@BigD

Again you choose not to bother answering any of the serious questions. You've got one debunked and flawed poll showing 70% against. I've got the weight of British polling over the past twenty years, including recent polls by Ipsos and Yougov showing 65% in favour. And yet you accuse me of lying, in an increasingly hysterical manner.

Quote:

Since it isn't a religious petition the subject of Jesus didn't come up, only the importance of marriage to British life and the acknowledgment that Civil Partnerships should continue!

I imagine you pushed the same false, fatuous horror story you've unsuccessfully peddled here to them. Lets just say that in that case it wouldn't take a huge leap of logic to connect an anti-equal marriage campaigner like you with a zealot of some religion or other. In fact I have yet to encounter one who wasn't.

Quote:

An absolute lie! There was no mention of support for Homosexual Marriage in the Liberal or Conservative Party manifestos. This was a completely unwarranted amendment to marriage that no one campaigned for!

No, I'm not lying. This is a situation where every single party represented in Parliament is committed by its founding constitution or repeated manifestos and leadership initiatives to the equality of all under the law. Any outstanding inequality, like this one, is obviously going to be redressed as a matter of course.

A manifesto doesn't need to mention which inequality it wants to fix if everyone's already committed to ending inequality in the aggregate.

I say again, I invite you to stand on this platform of yours for election in 2015. Then you will find out how in tune with modern Britain you really are.

@T-J

Quote:

This is a situation where every single party represented in Parliament is committed by its founding constitution or repeated manifestos and leadership initiatives to the equality of all under the law. Any outstanding inequality, like this one, is obviously going to be redressed as a matter of course.

However, this is NOT an equality issue. As already stated the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Homosexual is NOT a human right and Civil Partnerships mean that there is no disadvantage for practising homosexuals who want to live in a monogamous lifestyle (a small minority but represented in the law none the less)!

Any redefinition of marriage is purely a political attack one of the central building blocks of our society by the liberal elite we find governing our Country and the ongoing striving by the 'Gay Rights' agenda to sideline marriage and demote it to an irrelevance in modern society!

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

@BigD

Sorry the thing that is sidelining marriage is straights. After all they are the ones allowing divorce which is the option that destroys ~50% of marriages. You are complaining about a small 5%? Last time I checked 50>5.

Oh and Jesus actually spoke about divorce being wrong. Pretty mum on the gay question.

@BigD

Quote:

However, this is NOT an equality issue.

Yes it is.

Quote:

As already stated the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Homosexual is NOT a human right and Civil Partnerships mean that there is no disadvantage for practising homosexuals who want to live in a monogamous lifestyle (a small minority but represented in the law none the less)!

I do wish you'd stop telling us that only a small minority of homosexuals want to live a monogamous lifestyle. Your evidence for this claim is that excerpt from your personal Newer Testament, the Book of Gay Liberation Front Manifesto (1973), which frankly cannot be considered representative of gay peoples' opinions today, if it ever really was.

And as for 'Homosexual is not a human right', nonsense. Quite apart from the clumsy grammar of the sentence, the whole point of human rights is that everyone is equal and has equal rights regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Some more equal than others simply doesn't hold water in this age.

Your stance on civil partnerships is also incorrect. You have been shown that they are not the same, in tax law, in pension law, in terms of international recognition and in terms of religious freedom. And regardless of your factual inaccuracies, the stance mirrors a hypothetical retort to Rosa Parks - she should have been happy to sit at the back of the bus, because it still took her to the same place as the white folks at the front. This argument simply does not satisfy anyone who believes in equality.

Quote:

Any redefinition of marriage is purely a political attack one of the central building blocks of our society by the liberal elite we find governing our Country and the ongoing striving by the 'Gay Rights' agenda to sideline marriage and demote it to an irrelevance in modern society!

No it isn't. Widening access makes the institution more relevant, not less. Look, you don't like the 'liberal elite' governing the country? Fine - stand for election yourself, as a 'proper' conservative. And then, once you've lost your deposit you will have a better understanding of modern society and the values it finds important.

@BigD

Bad God, is this thread still on the go. I'd forgotten about it as it isn't really that important.

Quote:

So a homosexual has to have started the petition to make it valid? Richard Dawkins himself perhaps?

That sounds like slander to me. Richard Dawkins is not gay, he is in a very stable marriage to Lalla Ward.

For some reasons you fundamentalist nuts don't seem to like him but I have never seen such misinformed slander before. A lot of ridiculous twaddle from The Lords Day Appreciation Society but not totally incorrect personal accusations of his sexual preferences before.

That guy has more common sense in one brain cell than all you fairy tale believing idiots put together.

Get a life - ditch your superstitions and get a life - you only have one so make the most of it. There IS NO afterlife to look forward to you know.

@BigD

Quote:

Christians are probably more aware of the importance of marriage

(Fundamentalist) Christians are totally unaware of reality, so what makes them experts on marriage is beyond me.

@BigD

Quote:

Living by God's moral standard was all Adam & Eve knew before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge

Some news for you my friend, these people were fictional characters in a very poorly written fantasy novel. They didn't actually exist.

@Bigd

Moscow bans Gay Pride marches for the next century! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19293465 Because that's what oppressive governments do. Let's not have the USAor UK fall lock step in with this sort of continued oppression.

@Thread

New tactic, since BigotD never agrees with a word I say, I'm going to start supporting his arguments and the persecution of gay people...



From this day forth, anyone in between the emotional states of over joyed and slightly thrilled shall be taken outside and given a damned good joke or a sad story, depending on which end of the scale they are.

Gayness is a choice that only people not blessed by the misery of the Old Testament choose their emotions to be. Only by being fearful and ignorant shall we be saved from a life of freedom and choice and the festive feeling of happiness.

For it is written "All men shall be humourless and shall preach to thyne neighbours with a offensive petition in hand so that all may share in the misery of life, only in death, glorious infinite cold death can we allow ourselves to crack a wry smile as we realise we were wrong and we've just wasted a perfectly good life in our attempts to live our lives in death, what we could have done in life, if only we had not waited until we were dead"

"And so" said Bob Douglas, 5:15 Oxford to London terminating in Paddington "all with bask in the GLORY of the Lord as we float through space desperately trying to flap our limbs in a manor that will allow us to face another direction in the vacuum of space other than the fat arse of the born again professional pie eater"

"I didn't realise being dead would be so boring" Matt Jacobson. Galaxy 3542382352 - Recovered from his journal he scratched into his forehead by a passing Space Druid

"Hey, I like this quoting thing. You can say anything at all and it makes it seem important if you put a name and some numbers and it makes you think it makes you look important if you quote them without fully understanding either their meaning or context after being translated and re translated and debated upon and then re translated again which destroys their original meaning beyond recognition" Philip Price - Palm oil 342434234

"I didn't know Jesus very well, he wasn't very important at the time" Bob Smith - Neighbour to Jesus from the age 1 month to 29 years.

"I think he sold flat pack furniture?" Marge Smith, Bob's wife.

"And so on and so on" Author of "Jokes flogged to death until they come alive again so we can flog them to death again, just like those who commercialised Jesus - Also known as Organised religion"

"If Gutenberg doesn't come along soon, we'll never mange to fit that title on the book cover" - Publisher of "Jokes flogged to death until they come alive aga"

"........." Dead horse.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 18-Aug-2012 at 01:53 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

@T-J

Quote:

I do wish you'd stop telling us that only a small minority of homosexuals want to live a monogamous lifestyle.

Please give stats or proof otherwise. Civil Partnership take up has been appallingly low considering we are now suggesting taking the 'Gay Rights Agenda' further by changing the legal definition of marriage!


Quote:

(The Labour Government)... originally estimated in 2003 that as many as 124,000 people could be in civil partnerships by 2010 and 310,000 by 2015. But these estimates were slashed in 2004. The first civil partnerships were formed in December 2005, and they offer same-sex couples the same rights as marriage. Dissolutions The new figures from the ONS also showed that the number of civil partnership dissolutions soared by nearly 30 per cent in 2011. According to the ONS there were 672 dissolutions in 2011, a 28.7 per cent rise on the previous year’s figure of 522. The ONS revealed that 6,795 civil partnerships were formed last year, a six per cent rise, bringing the total number of partnerships formed between 2005 and the end of 2011 to 53,417.

So an initial estimate of 124,000 by 2010 has become 53,417 by the end of 2011! We're hardly talking mega pressure to expand this social experiment to full scale marriage are we?!! Promiscuous homosexual lifestyles remain the norm!

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

@BigD

Quote:

Civil Partnership take up has been appallingly low considering we are now suggesting taking the 'Gay Rights Agenda' further by changing the legal definition of marriage!

Perhaps they'd rather have a proper marriage rather than some watered down version.

Quote:

Promiscuous homosexual lifestyles remain the norm!

I can't say that I've known a great many gay or lesbian people but from what I've seen they are no more promiscuous than any of my straight friends, probably less so if anything.

@BigD

Quote:

Promiscuous homosexual lifestyles remain the norm!

Volume 273 of the journal Science, article 'Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Sexual Contact among Men', discusses a study conducted quite a while ago now, in which anonymised data regarding sexual behaviour of randomly selected males was collected. The findings were that heterosexuals had a lifetime mean number of partners 7. Homosexuals, lifetime mean 6 and a bit.

