@BigD

Quote:

Why do you keep talking about this issue as if it's about granting a long fought for equality to an underprivileged racial group?

While homosexualism is not a racial group it doesn't mean that they aren't underprivileged. In many states within the US one can fire someone from their job or disassociate that person from one's association just because they are gay. Up until recently this was the case for the military. They were and simply unworthy to many. So, yes there is a stigma which exists which shouldn't. Does it matter if your co-worker is a lesbian or doing a good job? I'd say doing a good job.

Quote:

Homosexuals know there are disadvantages of living their lifestyle and yet still choose to do so, there is no underprivileged underclass here

You seem to believe homosexuality is a choice. Question to put the shoe on the other foot. When you go out to the bar do you first have to decide to not hit on men so you hit on women? Is your heterosexuality a choice?

Quote:

How dare you say that marriage should be devalued to the lowest common denominator

This is another great example of the mote in your eye. You claim to not hate gays. Yet you judge their love unworthy of the recognition that straights are allowed.

What you need to understand is many people, including me, do not believe gays deserve and it's complete bigotry to associate in the way you have - 'lowest common denominator'.

Quote:

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"

Marriage has unquestionably changed over time and different societies define this in different ways. Harems of women, no black marriage to blacks, no black marraige to whites, pre-arranged marriage, marriages based on ability to pay, etc. IMO let two people decide what their marriage means to them. It in no way changes what my marriage means to me.

Quote:

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

So does the 50% divorce rate. But I don't see you lining up to get rid of divorce.

Quote:

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;

You have skipped this questions. If a non-mongamous relationship is not acceptable for marriage why do we allow married swingers? In the USA there's a bit more than a 50% chance of 1 married partner cheating on the other partner. The State doesn't demand dissolutionment at this event as you you might have us believe.

Quote:

And most importantly of all the majority of the British public at large are against this change

You've yet to display that true. But, even if true my response is tyranny of the majority is one of the great crimes of a democracy and it should not happen.

@BrianK

Quote:

You seem to believe homosexuality is a choice. Question to put the shoe on the other foot. When you go out to the bar do you first have to decide to not hit on men so you hit on women? Is your heterosexuality a choice?

The feelings of attraction or lust are not a choice but you can choose whether to act on them or not so yes the homosexual lifestyle is a choice. Most people who develop an attraction to children would seek psychological help to overcome them and yet it is not politically correct to say someone struggling with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction should do the same. Go figure!

Quote:

Marriage has unquestionably changed over time and different societies define this in different ways. Harems of women, no black marriage to blacks, no black marraige to whites, pre-arranged marriage, marriages based on ability to pay, etc. IMO let two people decide what their marriage means to them. It in no way changes what my marriage means to me.

Social arguments over inter-racial marriages don't alter the definition of it being the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This change would be markedly more drastic and undermining. Of course it alters YOUR marriage if the legal definition of marriage changes. It means what you thought you'd signed up to would now be no more significant than two homosexuals who fool around with 6 other men/women each year (despite their huge fluffy event of the year wedding with 'lip service' vows) but live together for sham security while ordering a designer baby off an adoption agency; selfishly depriving the child of a mother/father. And this all sanctioned by the state in a huge social experiment to see if the kids turn out alright in 20 years!

For the record no nation has ever survived very long in historical turns once homosexuality is promoted and marriage demoted to this extent. Last days of the Roman Empire anyone?

LINK

Quote:

Prof Mattei claimed that it was as the capital of Rome's North African provinces that Cartagena became a hotbed of sexual perversion, gradually influencing Rome itself, which eventually fell to barbarian tribes in 410AD.

... and yet we expect the economic crisis to be a blip on an otherwise continually prosperous society. If we continue to destroy the moral fabric of our society then there will cease to be a functioning decent society never mind a 2% growth rate!

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

@BigD

Quote:

Most people who develop an attraction to children would seek psychological help to overcome them and yet it is not politically correct to say someone struggling with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction should do the same. Go figure!

And there it is...

The "classic" gays are the same as paedophiles argument. Proving beyond shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of rational argument and are not willing to accept any point of view other than your own.

There is no point in this thread anymore. No carefully worded argument, nor skilfully thought out strategy will change the fact that BigD is bigot, homophobe and a thoroughly nasty person that does not deserve anymore attention. We are not so stuck for Amigans that a person like this is an acceptable member of this forum are we?

If so, then I guess it is I that shall leave this place. No person is worth this much effort to like or accept...

