@BrianK

Quote:

But somehow Sally Ride's relationship is not as good as those people and shouldn't be respected equally? Pshaw!

While it is sad that a pioneering astronaut has lost her fight with cancer I don't believe this 'secret relationship should provide any impetuous to forward same-sex demands to redefine marriage!

Personally I think there must have been some personal guilt involved if someone who has intimate relations with someone of the same sex does not feel that it is good idea to make it public. Homosexuality is something that an active conscience is troubled by and it is only by forcing some false overblown sense of 'Gay Pride' that individuals can get past their own conscience and convince themselves that it ok and that they should give in to these misplaced lusts.

A marriage is an public commitment to live your life to cherish and love the person of the opposite sex until you die, in sickness and in health. In the relationship you've talked about it was anything but public, no one knew of the commitment the two people involved because no one else was involved or invited to be involved. This is as far away from the concept of marriage as it is possible to get. 'Gay pride' can not overcome the simple premise that this isn't marriage!

Last edited by BigD on 24-Jul-2012 at 06:43 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Personally I think there must have been some personal guilt involved if someone who has intimate relations with someone of the same sex does not feel that it is good idea to make it public. Homosexuality is something that an active conscience is troubled by and it is only by forcing some false overblown sense of 'Gay Pride' that individuals can get past their own conscience and convince themselves that it ok and that they should give in to these misplaced lusts. A marriage is an public commitment to live your life to cherish and love the person of the opposite sex until you die, in sickness and in health. In the relationship you've talked about it was anything but public, no one knew of the commitment the two people involved because no one else was involved or invited to be involved. This is as far away from the concept of marriage as it is possible to get. 'Gay pride' can not overcome the simple premise that this isn't marriage!

"No one knew"? Who wrote it in the obituary? Her sister! She obviously knew. Most of her friends knew, her employer most likely knew (its not like they send anyone up in space). She didn't say anything about her cancer either -- is that also something she was "troubled" by?

A lot of straight famous people are married and don't tell the world, since it's a private thing. Are they too "troubled" by their "misplaced lusts"?

_________________

@jaokim

My point is if it isn't a public commitment it isn't marriage! If it's a loose agreement between two individuals it isn't marriage, if it's two women or two men who equate their 'arrangement' with marriage (not many peopleat all) then news is it isn't, never has been & never will be! Get a Civil Partnership & stop trying to destroy marriage for the rest of us!

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

@BigD

Quote:

My point is if it isn't a public commitment it isn't marriage!

You have circular logic here. If marriage is a public commitment and you are denying gays the right to have a marriage, then you deny them the ability have a public commitment.

If 'civil partnership' gives all the exact same benefits as 'marriage' there is no point at having two definitions here. Call them the same thing. Everyone is equal and protected against the possiblity that in the future someone might pass a law that favories 'marriages' above 'civil partnerships'. Or vice versa.

@BigD

Quote:

Personally I think there must have been some personal guilt involved if someone who has intimate relations with someone of the same sex does not feel that it is good idea to make it public

Talk about hypocrisy! If somebody goes public about their sexuality you complain about "Gay pride" and misplaced lust, and if they don't broadcast their status to the entire universe, you claim that they are ashamed of it.

Quote:

A marriage is an public commitment to live your life to cherish and love the person of the opposite sex until you die

For the moment that is true, but because it discriminates the new definition will be "A marriage is an public commitment to live your life to cherish and love the partner of your choice."

Quote:

In the relationship you've talked about it was anything but public, no one knew of the commitment the two people involved because no one else was involved or invited to be involved.

I do not remember having either invited nor informed you when I got married, nor was I aware of the requirement. Does that nullify the validity of my marriage? Everybody that needed to know about my marriage knew about it. That is to say, myself, my wife, the registrar, and two witnesses. All else is fluff, and surplus to requirement.

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

@BigD

Quote:

My point is if it isn't a public commitment it isn't marriage! If it's a loose agreement between two individuals it isn't marriage, if it's two women or two men who equate their 'arrangement' with marriage (not many peopleat all)

No one claimed it was a marriage. You know, same-sex marriage wasn't allowed in Washington until recently.

Their 17 year long relationship was compared to those who, according to you, more accurately can uphold the holy sanctitude of marriage (Britney, Drew etc).

The fact that I can list more straight marriages that don't uphold your great standards, than gay marriages that don't, would, with your reasoning, be evidence enough to disallow straight people from getting married.

Let me quote something I heard somewhere: "let he without sin cast the first stone". I don't know the source though. Sounds a bit gay.

Last edited by jaokim on 24-Jul-2012 at 09:32 PM.

_________________

@jaokim

Governments exists to do good and restrict evil. The destruction of marriage is placed firmly in the evil camp as far as the majority of the UK is concerned.

The sin of homosexuality is a sin each individual who struggles with it will have to grapple with and hopefully one day repent of, I will not cast the first stone on that one! However, what we are talking about here is the destruction of a common grace good i.e. marriage which must be defended. Certain individuals may think that they are trying to benefit certain individuals and in reality their efforts will actually deeply damaging the entire of society; schools, businesses, town halls, rest homes and all walks of life will be negatively affected by this nonsensical crusade to implement so called 'equal rights' that homosexuals already have!!! Madness!!!!

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

@BigD

Quote:

Governments exists to do good and restrict evil.

If so there's no better good than LOVE and RESPECT in all it's forms. According to the best scientific data available to us the MRI scans of brains of straights and gays LOVE is active in the same physical manner in the same physical constructs within each of our brains.

Quote:

The sin of homosexuality is a sin each individual who struggles with it

It's your version of a God that determines sin and behaviors that are sinful. Your version God is not in charge of me or of my nation. You can well believe this. You are doing evil to force your view of morality on others.

Quote:

owever, what we are talking about here is the destruction of a common grace good

The destruction of a discriminatory doctrine that fails to recongize love and self determination is indeed a GOOD. A society is best measured by the respect, care, and attention it gives the least among us. There was this guy who was claimed to live over 2K years ago that got nailed to a treat for just that reason.

Quote:

deeply damaging the entire of society; schools, businesses, town halls, rest homes and all walks of life will be negatively affected by this nonsensical crusade to implement so called 'equal rights' that homosexuals already have!!! Madness!!!!

I truly don't understand how it will "damage" society. Could you explain what this "damaged" society would look like?

Quoting from something you said wayback which I found interesting.
Quote:

Marriage is marriage and can not be copied or emulated by two blokes or two girls who are not even biologically compatible!!!

So, if a man and a woman get married, and find out they can't have kids -- do they also redefine and damage marriage?

_________________

@jaokim

Quote:

I truly don't understand how it will "damage" society. Could you explain what this "damaged" society would look like?

I'll give it ago. It is likely in a country where marriage culture is no longer promoted or valued the single parent numbers increase and cohabiting couple parenting becomes the norm; the children are deprived of father figures and hence suffer from a lack of respect and school attainment, also mental illnesses increase and children suffer increasing levels of same-sex attraction.

Rioting increases, school discipline decreases, economic output falls. Sharia law begins to look like an enticing option and Islam continues to increase in influence and Muslim children prosper due to better discipline and morals of some sort. Christian school flourish for a while until discrimination under the guise of 'equality' shuts them down. Benefit payments go through the roof which is unsustainable due to North Sea Oil running out and the Chinese buying up the remaining reserves. No family as the building block of society leads either to an Islamic state and/or bankrupt society within three generations.

...So much for the 'equality agenda!

Last edited by BigD on 24-Jul-2012 at 11:16 PM.

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

@Jaokim,

BigD seemingly makes a good arguement.

Let's look at some nation examples - Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden all have a form of same-sex marriage. NONE have institutedShira law, which doesn't look all that different from Evengelical Christian law BTW. Exactly NONE is burning in the way BigD claims. In the Unites States the States with same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates and higher income levels than most other states.. Oh yeah no Shira law there either.

It's interesting that equal treatment for gays somehow leads to radical Islamic control.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jul-2012 at 01:14 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

It's interesting that equal treatment for gays somehow leads to radical Islamic control.

They already have equal treatment what your calling for is the further watering down and dissolving of marriage culture in this country. If marriage is not held apart as special then they'll be less people thinking it has any relevance! The tiny numbers of potential same-sex marriages will in no way make up for this. What you are doing is encouraging even less heterosexuals to make the marriage commitment and condemning more children to grow up without a father in less stable family units!

The proceeding break down of social cohesion, respect and tolerance will make Sharia a more enticing option. That and the fact that Muslims will have likely out bred us in three generations as to be in a position to field a majority vote! And no, Sharia law doesn't have anything in common with our own 'Christian' based legal framework. Women have little or no rights and can be divorced by the man saying 'I divorce you' three times! Crime and punishment judgements of homosexuals, adulterers etc will lead in death penalties so what we'll end up with will be a far more brutal and intolerant society rather than the one based on Biblical morality that you seem to detest! Saudi Arabia is not exactly a beacon for tolerance & equality!

Last edited by BigD on 25-Jul-2012 at 07:42 AM.

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

@BigD

Scottish Government confirms intention to bring forward bill to institute gay marriage.

BBC News article...

