PDA

View Full Version : 'Gay marriage' vote on Tues 5th Feb.


Pages : [1] 2 3

vee-tail-1
1st Feb 2013, 16:49
MPs will be voting on D Cameron's gay marriage bill in parliament on the 5th Feb 2013.
If you have strong views on this, there is only a short time left to contact your MP and urge him/her to vote as you wish.

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2013, 17:03
urge him/her to vote as you wish
No chance of getting our MP to change his mind . . .

Firestorm
1st Feb 2013, 17:29
Regardless of what I think I'm sure my MP couldn't give a damn about what I think. I have written to him on a number of occassions about a few matters, and have never had a reply. I probably won't vote for him again.

cavortingcheetah
1st Feb 2013, 17:56
Once again British politics is bouncing around on the bottom.

Milo Minderbinder
1st Feb 2013, 18:27
what vote?
is it to make it compulsory?

cavortingcheetah
1st Feb 2013, 19:24
Parliament over there does seem overly fond of the whip when it comes to requiring compulsory service. Could it be possible that, in a few short decades from now, it would be a notifiable event of public shame and humiliation not to have had a same sex marriage in one's antecedents? One must be careful of course, the walls have ears even though they be made of stone.

ORAC
1st Feb 2013, 19:32
Parliament over there does seem overly fond of the whip when it comes to requiring compulsory service. It's a free vote.

Ozzy
1st Feb 2013, 19:38
I thought a large percentage of MPs liked the whip, cat o' nine tails or leather masks. I think people should be able to marry who they want. Does that also include sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, etc etc....oh, and penguins?

Ozzy

Milo Minderbinder
1st Feb 2013, 19:38
"Parliament over there does seem overly fond of the whip"

Now the cats out of the bag........Miss Whiplash in the Westminster dungeons??? Or should it be Master Whiplash for our MPs?

cavortingcheetah
1st Feb 2013, 19:38
It's a free vote.

Then each MP may vote according to his or her own lusts and not those of the Prime Minister?

ORAC
1st Feb 2013, 20:02
Then each MP may vote according to his or her own lusts Or perhaps their conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote)?

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Feb 2013, 20:56
I spent a couple of weeks doing voluntary work in my MP's office (basically opening and logging the mail). Whilst I can't of course say anything about what any particular constituent wrote about, I think I'm allowed to say that on this issue the representations seemed to be around 50-50. So whichever way the MP votes it looks like he's going to displease half his constituency!

Slasher
1st Feb 2013, 21:04
Or perhaps their conscience?

Asking a politician to vote with their conscience? That's like asking a lawyer
to defend with honour.

Krystal n chips
2nd Feb 2013, 04:51
TOP SECRET

From : West Wales Intel Group.

Status: HIGH.

Message:

" MPs will be voting on D Cameron's gay marriage bill in parliament on the 5th Feb 2013.
If you have strong views on this, there is only a short time left to contact your MP and urge him/her to vote as you wish"

Confirmed reports suggest imminent arrival of 21st century.

Second front now opened.

Invasion threat now increased.

ALL sightings of the arrival of the 21st century to be reported with immediate effect to West Wales Joint Intel. Group HQ, by hand only, for internal analysis and subsequent cascade distribution by Director Operations General.

WARNING:

ALL personnel are warned that, if encountered, under NO circumstances should contact be made with the 21st century.

Advisory action is to take cover at the earliest opportunity in bunker and remain in place until danger has passed.

Peronnel are strongly advised to take adequate supplies and rations to cover an extended period in this respect.

OFSO
2nd Feb 2013, 12:30
Interestingly my somewhat staid ex-employer in Paris has just sent out amendments to the Rules and Regs defining civil partnerships and the requirements for them being recognised as on equal footing with conventional heterosexual marriages. This is to come into effect on January 1st 2013.

To widen the subject somewhat: the Conservatives have once again shot themselves in the foot, or more like both feet. Another subject ill-researched, poorly presented, and subject to dithering by Cameron and Clegg on an unprecedented scale. It appears that the only time they come to any sort of decision is when they announce the subject will come into force in 2030 or some other far-off date.

What's the betting that a 'decision' on gay mariages will be deferred until the Conservatives next term in office ?

