@BrianK

That's not a model for marriage, it merely points to the responsibility a man has for his actions! He has treated the woman as if they were married so he should marry her. I see no mention of rape here merely a casual sexual relationship as is rife in the UK today. Maybe if every father stood up and took responsibility for getting their girlfriends/girl they met in a club pregnant there would be be;
A) Far less children aborted
B) More children growing up with fathers they can look up to.
C) Less children growing up with a confused sexual orientation.

The picture you link to is a crass misinterpretation of the passage but the message the verse carries is valid for today. The verse is as follows;

28g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,  29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

I believe it is speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help and even if your interpretation is correct and ...

Quote

Quote:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted as referring to rape, it clearly requires restitution from/punishment for the man who rapes a young woman that is not betrothed. That punishment consisted of two parts: he must pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and he must marry and support the woman for the rest of her life. Fifty shekels of silver was a very substantial fine as at that time a shekel was a measurement of weight and not an actual coin. Some scholars believe it could have represented as much as 10 years of wages for the average person. The fact that a man was in any way punished for rape was revolutionary for that period of time in history. No other ancient legal system punished rape to anywhere near the degree outlined in Deuteronomy 22:22-29. While it is unrealistic to say that because of this command rape never occurred, hopefully the severity of the punishment was a strong deterrent to the exceedingly evil act of rape.

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

@AndyC

Quote:

The rest of the AW.net community (those in the UK anyway) are likely indifferent and therefore have already established that this would have no detrimental impact on them and their situation.

The majority of the UK is in favour of keeping the definition as it is. They are however concerned about the vociferous liberal chants of "bigotry" and "homophobia" that however unjustified in some cases leads to demotion and retribution in their workplaces due to out of control pandering to the 'gay rights agenda' in our society at large especially in local government. The BBC wouldn't even cover the story on the re-definition of marriage until the Cardinal O'Brien spoke out and they felt they could but some pro-gay agenda spin on the story!! Talk about being an unbiased public service, don't make me laugh!!!

It is likely that the pro-marriage Amigans don't want to get tangled up in this debate as there is the reality of constantly being called a bigot with no justification other than poisonous rhetoric from the liberally minded that pro-marriage views are antiquated and holding back progress etc etc etc! Luckily I have broader shoulders and can see that liberals are running scared at the unprecedented response on the pro-marriage PETITION. 460,000 and counting!!!

Last edited by BigD on 23-Apr-2012 at 11:30 PM.

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

@BigD

You bear all the hallmarks of a bigot and a homophobe. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

I'm no fan of the BBC's "unbiased" coverage of most things, but in this I think we can safely say they reflect the public mood adequately.

Also, I love how being "liberally minded" is seen as a bad thing in your opinion:

The Free Dictionary

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic - Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete - Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

So, by definition, the antonym of a liberal would be a bigot.

Hilarious!

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

That's not a model for marriage, it merely points to the responsibility a man has for his actions!

Perhaps.
There are many ways the Bible defines a marriage. Here's a good list that sums it up quicker than I could. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/04/the-varieties-of-biblical-marriage/

Quote:

Maybe if every father stood up and took responsibility for getting their girlfriends/girl they met in a club pregnant there would be be; A) Far less children aborted B) More children growing up with fathers they can look up to. C) Less children growing up with a confused sexual orientation

Last one first. What proof do you have that there is more sexual confusion? With nearly a thousand different animals documented having homosexual relations it seems to be going on for quite a while. IMO decades ago the issue was more in the closet. Then came Stonewall. In fairly recent but slightly older times people were more hush, hush about this stuff. For example, we used we lock away pregnant teenagers. Often people would claim their own grandchildren as their child.

(B) Certainly a good thing to have fathers to look up to. But, also not realistic. We know throughout the ages only males went to war and LOTS of children were raised not by their fathers. Again in older times what we see are widows and single mothers were so economically hardshipped they'd often have to give up their child. Now in the eras where more women work and can provide from their families we're not seeing that activity. IMO we shouldn't give up women's rights to make them subservient to the family, as they typically were in the past. Looking at societies who derive their roles from religion slaves often had more rights than wives.

