@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Franko You sir are the one filled with hate and bigoted opinions about the place of homosexuality in the world. It is not the trump card that blows all other rights out of the water. Children have a right to a mother and a father and homosexuals do not have the right to trump that with their dreams of a fairy tale wedding day!!!

You are a completely and utterly brain dead moron...

How the frig can I be the one who is bigoted and hate filled about homosexuals when I support them in their right to be able to be married !!!

I may not agree with or even like the idea of homosexuality but I am certainly not hate filled against anyone who is and have not posted one such comment here nor would I demand they seek counselling like you do, you hate monger...

You are an idiot as you have just proven once again by making a totally absurd statement and have just shown yourself up yet again as some rambling loony tune who hasn't got a freekin clue about anything you are gibbering about...

Please go away and stop posting utter gobshite and hate filled crap here about a section of society that has done you no harm and because of your own insecurities which obviously lead you to feel you need to mount a hate campaign against them here...

You are the worst type of person who makes society the sorry state is in today with you holier than thou pompous hate filled bigotry, go nail yourself to a cross and try and save the rest of the nutcases like you...

Last edited by Franko on 03-May-2012 at 01:06 AM.

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Try turning that 2/3rds stat into 4/5ths living in cohabiting or broken homes after the redefinition because that is what meddling and undermining marriage is going to do to marriage rates and broken home stats. Heterosexuals just aren't going to bother if you remove the benefits and special status of marriage. This is a very foolish social engineering experiment and nothing to do with equality. Equality exists due to the existence of Civil Partnerships in the UK which offer homosexuals the legal protections and benefits offered to married couples.

The issue here is you are throwing out numbers that are your guesses. I have to wonder why in the States where same-sex marriage is legal are we not seeing your numbers? In fact those States are in the top half of low divorce rates. Most in the top quarter of lowest divorces. We even looked at it as both divorces per person and divorces per marriage. Turns out either way they are in the lowest divorce rates.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-May-2012 at 03:29 AM.

Beating children of gays is ok. Says a man of God.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/02/preacher-supporting-same-sex-marriage-ban-encourages-violent-punishment-of-lgbt-kids/

@Franko

Definiition of Bigotry;

Quote:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

That's you! You believe homosexual relationships deserves to be raised to a position equal to marriage irrespective of the fallout and disadvantage brought to children, those seeking to live in monogamous lifestyles and young heterosexual couples weighing up whether it's worth getting married. You exhibit animosity and intolerance towards those who support marriage; the definition of a bigot.

Quote:

You are a completely and utterly brain dead moron...

Sounds hate filled to me! Pro marriage is a justifiable position and you have no right to try and dismiss it in the aggressive way you try to do. Gay rights are not all conquering you cannot stream role down cherished institutions because a couple of thousand people want a white wedding without any of the meaning, monogamous vows or commitment!

Quote:

You are the worst type of person who makes society the sorry state is in today with you holier than thou pompous hate filled bigotry, go nail yourself to a cross and try and save the rest of the nutcases like you...

Are you for real? Did you just try and encourage the ritual suicide of Christians? And you think I'm the bigot?!!!

Last edited by BigD on 03-May-2012 at 07:53 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 03-May-2012 at 07:40 AM.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

I have to wonder why in the States where same-sex marriage is legal are we not seeing your numbers?

Only 8 states have redefined marriage in the last 10 years and so the statistical data is neither mature (most changed to state legislation happened recently) nor a very wide spread of data as you are suggesting. Give it another 10 years (hopefully the law change will be repealed but if it isn't) marriage culture in the renegade pro-redefinition states will begin to be damaged.

Other things however are already going on in the renegade pro-redefinition states such as in Massachusetts when in 2003 a Massachusetts court said same-sex marriage had to be legalised and gave six months for it to be introduced. In response, the State Department of Public Health changed the standard marriage certificate to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "husband" and "wife". This completely is unacceptable!

Last edited by BigD on 03-May-2012 at 07:43 AM.

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

@BigD


You clearly are a very disturbed individual...

You fail to even understand the term bigotry even after you have looked it up, notice the words "intolerantly", "own opinions" & "prejudices"...


For 16 pages now you have INTOLERANTLY displayed complete contempt for the rights of one section of our society with your bigoted OPINIONS and disgusting PREJUDICES...