DAVE- YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION IF YOU CARRY ON LIKE THIS.

wings folded
2nd Feb 2013, 12:33
Are there not slightly more urgent problems facing the country (and France, for that matter, for they are going through similar contorsions)

G&T ice n slice
2nd Feb 2013, 14:05
Isn't this just typical "Big Brother" government poking & prying into everyones' private affairs?

I mean, from what I have observed (being single) of all the married couples I know, is that most of the time they sort of just get on with life, are generally in a balanced mood, with occasional bouts of "excessive politeness" to each other.
There are itermittent gay outbursts when there is much laughter (frequently associated with smirking looks at each other (what that's all about I have no idea).

Now here comes the gummint insisting that marriages have to be gay. Pretty soone there will be council snoopers recording married couples in public places and then swooping to impose on-the-spot fines for being a married couple in a public place and failing to be gay.

Next there will be special social-services squads breaking down doors and taking the children into care "because we have observed you failing to be gay and thus bringing up children in an unsuitable manner" etc etc.

Then parents will have to attend special councelling on how to maintain gayness in marriage etc etc etc and until the S.S. sign them off as having a gay marriage they will only be permitted to see the children under suprervised conditions once weekly.

Sheesh.. glad I ain't married - I like to be a miserable cantankerous old git when I feel like it.

I expect they be passing laws to outlaw that as well

bastids

cavortingcheetah
2nd Feb 2013, 14:06
Perhaps the man who strives to leave same sex marriage and transgender surrogacy as his political bequest to the nation does not deserve to win the next election?

Mac the Knife
2nd Feb 2013, 16:17
I feel a bit sorry for our gay brothers and sisters. Before all this they had an out.

"If you loved me you'd marry me!!"
"I can't - we're gay, stupid!"
"Oh..."

Now they have to go through the same shit as all the rest of us.

I wonder how many REALLY wanted this?

Mac

:cool:

cavortingcheetah
2nd Feb 2013, 16:35
Don't feel too sorry for them? Adultery will not, or so it is less than jocularly rumoured, provide grounds for divorce. Does this then place a lesser duty of morality upon the state of union under debate than its present existing counterpart? That would not be fair would it now?

ArthurR
2nd Feb 2013, 16:36
I just find the whole thing a queer state of affairs

Mac the Knife
2nd Feb 2013, 16:40
"Adultery will not, or so it is less than jocularly rumoured, provide grounds for divorce."

Where did you get that little fascist gem from?

Mac

:E

cavortingcheetah
2nd Feb 2013, 16:45
From the Communist press of course:

Gay marriage: divorces over adultery face legal challenge - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9751431/Gay-marriage-divorces-over-adultery-face-legal-challenge.html)
Concept of adultery could be abolished in law as grounds for divorce in wake of Government¿s plans for gay marriage | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268689/Concept-adultery-abolished-law-grounds-divorce-wake-Government-s-plans-gay-marriage.html#axzz2JiTRBMbj)

Mac the Knife
2nd Feb 2013, 16:56
Fascinating!

What about "Criminal conversation" or "Alienation of affection"?

No doubt our legal brethren will have a field-day.

:}

cavortingcheetah
2nd Feb 2013, 17:09
Criminal conversations with aliens might best be suited to dark and noxious alleyways.

Mr Chips
2nd Feb 2013, 17:52
Yay, the Daily Mail is being used as a reference point again in Jetblast!

Don't feel too sorry for them? Adultery will not, or so it is less than jocularly rumoured, provide grounds for divorce. Does this then place a lesser duty of morality upon the state of union under debate than its present existing counterpart? That would not be fair would it now?

Yes, but only on a technicality in that "adultery" only covers - in its wording- opposite sex relationships.

I'm sure that sleeping around could easily come under irreconcilable differences, unreasonable behaviour etc.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Feb 2013, 18:01
Only to be expected under the circumstances?

And from The Guardian:
Opponents of gay marriage focus on tricky definition of consummation | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/10/legal-definition-consummation-gay-marriage)

Consummation is a word that might be a little tricky for Mail readers. It'll get confused with consumption?

Mr Chips
2nd Feb 2013, 18:38
Oh come on!

From that Guardian article
"It will have profound effects on the ability of individuals to have a marriage annulled," he said. "This is important to Catholics for whom annulment is permitted by the church but divorce is not."

Considering the Catholic Church is anti homosexuality let alone gay marriage, the idea that a devout Catholic will have this quandry is laughable!

