@AndyC

Quote:

That's true, of course, but I think the members of Amigaworld should make a point of ensuring that the hateful views espoused by D have no place on this forum.

IMO Freedom of Speech is the better option. BigD, and other bigots like him, can speak their mind freely. What I find is it's more representational of the crowd we have at Amigaworld that the masses are rationally and clearly disagreeing with his bigotry and hate. I'd rather these ignorant bastards out themselves as the haters they truly are. It's a more fair representation of themselves and we can publically denounce such loons.

Quote:

But any further posts advocating the subjugation of a minority section of society must not be tolerated.

IMO it's very clear the crowd at Amigaworld doesn't tolerate hatred like this. Well and neither did Jesus.

@BigD

Quote:

Back on topic. Think how confused this little girl is going to be when she grows up! Poor love.

Having been exposed as the prejudiced, hateful, spiteful little liar that you are you seek to change the subject AGAIN. Even if the little girl does grow up confused, at least she will grow up in a loving environment instead of being treated like this girl Besides you are not bringing the thread back on topic, becausse the topic is "Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!" and the general concensus is that we don't want to be suckered into signing your odious, dishonest list of narrow minded theofascists, and fictional entities.

Quote:

This definitely is not over. Marriage is too important to allow David Cameron to get away with destroying this valued institution for the majority.

I would possibly agree with this except that in over two thousand posts you have still not produced any EVIDENCE to support your claim that marriage is even under threat. You are not pro marriage, you are simply anti equality. All you want is to return this country to a Cromwellian theocratic dictatorship, with yourself at the top of the dunghill. Of course you would be most upset if somebody else rose to the top and treated you in the same manner as you treat everybody else.

Quote:

Mr Burrowes said: “We succeeded in one objective – sending a message very clearly and loudly to the Lords.”

Indeed they did. The message that by a margin of two to one, the elected house, in a free vote supported Equal Marriage for All. The CofE bishops in the Lords represent a dwindling minority, and they cannot block the decisions of the commons, merely delay the inevitable.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

What I find is it's more representational of the crowd we have at Amigaworld that the masses are rationally and clearly disagreeing with his bigotry and hate.

Is this language tolerated in the US towards supporters of marriage? I think not! Choose your language more wisely as marriage supporters do not hate practising homosexual. If anything you seem to be a 'marriage-phobe' and are intolerant and out-of line in your attitude towards people that support marriage.

David Burrowes is not a bigot he is a courageous man standing up for the majority view of the UK for the good of the nation


Sir Alan Beith isn't a bigoted Lib Dem MP he is courageous man standing up to his deluded party who seem to support same-sex marriage while refusing to let the coalition grant married tax credits!


Mary Glindon isn't a bigoted Labour MP she is standing up to the ever-flappable Ed Milliaband who wouldn't know how to foster social cohesion if his chance to be Prime Minister depended on it (which it does).

Last edited by BigD on 09-Feb-2013 at 08:25 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Besides you are not bringing the thread back on topic, becausse the topic is "Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million Updated - you can sign petition after reading, if you want!"

The Pink News interviewed the Chief Executive of Stonewall who thinks it will be more like £5 billion if Civil Partnerships are offered to heterosexuals and marriage offered to homosexuals as the 'equality police' will demand (if not now then later) Keep it the way it is and avoid the colossal waste.

Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill argued that Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn

...and have you signed the petition. It would make your wife proud

637,321 and counting!

Last edited by BigD on 09-Feb-2013 at 12:34 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 09-Feb-2013 at 12:32 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

The CofE bishops in the Lords represent a dwindling minority, and they cannot block the decisions of the commons, merely delay the inevitable.

As this is not primarily a religious issue but an issue for all of society. It will not only be the bishops that vote against this travesty it will be upright and marriage valuing peers from all sorts of backgrounds. This is an insane destruction of marriage that the Lords will see straight through. The way the Government has approached this has been completely undemocratic, idiotic and rushed through without due consultation or consideration. The House of Lords are the only safeguard in place that the Government can't control or manipulate into pandering to their totalitarian schemes.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Is this language tolerated in the US towards supporters of marriage? I think not! Choose your language more wisely as marriage supporters do not hate practising homosexual. If anything you seem to be a 'marriage-phobe' and are intolerant and out-of line in your attitude towards people that support marriage.