(A) If abortion is a bug-a-boo no one aborts more children than God. Over 1/2 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. We call it 'miscarriage'. Sure there are a few that are the parent's fault directly, for example excessive drug use. But, in the vast majority of cases it's nature, created by all knowing God, that mucked it up. Thus, what we see is God is the largest aborter of them all. And we may want to mention that God also seems to prefer early teen virgins who he doesn't bother to marry himself.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Apr-2012 at 02:18 PM.

@AndyC

Quote:

You bear all the hallmarks of a bigot and a homophobe. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

I fail to see how you can call me a homophobe when I have not expressed any fear or hate towards homosexuals. If anything I have expressed an understanding of why people possibly struggle with homosexual feelings and I would obviously have the utmost sympathy for people who get ensnared by the homosexual lifestyle with all its dangers, lower life expectancy, higher levels of depression etc. I don't consider a sexual orientation as comparable to racial discrimination or discrimination against giving women the vote as you can't change your race or gender but sexual orientation can be influenced due to environmental factors and can be altered through counselling should the person desire it.

As regards to bigotry, definition;
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I don't see homosexuality as a creed. The belief that homosexuality is something you are born with I tolerate although please acknowledge that that position is a belief and not a scientifically provable fact.

However, the opinion that marriage should be redefined because a vociferous few think that they deserve something reserved for a relationship that benefits society, children and the individuals involved far more than homosexual relationships can pretend to bring to the table, I will challenge at every turn. Marriage should not be redefined to allow a few thousand homosexuals to call themselves 'married' despite the fact that they can neither offer future (obviously non-biologically conceived) children both a father and mother (the 'equality' we should be concerned about) and don't actually believe in the same monogamous lifestyle that their heterosexual counterparts aspire to.

The perverse thing about this is homosexuals can take part in all the legal and inheritance advantages of marriage by signing up to a Civil Partnership, the 'liberal' drive to push for the destruction of marriage is purely a political agenda to decrease the focus on the nuclear family if not completely side line it and ultimately warp children to accept homosexuality as equal to a gender, race, creed or nationality, something which it isn't and can never be because at the end of the day whatever lust, desires or passions involved it still just boils down to a lifestyle choice!!

Last edited by BigD on 24-Apr-2012 at 07:57 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 24-Apr-2012 at 07:56 PM.

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

Quote:

sexual orientation can be influenced due to environmental factors and can be altered through counselling should the person desire it.

So with the same logic, you could with some counseling be talked into falling in love with the random guy?

Quote:

ultimately warp children to accept homosexuality

But, hey, with a bit of counseling the children should be able to accept the world as you see it. So, no real harm done.

Seriously, I think homophobes like yourself has costed the UK way more money than this law.

_________________

@jaokim

Quote:

Seriously, I think homophobes like yourself has costed the UK way more money than this law.

As stated previously I neither fear nor hate people who are homosexual. I'm sure council funded gay pride marches cost a lot more than heterosexual pride marches, probably because heterosexuals don't need them to convince themselves that they're happy in their own skin and to over rule their consciences that keep screaming out to them that things are not quite right.

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

@BigD

Quote:

The majority of the UK is in favour of keeping the definition as it is.

And your evidence for this assertion is, as ever, totally non existant

Quote:

It is likely that the pro-marriage Amigans don't want to get tangled up in this debate

Please allow me to correct your misapprehension about this point. I am involved in this debate and am very pro-marriage. In fact I am so pro-marriage that I welcome to prospect of its benefits being extended to a minority section of the population if they wish to avail themselves of its benefits. After all it will in no way diminish my enjoyment of my life if somebody else takes more pleasure in, and gains more happiness from, their own lives.

Quote:

Luckily I have broader shoulders and can see that liberals are running scared at the unprecedented response on the pro-marriage PETITION. 460,000 and counting!!!

Yes indeed, I am certain that people who are open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others, are quaking in their boots, terrified that 2/3 of one percent of the population want to tell the rest of us that we are immoral for not being arrogant bullies.

Quote:

I fail to see how you can call me a homophobe when I have not expressed any fear or hate towards homosexuals

of course you haven't. you have merely done everything in your limited power to deny them equal status in law to the rest of us.

Quote:

but sexual orientation can be influenced due to environmental factors and can be altered through counselling should the person desire it.

Or for those who will not accept counselling, there are always the strategically placed electrodes...

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

Quote:

heterosexuals don't need them to convince themselves that they're happy in their own skin and to over rule their consciences that keep screaming out to them that things are not quite right.