Currently the Roman Catholic church has strict limitations on allowing homosexuals to become members of the clergy, and it also continues to fight the legal recognition of homosexual couples.
from Roman Catholic Church's Views on Homosexuality Same Sex Marriage and Gay Relationships - Christian Teens - Catholic Church - Homosexuality (http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/RomCathHomosexu.htm)

G-CPTN
2nd Feb 2013, 18:55
Currently the Roman Catholic church has strict limitations on allowing homosexuals to become members of the clergy,
http://i1.ifrm.com/1889/52/emo/PMSL.gif

baggersup
3rd Feb 2013, 00:21
A story I read today doesn't make this vote/bill sound yet like a fait accompli.

If it passes and then goes to the Lords, the articles said, it would be no pushover to say the least (as someone reading the tea leaves seems to think it's going to get a rough time in the higher chamber).

Then of course back to the MPs again...........

Doesn't sound like happy couples should yet be phoning round to book the nearest cathedral............

vee-tail-1
3rd Feb 2013, 05:00
The question arises as to the nature of our present UK society.

Are we living in an Orwellian socialist dystopia with legalised abuse of children?
Or has morality become purely optional, allowing drugs, sex, violence, abuse, rape, and self harm, on a pick & mix basis?

The debate in parliament suggests the former, while every Saturday night in every UK city suggests the latter.

No matter what happens on Tues 5th, the Earth will continue to go round the Sun, and marriage will remain the union of one man & one woman for the creation of children.

KAG
3rd Feb 2013, 05:19
Funny enough France is following a very similar politic time table concerning gay marriage: I feel a bit concerned.

I tend to agree with you Vee tail 1.
If it were only about marriage... But it will change the definition of filiation too.
In France it will happen, alright. I don't see myself to fight against it, I don't care much after all. But if I am asked, I have to answer we should think twice about it because it looks like a big mistake.
My major concern is that 100% of the time a gay couple will have kids, it will be fake somewhat, systematically. The whole story doesn't sound like common sense to me. But we are all so embarked in a rat race to prove everybody else we are open minded that there is no limit to anything anymore. This is all politic. We just forgot marriage has nothing to do with politics.

Krystal n chips
3rd Feb 2013, 07:42
" Are we living in an Orwellian socialist dystopia with legalised abuse of children?"

And on what basis, other than insularity, do you arrive at this inane comment?...other than by some very tenuous inference that gay men abuse children of course.

Please show me, and indeed anybody else, where a socialist / Tory, or indeed any political party advocates the abuse of children...


" Or has morality become purely optional, allowing drugs, sex, violence, abuse, rape, and self harm, on a pick & mix basis"

The above have been elements of our society for a few centuries at least and will continue to be so. Also, note they are not confined to the city centres of the UK, albeit these invariably take prominence in such matters, and cover the complete social spectrum and demographic.

The "options" to participate in drug use and consensual sex, irrespective of gender and sexuality ( this is a fact which may confuse you I suppose ) are precisely that..personal options.

The remaining "options" are the exact opposite and, as a result. constitute criminal offences, as indeed does drug use.

It's possibly not a good idea to wear a horsehair shirt and cilice at the same time as reading the Daily Mail.

Bronx
3rd Feb 2013, 08:49
Krystal

Your notion of tolerance clearly doesn't extend to people whose views are different to yours.


BTW, did you mean 'cilice' in the last of your childish sarcastic thrusts?
Celice is a name.

B.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Feb 2013, 08:52
I was discussing this question with a very intelligent gay friend of mine. He has gone through the whole experience of gay men in this country, from being rounded up and taken to West End Central police station when frequenting gay bars in Soho as a young man in the 1960s, to the current situation where he is pretty much accepted as just another bloke - and this in a small Cornish village - not in Brighton or San Francisco. He reckons he's pretty happy with the situation as it is, and although he doesn't have a permanent partner, he thinks the situation where if he wanted to he could form a legal partnership which would give both parties the same rights as a heterosexual couple seems pretty fair to him.

He frankly doesn't see what difference calling a homosexual legal partnership "marriage" is going to make to homosexual men and women, and all the debate is doing is unnecessarily stirring up homophobic feelings. There's certainly enough of it on here :*

cavortingcheetah
3rd Feb 2013, 09:25
How many would advocate the legal facilitation of a process by which Roman Catholic priests could adopt children?

