@BigD

Quote:

In a time of austerity how could that be justified for such a contentious and divisive proposal?

If your government had not built up a system around a lack of equal human rights in the first place they would not have to spend any money now to fix things.

And the vote went 400 to 175. Certainly the government knows its moral obligation at this point.

Meanwhile the projection made by this gentleman of 5 billion says it is straight people who will create the large cost:

"This would be due to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits."

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith;

Bizarre statement that, coming from you !!!

When the law is changed and it will be, there is nothing in it that will FORCE anyone including you or your faith to do or act against your conscience nor faith. The proposed laws as they stand have got nothing to do with you conscience or faith. They will simply be new addtions to the current marriage laws that wont be forced on you personally nor on your faith but I guess you've just been doing a lot of scaremongering here without bothering to check those facts... eh...

Like I've said before, why is it only this particular "debate" about "Gays" that you seem so strongly opposed too as you keep wrongly claiming it will devalue your marriage personally which of course it wont, yet you don't seem bothered that people whom have actually committed crimes such as murder, child abuse etc... can still be married even in a religious ceremony under your chosen faith and somehow they don't devalue your marriage ???

As you never answer such valid questions or points, let me answer it for you...

You're a hate filled homophobic bigot whom simply doesn't care about the so called "values" of marriage as you have clearly demonstrated here by not answering perfectly valid questions or points put to you...

You sir are basically a demented narrow minded blinkered nutcase whom has a bee in his bonnet about gays...

Perhaps something happened in your life with a "gay" to make you so angry and bitter... whatever the case may be you have proven quite simply that your vitriol here has nothing to do with the values of marriage and is simply about being a homophobe and of course tax payers money, which seems to be your other main focus here...

Shame you can't just admit to it and shut up as you have never put forward on single solitary valid point of your own in this entire thread even after some 2000 odd posts...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Thread Back to the very source of this thread and TPod's original post; SNIP

I don't think anything better demonstrates your unwillingness to open your mind to new ideas better than this.

Repeatably I've suggested you actually read the pages you link to beyond quoting the headline so you avoid appearing foolish and here we are, thousands of posts later and you still fail to heed this one simple step.

_________________
"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

@Franko

I think you've just excluded yourself from any further part in these proceedings. You really don't understand the issues at hand and when you can't get your own way you simply shout the old faithful;

"You bigot"!

"You homophobe"!

Get a clue and grow up!

Some debates are bigger than you can handle and this is one of them. If you haven't understood that being pro-marriage does not equate with bigotry by now there is no helping you.

Quote:

Shame you can't just admit to it and shut up...

That says it all really. You're frustrated, angry and out of your depth. Go back to watching 'The New Normal'. Maybe you and SpaceDruid could have a DVD box set night?

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Meanwhile the projection made by this gentleman of 5 billion says it is straight people who will create the large cost: "This would be due to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits."

In your crazy topsy turvy world where marriage is redefined in the UK; to have true 'equality' Civil Partnerships would have to be opened to heterosexuals too. That's logical.

But your not interested in 'equality' are you? It's all just about forwarding the Gay Agenda and forcing your world view on everyone else, I forgot

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

@BigD

Quote:

I think you've just excluded yourself from any further part in these proceedings. You really don't understand the issues at hand and when you can't get your own way you simply shout the old faithful;

What? Homosexuality is a sin?
Same sex marriage will undermine society?
The "gay agenda"?

It's funny that you of all people should claim anyone is out of their depth in this thread when you appear to be the only one too afraid to come out of the shallow end and actually engage in debate.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 07-Feb-2013 at 06:45 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:

@Franko I think you've just excluded yourself from any further part in these proceedings.

Actually he hasn't. He is just describing you as you present and conduct yourself here. You clearly are a bigot.

Quote:

That says it all really. You're frustrated, angry and out of your depth. Go back to watching 'The New Normal'. Maybe you and SpaceDruid could have a DVD box set night?

The person shown to be most out of their depth here has clearly been you, time and time again actually.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Feb-2013 at 07:04 PM.

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

@BigotD

Quote:

Actually he hasn't. He is just describing you as you present and conduct yourself here. You clearly are a bigot.

This...


I listen to much of the debate in Parliament the date of the vote. Many arguments were made that opposed the bill that were not homophobic, that were not hateful or spiteful. The simple act of not agreeing with same sex marriage doesn't make a person a bigot.

What makes you a bigot is you are "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance"

_________________
"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:

In your crazy topsy turvy world where marriage is redefined in the UK; to have true 'equality' Civil Partnerships would have to be opened to heterosexuals too. That's logical.