If you don't like that one, how about this? A much less scientific study, but a much larger sample size showing that, yes, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally promiscuous. Or equally non-promiscuous, depending on your point of view.

The conclusion?

Heterosexuals and homosexuals do not have a significantly different rate of promiscuity. Therefore, excess promiscuity does not exist as an excuse for blocking equal marriage. And even if promiscuity among others were a valid reason to arbitrarily block an entire demographic from access to an institution like marriage, the evidence would require any consistent, egalitarian, just administration to block heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, since it seems they're both just as bad as each other in this aspect of behaviour.

Now would you kindly stop peddling the myth? Its not accurate, regardless of what aging political agitation leaflets from the seventies might say.

The rest of your argument is nothing more than an appeal to numbers - 'its OK to persecute a minority' is basically what you're saying. You might want to take another look at how small your support base is (0.5% of the population signing your petition, 35% of poll respondents for Yougov and Ipsos) before you nail your colours to that particular mast.

@BigD

Is the Family Research Council a hate group?
http://www.americablog.com/2012/08/why-family-research-council-is-hate.html

An interesting read

@BigD

Quote:

What weight of evidence? I have a degree in Geology

Oh come on. There is a religious nutter near where I live who claims to have a degree, no less a Phd in Physics, despite the guy does not understand science at all. He even thinks the earth is still the centre of the universe, whereas its only his ego that is.

Gillian McKeith is also a so called "doctor of medicne", but to give here the correct medical title she is Gillian McKeith. It is well know she bought her "degree" and knows bugger all about medicine.

I imagine the number of internet sold degrees these days must be growing if so many people seem to have degrees in things they obviously know nothing about.

You a geologist. Come on even the Bible tells less lies than that.

I have a real degree in physics and not one bought online. I got it at Durham which BTW has a really nice cathedral. An example of superb architecture, where St. Bede and St. Cuthbert are buried. That is a good example of what Christianity did for our country. A fine building built with pride. But even the bishop there had a more realistic view of the world than those who just blindly follow and take everything in one book as being true - even when it contradicts itself.

Last edited by BillE on 19-Aug-2012 at 09:55 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @BillE The truth is

LOL.

Even then it will depend upon who throws it.
The evangelists seem to miss everything by miles

@BigD

Quote:

Me thinks you've got a hang up with your creator!

As I don't have a creator I do not have any hang up about one. You are the one who seems to think one exists and unless you becomed a "saved" Christian will end up in eternity in purgatory or hell or whatever made up place you can dream up.

Quote:

Doctor Who is written as fiction as you've figured out

Of course its fiction, I just stated that as far as ethics go the Doctor is a far better role model than Abraham - attempted human sacrifice being only one of the abominations of the Old Testamant. As for Jesus, I have no doubt someone existed whose words have been twisted out of all proportion by "the followers". As for Genesis and much of the Old Testament which surely Christ rejected, are nothing but fables and very twisted history written by one small group of fanatical people.

Come on, even in the old Dr. Whos the special effects were far better than those in the bible. A dodgy polystyrene set is so more convincing than a burning bush, and tablets made out the really hi-tech and out of this world material called stone. I am sure if a God existed he could have done a far better job of trying to impress his creations. As for turning water into wine, easy add flavour, sugar and yeast. However the really bonkers Christians don't even drink, yet Jesus must have liked the odd glass or three of wine.

Hey, even in the really old Dr Whos the special effects were better than the Bible ones.

Quote:

and the Gospel of Jesus is confirmed in 4 separate accounts.

All of which are totally inconsistant. Not that good evidence is it.


Quote:

You must wish that the evolution of man had four eyewitness accounts of the point when a chimp evolved into a human

Who said we evolved from vhimps, a great ape yes but not necessarily chimps. The fact we share over 99% DNA with chimps is more evidence of evolution than anyone can come up with for the daft creation idea. BTW. Who created God or do you an infinite regression of them ?

Quote:

You might not like the Bible right now but you'll be held accountable by God's standard one day

No I won't, God doesn't exist so I have no worries about following the loony code or not. I just cannot make myself believe in things so obviously made up and false.

Quote:

so you'd best give the Bible the respect it's due!

I do, calling it a poorly written fantasy novel is one of the more kinder things to say about that diatribe. It is a book written by people at a time when we did not know much about how anything works, so they made up theories which may have been good for the time but certainly not now. It is well beyond its believe by date and should be consigned to the scrap heap.

Quote:

Plus most of laws of the UK are based on it and the freedom you value

Like the "freedom" that in Scotland you cannot buy things on one rotation of our planet in seven for no reason, yet the rest of the week you can. The freedom the so called "Free" church has on expecting its followers not even to put out washing on a Sunday. You can really keep ypur stupid laws like that. Most of the UK laws are based on common sense - EXCEPT for those with a religious bias.

Quote:

Even our survival in WW2 came about after the, yes nation fell to its knees and prayed to God for help

Your God (not mine), you *are* deluded aren't you. Hold on a mo, didn't the Church support the Nazis for a good while during that period. I think if you read your history and not be so blatantly biased to superstition you would know that they did. Most of the evil in our past has been caused by Christian zeal, like it or not.

Quote:

Cut the venom and stick on topic!

Come on, its YOU that always brings things down to your religious views. Don't forget we are now in the 21st Century, those views are no longer valid assuming they have ever been. Now with better education people realise that relgion is just a way of controlling the ignorant and gullible. Your lot are thankfully not allowed to burn people at the stake anymore if they have a slightly different opinion.

Back on topic then. I have no qualms one way or the other about gay marriage. If people want to have a happy life with someone else who happens to be of the same sex, then why not. It is certainly nothing to do with any opinion of outdated superstitious minorities.

@BillE

Quote:

As for Jesus, I have no doubt someone existed whose words have been twisted out of all proportion by "the followers".

Actually, we have a record of when it first happened (in an official capacity). When Emperor Constantine decided to elevate Christianity to the official religion of the Roman Empire, there were about 40 differing Christian ideologies each fighting each other because they were all different (nothings changed there then).

He called together a meeting where the heads of the more powerful cults hammered it out among themselves to come up with a version that they all could agree with. It is known as the First Council of Nicaea and it occurred in AD325. Just a little bit after Jesus's death then...

So the worlds most destructive religion that has caused the deaths of untold millions was decided by committee. We have problems when government committees come up with wacko idea's like, I dunno, Gay Marriage, but when a religion is invented by the same means, suddenly it's the word of God and beyond reproach?

@BigotD

Quote:

Cut the venom and stick on topic!

OK, the topic is wither 3.7 million is a good use of tax payers money.

The morality of Gays and the sanctity of marriage are both off topic. I know you have REAL problems keeping your shit together and focused, so I thought you might like me to remind you of what the actual subject of this thread was all about.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 19-Aug-2012 at 10:14 PM.

_________________
"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

Got this from today's Cracked website. While is is a humour site, it does cite sources and it gives a remarkable discovery some light.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19986_the-5-weirdest-sixth-senses-humans-have-without-knowing-it.html

Quote:

"#3. Ovulating Women Can Sense Snakes and Gays Every month, women have to go through a range of emotional ups and downs due to the maintenance cycle of their portable baby factories. But it turns out that the menstruation cycle has an added function -- it switches on a superhuman ability to sense snakes. And gay dudes. But that's not the most interesting thing they discovered -- in another study, when they showed women pictures of men's faces, the women who were on their period had incredible gaydar. And this isn't dumb coincidence -- a woman's ability to pick the gay guy out of a lineup peaked at her most fertile point, and then gradually receded until her next time of the month, and it didn't work at all for detecting lesbians. Remember, they weren't being shown footage of these guys in line for a Celine Dion concert. Women were able to pick who was gay simply from looking dudes in the eyes. Supposedly, evolution figured that gaydar would be a really handy thing to have when you're a woman looking to start a family, just so you don't waste time with a dude who is going to leave you for your brother."

Now supposing this is true (the source it quotes describes the process in far more detail obviously), then that proves not only is gayness a natural trait and not a "lifestyle choice", but it's been around for long enough for humans to evolve ways of detecting it.

The full article is at http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/24/is-he-gay-ovulating-women-can-tell/

Now if only men could naturally detect wither purple socks go with brown corduroy or not. That would be very useful to know before I go out tonight to one of these newfangled discotheques with that "popular music" playing.

_________________
"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

@Tpod

Regarding the title of this long thread.

Quote:

Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million - good use of tax payers money!?

Some thoughts on this.
The cost of Gay Civil Marriage 3.7 million.

So how much tax does the average gay couple pay?

Considering that gay couples has less children than heterosexual couples, the gay couples uses less of the tax money used by child benefits, schools etcetera.

It seems to me that a gay couple is the model tax payer, uses less of the public services that are financed by tax money than they put into the tax system.

So, is this good use of tax payers money?
That can always be discussed, as can be seen from this thread.
But, if gay couples are putting in more than they get from public tax, surely it is not more than fair from the exconomical point of view that they at least get the same benefits as the married heterosexual couple gets?

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

Quote:

It seems to me that a gay couple is the model tax payer, uses less of the public services that are financed by tax money than they put into the tax system. So, is this good use of tax payers money?

As cited by BigD the 3.7Million is expenses relating to the updating of forms and laws to include two husbands or two wifes as the option. It's a non-ongoing one time expense. Money well spent to support a measure which improves the equality of citizens and better ensures individual's religious freedoms.

My vote - yes spend the money!