Sprogget
3rd Feb 2013, 09:29
Why Oppose Gay Marriage? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fv0Bmhqhk&feature=youtu.be)

Mr Chips
3rd Feb 2013, 11:23
Cheetah are you just making this up as you go along?

How many would advocate the legal facilitation of a process by which Roman Catholic priests could adopt children?

Why would a catholic Priest want to adopt a child? What adoption agency would place a child with any single male? But what is your ;little hidden agenda here? Why would a child be unsafe with a catholic priest - I assume thats what you are hinting at...

Mr Chips
3rd Feb 2013, 11:27
Bronx I am fairly certain that I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum to KnC but the response to Veetail's little ramble seemed quite fair to me

Are we living in an Orwellian socialist dystopia with legalised abuse of children?
Or has morality become purely optional, allowing drugs, sex, violence, abuse, rape, and self harm, on a pick & mix basis?


Abuse of children - illegal, not accepted in society
Drugs - illegal
Sex - legal last time I looked
Violence, abuse, rape - all illegal and not accepted in society
Self harm - tragic and misunderstood, not illegal, not really accepted but tolerated

Not sure I see the point....

KAG
3rd Feb 2013, 11:32
all the debate is doing is unnecessarily stirring up homophobic feelings.All right, to be fair we have to say that basically all of the homophobics individuals are against gay marriage, alright. But not everybody against gay marriage are homophobic!!! There are even some gays against gay marriage!

Some will have to try to make the difference between being homophobic, and the fact of being against changing the very definition of marriage, familly, filiation. That's not the same thing.
I fully respect gay people, and I couldn't care less about their sexual life the same way I couldn't care less about my heterosexual friends sexual life.
2 men or 2 women could kiss in the street that I couldn't be more bored. I don't give a damn.
I am still not in favor of gay marriage, and especially the systematical fake filiation that will come with. Does it make sense?

vulcanised
3rd Feb 2013, 11:40
It's all a device to divert attention away from things that really matter.

G-CPTN
3rd Feb 2013, 11:52
What this seems to have stirred-up is an expected compensatory proposal to grand married couples an extension of their tax allowances, said to facilitate one partner to stay at home whilst looking after children. This interpretation of providing for the children could, in my opinion. be better served by reversing the decision to remove child-benefit (family allowance as was) from higher-paid families. If one was to spend the suggested £500 million on a tax benefit, would it not have been sensible to have left the child-benefit situation as-was?

It seems that the gay marriage question is exposing weaknesses in the government's policies.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Feb 2013, 13:49
On the fly indeed.
Gay marriage: grassroots Conservatives urge David Cameron to delay bill | Society | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/03/gay-marriage-conservatives-david-cameron-stop-vote)

Mr Chips
3rd Feb 2013, 14:15
22 Tories, probably mostly old and out of touch, write to the PM. And this is important why?

Care to expand on your strange Catholic Priest/adoption post?

stuckgear
3rd Feb 2013, 15:15
it should be remembered that it's an open vote.

all parties will be voting on the issue and members from all parties will be fore and against.

crewmeal
3rd Feb 2013, 15:33
Currently the Roman Catholic church has strict limitations on allowing homosexuals to become members of the clergy,

Yes and look where that got a lot of them! Now what's that joke..........?

reynoldsno1
4th Feb 2013, 00:07
So, where does this leave poor old sodomy then? And before anyone else says it, b*ggered if I know either...:ouch:

Two's in
4th Feb 2013, 00:32
The systematic and global abuse of children by the Catholic church over decades, in concert with the institutionalized cover up up of that abuse by members of the clergy at the highest levels simply demonstrates that a bunch of hate-filled closet homosexuals are the last ones who should be throwing stones while in this particular glasshouse.

Most gays are seeking recognition simply in order to gain equality around taxes, discrimination, access to partners and other things married couples take for granted. Those who object so vocally to such basic rights while frantically trying to hide the morass of filth and depravity created by their own religions and beliefs are the ones who should be pitied. If only they could take a leaf from that rather thick book they are so fond of quoting at everyone.

seanbean
4th Feb 2013, 00:45
I have remarkably few views on this topic - either way. Whilst it may be an open vote in Parliament what, I idly wonder, might be the result of a national referendum on the subject?

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 03:20
Whilst it may be an open vote in Parliament what, I idly wonder, might be the result of a national referendum on the subject? My wild guess is that the result will depend, like in many other countries, on how you ask the question.