I have to say that today, more so that usual, I am very proud to call myself Scottish.

Now if only the rest of our British compatriots would follow suit and end the debate once and for all.

Pressure must now surely be on Mr Cameron and his government!

Cheers,

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

They already have equal treatment

They will have equal treatment when they can get married.

Quote:

What you are doing is encouraging even less heterosexuals to make the marriage commitment and condemning more children to grow up without a father in less stable family units!

And less whites need to get married if we allow interacial marriage. It'll water down the gene pool! -- Again we've heard these arguements before and all the FUD has failed to be realized. The truth is marriage still provides advantages over non-married coupling. There are often tax advantages and definitely legal advantages to being married. These advantages aren't changed by broadening the marriage definition. They're broadened.

Quote:

The proceeding break down of social cohesion, respect and tolerance will make Sharia a more enticing option.

Your is an emotional arguement. What we have for data is nations where gay marriage is allowed it has never been shown to devolve into Sharia law.

Quote:

And no, Sharia law doesn't have anything in common with our own 'Christian' based legal framework.

Right-wing religious control, be it Christian or Jewish or Islamic, is fairly indistinguishable from each other. Another data point here you are neglecting is the Christian Church did have control of the government and the people. This period of human history is called 'The Dark Ages'. Societies backslide economically and in knowledge. This period in European history that was not unlike the present backsliding in the Middle-East due to Islamic law.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia is not exactly a beacon for tolerance & equality!

Nor is Rome! Nor was the 5th-10th Centuries when the Christian Church had control of Europe. It was after the 'Age of Faith' was replaced with the 'Age of Reason' when societies began their upslide towards more tolerant and equal societies.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jul-2012 at 03:08 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

It is likely in a country where marriage culture is no longer promoted or valued the single parent numbers increase and cohabiting couple parenting becomes the norm; the children are deprived of father figures and hence suffer from a lack of respect and school attainment, also mental illnesses increase and children suffer increasing levels of same-sex attraction.

A really worrying litany of impending doom. Now where is the evidence that it will happen

Quote:

Benefit payments go through the roof which is unsustainable due to North Sea Oil running out and the Chinese buying up the remaining reserves.

And I suppost that this is all the fault of those annoying homosexuals as well! Not satisfied with plugging up inapproriate orifices, they are plugging up oil and gas supplies as well !!

Quote:

That and the fact that Muslims will have likely out bred us in three generations as to be in a position to field a majority vote!

So here is the truth about your position. You want to breed more crusaders to spread the "one true faith" and spread your deitys "love" at the point of a sword. At current population growth rates the worlds population will double to 14,000,000,000 by 2065. The last thing we need is to start accelerating the growth rate.
You keep preaching about how good life would be under a christian theocracy, but the last time we had one it was a disaster. No music. No theatres. No christmas. Thou shalt not have fun became the most important commandment. And the UK population went into decline. Since then we have turned our backs on baseless superstition and if you want to prove that you are right calling a section of the population names (sinners) and claiming the support of an invisible friend will not work any more.

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

@AndyC

Quote:

Scottish Government confirms intention to bring forward bill to institute gay marriage. BBC News article...

BigD will not accept that there is any truth in that article because it comes from the BBC and is therefore, in his eyes, biased.
Referring to the statement by the spokesman for the catholic church "We strongly suspect that time will show the Church to have been completely correct in explaining that same-sex sexual relationships are detrimental to any love expressed within profound friendships" I can only quote Mandy Rice-Davies and say "Well he would, wouldn't he.
But I still cannot see how somebody else being happy within their own relationship will have a detrimental influence on my marriage to my wife.

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

@Nimrod

Indeed - thankfully it's being reported world wide via numerous news outlets, so it should dawn on him eventually that it's actually happening.

The amazing thing is that more than 60% of respondents to the consultation signaled opposition to the change, but the Scottish government pressed ahead anyway, because it was"the right thing to do"..

Which of course puts the petition referred to in this thread into perspective.

Something like 30,000 negative responses originated from forms provided by churches to parishioners across the country. They have effectively discarded these in their considerations, which is quite frankly brilliant!

AndyC

@Nimrod

Quote:

But I still cannot see how somebody else being happy within their own relationship will have a detrimental influence on my marriage to my wife.

This is an incredulous statement and the implications for the institution of marriage and society as a whole have been explained to you ad nauseam!

1) Marriage would no longer be set apart as 'special' in society. The law has the potential to open up marriage to further redefinitions to include multiple spouses, sibling relationships and even marriages of people to animals or even inanimate objects!

2) The verdict will effect school curriculum, employment rights and generally lead to a society where no one can dare speak out in condemnation against the practice of homosexual acts without fear of arrest, demotion or imprisonment.