Your crazed fanatical rambling here are the clearest definition of Bigotry and sadly you are just too arrogant and ignorant in your zealot like beliefs to even realise that...


Hmmm... let me see... now you are trying to tell me with your bigoted & prejudiced ways that I have no right to dismiss something because you regard it as aggressive...


NewsFlash... just like your "aggressive" not to mention "hate filled" ludicrous views you are constantly posting here, then if your good enough at dishing it out you should be good enough to receive it...


Encourage ritual suicide of Christians" !!!

Erm... according to a certain book you believe in then, being nailed to a cross either by yourself (could be tricky that one) or by someone else is cannot be suicide or even murder ritual or not, as two or three days later you're supposed to miraculously spring back to life again...

Sounds more like regeneration to me just like in that other work of fiction Dr Who...


Now if you don't want to regenerate yourself by being nailed to a big lump of wood, then how about nipping down the Zoo and feeding yourself to the lions...

PS: Does the asylum know you have access to the internet in your padded cell...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Only 8 states have redefined marriage in the last 10 years and so the statistical data is neither mature (most changed to state legislation happened recently) nor a very wide spread of data as you are suggesting.

Do note there is an important difference here. While this data may be 'bad' as you suggest it is better then no data. Unfortunately, the 4/5 divorce rate you claim isn't backed by any data. It's an emotional judgement by you, you've tried to translate into a pseudodata point to display what your guess of what is going to happen.

Quote:

the State Department of Public Health changed the standard marriage certificate to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "husband" and "wife". This completely is unacceptable

The State Department, like other entities, need to follow the law. That change is one that would be mandated by the new law. Your problem here really isn't that the State Department's action is unacceptable. Your problem here is you find Massachusettes enabling gay marriage to be unacceptable.

Of course others find the actions to be completely acceptble and identify this as the best course of action for their State, and the nation itself.


I want to Thank you. The issue around same-sex marriage is one I've not had much interest in. Your rentless tirades of bigotry categorizing gays as less worthy than straights has made me focus in on the issue. A few months ago my response would have been 'whatever'. Now, I've become a huge proponent. This is simply the right thing to do if we want a society founded in the idea that everyone is created equal. Don't know much about the UK but the core idea of equality is at the foundation of the USA.

@Thread

Let's have a look at the Scandinavian example to try and shed some light on the effects of redefining marriage.

As published by the Catholic Education Resource Centre

"According to Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Policy Centre in the US, 'Same-sex marriage (SSM) has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend towards the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern - including 'gay' marriage - is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the 'gay' marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely , it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing, 'gay' marriage has added to the factors pushing the rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian 'gay' marriage has driven home the message that marriage is outdated and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.'"

In the UK no consideration is being given to the impact upon the most vulnerable people of all, namely children. There are all sorts of complications that will befall them if SSM is legalised - not least that they will be separated from their own biological parents through the complex minefield of legal interpretations of new marriage laws.

The potential plight of children in a sexual free-for-all appears to be the very important but missing element in the government's thinking. So the central and natural place of children in a normal marriage would be replaced by the unnatural and artificial rights of the homosexual community in a new state-created concept of marriage.

Think on....

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

@BigD

Quote:

The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Ignoring the plight of the targets of your hate campaign for the moment, what is your opinion of these people. What you fail (or refuse) to understand is that giving somebody else equal status to me doesn't threaten my security. Nobody here is claiming that being pro marriage is wrong. I am pro marriage. I am so in favour of marriage that I am comfortable with the idea of allowing its benefits to be experienced by a wider range of individuals.

Quote:

The Nordic family pattern - including 'gay' marriage - is spreading across Europe.

You post this statement as though it were some kind of bad thing. One could almost see viking invaders in horned helmets, rampaging through europe enforcing tolerance and equality at the point of a sword. Back in 1967, when Denmark first lifted the ban on pornograpy, people like you predicted hordes of half blind, hairy palmed Scandinavian youths raping anything in a skirt. Actually the sex crime rate fell, as it did later in Sweden as a result of the legalisation in 1970. The only times that this country was a theocracy were the worst points in the history of the UK. If you do not believe me I suggest that you go to the Republic of Ireland and tell them that they should be grateful for what Cromwell did for them. You will deserve everything that you get!