I clearly support marriage as an option. All 100% of people should be able to choose whomever they love and whomever they commit their lives to. If anything I love marriage more than you do. And I realize that not 100% of our nations can partake in it's benefits. OTOH you discard a minority of your fellow brothers by using stereotypes instead of respecting them as individuals. OTOH you discard the minority by blaming them for actions that married straights do too. It's very clear here who the hater is. And it's not I that want all 100% of people to have the individual right to decide who to love and who to make their lives with.

I will add I do have hate in my heart. I hate the bigotry and discrimination you've brought with you. If you really understood Christ you'd realize he does too. Someday I hope you grow to be a better person and learn to stop breaking your faith's rule and instead love your neighbor as yourself.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Feb-2013 at 01:03 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

Is this language tolerated in the US towards supporters of marriage? I think not! Choose your language more wisely as marriage supporters do not hate practising homosexual.

As I already said, I listened to the debate in Parliament and heard all kinds of views. Some were very homophobic, don't get me wrong. There were more than a few bigots laying claim to moral values, but some of the arguments against were actually well thought out, some did raise genuine concerns, more about the wording or safeguards, rather than the idea, but there were a number of people who were not bigots or homophobes that debated against the change that used reason and were capable to forming a case without resorting to derogatory comments.

You are not one of these people.

Nobody on this thread is attacking you for not agreeing with the impending change. That is a matter of opinion that seems to be shared with only a couple of people here and while the consensus disagrees with that opinion, that is not what the problem is.

The problem is that you have consistently made snide, hateful comments about a group of people, some of whom are members on this website. Your only apparent justification for these comments is an interpretation of the Bible which you are not willing to debate and that isn't shared by the majority of Christians. Nor is it supported with the actual content of the Bible.

And most damning of all, these derogatory and hateful statements have nothing to do with the legalisation of same sex marriage. They serve only to demonise people who have done nothing wrong, legally or morally in order to give false claim that your argument is valid.

Surely it MUST occur to you that when every person that contributes to this thread comes up with the same conclusion about your behaviour, the problem lays at YOUR end? You keep claiming conspiracy but this is blatantly ridiculous as if it were, the only person not in on it would be you.

_________________
"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:

@BrianK Is this language tolerated in the US towards supporters of marriage? I think not! Choose your language more wisely as marriage supporters do not hate practising homosexual

Your games are getting very tiresome. You are clearly a bigot who hates homosexuals. You go on about them being promiscuous deviants who try to indoctrinate children in order to steal them away from "normal" society.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The Pink News interviewed the Chief Executive of Stonewall who thinks it will be more like £5 billion if Civil Partnerships are offered to heterosexuals

Yes we went over this already. The amount was not backed up by evidence. The greatest cost in this guess will be created by heterosexuals. And so what, its time to pay up for equality, whether is 3.7 million or 5 billion. The lesson to learn here is to not have 2nd class citizens in the UK.

Quote:

@Nimrod ...and have you signed the petition. It would make your wife proud

All this bringing his wife back into this again is doing is making you look like a little prick. We all know you would not have the guts to say it to his face ever. And its just plain rude and uncalled for.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Is this language tolerated in the US towards supporters of marriage? I think not!

So who are the true supporters of marriage? Is it the majority of people who see no reason not to extend the right to marry to as many people as wish to marry, or is it the narrow minded prejudiced "christians" who previously tried to prevent marriage between couples of different race, between people of different faith, and now between people of the same gender. Far from being pro-marriage, your view is entirely anti-freedom, anti-equality, anti-marriage, and in all honesty anti-christian.
You keep accusing me of being anti-christian and telling me to read your bible, but I am not anti christian, I am anti "christan". The reason I put the second christian in inverted commas is because I am anti your type of "christan". The hate filled bigoted kind of "christianity" that was espoused by those who read the book of Luke (as you suggested that I should) prior to massacring thousands of women and children in all of the various atrocities I have already previously listed on these pages. Morons who commit the vilest crimes against humanity in the name of a deity whose principal message was "Love thy neighbour"

Quote:

Choose your language more wisely as marriage supporters do not hate practising homosexual

Every time I post a reply I have to choose my language extremely carefully as my first instinctive response would get me banned for life from this site. You are not a "marriage supporter" nor are you "pro marriage". What you are is an insulting libellous hate filled individual who uses these terms to lend a false air of respectability to a campaign of lies about people who have done you no harm whatsoever.
Calling people perverts and paedophiles is not the action of somebody who does not hate.
Ignoring or even ridiculing the extent of inequality suffered by others is not the action of somebody who does not hate.
Repeatedly posting the lies and venom that you repeatedly post is not the action of somebody who does not hate.
Actively campaigning to oppress a minority is not the action of somebody who does not hate.
This entire thread is my evidence that you are actively dedicated to hating homosexuals, and all those like myself who would tolerate their right to draw breath.

