law is of no detriment to me whatever. Those that will be penalised are those who seek to continue to act in a homophobic or discriminatory manner. The muslim checkout girl in my local supermarket is not allowed to refuse to sell me a bottle of brandy even though her religion bans her from drinking alcohol herself. The only difference is that she works in the private sector. Also there is nothing confusing to vulnerable children in not telling them that they are evil perverted little shits who are going to burn in hell for all eternity, simply because their parents live a lifestyle that some oppressive theo-fascist chooses not to want to live. Why do you, and others like you get so excited about terrorising little children and then claiming that it is somebody elses fault.

Last edited by Nimrod on 03-Feb-2013 at 11:52 AM.

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

@BigD

Went back through your ten lies about "implications" of the proposed change in the law concerning marriage.

1) Once marriage is a relationship between two people teachersa will be required to teach the facts and not their opinions. That is the simple difference between education and indoctrination.
2) If parents disapprove of the way that the school operates, they have the option of seeking a place in another school, or home education. There is a limit on the amount of money available and as a consequence the schools cannot afford a one teacher per pupil ratio with the curriculum subject to micromanagement by idiots who cannot distinguish between superstition and science.
3) Chaplains will be required to preach the official church doctrine. That has always been the case and always will be. There is currently an irish catholic priest under suspension and facing the sack because he wrote an article supporting the use of condoms in Africa in contravention of Papal instructions.
4)Foster carers can be rejected for all kinds of reasons. You have absolutely no evidence that they will be subject to this prohibition but you insinuate an accusation in the same weasel manner that you slandered me as as being involved in an incestuous relationship. An insinuation that you still feel that you are so superior and holier-than-thou that you do not need to apologise for.
5) Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing homophobic or discriminatory hate speech. You keep trying to hijack the concept of pro marriage for your anti everybody tirades. I am pro marriage which is why I support spreading the concept as widely as possible by defining marriage as the voluntary union of two people, hopefully for life. In this I recognise divorce as the lesser of two evils compared with the option of manslaughter.
6) The job of the registrar is to record the entry of people into the world, their official relationships, and their exit from the world. They are not permitted to refuse to record a birth on the grounds that the baby may turn out to be homosexual, nor are they able to refuse to record the death of somebody that they didn't like. They are not required to partake in the bedroom activities of the couple getting married, they merely record the event and declere the marriage valid. They will be required to do this regardless of the couple being mixed race, mixed faith, or same gender. It is not their job to impose their own prejudiced opinions on the couple.
7) Unlike the laws in this country which seek to protect a special status for the established church, the ECHR guarantees the freedoms that you claim could be threatened by European courts. If anything the freedom of religious belief for non CofE churches/mosques/synagogues getsits best protection in the European courts.
8) Unlike non established churches, the CofE is specifically prohibited from carrying out same sex weddings. This means that an openly homosexual CofE parish priest would be required by law to discriminate against a fellow homosexual couple. Also the CofE represents an aging and dwindling minority of the population so can you explain why they deserve the right to guaranteed representation in the upper chamber of the legislature. There are many others infinitely better qualified to add a moral basis to any debate in that place.
9) Faith-based charities is a contradiction in terms. Christian "charities" have always tried to extract a price for their so called aid. Sometimes it was coerced conversion, but often they simply sold supplies to non-christians or not-true-christians at the same time as freely giving to their own brand of christians.
10) Clergy who disagreed with rights for women, but who were in a denomination which has no such objection left the CofE to become instant Catholics, with the added bonus that they were allowed to remain married while the lifelong Catholic priests had to remain celibate. This demonstrates just how hypocritical these clergy really are. They have no respect for others and simply leave in a huff if they do not get their own way in all things.

You ask for reasons in favour. I ask you What Would Wilberforce Do? Wilberforce looked at the slavery question, not from the viewpoint of the wealthy slaveowner who may lose some property, but from the viewpoint of the slave. Once he did that, he understood the inherent injustice of slavery. The same applied to Granville Sharp. You frequently cite these two men as a good example, and you are right to do so, but once you have cited their example, it would be nice if you actually followed their example. Then there would be three nice christians in the entire history of that religion. Just for a minute put yourself in the position of 1Mouse who earlier openly made a statement on this thread, that when I was younger would have seen him imprisoned instead of congratulated. Then you will begin to perceive just how little you suffer from persecution, and how often you persecute others.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: You really are vile. You're not the most moderate of moderators are you?

I'm not moderating this thread. I'm participating in a frank discussion in it. There is no getting around how extreme and ugly you have been in this thread. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion, but its what I honestly believe given how low you have gone here.

Quote:

All I see are threats that people with a pro-marriage view point will not be tolerated.

Pro-slavery is not not tolerated. Anti women's rights is not tolerated. Your trying to force your religion's definition of marriage to fight against equal rights as provided by a civil government can not be tolerated either. Nor can your vengeful and inaccurate accusations about all homosexuals. No one is saying what your religion's definition of marriage need be. Thats your business.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@Nimrod

Quote:

Then there would be three nice christians in the entire history of that religion.

Now you are being as extreme and ridiculous as BigD!

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@BigD

100 pages on and your still talking the biggest load of hate filled bigoted blatant gobshite I've had the misfortune to read in my lifetime...

Me wonders... are you really that ignorant and hate filled or are you simply just some sad very, very lonely auld geezer sitting in a darkened room somewhere with the only light being that from your computer screen, illuminating the fag ash and beer stains on your keyboard as some scraggly malnourished cat clambers past meowing begging to be fed and sore and bitter at the hurtful memories you have of being abused as a child by some gay bloke... (least that's how you come across here)...

If not and you're "normal" and had a perfectly happy christian upbringing in a loving heterosexual two parent household full of love and caring , then all I can is is...

See a shrink fer gawds sake cos you've obviously gone totally doolally...

PS:You do realise that by the time you've finished gibbering all your hate filled crap, the law will have been passed and you'll have to find something else to spew your hate filled venom at...

Might I suggest you turn your attention to something like the new bill I hope to get introduced to give Turnips the right to speak in public without being arrested for impersonating Swedes, should only cost about a few billion of the taxpayers money and is certainly something I'm sure will offend you and your majority rights...

_________________

@Franko

Quote:

some sad very, very lonely auld geezer sitting in a darkened room somewhere with the only light being that from your computer screen, illuminating the fag ash and beer stains on your keyboard as some scraggly malnourished cat clambers past meowing begging to be fed

Hey! That's my retirement plan!

_________________
"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

Who changed the meaning of marriage?

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Quote: Then there would be three nice christians in the entire history of that religion. Now you are being as extreme and ridiculous as BigD!

And silly, and petulant, and childish!

But he started it! so there

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