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: If so, then I guess it is I that shall leave this place. No person is worth this much effort to like or accept...

Was just passing by on me way to pay some bills and thought I'd share a wee "revelation" that occurred to me over the past few days...

I've already left...

Can't be ####d anymore with the so called Amiga scene/ community and all the same old cobblers people have been going over & over, again & again year in year out, PPC, X86, WinUAE, Linux, iPhones, Macs, PC's Windows, tablets, AROS, MorphOS, CUSA etc... etc... :-/

Gone back to what I had been doing happily for 24 years and not the two I've wasted gibbering ####e on the net and that is...

Simply using me miggies and enjoying them, strange but I had almost begun to forget that I was happy with me miggies while I had allowed myself to be drawn into reading all the claptrap on these so called Amiga forums & sites, reckon I've got out just in the nick of time before I too end up wasting decades of my life gibbering non Amiga BS on so called Amiga forums...

Cheerio for now...

_________________

@BigD

You're seriously trying to imply that married heterosexuals never cheat?

I really regret seeing this thread. I should always focus on amiga stuff on amiga sites.

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Social arguments over inter-racial marriages don't alter the definition of it being the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

And exactly when did this aspiration become the legal definition. Have you no understanding of the existence of forced marriage, arranged marriage, marriage by rape, dowry, polygamous marriage, or marriage annulment. all of these things have been in the past, and still are condoned by the christian authorities. The only reason that UK has judicial divorce, and the Anglican Church is that the Pope would not annul the marriage of an absolute monarch, so Henry VIII (who had been given the title "defender of the faith by the same pope) invented civil divorce and the church of England.

Quote:

Of course it alters YOUR marriage if the legal definition of marriage changes

How so? If some man tries to create a split between myself and my wife, it doesn't matter which one of us he tries to seduce, he is still taking a very great risk. The strength of my marriage does not rely on either the church or the judiciary to survive.

Quote:

but live together for sham security while ordering a designer baby off an adoption agency; selfishly depriving the child of a mother/father.

I honestly do not know where you get all of this bullsh*t from but you really are filled with hate, vitriol, and bitterness, to the point that you will take on board any lie that you hear simply because it reinforces your prejudices

Quote:

For the record no nation has ever survived very long in historical turns once homosexuality is promoted and marriage demoted to this extent. Last days of the Roman Empire anyone? LINK Quote: Prof Mattei claimed that it was as the capital of Rome's North African provinces that Cartagena became a hotbed of sexual perversion, gradually influencing Rome itself, which eventually fell to barbarian tribes in 410AD. ... and yet we expect the economic crisis to be a blip on an otherwise continually prosperous society. If we continue to destroy the moral fabric of our society then there will cease to be a functioning decent society never mind a 2% growth rate!

The link that you have posted is quite possibly the greatest insult imaginable to anybody who has any form of integrity. First let me put forward a few simple facts. Empires rise, and Empires fall. The reason Empires fall is usually because neighbouring Empires are rising which diverts resources away from the older Empire. In business this is called healthy competition, in nature it is called survival of the fittest. The Roman Empire was the longest lasting in recorded history. Counting from its founding to the fall of the Byzantine empire, ancient Rome lasted for 2,214 years, and blaming its eventiual downfall on events that happened in the Punic wars is like blaming Joan of Arc for the downfall of the British Empire. Incidentally, the growth period, and peak glory days of the Roman Empire were under pagan rulers. It could more reasonably be stated that it was not until christianity started to take hold, that the Empire crumbled. To prove my point, compare the Roman Empire with its decadent ways with the puritan commonwealth
The man that you are citing is a bigoted homophobic religious fundamentalist, on a par with the late and unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini. Evidence of his "caring christian attitude" is shown in this excerpt from the article that you linked to Quote:

Last month he said that the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan were punishments from God and "a way of purifying human sin".

If you ascribe to his statement then I suggest that you start to use the 3lb of slurry that you store between your ears as something other than ballast. I may not be a christian, but I do respect people who truly follow that religion. This individuals bigoted and hate filled comments insult, not only the dead of Japan (10% of them were christian) but also the religion that he and you claim to follow, but in reality you both contaminate that faith with every utterance that you make.

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

@Nimrod

BigD is no Christian - perhaps it says that on some piece of paper somewhere, but that's about it. People like him give the rest of us a very bad name.

Any Christian worth his salt knows that Jesus' teachings were about love, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and faith.

As evidenced here, BigD is the antithesis of all these qualities - hateful, bigoted, devious, deceitful, odious and offensive.

Curiously, not one comment in the bible regarding homosexuality is attributed to Jesus. Clearly it wasn't that important to him either.

As a daily visitor and long time lurker on this site, the only reason I got involved in this thread from the start was to look beyond TPod's original reasoning and uncover the truth behind the campaign against gay marriage.

I believe we have found the true reason - hate, pure and simple.

Try as we might to put this thread to bed, doubtless BigD will not rest until he's had the last word.

Nobody here is going to make him change his mind, but at least we can be safe in the knowledge he is part of a dying breed of irrational and misguided individuals whose power and influence is, thankfully, on the wane.

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

Most people who develop an attraction to children would seek psychological help to overcome them and yet it is not politically correct to say someone struggling with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction should do the same

If you really believe that a relation between two mature and consenting adults is as unethically wrong as a relation between a mature adult exploiting their position of power over an unmature and unable to give consent minor is equivalent you indeed have a great deal of hate in your heart. Your hate is a huge mote blinding your judgement.

Quote:

Social arguments over inter-racial marriages don't alter the definition

What they do demonstrate is your idea that marriage was an immutable constant throughout human history is indeed false. Different cultures and customs define marriage throughout the ages. Things we consider the norm in our present time were once forbidden and to be feared in the past.

Quote:

Of course it alters YOUR marriage if the legal definition of marriage changes

No it does not. For example, if I'm heating water for tea and you're heating water for tea, then I drink Earl Grey and you drink Raspberry Zinger aren't we both having tea? Of course we are. Your choice of tea has no ramifications to my choice of tea. Because I define what tea is acceptable for me and you define what tea is acceptable to you. They don't have to be the same. (Well unless we're married to each other then it's probably a good idea to have an agreement on what marriage means.)

Quote:

It means what you thought you'd signed up to would now be no more significant than two homosexuals who fool around with 6 other men

Since I've asked the question multiple times and you've yet to answer I'm going to have to assume you're giving your tacit approval to the 50%+ of marriaged people who fool around and for the 2-4% of marriages where the couples are swingers. In case you don't know what swingers are they are people that fool around with other couples or with other people's spouses with the permission of the other spouse. You allow this fooling around to be a marriage but not between two women? You are discriminating allowing straights to get away with something you consider forbidden for gays. How about treating people as people where are all equal?

And as for 'selfishly depriving the child of a mother and father' what do you believe divorces do? Again I see no consistency here as you won't step up to the plate and condemn that activity.

Quote:

Prof Mattei claimed that it was as the capital of Rome's North African provinces that Cartagena became a hotbed of sexual perversion, gradually influencing Rome itself, which eventually fell to barbarian tribes in 410AD.

Just because someone said this doesn't mean it's true. The reasons for Rome's fall is far from a singular reason or event. I'd suggest you read some other historians and learn a bit of the myriad of events in the fall of the Romans.

@AndyC

Quote:

BigD is no Christian - perhaps it says that on some piece of paper somewhere, but that's about it. People like him give the rest of us a very bad name. Any Christian worth his salt knows that Jesus' teachings were about love, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and faith.

Seems to me many 'Christians', haven't read farther than Leviticius.

Quote:

Try as we might to put this thread to bed, doubtless BigD will not rest until he's had the last word.

IMO he won't rest even after the last word. The history of the USA is littered with bigots who hid behind the cross as their excuse. For example, KKK.

Quote:

Nobody here is going to make him change his mind, but at least we can be safe in the knowledge he is part of a dying breed of irrational and misguided individuals whose power and influence is, thankfully, on the wane.

Double plus good!

Stephen Cobert is an American Comdedian... He had this to say.

"Christianity is the best way to cure gayness. Just get on your needs, take a swig of wine and accept the body of a man into your mouth."

@Franko

Quote:

Quote: SpaceDruid wrote: If so, then I guess it is I that shall leave this place. No person is worth this much effort to like or accept... Was just passing by on me way to pay some bills and thought I'd share a wee "revelation" that occurred to me over the past few days... I've already left... Can't be ####d anymore with the so called Amiga scene/ community and all the same old cobblers people have been going over & over, again & again year in year out, PPC, X86, WinUAE, Linux, iPhones, Macs, PC's Windows, tablets, AROS, MorphOS, CUSA etc... etc... :-/ Gone back to what I had been doing happily for 24 years and not the two I've wasted gibbering ####e on the net and that is... Simply using me miggies and enjoying them, strange but I had almost begun to forget that I was happy with me miggies while I had allowed myself to be drawn into reading all the claptrap on these so called Amiga forums & sites, reckon I've got out just in the nick of time before I too end up wasting decades of my life gibbering non Amiga BS on so called Amiga forums... Cheerio for now...