Quote:

David Burrowes is not a bigot he is a courageous man standing up for the majority view of the UK for the good of the nation

David Burrowes is a typical UKIP wolf in tory sheeps clothing. He talks about democracy in other countries but seeks to impose his religious beliefs on his constituents rather than allow them to worship the deity of their own choosing. If he was truly corageous, he would quit the party whose colours he wears at election time and stand on his own agenda. It would be interesting to see how his share of the vote would fall when he bacame exposed as anti-everything, and pro oppression of minority interests. The others also seem to think it important to trumpet their churchgoing status as something that makes them better than everybody else, forgetting that individuals like Torquemada were also regular churchgoing people, who just happened to be responsible for thousands of deaths arising from their "christian" attributes of religious bigotry and cruel fanaticism. It was Torquemada who as responsible for the Alhambra decree, expelling thousands of jews (remember gods chosen people) from Spain, and trturing and killing over a thousand conversos (jews who converted to christianity in the same manner that his grandmother had done) Do these individuals intend to treat the homosexuals in the same manner. Also they are three of the six hundred MP's who voted on this issue. There were four hundred who stood up to the bigoted hate campaign of lies championed by the campaign for homophobia and freely and democratically voted for the expansion of rights to equality in marriage. And although you hate democratic freedom, this country is a democracy, and not a theocracy.

Quote:

...and have you signed the petition. It would make your wife proud

Actually it would not. I know this because I asked her if she wanted to sign. I did this because unlike you, my wife and I respect each others religious views. Like the Bull family that you cited, my wife would not want homosexuals having sexual relations under our roof, which is why we do not rent out rooms in our house as a B&B. Unlike you however, she does not believe that her juristiction extends to other peoples private homes. Nor does she feel that she will have to divorce me and have our three sons put into care because "Adam and Steve" can legally change their status from cohabiting to married. Once the new law comes into effect, their registry office marriage will be no mor or less valid than our own, and that does not trouble either one of us at all.

Quote:

The way the Government has approached this has been completely undemocratic, idiotic and rushed through without due consultation or consideration.

What you mean is that, having heard your opinion the government have given it the consideration it deserved and not blindly followed the orders of BigD ignoring all other evidence. Listening to everybody and not just the noisy pressure groups is not undemocratic, and it is certainly not idiotic.

Last edited by Nimrod on 09-Feb-2013 at 11:10 AM.

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

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

Yes we went over this already. The amount was not backed up by evidence. The greatest cost in this guess will be created by heterosexuals. And so what, its time to pay up for equality, whether is 3.7 million or 5 billion. The lesson to learn here is to not have 2nd class citizens in the UK.

The problem is that everything has a cost involved, and some people only see the cost, and never the benefit.
As an example, prior to the Forster Education act of 1870, only the offspring of those wealthy enough to afford to pay school fees received an education. The concept of universal education was strongly opposed on the grounds of all kinds of costs, but history clearly shows that the benefits outweigh the costs. A literate skilled workforce is far more productive, and a happpy contented populace are less likely to riot and revolt. One extra benefit was that education of the poor was taken out of the hands of the church, and that was the first break in the stranglehold of infant indoctrination in this country. Children were being taught how to think instead of being indoctrinated, never a good thing for the likes of bigD.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: It is a simple Christian concept, in that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross is revealed as being relevant and pivotal to an individual through the working of the Holy Spirit. This is called being "saved" (from eternal separation from God)

So, as I suspected it is just a load of nonsense then, you are not really saved from anything. Its just words without any relevant basis for this assumption, no factual evidence at all to back it up. As I do not believe in an afterlife, I still have no need of being saved thanks very much. The only Holy Spirit I am aware of is a fine single malt

Quote:

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV Romans 10:13 ESV Corinthians 5:17 ESV

Just words, from an old book that has no relevance anymore. This is not anything that should be taken seriously.

Quote:

You see being a Christian has nothing to do with being Christened by the local parish church or going to a school 'Christingle' services after all

I am most certainly NOT a Christian even though I was babtised. I suppose it was just the 'done thing' in those days.

Quote:

You might not feel in imminent danger but no one knows how long they'll be on this rock before passing on

We all die, it is part of the way things are in the natural world. It is nothing to fear though I would like to postpone it as long as possible of course


Quote:

If you don't know Jesus Christ your not getting off on judgement day as we have all fallen short and cannot live with a holy God in heaven...

Mere supposition from an earlier more superstitious age. When you die you die, there is no judgement day, no god waiting for you, unless you have real evidence to show otherwise there is no reason to even assume there is. It is also totally improbable that a bloke who lived around 2000 years ago would be much help.

Quote:

...unless we rely on Jesus' perfect and sinless life and his selfless substitutionary death on the cross (substitutionary atonement) to die in our place and take the punishment we deserve.

I very much doubt the real Jesus was sinless, he was human after all. Getting banged up instead of continuing his work was pretty stupid IMHO, it does not make any sense at all.

What a horrible religion it is that assumes people are sinful and deserve punishment before they have even done anything. What about the Christians throughout history that have murdered and persecuted people in the name of Jesus, do they get to your heaven - because if so it must be a right den of iniquity. I'll give it a miss thanks.

Talking of Holy Spirit, I think I will get a nice glass of Talisker before turning in for the night :o)

I watched 1984 for the first time yesterday evening and saw something that immediately made me think of BigD.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Surely it MUST occur to you that when every person that contributes to this thread comes up with the same conclusion about your behaviour, the problem lays at YOUR end? You keep claiming conspiracy but this is blatantly ridiculous as if it were, the only person not in on it would be you.

TPod started this thread and there are plenty of people on this site that would debate from a pro-marriage viewpoint (some of which have given me personal messages of support) had it not been for the intolerant language used against marriage supporters e.g. "you bigot!", "you homophobe!". Being a marriage supporter is not directly linked to bigotry and homophobia as you, fairlanefastback and BrianK keep trying to make out.

What I think you are getting confused by is that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful acts, therefore it is when an individual chooses to act on their homosexual lusts and desires and not the feelings themselves that denote them as a practising homosexual.

If individuals want to process these feelings in a healthy way they should seek help and therapy with Christian councillors who may be able to get them in touch with some conversion therapy organisations here in the UK. Before you start shouting "that should be illegal!" etc, ask yourself why. If an individual is unhappy with their unwanted lusts and urges then the therapy is actually providing a service. In the absence of any scientific evidence that people possess a 'gay gene' or are born gay we must assume the feelings are a product of nurture not nature. Although, there may be some individuals that have a weakness for these feelings compared to others, if they are not happy with them they should be allowed to seek help just as people with other types of unwanted thought processes are allowed to do. Marriage would then be open to them as an option. Should they not want to go down this route they can stick with Civil Partnerships. The choice is theirs!

Did you ever watch Gay to Straight: Stacey Dooley in the USA on BBC3? It showed this process in action in the US and some of the individuals are now happily married to people of the opposite sex with children. Amazing! You would try and deprive these individuals of a fulfilling married life just because of your own assumptions about homosexuality being a 'new-gender' rather than a life choice

What has it got to do with you anyway? Why would it threaten your 'liberal world view' so much to have to accept that homosexuals choose to act on their impulses and are not defined or slaves to them?

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

@Rob

Quote:

I watched 1984 for the first time yesterday evening and saw something that immediately made me think...

Yeah, I've read the book and consider the lies, deceits and the rewriting of past history in Parliament following the promise made that Civil Partnerships would not develop into Same-Sex Marriage back in 2004 as a form of 'Literature Network' rewriting of our history.

Maybe the arguments we are hearing now and the attempt to demonise Section 28 supporters are a form of this;

Quote:

"Who controls the present, controls the past..." -- rulers in the present determine what is "said" by history and can write their own fables about what happened. "Who controls the past, controls the future..." -- having manipulated history to serve one's own purposes, it follows that one can use that to manipulate ( control ) the future.

The witch hunt and persecution of public sector workers and teachers that would follow bringing in this legislation is straight out of the pages of 1984. And to think we already have the CCTV network in place!

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

@BigD

Quote:

If individuals want to process these feelings in a healthy way they should seek help and therapy with Christian councillors who may be able to get them in touch with some conversion therapy organisations here in the UK.

Conversion therapy does not work.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of, oh, I don't know, every single psychological professional in the world?

The World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy... the list goes on and on - nobody accepts that you can convert someone's sexuality, the science does not support it.

And it constitutes abuse of the very worst order.

It should be illegal. In many jurisdictions it already is.

And you, sir, should be held liable for this incitement to sexual abuse that you have just made.

@BigD

Funny how you didn't respond to my questions relating to gender. I guess it wasn't so easy to try and twist those around to your own ends.

The purpose of the thought police is to discourage open objective thinking, I think that sums up your behavior pretty well.
With regard to surveillance technologies, I bet the church would have killed for that kind of stuff in less enlightened times.

@BigD

Quote:

TPod started this thread and there are plenty of people on this site that would debate from a pro-marriage viewpoint (some of which have given me personal messages of support) had it not been for the intolerant language used against marriage supporters e.g. "you bigot!", "you homophobe!". Being a marriage supporter is not directly linked to bigotry and homophobia as you, fairlanefastback and BrianK keep trying to make out. What I think you are getting confused by is that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful acts, therefore it is when an individual chooses to act on their homosexual lusts and desires and not the feelings themselves that denote them as a practising homosexual.

Been pro-marriage does not automatically denote a biggot or homophobe you are correct. And if these people wanted to debate with us then they are more than welcome. However the language you have used many times to describe homosexuals makes you a closet homophobe. Just because you haven't used language like "fags go home" that places like westboro baptist church use doesn't mean you don't share some of their views. You have continually used unfounded, baseless rubbish like homosexuality lowering life spans, they are more promiscuous, they carry diseases, and they are sexual predators against straights and kids. Yet you ignore the fact that for generations this is has been present within your "healthy" conservative heterosexual exclusive society. Thats what has rung alarm bells about you BigD. Someone who was in for the rational debate wouldn't do this.

Would it surprise you to know I have spoken to men of faith about this over a coffee? Just because I am atheist doesn't mean I don't respect these men and woman that choose to dedicate themselves to their religion. One thing that sprung out at me was that even though they didn't agree with homosexuality they didn't deny that there would be a place in society for this in a civil way? Interesting that people who are christian would say this.


Quote:

What I think you are getting confused by is that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful acts, therefore it is when an individual chooses to act on their homosexual lusts and desires and not the feelings themselves that denote them as a practising homosexual. If individuals want to process these feelings in a healthy way they should seek help and therapy with Christian councillors who may be able to get them in touch with some conversion therapy organisations here in the UK. Before you start shouting "that should be illegal!" etc, ask yourself why. If an individual is unhappy with their unwanted lusts and urges then the therapy is actually providing a service. In the absence of any scientific evidence that people possess a 'gay gene' or are born gay we must assume the feelings are a product of nurture not nature. Although, there may be some individuals that have a weakness for these feelings compared to others, if they are not happy with them they should be allowed to seek help just as people with other types of unwanted thought processes are allowed to do. Marriage would then be open to them as an option. Should they not want to go down this route they can stick with Civil Partnerships. The choice is theirs! Did you ever watch Gay to Straight: Stacey Dooley in the USA on BBC3? It showed this process in action in the US and some of the individuals are now happily married to people of the opposite sex with children. Amazing! You would try and deprive these individuals of a fulfilling married life just because of your own assumptions about homosexuality being a 'new-gender' rather than a life choice

You posted about this months ago, around the same time you were using jimmy saville as a argument, and I posted references to major medical societies condemning the actions of these camps. Can I also say that a lot of evidence in that documentary suggest a high level of abuse and bullying to be happening in a lot of these camps. And that you were essentially brainwashing someone to be something that they were not supposed to be.

But again this is not part of this debate. This is yet more subterfuge. But nothing surprising there is it.

Last edited by CritAnime on 10-Feb-2013 at 01:03 PM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 10-Feb-2013 at 01:00 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

TPod started this thread and there are plenty of people on this site that would debate from a pro-marriage viewpoint

There are indeed a lot of people on this thread debating on a pro-marriage viewpoint, but you are not one of them.
"Christians" like you claimed that it would destroy the concept of marriage and the entire structure of civilization if people of differing religious viewpoints were to be permitted to marry.
"Christians" like you claimed that it would destroy the concept of marriage and the entire structure of civilization if people of differing skin colour were to be permitted to marry.
And now we have "christians" like you claiming that it will destroy the concept of marriage and the entire structure of civilization if people of the same gender are permitted to marry.
Are you truly so blinded by your religious fanaticism that you cannot see the pattern that is emerging? You are not pro marriage you are anti "everybody that is not BigD and everything that does not worhip BigD as the one true god, with christ as his prophet"

Quote:

Being a marriage supporter is not directly linked to bigotry and homophobia as you, fairlanefastback and BrianK keep trying to make out.

This is perfectly true. As a marriage supporter I demonstrate absolutely no homophobia or bigotry when I say that the benefits of marriage should be afforded to all people regardless of race, creed, colour, or sexual orientation You are not referred to by these epithets because you claim to be pro marriage, these terms are fully justified and earned by your opposition to equal human rights, and your persistent demands to be allowed to practice discrimination and retain undeserved privilege to insult and offend without restraint.

Quote:

If individuals want to process these feelings in a healthy way they should seek help and therapy with Christian councillors who may be able to get them in touch with some conversion therapy organisations here in the UK.

So once again your answer to the victims of christian persecution is that they should become christians, and then you will not victimise them. Why not just tell rape victims that they have to marry their rapist Or is that already in the bible
Do you have any concept of just how offensive and disgusting an individual you really are? Even when people do convert to christianity there is the example of how christians in Spain treated the conversos. Add to that the enthusiasm with which christians slaughter other christians, and it begs the question "what benefit is there to becoming a christian?" and don't give me that guff about getting a place at the head of the queue of the "saved", because all religions make that empty promise based on the same total lack of evidence.

Quote:

Did you ever watch Gay to Straight: Stacey Dooley in the USA on BBC3? It showed this process in action in the US and some of the individuals are now happily married to people of the opposite sex with children. Amazing! You would try and deprive these individuals of a fulfilling married life just because of your own assumptions about homosexuality being a 'new-gender' rather than a life choice

Yes. Now a question to you. Did you actually read the responses that this question recieved the last time you asked it, and the evidence that the methodology was totally flawed and the majority of the people to benefit were those that quit the brainwashing scheme, and learned to accept themselves as the people that they actually were rather than trying to live a lie.

Quote:

What has it got to do with you anyway? Why would it threaten your 'liberal world view' so much to have to accept that homosexuals choose to act on their impulses and are not defined or slaves to them?

More to the point, what has it got to do with you. Why would it threaten your religious world view' so much to have to accept that homosexuals have the right choose to live. With other homosexual pertners. Of their own choosing. Free from intimidation or bullying, by theofascists who want to exterminate them all, together with the disabled, and the wrong kind of christians(Jehovas Witnesses), and the sub-humans, and the jews. You get to act on your impulses when you write that I must be porking my own sister for my marriage to be worthy of disapproval, so why shouldnt others be free to act on their own impulses when they make a lifelong commitment to the partner of their own choosing Or is BigotD the only one allowed freedom of choice?

Quote:

The witch hunt and persecution of public sector workers and teachers that would follow bringing in this legislation is straight out of the pages of 1984

Is this the same witch hunt and persecution that prevents public sector workers and teachers calling dark skinned people niggers, and forces them to give these "niggers" the same treatment and access to education as white people have. Is this the same witch hunt and persecution that prevents public sector workers and teachers treating women as the second class individuals that we all know that they really are, and forces them to give these females the same treatment and payscales as men have.

If a factory worker produces goods that keep failing the quality control tests at the end of the production linethey are liable to dismissal. Why then should a teacher not be held up to the same standards and if children cannot pass an exam at the end of a years schooling because the teacher has preferred to indoctrinate them in a single narrow religious viewpoint instead of teaching the child the subject in question (i.e.Geology) shouldn't the teacher be sacked. Or do you consider a childs entire future to be less important than mass produced stuff coming off the end of an assembly line?

BigD, we have all seen about the dark ages in our history books. as a resuly we, the majority of the population of this country will not permit you and others like you to drag us back to the conditions that were extant when religion held sway. The process that was started by the Forster education act of 1870 giving children an education instead of an indoctrination continues to accelerate. Soon religion will be entirely a matter of private conscience and your beliefs and opinions will not have precedence in law over mine, or anybody elses.

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