If you ask the naive and rosy question: are you for or against "gay marriage" (understand: can 2 adults in love marry?) the answer is yes.
Now if you ask the real question: do you want to change the filiation definition (no rosy glasses anymore) the answer is no.

Many polls in different countries, basically always the same answer to those 2 questions. It shows the gay marriage is more an issue than a solution, but no "important" politician takes the risk to explain it.

Social progress? More is less.

And again, I am with Vee tail 1 on that one: when a society takes care more and spend more money on the offenders than the victims, when a society creates more troubles (gay marriage/filiation) than solve them in name of "social progress" (no progress for the future kids anyway...), it shows we went to the end of a cycle. It shows we are getting lost, we don't know where we put the map, so any direction even the craziest ones seems acceptable now.
Do we really need world wars on a regular basis to remind us what is important, to keep us humble and accept humans flaws without trying to fix what we cannot without making it worse?

ORAC
4th Feb 2013, 03:52
And again, I am with Vee tail 1 on that one: when a society takes care more and spend more money on the offenders than the victims And the victims in this case are? :hmm:

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 05:05
Kids.
Some gays, they don't know what they are talking about because most of them have a father and a mother, they just think about themselves, and now our governments even encourage them. A kid will ALWAYS consider its filiation as a corner stone of his life, whatever the law, whatever we think. He will always have the psychological basic need, whatever the "love" he recieved, to know where he comes from to build his very identity. Something that most of us (including most of the gays) with clearly identified parents won't understand if we don't observe carefully reality in our stubborn and blind political quest for fake social progress.

I wish them good luck with the weird stories that will multiply soon. Your mother? No she was not the one carrying you during 9 months. She is not the one on your birth certificate neither. Your father? He wants to stay anonymous, he is a guy who came up in a small room while watching porn pics. So he cannot be considered your father.
Actually we made you with a piece of that, a little of this, we put the mix stuff in this poor woman tomy (actually she needed money so that's a win win situation right?) and a loooooot of looooove (what kind of love is that again?), so good luck to understand where you come from. Oh, I forgot the best: you have 2 fathers (that was not 3?, oh I am not too sure anymore: I lost track too, you might have a mother too somewhere...), but no official mother (you bet...), don't worry that's all fake but we love you so much so that's perfectly okay we know what is good for you.
WTF???? Do we realize that those situations will actually exist, multiply, and be encouraged?
And that's not because a kid is born that it justifies everything that has been done for him to be alive. Of course when the kid is here we have to take care of him (her), wherever he comes from. But better not put those kids in a psychological impossible situation systematically with gay marriage. That's what our politicians are doing anyway because this is trendy and they want to be elected again.
Nobody on power has the balls to stand up nowadays.

Everybody in favor of systematical gay fake filiation, please exchange your parents with a gay couple and show us the example, lead the way: put your money where you mouth is. (and yes that is about money, those kind of kids will cost some of it, but who cares they are goods like any other plastic toy right?)

And anyway I don't compare offenders/victims with gay filiation, I give us some different clues (you want to mix?) showing that our modern and recent society lost track when it comes to social aspects of human life. Are we going to wake up?

Krystal n chips
4th Feb 2013, 05:41
I think we can safely assume that the dysfunctional polemic from KAG will not be a contender for inclusion in this years Reith Lectures on Sexuality and Sexual orientation then.....:ugh:

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 05:52
KAG
Goodness, where to start? I'm gay, I am not a ''flaw''. I know many single parents with children who seem very well adjusted. I have quite a few friends who are parents and just happen to be gay. Their children seem to be very well adjusted too. Children aren't 'victims' if their parent(s) happen to be gay. That is an incredibly nieve thing to say. Truely it is. To be honest, I don't think you have any gay friends do you? Honestly?

You are telling me that your 'hetro-sexual' relationship is somehow more valid than my rather pathetic little fling? A fling that is fast approaching 30 years and we are both still very much in love.

BTW....your take on how we 'áquire' children is very complicated. In real-life, its actually not difficult at all, but your showing your ignorance on this matter.

Gordy
4th Feb 2013, 06:05
Kag....

I feel sorry for you. You really have no clue.

Mach Turtle
4th Feb 2013, 07:48
It is one of those situations in which the reasonable rights of two humans conflict, same as in abortion where the rights of the mother and rights of the fetus conflict, and so will never be resolved happily.