Quote:

So the central and natural place of children in a normal marriage would be replaced by the unnatural and artificial rights of the homosexual community in a new state-created concept of marriage.

Despite your loathsome, hate filled tirade, homosexuality is still not being made compulsory, and my marriage to my wife will be allowed to continue unperturbed by what other people are doing.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Thread The potential plight of children in a sexual free-for-all Think on....

Hmmm... "Stanly Kurtz" & "The Catholic Education Resource Centre" you say...


Strange but I've never had the need for either of them to create a policy on my behalf so that I can understand what is ethical to me...


Do you really need the likes of them and religion to explain everything that governs your life or shapes your every opinion !!!


Have you lost (or never had) the ability to think for yourself, come to your own conclusions, decide for yourself what is ethical to you or indeed just have some common sense and actually make your own decisions based upon your own thought processes !!!


It doesn't seem like it from reading everything you have said here...


Where is this law that you seem to be going on about that is going to "harm the children" with gawd forbid a "sexual free-for-all" ???


It seems you've been going on about another potential law all this time that none of us were even aware of...


We've been discussing a potential change to the law that will allow same sex marriages, while you been going on about a law that's going to create a "sexual free-for-all", sorry didn't realise until now we were discussing two entirely different things...


Well if you'd care to point out this potential law that will introduce to us all to a "sexual free-for-all" then please let me know where I can read about it as I want to support it right away...


Know something (obviously you don't), after 16 pages of you repeating the same old stuff over & over again believe it or not I and most others get it by now, you are a religious fanatical homophobe who likes to repeat himself every few hours as you can't quite comprehend the fact that the rest of us actually know this about you...


We get it by now (actually we got it about 14 pages back) so please... pretty please with knobs on... shut ra feck up...

Last edited by Franko on 03-May-2012 at 08:56 PM.

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

I want to Thank you. The issue around same-sex marriage is one I've not had much interest in. Your rentless tirades of bigotry categorizing gays as less worthy than straights has made me focus in on the issue. A few months ago my response would have been 'whatever'. Now, I've become a huge proponent. This is simply the right thing to do if we want a society founded in the idea that everyone is created equal. Don't know much about the UK but the core idea of equality is at the foundation of the USA.

I agree with you 100%. I'd never have been so motivated to advocate these rights were it not for the incessant nonsense being belched out into this forum by BigD.

Before this, I hadn't really been to worried about the whole issue. But I take issue with bullies, bigots and ignorant fools with more time than sense.

With regard to the petition, unless this pressure group (which as we've established is comprised of a tiny minority of complete buffoons with a hilariously outdated view of the world) can convince the government of setting up a formal referendum on the issue, then it is of little consequence and the admittedly high (by normal standards) number of signatories, is utterly meaningless.

All this petition represents are the views of the hardcore minority that they are already well aware of. Remember, elections are not won and lost in this country on issues like this, and the Tories don't stand to lose anything if they proceed as planned with these changes.

Politically, the government must stick to its guns on this issue to demonstrate that it will not be bullied by outdated, pointless institutions and members of the "old guard". As such, there is literally no chance of the petition doing anything other than providing a few column inches in the media and a few minutes on the TV news.

Doubtless the telegraph and daily mail will provide some backing, but even they have to bear in mind that part of their readership may support these changes.

Can I suggest (not that I'm trying to get the last word in) that we walk away and leave BigD to his musings? Feeding the troll is of little use to anyone, and it's clear that he has no capacity to listen, contemplate and understand simple concepts like fairness, equality, diversity, inclusion and respect.

PS. I recently finished a brilliant book by Scottish author John Niven called "The Second Coming". It's based on the premise that God has been on holiday for two weeks (heaven time) whilst 500 years elapse on Earth. Jesus was left in charge at the height of the renaissance but wound up getting stoned with the rest of the disciples and various luminaries that made it into heaven over the last several hundred years. By the time God gets back, it's all gone to hell in a handcart - the reformation, creationism, the Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons and so on... An excellent read! Oh, and @Franko, I think you'd enjoy the Scots vernacular

Amazon - The Second Coming

You should check it out, although I recommend BigD avoids it in case his eyes start to bleed, what with all the blasphemy...

Cheers!