As I have already posted on many occasions "Civil partnership is a second class status in law. What you are effectively saying is that having housed a few homeless people, multi-millionaires will be allowed to sleep rough in shop doorways. Once the option of equality is available, why would anybody choose the second class second rate compromise.

There have been over 2000 posts on this thread and you have ignored every single one of them, so no wonder some people get frustrated with your unthinking arrogance. You honestly think that you have a deity given right to impose your own opinion on the entire population of the globe. This demonstrates that every epithet that can be hurled at you is accurate, but too polite by far.

Referring to your comments about christians being barred from fostering, I will ask, do you accept that a jewish child fostered by a christian couple should be forcibly converted? and would it be as acceptable if a jewish couple forcibly whittled the dick off a christian boy? These people were not barred because they have religious beliefs, they are barred to prevent them from abusing the rights of a child who may have a different structure to their life.

Quote:

It's all just about forwarding the Gay Agenda and forcing your world view on everyone else, I forgot

Here is where you repeat the big lie AGAIN Nobody is forcing you to marry a man, we are just fed up with you forcing your superstitions and ritualised hate speech on to the rest of us.
If you want to spend the rest of your sad and pointless existence sat in a corner muttering to your invisible friend, then feel free to do so, just don't expect us to join you. The only one seeking to impose his perverted ideas on the rest of the world is you, BigD. The rest of us are perfectly happy to let others live their own lives in peace and harmony.
Just like your fictional galilean chippy told us to do

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

@BigD

Quote:

In your crazy topsy turvy world where marriage is redefined in the UK; to have true 'equality' Civil Partnerships would have to be opened to heterosexuals too. That's logical.

It is logical, no argument there. But you are the one complaining about one projected cost. That cost is not being generated by those you seek to oppress and complain about.

Quote:

But your not interested in 'equality' are you? It's all just about forwarding the Gay Agenda and forcing your world view on everyone else, I forgot

I wouldn't know about any "gay agenda". I'm married to a woman and we have three children. There are many gays that live in our neighborhood and our building. They don't seem to have any sort of subversive "agenda". They just want equal rights like anyone else as far as I can see.

No one is forcing anything on you. Society allows you freedom of religion and speech. Your church can marry only those it wishes to. You aren't negatively impacted in any way.

You know very well that it is YOU who is trying to force your religion's views on a civil government for the purpose of oppressing other citizens outside of your religion to be confined to your religion's definition of marriage. And yet if Muslims achieved that kind of control over government than you would say its not right.

You have been a coward over and over and over always ignoring discussing this point.

To you only your religion should control civil government. You are an extremely offensive individual given your extreme bigotry.

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

@BigD

Quote:

I think you've just excluded yourself from any further part in these proceedings. You really don't understand the issues at hand and when you can't get your own way you simply shout the old faithful

Actually you are the one who has excluded themselves from the discussion by continually failing to answer questions asked of you.

There is a question in Franko's post that you appear to have consistently avoided answering.

Franko is not the only person who you've failed engage with in the debate. There are several of my own questions that I don't believe you have answered and there are others two.

I can repeat my questions for you if you'd like, maybe to prove that you are not unwilling to engage in the debate.
Only ask if you are serious please. Some of the questions need to be shown in the context of the discussion as it evolved and there are over 100 pages in this thread that I'd have to check through.

@BigD

Since you do not want to progress this debate, merely keep regurgitating the same stuff without taking note of the responses I will recycle one of my earlier posts.
Quote:

@BigD Quote: Read my previous post. I just did, and I also read the source of your post #25. Basically what you are saying is that we should all be forced to live as "Christians" regardless of our own beliefs because only "Christians" have any understanding of the principles of truth, justice, liberty, love etc. 1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman Now that the civil authorities have prohibited polygamy. once the civil authorities redefine it marriage will be the union of two people. 2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships And once the new definitions come into force the two sets of laws will be streamlined and simplified, removing the scope for discrimination. 3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic Politicians do all sorts of things without consulting their constituents, or putting it in their election manifestos. You claim that this is being done to "appease a small minority" but I suspect that there are more openly homosexual individuals than there are regular churchgoing Christians. By regular churchgoing I do not mean "hatch match and despatch" church visitors. 4.Equality does not mean uniformity Nobody is claiming otherwise, but with the examples that are given of groups being excluded from certain activities there is a valid reason, so what is your valid reason for claiming same gender couples should be excluded. I note that the item concludes that marriage should be for life, does this mean that you will soon be campaigning to abolish divorce? Currently marriages in UK last as long as they did in the 12th century. Back then they ended in the death of one of the parties, now many marriages end in divorce. Is the existence of divorce the reason for our current longer life expectancy? 5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society Everything that you say about the idealised marriage is true however you are avoiding two key facts. Firstly the offspring of the nuclear family described are in no way threatened because others outside the family lead a different lifestyle, and secondly same gender partners cannot between themselves produce any offspring. Any children raised by same gender parents are often the biological offspring of one of the partners, or in a very few cases adopted, having no biological connection to either partner. These children are not snatched away from their mothers to be somebody elses plaything but are being given a better life than they would otherwise have had. 6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship While it is true that you need a male and a female to produce a child, marriage is not a biological necessity in the act. Some people have long happy and fulfilling marriages withot producing any offspring, where others see fit to spawn offspring with multiple partners without considering matrimony, or even paying for the upkeep of their whelps. 7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive In the long run the opposite will be the case as there will be one set of laws that apply to all contractual personal partnerships regardless of the gender of the parties to the contract. 8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage Just as they were forced to teach that people of different race have equal rights, and that females are not second class, or that it is permissible to follow different faiths. Has it occurred to you that the people who object to this may actually be the bigots and homophobes that they do not wish to be seen as? 9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage Oh yes, here it comes, the old "thin end of the wedge" claim. This point ends by wanting to "keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’. " Do you remember my point in item 4 about marriage duration now as against the 12th century? Is murder a viable alternative to a trip to the divorce court? 10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination Don't you mean it will be another nail in the coffin of the current faith based discrimination that gives a sanctimonious and self righteous minority, the authority to interfere in other peoples private affairs, and force their opinions down other peoples throats, simply because their own personal invisible friend tells them that they can. On a separate note, I am old enough to remember homosexuality being illegal, women needing their husbands, or fathers signature on credit agreements, and non-whites being routinely referred to by various derogatory terms that are no longer deemed acceptable. Although I am not a member of either of these groups, and as such never suffered from any of the discrimination, I am glad that the world has moved on from what it was, so "calm down dear", they're not making it compulsory.

Strangely I could have posted this without admitting that it was post #54 recycled and it would never have been noticed because you are still clinging desperately to the original script, even though it has repeatedly been shown to be entirely fallacious

@Clapper

Quote:

If he continues to show disinterest in debating then he is clearly just spamming propaganda and hate speech.

Of course he is. He's a christian, it's what they do

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

@BigD

I find ever so much irony to see the Church of England opposed to the 'redefinition of marriage'. Especially when you consider that Henry VIII backed the separation from Roman Catholism so he could redefine marriage and get a divorce.

The irony is oh so deep.

@Nimrod

You are not arguing as to why the law should change you are simply reprinting my points with your badly thought out responses!?!

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Nimrod You are not arguing as to why the law should change you are simply reprinting my points with your badly thought out responses!?!

We all still await an answer from you as to why your religion's definition needs to be forced onto a civil government and fellow citizens outside of your religion? If you can't answer this you have lost this debate. I suspect thats why you refuse to answer this time and again.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Feb-2013 at 09:30 PM.

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

@BigD

I once again refer you to you comment made here.

Quote:

That is already happening; when Christian couples attempt to go through the adoption process they are often declined on the basis of their faith. They are asked whether they'd encourage their child to have homosexual relationships if they indicate they've had homosexual thoughts. When the parents reply they wouldn't they are excluded from this adoption service. The same goes when they are asked when attempting to foster as to whether they'd take a child to church irrespective of their religious background. They are then excluded for not taking the child's 'heritage' into account :

and my response which you have ignored here.

Quote:

What a load of utter bollocks. And I know this for a fact. Let me ask you some simple questions BigD. Have you tried to foster? Have you tried to adopt? I have. Thats why I know what you have said is a big fat LIE. Let me say I have been through the adoption and fostering process. Both myself and my wife have. They look at every aspect of your life. And I mean every aspect. There is a massive form you have to fill in before you start and it states that they do NOT discriminate against anything. What they are looking for is people, single, married, living together, straight, gay, atheist, christian, muslim, or what ever that can provide a nurturing environment. They look at everything from your past to present life. They look into everything including what your own family was like growing up and if anything untoward happened. The moment they think there is an issue they stop and reject you. We were rejected based on the fact we worked for the NHS. They said that they felt that even though we would offer a nurturing environment they could not allow the process to proceed because of our working patterns. And they also felt that it was unfair on us to have to do our jobs, which we love, and try and split ourself between a foster child. They also stated they weren't rejecting us based on the fact we held no religious beliefs or that we were married in a civil ceremony. We respected that. And it was a very gratifying experience to know that we could provide a nurturing environment and have it confirmed by the social services. So I want to know where your information has come from. I want to know what experience you have in this. Because it seems to me that whoever went through this is using Christianity and discrimination as an excuse been rejected and really they were rejected for a different reason. And your little bit about a child's heritage makes perfect sense. If you foster or adopt a child that is Muslim or Jewish your hardly going to take them to a Christian church are you. That would be going against their religious beliefs. It would be discrimination. I call foul on this much like your other so called bit of evidence. I expect your response to be something along the lines of "what would you know your an atheist. You don't know jack and I know because I am a true christian!" but I submit to you that you know jack all unless it's fed to you by some biased medium. I don't think you actually know what goes on in the real world at all. I am a public servent, I am a nurse, I am a father and a husband (civil ceremony). I have seen more of life than what you probably have and I will see yet more when I go to work tonight. I will see everything that life can throw. And let me tell you that if gay marriage is the ONLY thing to worry about then you must live a very sheltered life. Get a grip and realise not everyone shares your views. Not everyone see's homosexuals as some sort of monster under your bed. but again I expect you will see me as some sort of sick atheist hell bent on destroying society and sucking the life out living creatures. Anyway I am having a cuddle with my child now and I am probably going to have a cuddle with my wife before i go to bed and sleep soundly after helping people.

Please tell me why you refuse to answer any difficult questions and instead only refer to things you feel are easy enough to answer. Is it because these things are not reffered to in your missinformation packets? Is it because you actually have no real individual thoughts on anything?

you say that we can't debate and that this issue is too big for us to comprehend. I still submit to you that in fact you can't debate and instead use cheap diversion tactics to avoid answering anything hard or taxing.

Last edited by CritAnime on 07-Feb-2013 at 09:39 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@fairlanefastback

Marriage pre-dates Christianity and pre-dates the UK as a nation state so your question is invalid. Many people on the C4M petition follow a wide range of different faith positions including in Richard Dawkins and The Big Bang Theory.



The Big Bang Theory assembles the building blocks (of the universe )

Last edited by BigD on 07-Feb-2013 at 09:53 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @fairlanefastback Marriage pre-dates Christianity and pre-dates the UK as a nation state so your question is invalid. Many people on the C4M petition follow a wide range of different faith positions including in Richard Dawkins and The Big Bang Theory.

Of course the question is not invalid. You really are being pathetic. Again, why should the definition of your religion be forced on other citizens outside of your religion and on a civil government?

Your religious definition is not changing and no one is forcing it to change.

Someone also already pointed out marriages between same sex couples in ancient history. And dictionaries get updated over time.

According to you a "company executive" could never be a woman because some bigots used to keep women from such jobs. Or it would be like saying the definition of a "man" should not include black people because some bigots in history called them apes at one time.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 07-Feb-2013 at 10:08 PM.

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

@CritAnime

Quote:

So I want to know where your information has come from. I want to know what experience you have in this. Because it seems to me that whoever went through this is using Christianity and discrimination as an excuse been rejected and really they were rejected for a different reason.

You'd be wrong. In the case of adoption it happened to some friends of mine. It also happened to a foster couple HERE. In the case of fostering, the individual was struck off even though she had fostered 80+ kids because she took a 16-year old Muslim to church and she became a Christian. Here is the story;

Foster parent who has looked after 80 children struck off...because a Muslim girl in her care became a Christian

You're a nurse and you claim to be able to sleep well at night because you consider yourself a 'good' person who helps people and yet you support the destruction of marriage in your spare time . Before you tuck your kid into bed tonight consider the damage the bill will do to children in every single Primary School in the UK when they're shown this rubbish;


Quote:

A moving story of hope and friendship. Matt lives in a lighthouse. He watches the sea every day...for ships and for his friend, Sailor. Matt is so forlorn that Sailor has gone away that he almost forgets his own birthday. But, his friends say Sailor will never come back, but Matt doesn't give up hope. And, after his birthday party is over, his patience is rewarded, when Sailor finally returns.

Last edited by BigD on 07-Feb-2013 at 10:10 PM.

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

@BigD

Still refusing to answer me are you? Tut tut. Getting tired and running out of things to say bigd? Is it that you can't debate this because you have exausted your small perspective on all this? Or is it that you have been called out on this obvious lie on adoption by someone why has been through it. Much like how you have been called out on public sector workers by someone who works in the public sector?

Sad really.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki