@TheBilgeRat

Quote:

OK. I know this is going to be a shock to you since it is blatantly evident that you never have read your bible, but Jesus never once said a damn thing about homosexuality. If you start throwing up Leviticus or that one liner from Paul taken completely out of context it will be all but confirmed that you know nothing about your own claimed faith.

Jesus followed the moral law teachings of the Old Testament. It was and is not in question that Biblically speaking homosexual acts indeed all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful and any church that claims otherwise is NOT a Christian church.

Paul was an apostle of God and his words are inspired by God and hold as much Godly authority as Jesus' words.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Quote:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

I don't think there's any reason to take that line of argument further. You're part of a group of non-Christians trying to tell a Christian which bits of the Bible to believe and which not to. Here's the crunch fella, if you add or take away from the Bible you are in a spot of bother;

Revelation 22:19
Quote:

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Any way on with the topic...

Last edited by BigD on 14-Dec-2012 at 10:24 PM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

Jesus followed the moral law teachings of the Old Testament. It was and is not in question that Biblically speaking homosexual acts indeed all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful and any church that claims otherwise is NOT a Christian church.

No. Any so-called church that claims your drivel is NOT a Christian Church.

Quote:

Paul was an apostle of God and his words are inspired by God and hold as much Godly authority as Jesus' words.

Really? Paul = Jesus in moral authority? You are a complete moron.

Ahh, I knew you'd do it! Classic out of context quote from Paul.

Once again S***bird, so maybe it will sink into your pea-brain.


Judging Others
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “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? 4 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? 5 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.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock
7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
True and False Prophets
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Just in case you were unclear, JESUS sums up the old testament law into "Do Unto Others as You Would Have them Do Unto You". Jesus, the son of God, the resurrected one. Paul is not Jesus, you dunderhead. You think we are off topic? I am pretty sure the topic was "BigD is a hypocrite, a moron, and most assuredly NOT A CHRISTIAN". It absolutely disgusts me that people like you think you get to call yourselves Christians without actually reading the bible for yourselves. There was only one messiah - that was Jesus. Not Paul, not the Reverend Billy Graham, not the leader of the COE, not the bloody Pope. JESUS is the final authority on all things Christian, and where Jesus contradicts murderers like Paul, then guess who wins? That's right - Jesus.

I thought England sent all the retarded religious types over here. I think you guys missed one. But Hey! If you're ever in the states, BigD, I'll hook you up with the Westboro Baptist Church. They are right up your alley.

@Thread

Why would redefining marriage damage civil liberty I hear you ask. Well let's have a look at the evidence;

In the case of teachers, state schools would be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage. Those that refuse could be disciplined or dismissed. This basically legalises the persecution of teachers that disagree with the redefinition.

Parents will find themselves with no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum.

Chaplains serving in the NHS/University/Armed Forces could be lawfully fired by their employers if they express, the belief that marriage is between one man and one women. This would be true even if they express these views outside of work.

Foster carers could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage.

Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing support for marriage between one man and one woman.

Registrars who have an conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs.

Church/mosques/synagoues could be ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government ban on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by the European courts.



Persecution already takes place in our society when people defend marriage, think how much worse it would be if an attempt was made to redefine it!

Adrian Smith a Housing Trust manager was demoted and had his salary slashed by 40% because he said gay weddings in churches would be "an equality too far." He wrote this outside of work on his Facebook page that was not even visible to the general public!

The Dail Mail: Adrian Smith - vindicated but ruined



David Burrows MP received a death threat after he said redefining marriage is unnecessary because civil partnerships already give same-sex couples legal equality with married couples.

Arthur McGeorge is a bus driver who faced disciplinary action by his bosses just because he shared a petition backing marriage at work during his break time!

Dr Bill Beales is a respected headmaster who faced calls for his suspension after he said in a school assembly that people were being "placed on trial" for holding traditional beliefs about marriage."


Do you really think this is the direction our society should be going? These realities do not show the tolerant and peaceful society the liberals CLAIM they are striving for. The reality is much different.
Save marriage and prevent more of this persecution!

Last edited by BigD on 16-Dec-2012 at 05:42 AM.

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

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Thread Why would redefining marriage damage civil liberty I hear you ask. Well let's have a look at the evidence; In the case of teachers, state schools would be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage. Those that refuse could be disciplined or dismissed. This basically legalises the persecution of teachers that disagree with the redefinition.

who cares? I can't go to work and tell kids I endorse prostate play. State schools shouldn't be teaching or endorsing anything about marriage anyway - that is the PARENTS job. Also, evidence implies facts. This is supposition.

Quote:

Parents will find themselves with no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum.

see above.

Quote:

Chaplains serving in the NHS/University/Armed Forces could be lawfully fired by their employers if they express, the belief that marriage is between one man and one women. This would be true even if they express these views outside of work.

Does Great Britain have no guarantee of freedom of expression? I find that hard to believe.

Quote:

Foster carers could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage.

Now you are just trolling. That is a patently absurd statement.

Quote:

Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing support for marriage between one man and one woman.

Once again - no freedom of speech in Jolly Old England?

Quote:

Registrars who have an conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs.

All of this is not evidence - this is your fallacious supposition.

Quote:

Church/mosques/synagoues could be ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government ban on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by the European courts.

And the problem being?

Quote:

Persecution already takes place in our society when people defend marriage, think how much worse it would be if an attempt was made to redefine it!

What?! Let me reword that logic in terms used not too long ago in my country:
Reverend Thomas Stringfellow:
"Jesus Christ recognized this institution (slavery) as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction"

Quote:

Adrian Smith a Housing Trust manager was demoted and had his salary slashed by 40% because he said gay weddings in churches would be "an equality too far." He wrote this outside of work on his Facebook page that was not even visible to the general public!

Good! What if he had said "Jews holding public office is an equality too far"? Its an equivalent statement. I'm sure there is some private hate organization he can pick up a job at.

Quote:

David Burrows MP received a death threat after he said redefining marriage is unnecessary because civil partnerships already give same-sex couples legal equality with married couples.

citation needed. Also, prove that it was directly related to that statement. Also, list how many other death threats he receives per annum from total nutjobs.

Quote:

Arthur McGeorge is a bus driver who faced disciplinary action by his bosses just because he shared a petition backing marriage at work during his break time!

More anecdote! Cite this as well, please.

Quote:

Dr Bill Beales is a respected headmaster who faced calls for his suspension after he said in a school assembly that people were being "placed on trial" for holding traditional beliefs about marriage."

You know the drill - you gonna spew bulls**t? Have the common decency to cite it.

Quote:

Do you really think this is the direction our society should be going? These realities do not show the tolerant and peaceful society the liberals CLAIM they are striving for. The reality is much different. Save marriage and prevent more of this persecution!

Save marriage from people who want to get married? Who says society needs to head in any direction? If you refuse to give gay people rights, you enslave them. You are basically legislating against their right to do with their bodies what they want. I guarantee if I passed a law saying that you can't masturbate with your hands on penalty of fines, you'd be squirting yellow water from your cockroach infested flat to your nearest representative decrying the inhumanity of it all.

Thank God you are not a public office holder.

@BigD

Quote:

In the case of teachers, state schools would be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage.

Teachers will be required to teach what is on the curriculum, rather than telling their opinion as undisputable fact. That includes thga fact that it is wrong to discriminate against people.
Quote:

This basically legalises the persecution of teachers that disagree with the redefinition.

No you arrogant, self righteous theo-fascist, it means that it outlaws their persecution of people, based on their own personal prejudice. I am not permitted to discriminate against people from your particular minority despite the fact that people just like you have spent the last two thousand years, finding inventive new ways of subjugating, torturing and murdering people who are not exactly like you.

Quote:

Parents will find themselves with no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum

And exacty how is this different from the fact that as a parent I had no legal right to withdraw my children from lessons that directly contradicted my own beliefs, and taught them lies as historical fact. You lot are particularly adept at glossing over the nasty facts of your history, as well as ignoring the offence that you cause with your nasty little innuendoes.

Quote:

Adrian Smith a Housing Trust manager was demoted and had his salary slashed by 40% because he said gay weddings in churches would be "an equality too far."

Precisely . An EQUALITY too far. Theo-fascists clearly oppose the concept of equality, believing that they have a special privilege allowing them to impose their own hate filled fantasy on all of the rest of the world.

Quote:

Church/mosques/synagoues could be ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government ban on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by the European courts.

You seem very determined that these groups religious freedo be protected from the possibility of a potential threat that might arise if certain conditions are met. And yet you are totally unconcerned that other religious groups are currently banned from carrying out ceremonies that they have expressed a willingness or even a definite wish to carry out. Just exactly what is it that makes your opinion more valid than the opinions of the 7,000,000,000 other people on this miserable little planet?

Quote:

Registrars who have an conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs.

If I do not do the job that I am paid to do, to the satisfaction of my employer, I will lose my job. Why should other people be exempted from this simple requirement, just because they have their ideas stuck in the distant past?

The one fact that you hate in all of this is the fact that you will no longer be given carte blanche to persecute and bully people at will and claim immunity because you "are a christian"

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

@TheBilgeRat

BigD
Quote:

Foster carers could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage.

TheBilgeRat
Quote:

Now you are just trolling. That is a patently absurd statement.

Already, Catholic adoption agencies have had to close, and already potential foster parents conceal their beliefs about marriage in case they are barred from fostering by zealous social workers (and that in a situation where there is a dire shortage of stable foster homes).

This observation of the intolerance shown to anyone who defends marriage is not scare mongering. In June 2012 a Colloquium on Marriage was convened in London. A number of speakers, including lawyers, politicians and journalists, with a variety of religious (or non-religious) viewpoints, were due to contribute. However, they all believed in man-woman marriage. That view it seems is no longer tolerated. The venue was to be the Law Society. At late notice, the law society decided that to allow to take place would breach their 'diversity policy' and they banned it! An alternative venue was booked. The day before the event, the Queen Elizabeth Centre also decided that their 'diversity policy' prohibited a gathering to support marriage!

Such is freedom of speech in 21st century Britain. Although man-woman marriage is still enshrined in our legal system, it seems that we are not allowed to talk about it.

The Government would be well advised to drop this unnecessary measure. In particular, they should consider that:

1) Man-woman marriage is not the creation of this government or any other. It is grounded in nature.

2) Man-woman marriage gives children the gift of knowing who their natural parents are, care from family on both sides, and a genealogy from both father and mother.

3) As soon as the law is changed and same-sex marriage unions are defined as 'marriage', then those who disagree are regarded, and treated as bigoted. The result, as happened in Canada, is a proliferation of lawsuits against innocent citizens who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

4) The intolerance has already begun in the UK. Consider the case of housing manger Adrian Smith for instance.

5) To insist that marriage is just about 'a loving relationship' means that there is no logical or moral reason to insist that it should only involve two people. The next step, as has happened in the Netherlands and Brazil, is State recognition of plural relationships.

6) To deny that the complementary union of the two different sexes is essential to marriage is to accept that 'gender' is just a social construct. The logical conclusion, as has happened in Canada and California, is that young children are encouraged to question their gender identity.

Last edited by BigD on 15-Dec-2012 at 12:39 AM.

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

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: 1) Man-woman marriage is not the creation of this government or any other. It is grounded in nature.

ROFLMAO
Conclusive proof from the man whom amongst other things claims to be well, educated and even a Geologist that he his truly living in a fantasy world of made up gawds and made up everything....

So "Nature" created the concept of marriage and wrote the various laws/ rules that go with it....

Marriage is nothing more than a concept and a set of rules created by human beings BigD, I know you won't believe me about that but it is true nonetheless...

Next thing you be trying to tell us is "Nature" created or the laws against Littering or the concept of Speeding laws are grounded in nature...

You're crazy mate totally crazy and way beyond any type of help


Quote:

2) Man-woman marriage gives children the gift of knowing who their natural parents are, care from family on both sides, and a genealogy from both father and mother.

Does that apply to kids whom are born in wedlock and then the father buggers off before the birth in order not to be tied down with said kids...


Quote:

3) As soon as the law is changed and same-sex marriage unions are defined as 'marriage', then those who disagree are regarded, and treated as bigoted. The result, as happened in Canada, is a proliferation of lawsuits against innocent citizens who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Nope the laws don't need to change in order for you to prove you are indeed bigoted as you have proven only to clearly throughout this entire thread...


Quote:

4) The intolerance has already begun in the UK. Consider the case of housing manger Adrian Smith for instance.

Intolerance began in the UK a long, long time ago when the Church & religion took hold...


Quote:

5) To insist that marriage is just about 'a loving relationship' means that there is no logical or moral reason to insist that it should only involve two people. The next step, as has happened in the Netherlands and Brazil, is State recognition of plural relationships.

You seem to think marriage only exists for Tax benefit reasons as you have quite often stated here...


Quote:

6) To deny that the complementary union of the two different sexes is essential to marriage is to accept that 'gender' is just a social construct. The logical conclusion, as has happened in Canada and California, is that young children are encouraged to question their gender identity.

The only person denying anything here is you BigD, you are denying every fact under the sun that others present to you here...

PS: Are you really that crazy or do you get up early and practice at it, whatever the answer you've got it down to a T (Hmmm... maybe it's grounded in you by nature)...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Paul was an apostle of God and his words are inspired by God and hold as much Godly authority as Jesus' words.

Though noteably Paul was not an apostle of Jesus.

You go on to selectively quote from the first epistle to the Cornithians. Now this epistle was to the church in Cornith. You seemingly contend that you follow this book as well. And I think you do follow parts (all in 1 Cornithians). For Paul claimed that God destroys wisdom 1:19-20. I think you can fairly claim that to be true. And he later 2:2 states how one should know nothing except Jesus. I might claim you do that but you haven't made it to the Jesus part yet either. He later says in 2:15 that Christians can judge but cannot be judged by non-Christians. Certainly you feel that way even though this statement conflicts with the Savior's in the New Testatment that none should be judging.

But let me ask you do you keep your wife silent at church and not let her speak? 14:38. Or do you think you need not follow that part? Also do you ensure you are head of the household and your wife has unequal rights because she was created to serve you 11:8. Or are you unmarried and a virgin because that's really the best thing 7:26.

I could go on. Needless to say I doubt you follow 1 Corn. as a whole and are highly selective.

As for your quote from Revelations. The quote is about Revelations itself not about the Bible as the whole as you stated. Though the problem with the Bible is more likely an issue sourced from Churches themselves than anyone here.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Dec-2012 at 06:35 AM.

@BigD

Jesus rejects you. Just exactly who do you serve?

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

Google Translate

@BigD

Are you trying to suggest that being gay is a choice of some sort? Some sort of "social construct" ? (I think that was the term used).

That's hilarious.
I'll have to tell my folks Love Birds to stop trying to be trendy (ie. it happens in the animal world too).

Some people are smply born with an attraction to the same gender. It's not a majority, but it does happen. What right does anyone have to tell them they cant do something that makes them happy and hurts no-one?

There's no grand conspiracies here. People will continue to live their lives as they always have. Existing families wont break down and there's no need to become gay yourself. Children wont as you claim, "question their gender/sexuality". Sexuality happens at puberty in a way that's natural to a person. It's not something that's going to suddenly be forced on people. The only thing that'll change is that young people who may actually be gay wont feel so conflicted. Puberty is a hard enough time without society telling you that youre "wrong" in some way.


I just dont get it. How can someone become so hate filled towards people they dont even know?
And the stereotypes/character portail, and the assumption all gay people are the same is also somewhat baffling.

By now Im starting to think maybe there's some psychological scarring from a horrible incident involving BigD and a priest or something.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 15-Dec-2012 at 01:41 PM.

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday sent his first tweet from his new Twitter account, then turned around and blessed Rebecca Kadaga, the Speaker of the Uganda Parliament who promised to pass the “Kill The Gays” bill as a “Christmas gift” to Uganda’s Christians.

.... Pathetic!

@fishy_fis

Quote:

Some people are smply born with an attraction to the same gender. It's not a majority, but it does happen. What right does anyone have to tell them they cant do something that makes them happy and hurts no-one?

Correction: some people are born with a predesignated weakness to same sex attraction which can rear its head under situation of family breakdown or an absent father figure. The individuals can choose to act on these feelings or choose to overcome them. No one is telling them they can't partake in homosexual acts if they choose to but they and you should accept that many people consider it a sinful act and completely incomparable to marriage.

It is despicable that you continue to push this agenda considering just a small minority of practising homosexuals think they should have the right to get married a same-sex partner. To do this they advocate completely dismantling and destroying a valuable institution such as marriage. Most homosexuals actively detest the concept of marriage and are happy to carry on their promiscuous lifestyle. The liberals however have predictably jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to try to please their gay friends.

You are completely delusional if you cannot comprehend what you are actually advocating i.e. attempting to trash what remains of our tolerant society and to willfully allow the 'gay rights agenda' to screw up our kids. To top it all you have the cheek to try and do it under the false guise of 'equality'!

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

@BigD

Quote:

Correction: some people are born with a predesignated weakness to same sex attraction which can rear its head under situation of family breakdown or an absent father figure.

I'd agree with you that sexuality is a spectrum some are more gay less straight and some more straight less gay. It's clearly not a well determined trait. Nor are all people setup the same.

Though while family break down may be one way being gay can 'rear it's head' (as you say. There are clearly others. As I've posted before I have friends who are gay and do not match your mandate of a broken family with no Dad. Instead their Dad's are around, they have a good relationship with both parents, and their parents are married.

Thus, what you wrote was you sinning - Bearing false witness against these neighbors.

Quote:

you should accept that many people consider it a sinful act and completely incomparable to marriage.

And we go back to many people consider it sinful to marry outside one's race. Christian's rights to discriminate against marriage?

Quote:

Most homosexuals actively detest the concept of marriage and are happy to carry on their promiscuous lifestyle.

So do many straights.

this is the thread that won't end and bigd will never understand how wrong his ideas are.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@jkirk

Quote:

jkirk wrote: this is the thread that won't end and bigd will never understand how wrong his ideas are.

Wonder which will end first, this thread or our sanity responding to BigDiddy...

_________________

@jkirk

Quote:

this is the thread that won't end and bigd will never understand how wrong his ideas are.

This thread will end when Cameron, Salmond & co give up this pointless crusade to destroy marriage and go back to trying to salvage our economy. Though considering the UK continues to murder close to 200,000 babies a year I don't think we deserve a pleasant 2% growth in our economy every year, do you?

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

@BigD


You keep talking about destroying marriages. Where does this fit into the equation *at all*?
Some people are gay. Their body chemistry and whatever else dictates this. Its no more a choice for these people than one to be heterosexual. As Ive said a few times there's gay creatures in the animal world. They dont think about things, they act on their nature and biology. This is the same for people.

Im under no illusion that there are people practicing same sex relationships who do it via choice (and that's their choice, not for others to wory about), but there's others who's natural chemistry makes them attracted to the same gender

Giving these people equal rights in no way hurts anything else apart from a biggots ego.

There's gay people fom good, strong families. There's straight people from broken homes. Do you not understand this? People are people, some good, some bad. Gender, sexuality, family status means *nothing*. What matters is how a person behaves, and how he treats others.

You keep mentioning the home, how things will break down, how the family nucleus will be broken (or whatever catch phrase it is youve taken a liking to) and so on, but its complete and utter nonsense.
There's been both gay and straight people since the dawn of time. The *only* thing that changes is that gay people will have the choice to get married if they choose to.

AGAIN,.... its not a choice. Its just how some people are born.
What is your problem with this? I just dont get it. How does what another person does (one whom you'll never meet) with their life influence your life in any sort of way (apart from your delusions being challenged)?