AndyC

@AndyC

Quote:

All this petition represents are the views of the hardcore minority that they are already well aware of. Remember, elections are not won and lost in this country on issues like this, and the Tories don't stand to lose anything if they proceed as planned with these changes.

Not entirely true is it?

Cameron alienates his own voters over gay marriage

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

@BigD

Quote:

As published by the Catholic Education Resource Centre

With decades long cover ups and the lack of forthcoming concerning child molestations by the Catholic church I am not compelled to heed any analysis they might attempt. Perhaps I'm wrong to throw the baby out with the bath water. That and the morality they impose and fail to adhere to makes them a corrupt organization unworthy of respect or consideration.

As for children they are not a right of only married individuals. If there is harm happening it is happening with or without marriages.

Getting back to worrying about kids being part of a sexual free for all, my recommendation would be don't leave them alone with your local Catholic Priest.

@AndyC

Thanks andyc!

I was trying my best to not insult bigs and explain how his expressed view is bigoted. It definitely is falling on deaf ears. I hope the politicians do the right thing and ignore the discrimatory attitudes of such individuals.

Thanks for the book. Could be interesting.
For those familiar with the USA I'd recommend American Gods by Neil Gaiman

@BrianK

Quote:

As for children they are not a right of only married individuals. If there is harm happening it is happening with or without marriages.

Marriage is the best environment to bring up children and it shouldn't be sacrificed to appease the never satisfied yells of the 'gay rights' agenda. You've got Civil Partnerships now leave marriage alone as promised in 2005 and stop trying 'reeducate' our children with a unnatural world view of your own design. Schools should never have to teach that homosexuals relationships are comparable to married ones and I shouldn't have to suffer being rebranded 'Progenitor A' on my future child's birth certificate rather than father! This is crazy 1984/Brave New World/Bioshock stuff and should be nipped in the bud before it warps and damages the next generation of children. Marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural and social heritage. By contrast homosexual marriage changes marriage from a child-centred institution to an adult centred institution.

Last edited by BigD on 03-May-2012 at 11:37 PM.

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

@BigD

I hate to break it to you but this world and society is indeed one of man's own designs. As is God. Btw marriage is an adult centered institution. It always has been.

@BrianK

Quote:

Btw marriage is an adult centered institution. It always has been.

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has called marriage "this most fundamental institution", saying "marriage is perhaps the best antidote to the celebrity, self-obsessed culture we live in, for it is about understanding that our true value is lastingly expressed through the lives of others we commit to". Mr Duncan Smith was the force behind the Westminster Government's Social Justice strategy paper which said:

"Analysis of the Millennium Cohort study shows around one in ten married parents split before a child's fifth birthday, compared to one in three cohabiting couples. Given that married relationships tend to have greater longevity and stability than other forms, the Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged."

Homosexual marriage would lead to relational chaos and opens the door to children having more than two legal parents. It is also an extremely difficult concept for children themselves to grasp, and especially for the very young. Why should they be made to grapple with such newly -created problems of adult making? Why muddy the waters of familiar 'mum and dad' figures, which for them are normal and natural - well established in our culture. Adult society must protect the child's right to affiliation with both parents. Without exclusive man/woman marriage there will be no institution specifically protecting the rights of children to be in relation with both biological parents.

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

@BigD

Children having more than two legal parents isn't always a bad idea. 20 years ago I worked with emotional and behavioral problem children. A 14 year old boy who was forced to have sex with his Mom and Aunt by his Father springs to mind. Wouldn't it be nice to have a pre-arranged 'parent' that would be a safer environment to send the kid to? A marriage cert is a marriage cert, it is in no way a guarantee of a superior environment for child rearing.

Also, kids are more resilient than you want to give them credit for. Studies of children of homosexuals find them to be more caring and understanding than offspring of strait people. Kids really can come to an understanding of why they have twoDads. Kids seem to function equivalent to straight kids.

We don't allow marriages only to have kids. So any of those fears of a child in a gay relationship is already in place in society todays. These kids are coping and are succeeding. Often the kids are not mucked up as you'd have us believe.

That every marriage is a positive and supportive environment for the best upbringing of a child is idolized crap. We'd hope it would be but in the end people are people. Abusive men are abusive men marriage cert or not. Drunk women are drunk women marriage cert or not. People are people. Hopefully they do their best. However, the marriage cert doesn't magically improve the bad in one's lives. I really wish a marriage cert had the healing powers you believe it to. It doesn't.