Maybe that's because everyday is heterosexuals pride parade.

If heterosexuals constantly walked in fear of being beaten to death due to expressing emotions to the one they loved, like for instance holding hands, perhaps they would also be parading around.
Or would heterosexuals just swallow their pride and take some counseling?

_________________

@jaokim

I really don't think Sweden is in a position to point out the way to go. Your latest idea to introduce an neutral pronoun "hen" to supposedly eliminate gender inequality will, you've guessed it lead to more gender confused people!

Quote:

Earlier this month, the movement for gender neutrality reached a milestone: Just days after International Women's Day a new pronoun, hen (pronounced like the bird in English), was added to the online version of the country’s National Encyclopedia. The entry defines hen as a "proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon]."The National Encyclopedia announcement came amid a heated debate about gender neutrality that has been raging in Swedish newspaper columns and TV studios and on parenting blogs and feminist websites. It was sparked by the publication of Sweden's first ever gender-neutral children's book, Kivi och Monsterhund (Kivi and Monsterdog). It tells the story of Kivi, who wants a dog for "hen's" birthday. The male author, Jesper Lundqvist, introduces several gender-neutral words in the book. For instance the words mammor and pappor (moms and dads) are replaced with mappor and pammor.

Nice "equality" thinking there! I fail to see how failing to acknowledge that boys like transformers and girls like barbie is classed as social progress!!!

And the proposal go yet further....
Quote:

Social Democrat politicians have proposed installing gender-neutral restrooms so that members of the public will not be compelled to categorize themselves as either ladies or gents. Several preschools have banished references to pupils' genders, instead referring to children by their first names or as "buddies."

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Please allow me to correct your misapprehension about this point. I am involved in this debate and am very pro-marriage. In fact I am so pro-marriage that I welcome to prospect of its benefits being extended to a minority section of the population if they wish to avail themselves of its benefits. After all it will in no way diminish my enjoyment of my life if somebody else takes more pleasure in, and gains more happiness from, their own lives.

Rubbish, marriage will have been destroyed if your "changes" are made. Consider a disabled parking space; a necessary privilege for disabled people. If you extend the privilege to able bodied people, then you have taken away the privilege from those to whom it belongs. It kinda looses its meaning and importance in being a parking space designed for the benefit of disabled people if there is no longer any special recognition for them! This is an erosion of a right not a benefit. The disabled parking permit would become worthless. The same would be true of marriage.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Rubbish, marriage will have been destroyed if your "changes" are made. Consider a disabled parking space; a necessary privilege for disabled people. If you extend the privilege to able bodied people, then you have taken away the privilege from those to whom it belongs. It kinda looses its meaning and importance in being a parking space designed for the benefit of disabled people if there is no longer any special recognition for them! This is an erosion of a right not a benefit. The disabled parking permit would become worthless. The same would be true of marriage.

This analogy doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is dlsabled parking spaces are a limited asset. There's never an infinite amount of parking spaces 2 car lengths from every door. Marriage is not a limited asset. Anyone entering a marriage doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same.

Quote:

"Experience: I tried to 'cure' gay people 'It never occurred that maybe you are gay because that's just the way you are' In the 1980s, I started a group called Courage, to "cure" homosexuality. Although today the "ex-gay" ministry seems offensive, back then it was cutting edge, in that we were reaching out to the gay community. The rest of the church just said, "You're wasting your time, they're going to go to hell." We didn't have a "deliverance" approach, but there were some ministries that regarded homosexuals as being possessed by a demonic spirit that could be cast out. We adopted the psychoanalytic idea of an unfortunate family background: distant father, overbearing mother – and this was just a boy looking for a father's love. The idea was that if placed in an affirming male environment, you'd grow out of your desires."

Sound familiar anybody? BigD?

Since people don't tend to follow links, I'll quote the whole article.