3) The Equality Act will not easily be amended to allow 'freedom of speech', religious liberty to not conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. The risk of litigation remains high and it future decades there will be demands for the exemption to be dropped and persecution will be rife for simply obeying Bible teaching on saving sex for heterosexual/normal marriage.

4) Unpicking the centuries of laws with matrimony mentioned is a complete waste of money when hardly anyone in Scotland undergoes Civil Partnership ceremonies!

5) Homosexual marriage simply isn't comparable to marriage in either commitment, the ability to provide children with male and female role models or simply the act of consummation.

6) Homosexual practice is an action, an activity, a behaviour, a life choice but it certainly isn't comparable to a gendre or creed which is static from birth. People have a choice whether to get sucked into the homosexual lifestyle or not and if they want to get married that would entail marrying a person of the opposite sex or give in to their misplaced lusts and getting a Civil Partnership. This really isn't a difficult concept. Why should 450 odd homosexual couples a year redefine marriage for the majority who have found the current definition has served them well all their life an the country itself for centuries.

7) People with homosexual feelings are the minority and they should be treated as such. Children should not be taught it is just another norm. Most impressionable children would just need to talk about these feelings if they occur, be reassured that the feelings are not necessarily symptoms of a pre-programmed sexuality but could be by products of upbringing or a lack of a father. Of most concern is that these feelings may be indicators of abuse from a family member or someone that has preyed on this innocent child. If we don't investigate and get to the bottom of these possible abusive environments and instead focus on the right of the child to live as a homosexual we are willfully opening up an entire generation to state sanctioned abuse in the name of 'equality'!

I could continue but no doubt these concerns don't impact your own idyllic family life. To think this is all about you and how you are quite happy to shield out the rest of the world and continue in your own marriage in your own way while society is damaged beyond repair is quite simply the most selfish aspect of all this! It's not the pseudo-short-lived-happiness of 450 couples a year you should be worried about but the children robbed of mothers or fathers and whole generations twisted and indoctrinated to think that same-sex relationships are worth experimenting with as a perfectly normal phase of life!!!

Last edited by BigD on 25-Jul-2012 at 11:14 PM.

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

@BigD

1) You are clearly stark raving bonkers.

2) It is only right that people that seek to impinge on others' rights, or perpetuate this kind of hate filled bigotry face appropriate sanctions where applicable. No-one will take away your right to an opinion, but you will not have the right to foist that on other people to their detriment.

3) Your duty as a citizen is to obey the law. The bible may inform your lifestyle, but it will always be trumped by the law, and there is nothing you can do about that.

4) Irrelevant. Even if only one gay couple in Scotland undertakes marriage vows, the fact that they are able to is all that matters.

5) In our opinion. Nothing more than that.

6) No, no, no and no. Sexuality is hard-wired. It is not learned, acquired or otherwise affected by external factors. This is where your argument continuously falls down.

7) People who believe in creationism and bible as truth are in a minority too, and should be treated as such. I'd wager there are more homosexuals than people that believe in angels, serpents in trees and fantastical accounts of the origin of life. NB, I note you still haven't responded to my simple questions regarding this. I can only assume this is because our faith lacks the requisite conviction.

In any event, having lobbied my MSP, signed the pro marriage petition and responded to the Scottish government consultation, I feel my work here is done.

When the Scottish parliament (with cross-party support, no less) passes this legislation, I will think of you and your petty, ignorant and bigoted protestations and chuckle quietly to myself.

AndyC

@BigD

There's only one thing I can be bothered to correct you on this time. The word gender - you've been consistently mis-spelling it as 'gendre' throughout this thread. Just letting you know.

The rest of your posts have just been another restatement of your original prejudices. See earlier pages for the refutations you've refused to engage with before.

AndyC

Quote:

Now if only the rest of our British compatriots would follow suit and end the debate once and for all. Pressure must now surely be on Mr Cameron and his government!

Its on the Programme for Government.

As I understand it, the main reason why Scotland has gone with a separate legalisation, apart from the usual politicking, is because your consultation decided to extend religious marriage too, with the Equalities Act provisio for faiths to opt-out. Whereas the England and Wales one has decided to avoid that particular issue for now, only equalising civil marriage with no changes to religious ones.

If you ask me though, the reason why England and Wales are lagging by a year is because there's the need to reassure certain more elderly Tories that the fire and brimstone isn't forthcoming - when Scotland fails to be consumed by hellfire and when society fails to become any more collapsed with the passage of this bill, they'll feel safe to continue.

Last edited by T-J on 26-Jul-2012 at 01:44 AM.