Marriage or not it's a fact that gays are raising kids. If the State doesn't recognize your committed relationship then why bother having a committed relationship? So put the shoe on the other foot. What if the State said we'll give you the same respect and rights of commitment as other commitments? Seems to me that would be a positive force encouraging force to helping create a supportive family. Since Gays are rasing kids isn't this really a choice of having 2 gay Dads raising kids who may have multiple partners and less family focus VERSUS having 2 gay married Dads raising kids who commit to focusing on being the best family they can? Wouldn't this switch help enable gays to better focus on building strong relationships and strong kids?

Last edited by BrianK on 04-May-2012 at 02:19 PM.

@BigD
A child being raised in a loving, caring environment is what's important. The gender of parents is of no great consequence.
Your suggestion that a child suffers through not having both a mother and father is quite frankly ridiculous, narrow minded and naive.

@BrianK

Quote:

That every marriage is a positive and supportive environment for the best upbringing of a child is idolized crap.

The statistics on that matter speak for themselves; in 1998, the Labour Government Green Paper on the Family, Supporting Families, said, "...marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain".

According to figures cited by the Centre for Social Justice, fewer than one in ten married couples split by the time their child turns five compared to one in three of cohabiting couples. Some 97 per cent of couples who stick together until their children reach adulthood are married.

Quote:

Since Gays are rasing kids isn't this really a choice of having 2 gay Dads raising kids who may have multiple partners and less family focus VERSUS having 2 gay married Dads raising kids who commit to focusing on being the best family they can? Wouldn't this switch help enable gays to better focus on building strong relationships and strong kids?

What does the commitment, "focusing on being the best family they can..." add to the relationship? That is the weakest form of partnership commitment I've ever heard and not in the least bit comparable to marriage!!! Are you letting the cat out of the bag by admitting that homosexuals are unlikely to want to sign up to the commitment of 'to the exclusion all others'? Because if so that's very honest of you! I fail to see how purposefully depriving a child of a mother or father even lives up to that weak promise of "focusing on being the best family they can". They've already failed at the first hurdle if they fail to see the importance of the child ideally being raised by their biological parents rather than to two men or two women on a 'made to order' IVF basis or some adoption/surrogacy arrangement. At the very least an child up for adoption should be placed with one man and one women giving them one male and one female role model in a loving family unit. Any other 'pseudo family' is depriving the child of his/her right to a mother and father!

@fishy_fis

Quote:

Your suggestion that a child suffers through not having both a mother and father is quite frankly ridiculous, narrow minded and naive.

How can you deny that a child ideally needs both a male AND female role model in order to develop properly? The evidence is there for you to SEE HERE

Quote:

Fathers play a particularly important role in prevention of drug use. A UCLA study concluded that, although “mothers are more active than fathers in helping youngsters with personal problems…with regard to youthful drug users, [the] father’s involvement is more important.” Among the homes with strict fathers, only 18 per cent used alcohol or drugs at all. In contrast, among mother-dominated homes, 35 per cent had children who used drugs frequently.

Quote:

A Canadian study of teenagers discharged from psychiatric hospitals found that only 16 per cent were living with both parents when they were admitted. From nations as diverse as Finland and South Africa, a number of studies have reported that anywhere from 50 to 80 per cent of psychiatric patients come from broken homes.

Quote:

Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more likely to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.

Quote:

This is just a tiny fraction of the available evidence, looking at just a few key social indicators. Other areas can also be mentioned, such as educational performance, the likelihood of committing suicide, and so on. In every key area, children suffer and are worse off when not raised by their own mother and father.

Although both a mother and father improves the child's outcomes, marriage improves them yet further;

A 2010 paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies observed that, by the age of three, there are "significant differences" in child outcomes between children born to married parents and those born to cohabiting parents. Children born to married parents showed superior social, emotional and cognitive development.

A team of 18 academics published a report in 2011 which examined over 200 separate social science studies on cohabitation, marriage and the welfare of children. The report concluded:

-A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at greater risk of child abuse.

-Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than children in other family forms;

-Cohabitation is associated with higher levels of psychological problems among children.

Last edited by BigD on 05-May-2012 at 12:38 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 05-May-2012 at 12:16 AM.

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