Quote:

I'd known I was gay from about the age of 13. I got on well with girls, but I didn't feel the sexual chemistry I felt when I watched Richard Chamberlain in Dr Kildare. In those days you could never talk about it. It was a lonely, frightening world. Then, in 1973, I started going to a Baptist church. It was different from the Anglican one I'd been brought up in. It taught the Bible as being literally true. When I confided in the pastors, they said that resisting homosexual urges was the same as resisting the temptation to steal or lie. Even though the law changed in 1957 with the Wolfenden Report, the rest of society lagged behind. There was still a sense that what I felt was criminal. But back then, nobody had sex before marriage. That I couldn't have a relationship didn't seem too bad when all the people around me weren't either. It got more difficult later on, when one by one they got married and I was still on my own. Then, in 1986, I came across a group called the True Freedom Trust and went to one of their meetings, for lesbian and gay Christians who wanted to "overcome" their sexuality. This was the first time I'd met any gay Christians, and it was a huge relief. One evening there was a young man visiting from San Francisco who told how this "ex-gay" ministry called Love In Action had saved him from being a male prostitute. He talked about how God could change your life and how part of that positive change was you wouldn't be gay any more. I went to train with them, and returned to England to set up Courage. We ran a residential programme called Steps Out Of Homosexuality. People came from all over Europe. I did feel attractions, but we believed wholesome friendship was the answer, so I turned my battles into a great cause. In 1991 I married an amazing woman, the first to lead a (free) church in the UK. We were both in our early 40s, had been good friends for many years, and did not want to be on our own for the rest of our lives. My wife is not a lesbian, but we thought we could at least live a life of companionship and mutual support. A few years later, we had to close our live-in discipleship houses, but I kept in touch with people afterwards and was dismayed to see what happened. Once people were on their own again, their world collapsed. Family and friends would say, "So, when are we going to hear wedding bells?" It never occurred to them that maybe you are gay because that's just the way you are. I began to see more people losing hope, getting severely depressed. One made a serious suicide attempt. By the end of the 1990s, the only ones doing well were those who'd accepted they were gay and found a partner. It was as if a great burden had been shifted, that they thought, "Now at last I know who I am. I know I'm in love with somebody and they love me." I thought, this is the kind of result we hoped they'd achieve living an upright Christian life, but they're finding that contentment just being themselves. I began to think that perhaps we'd got it really wrong. I still run Courage, but now it's with a belief that you can be gay and Christian. We offer a chance to meet other gay Christians and support committed same-sex relationships. It's been difficult for my wife, because she's naturally very concerned that I might therefore decide, "That's it, I want to go and find a man." But we're coming up to retirement age and I wouldn't feel happy just to leave her – feeling abandoned after all we've been through together. Ours may not be the traditional heterosexual romance, but the care for one another's wellbeing is just as real. I try not to look back, but I know I've missed out in a big way – and so has she. She should have been with some heterosexual guy who adored her, as she should be adored.

Source

Thought this thread needed another perspective.

_________________
"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:

I fail to see how you can call me a homophobe when I have not expressed any fear or hate towards homosexuals.

You seem to not see through the mote in your own eye. You have expressed fear of homosexuals and how through an equity of marriage would ruin marriage. You views were hateful as they align a description of homosexuality that's akin to illness that must be cured. You also expressed hate and distrust as you try and declare that 2 gays are incompent in raising a child.

Simply put you appear to not recognize the FUD in your own posts.

@BigD

Quote:

Rubbish, marriage will have been destroyed if your "changes" are made. Consider a disabled parking space; a necessary privilege for disabled people. If you extend the privilege to able bodied people, then you have taken away the privilege from those to whom it belongs

Unlike car parking spaces, happiness and contentment are not a limited and diminishing resource. Unlike certain individuals I do not feel unhappy simply because somebody else is happy.

Quote:

This is an erosion of a right not a benefit.

What kind of sad resentful individual are you, that sees happiness in others as an erosion of your rights. You do not have a right to impose misery on others, regardless of what the voices in your head, or your invisible friend, tell you.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

What kind of sad resentful individual are you, that sees happiness in others as an erosion of your rights. You do not have a right to impose misery on others, regardless of what the voices in your head, or your invisible friend, tell you.

Where do you get the idea that homosexuals who don't have access to same-sex marriage are unhappy. Around 20% of cohabiting homosexuals in the Netherlands get 'married' compared to 80% of heterosexual couples. Given the choice most don't bother!! They are happy with their 7 partners a year (on average) lifestyle and aren't in the least bit jealous of marriage. Where do you dig up these arguments from?

This is about marriage's place in society; is to be encouraged, cherished and set apart as special or redefined and destroyed.

Last edited by BigD on 25-Apr-2012 at 06:13 PM.