Oh jings, crivens and help ma boab, no!

I meant leave this thread, not the website! I'm sometimes terrible at expressing myself with the written word, being dyslexic, spell check is not the best tool in the world for conveying emotion.

While I agree with much of your sentiment, I have to concede that some of the whining about Amigaland has been done by me in the past. Passions stir up all kinds of emotions in people, BigD is no exception. My problem with him is his inability to comprehend any universe other than his own.

My old place was in a village in the middle of nowhere, only picked because of the airstrip next to it. Being a small place, you get the same microcosm of society in a place like that as you do in a place like this.

My best friend there was (he still is now - both meanings) a minister for the Church Of Scotland. I think that is worth pointing out given my posts to date. He's a kindred spirit in the sense that he has the same wonderment at the Universe as I do. Albeit with a different philosophy.

I've had endless discussions about religion, belief,the works, as you'd expect. I understand why people believe. I understand why people don't. We don't agree on details, but we agree on the underlying awesomeness (The literary, not the Americans slang version of the word) of existence.

Then you meet people like Billsey and BigD. It's like their brains were wired in black and white and not technicolour like the rest of us. I think I'm more depressed people like them exist than angry. It feels like the last few hundred years of human development haven't happened and it makes the Universe seem less special.

Anyway I've just undermined my indignant exit in the last post, like storming out of a room and then coming back to retrieve my jacket that I'd left behind, so sorry to the god of Drama Queens for any offence, but wanted to clear up I'm not planning on leaving the Amiga scene quite yet. Just this thread.

Which I am doing now.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BrianK

Quote:

If you really believe that a relation between two mature and consenting adults is as unethically wrong as a relation between a mature adult exploiting their position of power over an unmature and unable to give consent minor is equivalent you indeed have a great deal of hate in your heart. Your hate is a huge mote blinding your judgement.

I made the point about attraction to children and compared those unwanted feelings to unwanted homosexual lusts. There is no hate only concern that people who want counselling in regard to unwanted homosexual feelings should be able to receive it. In this 'homosexual activist' environment, that right may soon disappear.

Quote:

What they do demonstrate is your idea that marriage was an immutable constant throughout human history is indeed false. Different cultures and customs define marriage throughout the ages. Things we consider the norm in our present time were once forbidden and to be feared in the past.

There are over 3,000 references to marriage in UK law. The oldest dates back over 700 years to an Act passed in 1285 in the reign of King Edward I. Part of this legislation is still in force and includes the term "husband and wife". Pointing to this evidence Lord Brennan QC, Labour Peer and former Chairman of the Bar Council, has said changing the law, "would obliterate vast amounts of our cultural and legal heritage".

Quote:

No it does not. For example, if I'm heating water for tea and you're heating water for tea, then I drink Earl Grey and you drink Raspberry Zinger aren't we both having tea? Of course we are. Your choice of tea has no ramifications to my choice of tea. Because I define what tea is acceptable for me and you define what tea is acceptable to you. They don't have to be the same. (Well unless we're married to each other then it's probably a good idea to have an agreement on what marriage means.)

Using you metaphor, it's more akin to motioning a decree that tea can now be said to include drinks sourced from yeast extracts. The overwhelming evidence is that marriage as the union of one man and one women has been at the centre of every successful society. It is a fundamental structure, based on the complimentary natures of men and women, has remained constant.

Quote:

You are discriminating allowing straights to get away with something you consider forbidden for gays. How about treating people as people where are all equal?

Isn't it clear by the words "... to the exclusion of all others..." that marriage is a monogamous institution and the fact that some people cheat on their partners means that they have failed to keep their vows. That there are divorce laws that allow for dissolution of marriages doesn't detract from the fact that marriages are meant for life and divorce denotes a failure of the individuals to keep their vows. The fact is that homosexuals are virtually NEVER exclusive in their relationships. Rather than exporting the benefits of marriage, redefining it would import the instability of homosexual relationships into society's understanding of marriage. This would immeasurably weaken and undermine marriage. As Robert George has explained:

"Rather than imposing traditional norms on homosexual relationships, abolishing the conjugal conception of marriage would tend to erode the basis for those norms in any relationship. Public institutions shape our ideas, and ideas have consequences; so removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm - if not immediately, then over time."

The relationship of marriage will always be different in structure to same-sex marriage. There can be no consummation and no complementary male and female roles. Children brought up by a homosexual couple will always lack either a mother or father figure. Marriage should not be redefined to encompass something so dissimilar.

Quote:

Just because someone said this doesn't mean it's true. The reasons for Rome's fall is far from a singular reason or event. I'd suggest you read some other historians and learn a bit of the myriad of events in the fall of the Romans.

You are correct that there were other factors but it's clear that Cartagena was a factor.

Last edited by BigD on 29-Apr-2012 at 10:17 PM.

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

@AndyC

Quote:

Curiously, not one comment in the bible regarding homosexuality is attributed to Jesus. Clearly it wasn't that important to him either.

1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

Quote:

Yes, Jesus did condemn homosexuality in His Word. The good news is, “there is hope for the homosexual; he has reason to believe there is hope for a brighter future. Paul states that some at Corinth had engaged in homosexual acts, but they had been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11.) The same can happen today. As anyone who repents of a sin, the homosexual can be forgiven. He can experience the same freedom and joy that any other sinner knows when he becomes a Christian. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but clearly states that non-practicing homosexuals can be saved”

[Doug Sensing, “Christian Response To Homosexuality,” Gospel Advocate, April '93, Vol. CXXXV, No. 4, 12.]

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

@BigD

Thanks for that...

Jesus isn't talking about homosexuals here, he's talking about heterosexuals. Also, advocating the union of a man and a woman is very different arguing against the union of two men or two women.

Does Jesus ever openly criticise homosexuals or homosexual behaviour?

How Paul subsequently relates Jesus' word in his various letters is open to his bias and interpretation. I mean, he never even met the guy!

Also, I wonder how many of the other gospels suppressed by the early church contained passages attributed to Jesus where he specifically mentioned homosexuality in an acceptable light? I guess we'll never know...

Again, regardless, going on and on and on and on and on about it isn't going to prevent the inevitable change to the law.

You'll have been given the right to provide feedback via the petition and the consultation period. The people in charge will no doubt give it a cursory glance before shaking their heads in despair before proceeding to implement the new legislation.

I think you should start coming to terms with that, or think about moving somewhere else where homosexuals are still suppressed and persecuted... What about West Africa?

AndyC

@AndyC

David Cameron is under ever increasing pressure to back down over this. His 'grass roots' party members are already calling time on this foolish legislature and a lot of Conservative MPs are in open rebellion with his position. If it wasn't for the coalition and Lynne Featherstone and co. he would have already come to his senses.

In regards to you disregarding the passage on "one flesh" in Matt. 19:4, this may be helpful to you Bible.net LINK;

Quote:

What did Jesus say about God’s creative work? Did He make Adam and Joseph? Did He create male and male, or did He create male and female? According to this passage, what has been God’s plan for sexual union [one flesh] since the beginning of time? Was His plan for a male partner to be joined to another male partner, or was it for a husband to be united to his wife? According to this passage, is a man to cleave to his male partner, or to his spouse?

Also, if you had looked at John 5:46-47 closer then you would be forced to consider the following;

Quote:

What law was Jesus born under? What law did He live under? Answer: The Law of Moses (cf. Gal. 4:4.) Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17.)

That is if you are actually concerned about what the Bible has to say on this matter rather than playing devil's advocate

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

@BigD

Luckily, this particular issue is devolved to the Scottish parliament, which (thankfully) isn't governed by the Tories.

You might have heard the adage: there are more pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs...

I imagine if the UK government does capitulate to the minority of hateful bigots pushing the anti-gay marriage agenda, then we'll see an influx of English gay couples heading north to tie the knot, which can only be good for business :D

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

I made the point about attraction to children and compared those unwanted feelings to unwanted homosexual lusts. There is no hate only concern that people who want counselling in regard to unwanted homosexual feelings should be able to receive it. In this 'homosexual activist' environment, that right may soon disappear.

There exists many areas in society to improve one's self. Certainly if there's money in it someone is going to do it. I don't think this fear that groups that 'pray away the gay' are going to end is well founded. There is no one purposing outlawing that type of assistance if someone feels they want it.

Please realize your comparative story equating gays to child molesters turns people off of discussion, as you should see from comments of others here.

Quote:

There are over 3,000 references to marriage in UK law. The oldest dates back over 700 years to an Act passed in 1285 in the reign of King Edward I

Laws are not immutable but a reflection of an ever changing society. It's not as if 700 year old laws can't or should not be changed. We've certainly changed many laws in the name of recognizing and trying to goal towards human equality.

Quote:

Using you metaphor, it's more akin to motioning a decree that tea can now be said to include drinks sourced from yeast extracts.

Myself and others will see more hatefilled words here. You are deeming the love two people feel as less worthy than the love that two other people feel....

Now to your point directly. If tea is changed and now includes yeast drinks it doesn't change my Earl Grey to yeast. It's still Earl Grey. Likewise allowing gays to marry in no way changes my marriage.

Quote:

marriage is a monogamous institution and the fact that some people cheat on their partners means that they have failed to keep their vows.

Again - swingers who agree that non-monogamous is a valid lifestyle for them. In fact my wife and I made no vow of monogamy. We do agree that we'll live that way but it was not in our marriage vows.

Quote:

The fact is that homosexuals are virtually NEVER exclusive in their relationships.

The fact is you don't know that. Every relationship is different. You did site a study on the 'average of 7 partners' but an average certainly doesn't apply to everyone. Just like straight people there are gay people across the spectrum. Many straight people have multiple partners too. Don't know what the average is. Though this item is simply unimportant. It's up to the married couple to define what is acceptable within their relationship.

As for Robert George he's wrong.

Quote:

You are correct that there were other factors but it's clear that Cartagena was a factor.

If so it is at best a semi-interesting footnote. Which shouldn't be trumpeted as the reason for a downfall of a civilization. Doing so only creates FUD.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Apr-2012 at 02:56 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

I find it interesting that you didn't include everything.
Especially Matthew 19:12. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

One way to read the Bible is that enunchs are the 'old-times' version of gay. It was people in the society who are of a sexual minority. In various areas while they can't honor God with their first born they are still capable of honoring him with their love.

Quote:

Yes, Jesus did condemn homosexuality in His Word. The good news is, “there is hope for the homosexual; he has reason to believe there is hope for a brighter future. Paul states that some at Corinth had engaged in homosexual acts, but they had been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11.)

These are St. Paul's words not Jesus's words. There is a difference. St. Paul didn't know Christ first hand.

Question - do you follow Paul's other rules. A couple of examples
*Do you make your wife cover her head at all times? "Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil." - Cor. 11: 5
* Do you assert your dominion over your wife as the head of the family by ensuring she keep her mouth shut in church? "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." - Cor. 14:34

@AndyC

Quote:

I imagine if the UK government does capitulate to the minority of hateful bigots pushing the anti-gay marriage agenda, then we'll see an influx of English gay couples heading north to tie the knot, which can only be good for business :D

Forbes estimated in the USA if gay marriage were allowed it'd increase economic spending by $17Billion a year. The economic analysis for California estimated an $685 million (US $) per year increased spending on wedding services would happen. Scotland's more than 5Million in population. California is more than 37Million in population. If spending scales linearily that's roughly $100 Million US $/year additional for Scotland. Would Scotland be happy if we increased their economy by 61.5 Million pounds a year?


BigD pushed this:
"The UK government plans to introduce Gay Civil Marriage at an estimated cost of £3.7 million."
--- That was cost to change the wording. It appears to not have taken into account the additional tax revenue from the increase in economic spending. The UK is about 50% larger than California. Taking that into account the UK might see over $1,000 Million US additional or £651 Million more spent on weddings. Put the average UK tax on this and we can clearly see the change in law will pay for itself.

@BrianK

Quote:

It's up to the married couple to define what is acceptable within their relationship.

An yet if you sign up to marriage you are making certain universally vows to one another in addition to whatever individual 'personal vows' you choose to add. In UK law the definition is, "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

That means you'll be faithful to one woman (if you're a man). You won't cheat on her. You will have a jealous love for her and not allow lusts and desires for others to get in the way of the commitments you made to your spouse. The individualistic society you advocate will lead to a far more selfish and loveless world. Valuing all relationships and 'love-ins' equally will both devalue marriage and deeply damage our society.

Redefining marriage will obscure the true meaning of marriage in the minds of individuals. It will blur the distinction between legal marriage and friendship. On what basis should the new definition of marriage be more permanent than friendship? It would lead to fewer people making a lifelong commitment. If people view marriage as not materially different to friendship, it becomes less apparent what is special about marriage at all. In the long term fewer people would marry. Therefore fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father and so would be deprived of its benefits.

This will inevitably have a damaging effect on children and increase mental health problems, depression rates, gender ambiguity, abuse levels and generally create a meaner more self-centred altruistic society. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO LIVE IN THE WORLD OF 1984 or BIOSHOCK?

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