It's people like you, using religion to try to enforce your narrow minded, biggoted ways in the name of God that make so many people detest the institution.
Cant imagine "God" being too happy with the hatred spread in His name.

Cant remember the exact quote, but something to the effect of "you will find me in yourself, not in bricks and mortar" should be something some religious people should take notice of. There's sooo many people out there who hold more stock in what their own little church (cult) is preaching than what it is theyve been attending for in the 1st place.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 16-Dec-2012 at 02:16 AM.

@fishy_fis

Quote:

You keep mentioning the home, how things will break down, how the family nucleus will be broken (or whatever catch phrase it is youve taken a liking to) and so on, but its complete and utter nonsense.

And yet there is plenty of evidence that this is happening;

By far the weakest support for marriage (studies listed in David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (New York Encounter Books 2007), pp. 228-229) is in the seven surveyed countries that have same-sex marriage. For example, people in countries where same-sex marriage had been introduced were less likely to say that people who want children ought to get married, and more likely to agree cohabitation is an acceptable alternative to marriage. Acceptance of same-sex marriage has tended to be accompanied by a 'deinstitutionalisation' of marriage - the increased belief that it is merely about personal and individual relationships and that therefore norms surrounding it can be flexible rather than 'imposed' by society. For example in the Netherlands, after same-sex marriage was enacted, the rights of married couples and registered partners were extended to unregistered cohabitors. Same-sex marriage has not been associated with any increase in regard for the state of marriage - rather the opposite (Stanley Kurtz, 'Going Dutch?'; The Weekly Standard, 31 May 2004).

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

@BigD

The same old paranoid junk that's been debunked so many times in this thread already.

The trend in marriage rates falling across the western world over the second half of the 20th Century is because of improved economic opportunities and the associated political empowerment of women, something I guess you also oppose, not because of gay marriage.

And the rates of heterosexual marriages are not in such catastrophic decline as idiots like Kurtz like to claim. Of the countries that introduced gay marriage earliest, most are in fact now seeing a rise in heterosexual marriage now. Marriage in Denmark for example is at its highest since the early 1970s when it last peaked. Similarly, rates of marriage in countries such as Iceland, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Norway have been increasing over the past decade, for the first time since the seventies.

See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/05/prenuptial_jitters.html and http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/marriage-rates-and-the-defense.html for details.

And of course BrianK has shown you repeatedly how those states with gay marriage in the US have reported lower rates of divorce than those with the highest churchgoing populations.

So, where next for your, er, argument?

Last edited by T-J on 16-Dec-2012 at 03:19 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 16-Dec-2012 at 03:18 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

Similarly, rates of marriage in countries such as Iceland, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Norway have been increasing over the past decade, for the first time since the seventies.

Your summary is misleading;

In 2004, Stanley Kurtz wrote:

"Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. 60% of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage 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 widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable."

This proposed redefinition of marriage would be disastrous for marriage rates just as it will also be disastrous for the Conservative Party. Their support will all but vapourise in the next general election as their supporters desert them for UKIP (the UK Independence Party).

The Telegraph: Conservative grassroots rail against gay marriage

Quote:

If the same-sex marriages are legalised by the end of 2013, the first gay weddings to be held in early 2014. Back in Tory heartlands, local party leaders are more worried about what happens the following year at the general election. Graham Allman, chairman of North West Leicestershire Conservative Association, said: “Feelings here are running very high, and the voting persuasions at the next election will be very fragile. “I’ve had many conversations with constituents and members of the association and they are considering alternatives. There’s a lean now towards Ukip, particularly for the European elections. “Cameron has put it through without properly considering his voters’ opinions. Many of them are conservative [with a small 'c’] traditionalists and they probably feel like they haven’t been listened to.”

David Cameron: The man responsible for attempting to destroy marriage and the Tories!

He cannot prevent the unintended consequences of redefining marriage damaging our society;

BBC: Baroness Warsi queries gay marriage plan

Last edited by BigD on 16-Dec-2012 at 05:38 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 16-Dec-2012 at 05:32 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 16-Dec-2012 at 05:29 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 16-Dec-2012 at 05:27 AM.

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