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

Quote:

This is about marriage's place in society; is to be encouraged, cherished and set apart as special or redefined and destroyed.

Why can't a marriage between two same-sex persons be "special"?

The near 15-20% heterosexuals that get divorced, and the uncounted number of heterosexuals that have 7 partners a year, despite of being married, don't they kind of take the special out of being married?

In the first posts you made a point of it being to expensive. Have you abaondened that in favour of your obvious homophobia/prejudices?

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Where do you get the idea that homosexuals who don't have access to same-sex marriage are unhappy.

In the United States when same-sex marriage became available there were numerous gay couples that signed up, and continue to sign up. Your Netherland example evidence of the same thing? In that case 20% of gays stepped forward and said yes this will make my life better and got married. So certainly there are homosexuals that believe marriage is going to increase their happiness.

Quote:

They are happy with their 7 partners a year (on average) lifestyle and aren't in the least bit jealous of marriage

This is an unfair stereotypes of gays. Not all gay couples live by that principle. In addition, I know straight married couples that are swingers. They live their lives with more than 7 partners a year. Do you think that different-sex couple should be disallowed to be married due to their swinger lifestyle?

Quote:

This is about marriage's place in society; is to be encouraged, cherished and set apart as special

Certainly allowing people to marry will encourage them to cherish it and treat it as something special in their lives. I don't think one can only be straight to do that.

@BigD

Quote:

Where do you get the idea that homosexuals who don't have access to same-sex marriage are unhappy.

To be absolutely honest, I couldn't give a flying **** if somebody who is not me is either ecstatically happy or suicidally miserable. I simply do not see why people like you should be allowed to get in the way of opportunity. It is cruel, petty, and typical of a certain type of self righteous "christian" to do everything in their power to blight the lives of others.

Quote:

This is about marriage's place in society; is to be encouraged, cherished and set apart as special or redefined and destroyed.

You are correct, this is all about the status of marriage in society. Marriage is too special to be reserved for only "acceptable" people, and kept away from anybody who does not meet with the approval of a self appointed arbiter of decency. If you, and others like you are ever successful in forcing your current victims back into the closet, I know only too well that I will be your next target.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

Certainly allowing people to marry will encourage them to cherish it and treat it as something special in their lives. I don't think one can only be straight to do that.

Why do you keep talking about this issue as if it's about granting a long fought for equality to an underprivileged racial group? Homosexuals know there are disadvantages of living their lifestyle and yet still choose to do so, there is no underprivileged underclass here. Their lifestyle leads to a reduced life span, they have a higher eventuality of depression and suicide and yet we increasingly promote the lifestyle as a valid alternative. As far as society is concerned they deprive children of the right to a mother and/or father when they selfishly choose to play at happy families. This isn't the idyllic little love-in you are painting it out to be.

How dare you say that marriage should be devalued to the lowest common denominator because roughly 20% of a tiny minority group (based on the Netherlands take up) feel that they should have a white wedding instead of a Civil Partnership. Get some perspective here. There are around 490,000 homosexuals in the UK (from the ONS Integrated Household Survey, 2010) a population between the size of Bradford and Sheffield and yet you'd think David Cameron and his whole cabinet were homosexual considering the level of power and influence their "needs and wants" seems to wield. Get a clue and accept that marriage is, "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others". Any alteration to this perverts its true meaning devalues it and renders it a play thing society; another excuse for a big party with no inherent meaning or value. That most homosexuals have on average 7 partners a year is a statistic not a stereotype and it means most are unsuitable to make a monogamous commitment for life that marriage demands;

The SIGMA project researched into homosexual lifestyles in the UK by people sympathetic to gay rights and was published in 1992! The main study was funded by the Department of Health and was published by the then government. THE STUDY FOUND THAT MOST HOMOSEXUAL MEN HAD CASUAL PARTNERS, ON AVERAGE SEVEN PER YEAR.

It is not worth throwing money at a change to the law when it is not asked for by the majority of homosexuals, will not be taken up by anywhere near the majority of homosexuals and actually is completely incompatible with the great majority of homosexual lifestyles and relationships. And most importantly of all the majority of the British public at large are against this change as shown by this POLL and HERE for the HUGE petition to retain the law as it is currently running at 467,008! This is as many as the population of Bradford

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