@BigD

Quote:

Since the main issue is the redefinition of marriage; a definition that has served us well for centuries

It appers we've also lost these Centuries old Traditions of marriage.

@T-J

Quote:

You've had comment after comment from married posters on this thread saying that equalising marriage would have no effect on their marriage at all. To believe otherwise shows a lack of confidence in the institution, among other things.

Equalising marriage assumes that the law for the past umpteen hundred years is somehow discriminatory!!! This is the wrong word, I'll think you'll find this is a 'REDEFINITION' process that has the capability of further damaging the already 'on the wane' marriage culture in this country. Aslo, marriage will no longer be consummated as homosexuals don't have the compatible 'ports and dongles' to achieve that part of the agreement!

Our laws, administrative forms, child education, royal succession and other workings of British life will be compromised and massively reconstituted for a ridiculously small minority of people swallowed up in a controversial lifestyle choice. And all this hoo-haa under the false guise of equality!!! Yeah, that'll be why Civil Partnerships exist because homosexuals are not a gendre in themselves, they are not a creed of people, they are just people who choose to have sex with people of the same gendre and get all 'proud' about it!!! And get great ideas of grandeur that what their doing constitutes marriage. Well I'm afraid it just doesn't!! Equal doesn't equal same!!!

All the liberals and Gay Agenda activists are attempting to do is to undermine the nuclear family to such a degree as to allow their 'no-holds barred' promiscuous revolution to progress further to the detriment of social cohesion and our society as a whole. I don't think the majority of homosexuals give monogamy or heterosexual 'married' lifestyles more than a passing thought. Most of them consider it limiting and conservative and although they might want to have a big 'Wedding' party if they could justify it, the majority certainly wouldn't want the commitment, ties and responsibility that comes along with marriage! They can pretend to their hearts content that they are 'married' is they so wish and indeed the BBC already refers to said ceremonies in that way!

I don't expect you to understand as you seem to struggle to see this as anything other than an individualistic freedom of rights argument which it most blatantly isn't (Martin Luther King would be turning in his grave when he heard the comparisons), when the REAL implications are far bigger.

Homosexuals are neither able to offer the commitment demanded by marriage (they have on average 7 sexual partners a year), they can not offer one male or one female role model to a child in their care, they cannot consummate their relationship and their relationships cannot be said to resemble the institution of marriage.

This is a blunt attempt to destroy marriage and the nuclear family and it should be exposed as such. To think our society is considering watering down the great institution of marriage to such a pointless 'legal agreement' and 'administrative handshaking' process is disgraceful. If we start down this road, why not allow brother and sister to marry? Why not a lone spinster and her dog? Why not multiple partners or animals? Once you open this legal can of worms who knows how far this insanity will go?!!

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

@BigD

What utter codswallop.

Please stop SHOUTING and answer my questions.

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

(Martin Luther King would be turning in his grave when he heard the comparisons)

MLK was assissinated prior just as Gay Rights was starting. As such there is no definitive answer here. However, what we do have is a response on MLK's opinion from the person that would be, theoretically, closest to MLK. That is his wife/widow Coretta Scott King. She stated that MLK was devoted to equal rights for all individuals and would see an ammendment baning gay marriage in the US as an afront to equal rights. Her statement was MLK would support equal rights for homosexuals just as he did for minorities and women.

@AndyC

You honestly want to know God, pray that He would reveal himself to you in His word or go to an Christianity Explored course or to a church service. If you just want to blaspheme against my God and saviour, then do so on your own time!

What all this venom against God and the Bible has to do with saving marriage, which is a common grace gift to all mankind from God (still bearing in mind the actual union is between one man and one woman) is perplexing me You don't lose out on this one because your a non-Christian, you just don't get to redefine marriage into whatever form pleases you even if you do wave the 'Equality' card repeatedly in my face in a completely unjustified way!

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

@BigD

I'm a practicing catholic, married in a catholic church, raising three children in the catholic church. I was an altar boy between the ages of 8 and 14 at which point I joined the music ministry until I left for university, but I still bring my guitar along to church from time to time.

My family counts Cardinal O'Brien amongst it's close acquaintances. My father is a retired geography teacher at a catholic secindary school and a reader at church, my mother is also a retired primary teacher and an elder in the church of Scotland. My aunts and uncles are eucharistic ministers.

I have a good rapport with my local priest and I am held in good standing within the parish.

Heck, I even have a Scottish higher qualification in Religious Studies (B).

However, I do not believe that god created the earth in 6 days. I do not believe the biblical account of pre-history, and I most certainly do not believe in the subjugation of minorities. Nor, most importantly, do I believe these are prerequisites to the Christian faith.

I am disgusted with the recent conduct of the church, and cardinal O'Brien in particular, on this issue. I was intending to take it up with him next time I see him.

Do not think for a second that you are in anyway capable of debating the finer points of my religion.

Anyway, now that you've done with lashing out, please answer my questions.

Thanks.

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

If they throw out the teachings of the Bible they're not Christian churches, they're cults

Basically what you are claiming is that anybody, of whatever belief system who does not slavishly follow the orders given by BigD is a cult. I base this sweeping statement on the fact that you class all of the massacres, genocides, murders, and tortures carried out by christians on Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and other (wrong) christians as "not christian", and therefore nothing to do with you.

Quote:

They are not following any recognised Christian faith but corrupting and failing to acknowledge the teachings of the Bible. No one should recognise these people as Christians.

Since they are not crusading to carry out acts of oppression against dissidents, I for one am willing to accept that they may not have the taint of hypocrisy about them, However since they are following the teachings ascribed to an itinerant jewish preacher, I will accept their claim at face value, but since the claim is to be christians, I will keep a careful watch on them as history teaches me that christians are not to be trusted.

Quote:

That is what the Episcopal church has done; it denies fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.

Which fundamental truth is this then? Are you again espousing that the fundamental truth is a message of love, enforced at the point of a sword.
Quote:

I can see no reason that the wording below can't be fairly used for a polling question; Quote: “Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnership, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else

Although T-J has already pointed out the blatant lie that you and the catholic church are pushing about equality, I will also note that nothing in this proposed legislation will in any way redefine my marriage. As a result, the fact that this loaded question contains two blatant lies is a valid reason why the wording cannot be fairly used for a polling question

Quote:

Equalising marriage assumes that the law for the past umpteen hundred years is somehow discriminatory!!!

Do you honestly believe that the law for the last thousand years has been anything other than biased and discriminatory. Of course since it has been biased in favour of a bunch of hypocrites who claim a "special relationship" with some supreme arbiter of right and wrong, and you want to keep that privileged position for yourself, you will not see this. I would point out that even the Pope does not claim to be infallible in all subjects, that would appear to be a situation reserved solely for BigD. A bit of breaking news for you:- Women are not property, children are not property, dark skinned people are not property, poor people are not property, it is not permitted to murder or torture people of differing beliefs. All of these things have changed from the way they once were because the law at the time was grossly discriminatory

Quote:

What all this venom against God and the Bible has to do with saving marriage, which is a common grace gift to all mankind from God

There is no venom against your invisible friend, it is just that the rest of us are not going to blindly accept the decrees made by you personally, disguised as divine revelations from on high. Likewise, marriage is not some "gift from above" it is simply the state codified recognition of the pair bonding instinct that helps small communities to support and protect their offspring. As a result marriages last longer if the participants are willing to work at it instead of expecting some benevolent spirit to hand success to them on a silver plate.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

As a result marriages last longer if the participants are willing to work at it instead of expecting some benevolent spirit to hand success to them on a silver plate.

If we want to talk statistics in the United States the Bible Belt region has some of the highest attendence of Christian Churches and polls the highest in the nation for percentage of population believing in Christ. This exact same region has the highest rate of divorce and highest rate of unwed teen pregnancies.

We've all heard the phrase 'The couple that prays together stays together'. Turns out that's not the case in the USA either. Buddists and Atheists have the lowest rate of divorces. Fundamental religions (often the ones who are anti-gay marriage and anti-gay) have the highest rates of divorce.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

@ The Sane Ones

You know, when I read here some of the postings made by folk other than BigD whom are religious and obviously believe in a God and their religion, it strikes me that you folks are actually sane and not crackpots like BigD...

See that's the thing I have about not liking religion is that most of folk whom I meet and have met in real life who have spoken to me about religion are of the calibre of BigD (ie: a raving fanatical loony tune with no regard or tolerance for anyones views but their own)...

It's nice to see that there are true religious folks out there whom are not at all like BigD or the ones I happen to meet and have discussed this subject with, wonder if one day I'll actually bump into such "normal" (for lack of a better word) religious folk in the real world one day...

You must be a rare lot or I've just been extremely unlucky to have run into the BigD's of this world...

_________________

@Franko

Quote:

It's nice to see that there are true religious folks out there whom are not at all like BigD or the ones I happen to meet and have discussed this subject with, wonder if one day I'll actually bump into such "normal" (for lack of a better word) religious folk in the real world one day...

I'd steer clear of the pseudo-Christians if I were you. That's the problem isn't it? You think that being a Christian is all about being part of nice club where pseudo-Christians sit around tolerating blasphemy and the talk of the destruction of marriage over a coffee and a scone and you view these people as thoroughly spiffing chaps because they go along with your liberal views and actually don't even pay lip service to the Bible never mind live by it!

Why any non-Christian/'religious' type would enjoy the tradition of going to church every week while not knowing Jesus and doing it out of some moral duty to the Pope or his religious family/community I'll never understand. You go to church to worship God and hear God's word (the Bible) expounded to guide your life and encourage/instruct & admonish you. This isn't some hockey club that has no implications on the other six days of the week!

This isn't a dress rehearsal guys. Kids get hurt when we mess with the social fabric of society. I don't see homosexuals wailing in the street for the right to a white wedding called a 'marriage ceremony' rather than a 'Civil Partnership' one, but I do see a lot of broken homes, rioting in the streets, ill discipline in our schools and a lack of respect in society at large. Supporting the ill conceived plan to destroy/redefine/thoroughly mess with a perfectly good building block of society would certainly make it a lot worse. Yours is the 'insanity' for believing otherwise.

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

@BigD

Pseudo Christians... gawd have you lot split into more factions now and are still fighting amongst yourselves, obviously none of you pseudo, real or otherwise Christians take anything said in your holy book seriously otherwise you would all live together in prefect harmony rather than stabbing each other in the back... or is it only the blind fanatics like yourself BigD who make up these factions and splits in your own mind...

Glad I don't take part in any of the religious malarky if that's all you do...

How can you hear Gods word when no such entity ever existed ???

Hearing voices in you head is not a good sign (take it from me)...

You sound like you live in a right rough area of town with all that rioting in the streets going on (have you been upsetting the locals again) or is it's always like that round your way...

I've finally found something I actually agree with you on (shocking eh) but your right, "This Isn't A Dress Rehearsal", this is life, the one shot you get at it, so why waste it worrying about and getting yourself worked up over things that neither concern you nor affect you...

After all when your dead your dead, there is no heaven, there is no hell you simply go back to what you were before you were even born... nothing... nowt... nada...

And that wasn't anything bad as far as I can remember, so enjoy yourself while your here and forget about worrying or making the the world a better place, cos just like billions of humans whom have been and gone on this planet, nothing 99.99& of us do in this life actually matters and very few will ever know or care that you or I existed at all...

There nothing stranger than life, so why not just enjoy it for what it is and not waste it on doing what some fabled entity proclaimed you should or worrying about what others do, like I said at the end of the day none of it actually matters or means anything and never will...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Equalising marriage assumes that the law for the past umpteen hundred years is somehow discriminatory!!! This is the wrong word, I'll think you'll find this is a 'REDEFINITION' process that has the capability of further damaging the already 'on the wane' marriage culture in this country. Aslo, marriage will no longer be consummated as homosexuals don't have the compatible 'ports and dongles' to achieve that part of the agreement!

Oh for goodness sake, we're back to the biological 'marriage = sex and children' cheapening of the institution again.

This is not a 'redefinition', it is an extension of the institution. It will not affect you. This is not difficult to understand.

And marriage hasn't needed to be consummated under law since at least the protestant reformation, so that's one for the bin as well.

The rest of your comment is the usual bile against the imaginary liberal plot to undermine society so divorced from reality that I won't dignify it with a deconstruction.


Quote:

Homosexuals are neither able to offer the commitment demanded by marriage (they have on average 7 sexual partners a year),

Until we get to this. You of course fail to mention that the average unmarried heterosexual also has a similar number of sexual partners in a sequence of serially monogamous relationships, often quite short before finding 'the one'. This is according to professional polling by organisations such as the Kinsey Institute, and holds true when compared with statistical analysis of anonymised data coming from online dating sites and such.

And then you make another sexual, biological cheapening of the institution, as usual. Beginning to wonder if you really do have any faith in the institution of marriage itself...

And finally, the common 'slippery slope argument' that your basic fundamentalist will always roll out:

Quote:

This is a blunt attempt to destroy marriage and the nuclear family and it should be exposed as such. To think our society is considering watering down the great institution of marriage to such a pointless 'legal agreement' and 'administrative handshaking' process is disgraceful. If we start down this road, why not allow brother and sister to marry? Why not a lone spinster and her dog? Why not multiple partners or animals? Once you open this legal can of worms who knows how far this insanity will go?!!

Now that's just insulting.

Setting aside the repetition of the persecution fantasy and the confusion regarding what exactly the role of the state is in marriage law, we've got the equation of homosexuality with bestiality.

Which is stupid, offensive and incidentally wholly off-topic. Animals can't be married. Because, and I want you to understand this very simple point, they cannot give informed consent.

However, gay people can. Because they're people. Simple, really.

Quote:

I'd steer clear of the pseudo-Christians if I were you. That's the problem isn't it? You think that being a Christian is all about being part of nice club where pseudo-Christians sit around tolerating blasphemy and the talk of the destruction of marriage over a coffee and a scone and you view these people as thoroughly spiffing chaps because they go along with your liberal views and actually don't even pay lip service to the Bible never mind live by it!

Ah, theology. But your argument simply doesn't hold water. Do unto others, love thy neighbour and place the spirit of the law above the letter of the law. That's what Christ is quoted as actually saying in the gospels. What you're doing is fixating on Leviticus 18:22 to the exclusion of the entire rest of the Bible, incidentally while also living in flagrant violation of sundry other Levitican and Deuteronomic laws which for some reason you don't regard as being important.

And you expect us to take you seriously.

Last edited by T-J on 14-Jul-2012 at 01:57 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 14-Jul-2012 at 01:54 AM.

@Franko

"After all when your dead your dead, there is no heaven, there is no hell you simply go back to what you were before you were even born... nothing... nowt... nada..."


Actually, let me correct you on that. When you die, you become everything (again). All that you are made of was born in a star, long after this world and star cease to be, you will become a very small part of a new star and perhaps life again (though in your case, you become a rocky clump that drifts off into the void until it bounces off the side of the universe in a eternal game of ping pong with the other side, sorry to break it to you on a forum. I was supposed to tell you at the pearly gates).

Why people would turn something as glorious as the eternal universal engine into something as trivial as "heaven" where apparently you remain forever as fixed matter is sacrilegious.

@Thread

I know many religious people in person and have had sensible, logical and rational debate with them, as well as the majority of believers on these and other forums. I have NEVER had such a debate with a idealogical terrorist like BigD (or Billsey). It is impossible. It is not reason or rationality that drives them and thus, they are holly unable to engage you in this manner.

When they tire of repeating aloud the same mantra they chant inwardly in a desperate attempt to escape whatever emotional hell drove them to this insanity, they begin to have self doubt, but that is quickly squashed by the subconscious which then makes them talk louder to drown out the truthful noise that might make moot their life choices. Rather than face reality, they chant inwardly louder and louder until all they hear is their own madness.

It is to be pitied. If BigD was in a legally defined cult, there could be legal intervention to help remove him and crack the destructive cycle, alas if your cult passes a certain legal criteria, it becomes a religion and the law can only intervene after the person breaks the law. Almost always it's too late to help at this point. They have either exploded their backpacks on a London bus or have shot a bunch of kids in a primary school in Dunblane.

Hopefully, the most damage that BigD will do, is to piss people off on a forum. I can't imagine he's a nice person to be around, so I feel for his family. But most of all (being a caring non religious person - yes we exist), I feel for him. He is as much a victim as anyone suffering from poor mental health caused by whatever means. I don't like him as a person, but I still give a damn about all those that share this fantastical adventure we call life.

It's why I keep offering the suggestion that people stop responding to this thread. I don't think it's fair on him to keep humiliating himself like this. A bunch of you guys are genuinely trying to open his mind, or correct his many factual mistakes, others less so. It's a vicious cycle, the equivalent of poking a dog until it bites.

Do an old hippie a favour guys and let this one drop? Nothing he can say will change your opinions of him, or his opinions of us. But each time he preaches his delusions, it reinforces them in his own lonely mind and each time we don't accept these lectures, it strengthens his paranoia .

The best thing for him that we can do, is ignore him.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 14-Jul-2012 at 02:12 AM.

_________________
"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: @Franko Actually, let me correct you on that. When you die, you become everything (again). All that you are made of was born in a star, long after this world and star cease to be, you will become a very small part of a new star and perhaps life again (though in your case, you become a rocky clump that drifts off into the void until it bounces off the side of the universe in a eternal game of ping pong with the other side, sorry to break it to you on a forum. I was supposed to tell you at the pearly gates).

Nah just like I don't buy the whole Gawd made the universe and everything in it theory, I don't buy the "big bang" and we're all made from stardust claptrap either...

You see I discovered many, many years ago the secret to life the universe and everything while eating my Cornflakes one sunny morning, which is strange cos I don't even like Cornflakes, hmmm, maybe it was Sugar Puffs... or Frosties even... nope wait... it was definitely Cornflakes, I remember now cos I recall spitting them back into to the bowl and saying "yuk, that's mince so it is"...

Anywhoo I digress, now what was I saying... oh right aye, life the universe and wotnot...

I was sitting upstairs on the bus one day (this was after my Cornflakes, Obviously... but tricky trying to eat them on a bus), the number 46 from Castlemilk to Easterhouse and were just passing through Rutherglen opposite the new shopping centre where the big Presto's had just opened. Shows you how long ago that was eh, I mean Presto's of all things, so the shopping centre isn't really new any more as this was over 35 years ago so obviously it's kinda old now... oh yeah, as I was saying... when this strange old man all dressed in black slowly approached me, when he got right up beside where I was sitting he leant down and with a piercing staring eye (he only had one) he uttered these words and I have never forgotten them to this very day... "Fares Please" he said in quiet but stern voice...

So there you have it those two simple but profound words uttered to me by a total stranger answered the ultimate question for me...

Only thing is, now some 35 years later I've well sorta forgot what those words actually meant to be honest but as the wee floating turtle that was sitting, well floating actually beside me, otherwise he wouldn't have been a floating turtle and would have actually been a sitting turtle but nonetheless was definitely wee, explained to me at the time the actual meaning of those words I saw life from that point on in a totally new a different light...

So you see I know the secret to it all and somewhere locked in me noggin is the real answer to all of this strangeness we call life I just need to sorta dig out the explanation to those life changing words from the depths of my mind and we can all live in peace & harmony forever (I think)...

Perhaps if I have some Cornflakes again that might jog me memory but is it really worth eating Cornflakes just to find out the answer... perhaps not, maybe somethings are best left unanswered a bit like a BigD post...

_________________

@BigD

It's great you have the omniscient ability to tell the true measure of a man's heart. That way we can be fully confident in your ability to Judgement that Franko and others on this thread are only pseudo-Christian. Seems to me you're teetering on the edge if not falling in the abyss of Bearing False Witness against your AmigaWorld Neighbors.

You may want to reflect on Christ's words from Matthew 7: 1-6-> Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Jul-2012 at 03:25 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

... sit around tolerating blasphemy ...

I've seen people of many different faiths 'not sitting around tolerating blasphemy' in the news quite frequently. It almost invariably involves some other people getting seriously hurt. I wish I could ask the non-tolerant ones this one question, but I can't.. So, perceiving some similarity perhaps not in actions but certainly in attitude, I'll ask you instead.

Is your god this fragile?

@BigD

Quote:

I'd steer clear of the pseudo-Christians if I were you

A piece of very good advice BigD, but which are the real christians.
Is it the Catholics, who led crusades of terror against non christans, and wrong christians alike, and whose priests have recently been abusing children. *
Or is it the Protestants who have set the law in this country so that a Catholic cannot ascend to the throne. (Strangely enough there is nothing in law preventing the reigning monarch and defender of the faith from converting to any other religion, or even becoming an atheist. Wouldn't that be fun?)
Or maybe the real christians are the Jehovahs Witnesses, whose congregations are steadily growing, despite the fact that the rest of us hide behind the sofa and pretend to be out when they come out in pairs seeking their prey on doorsteps around the world.
Or is it the Orthodox churches, Greek, Eastern, or Russian, whose worship of icons predates the invention of the digital computer?
Come on, don't be coy. Who are the real christians, and who decides what is real?

Quote:

I don't see homosexuals wailing in the street for the right to a white wedding called a 'marriage ceremony' rather than a 'Civil Partnership' one,

The right to marry is not about the ability to hold some extravagant and expensive ceremonial public display of wealth and status. When I got married, it was a Saturday morning at the local registry office, followed by a weekend away, and back to work 06:00 Monday morning. Despite the simple fact that my marriage has never required or recieved the blessing of some state sponsored religion, it is still seen in law as somehow superior to a civil partnership. That means that despite your protestations, a civil partnership is not the same as a wedding, which is why I, who will not be effected in any way by this legislation, am in favour of it because it removes inequality.

*@AndyC (et.al.)
My comments on the history of the Catholic church are not intended as an attack on the practice of tolerant religious belief. Your recognition of mistakes made in the past, while it cannot change the past, can prevent the same mistakes being made in the future. As long as BigD and his ilk sweep these mistakes under the carpet, they will continue to act in the same manner, firmly convinced that they have "Gods blessing".

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

@Nimrod

Well said.

It's safe to say that I am finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile the church's position on a great many things (marriage, contraception, female priests, etc) with my personal position.

I also consider the bible to be a collection of myths and stories, laced with inconsistency and fundamentally lacking in credibility.

Even the testimony relating to Jesus' life is selective at best - after all, his divinity was decided by majority vote, and then only certain testimonies were included.

Arguably there are some valid moral tales that are cosistent with common wisdom.

But I've always felt that Ted Theodore Logan and Bill S Preston put it best: Be excellent to eachother, and party on dude...

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

Equalising marriage assumes that the law for the past umpteen hundred years is somehow discriminatory

Marriage throught the millenia has had varioud discrimination built in. At one time slaves were disallowed to be married because they weren't considered to have the same rights as citizens. At a later time whites were not allowed to married blacks. In many societies, daughters were treated similar to property. One could only 'marry' them if they paid a dowry. Also, various cultures have/had arranged marriages where the people being married had not say. And of course we do still see the 'shotgun' wedding where someone may be getting married not due to love or choice but their own bad choices to not use protection during sex. And of course the Government discriminates for marriages as they get tax advantages which non-married couples do not.

Quote:

I'll think you'll find this is a 'REDEFINITION' process

I'd agree it's a redefinition process. And a good one! Throught the ages we've taken those discriminary practices and knocked them off one by one. No longer can I buy my neighbor's daughter for a couple of goats. No longer will I be forced to marry my brother's widow. Instead marriage is being focused on the two individuals right and ability to make their own decision whom they can best love and best live their life with.

Quote:

Homosexuals are neither able to offer the commitment demanded by marriage

At least 50% of married couples one of the partners step outside of their marriage for sexual relations. We don't mandate they must get divorced the next day. Why this discriminatory behavior applied to straights being able to sleep around?

@BigD


Thanks for the rather civilised reply.

Quote:

BigD wrote: It doesn't happen every time to everyone as there are other environmental factors. Also, young men seem to react in one of two ways to the absence of a father figure; they either try to over compensate by being more blokey and doing more dares/pranks etc to prove their manliness or they become more effeminate get bullied and are attracted to the gay lifestyle to find acceptance. I'm glad you're secure in you heterosexuality and are happily married, I'd have thought that you'd try and protect an institution you claim to value.

Whether you have a father or not makes no difference whatsoever, in fact a lot are a BAD influence on their kids. Enough said.

I love my wife, I loved her before we were married, we are planning on renewing our vows but NOT with a religious ceremony as the hypocrasy would cheapen it.

Marriage is a paper contract, it is a legal thing. I would love Christine whatever.

Our happy marriage does not depend on whether tow men or two women love each other, its irrelevant. It does not rock my boat but I have no right to judge others if they are happy in their relationships. Nor do you.