I think most people are all right with civil unions for homosexual couples (Quoth Kinky Friedman: They have the same right to be miserable as the rest of us). But bring adoption and other rules about children into it, and you have a conflict between two sets of civil rights.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 07:55
Martin: where did I say you were a flaw. Please quote me. That's too easy to avoid the question I am rising by inventing some stuff I have not said.

Gordy: don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for the kids to come with no clear filiation: you'll explain them when they'll start to have questions. I am not part of that. Take your responsibilities.

In general: don't pretend you don't understand what I am saying. I notice nobody dare to enter frankly into the filiation discussion.

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 08:14
KAG

I really object to you telling me what I think because you say so. Please stop as I certainly find it inconsiderate. You have absolutely no idea what your saying. You cannot talk for me nor a vast majority of the people in this thread. Your ideas are certainly archaic indeed. Thankfully most will disregard your views as they are in the minority.

"Some gays, they don't know what they are talking about because most of them have a father and a mother, they just think about themselves".
Pot Kettle Black

"please exchange your parents with a gay couple and show us the example".
I have but you have chosen to ignore them.

Do not talk for me as your views are not mine nor the vast majority of the gay world.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 08:24
That's what I am saying: you avoid the discussion. You clearly have nothing to say concerning filiation.

And sorry!!! I didn't see, you are gay!!! Wow! You then are superior, and know better than me what the future kids will think and need than me.

I don't care about gays or heterosexuals, I am not interested in your sexual life, I don't care what you sexually like, I don't care if you live in "your gay world" or heterosexual one. I myself have nor sexual world, because I couldn't care less. I am speaking about kids.


And you know what? You won. You'll have your 2 men/ 2 women marriage and filiation (2 fathers or 2 mothers). You are right, I am wrong. I let you the happiness to explain it the thousands and thousands of kids to come.

Please enjoy.

MOSTAFA
4th Feb 2013, 08:30
Kag, that's what MM69 is good at.

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 08:31
"I let you the happiness to explain it the thousands and thousands of kids to come."
........and the thousands and thousands of kids that are now happy, well adjusted, thoughtful, compassionate adults that have gay parent(s).

"I didn't see, you are gay!!! Wow! You then are superior, and know better than me what the future kids will think and need than me."
No, I am not 'superior' than you, I am your equal. Yet you deny me that chance because of the sex I love. Pure and simple. No magic involved. No hidden agendas.

"I don't care about gays or heterosexuels, I am not interested in your sexual life, I don't care what you sexually like, I don't care if you live in "your gay world" or heterosexual one. I myself have nor sexual world, because I couldn't care less. I am speaking about kids."
Once again, I don't live in a 'gay world'. I do live in a world that is dictated to me, what I should think, who I should love. As I have already pointed out, I have given you examples that you have chosen to ignore. Who is stifling the flow of information now? I'm certainly not. Yet you dictate to me how I should think-who I should love.

I would really like to know if you would ban homosexuality. Thank goodness DSM no longer lists homosexuality as an illness. It hasn't since the late 1960's. I suspect you think it still is.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 08:49
........and the thousands and thousands of kids that are now happy, well adjusted, thoughtful, compassionate adults that have gay parent(s).





And we have to believe you, because you know it all, and you have no personal interest, obviously. You only think about the kids, not about "your world" (your words...)

Well thanks to bring up the official good news. Everything is fine then. And let's avoid the discussion, as some could feel unconfortable. I know I am not... ;)

You are 25 years old, you had 2 mothers, they married in 2013, 30 years ago. We would like to ask you a question, kid from the future, did/do you think about your real father?
Answer: but I have so much love, who would want to know about his father!!! I am so lucky to have 2 mothers, who wants to know where they come from, who are their ancestors??? Me I don't, because I am the happiest and most compassionate person in the world, it compensates for any need to know my real father!!!!

vee-tail-1
4th Feb 2013, 08:51
Are we living in an Orwellian socialist dystopia with legalised abuse of children?

If babies and young children are given by the social services for adoption by two men then yes we are. The potential for physical and mental abuse is unacceptable. With two women the risk of physical abuse is probably slightly less.
This legal abuse may be an infringement of the children's human rights, and a test case is well overdue.

Local authorities have a problem finding suitable adoptive parents for ever increasing numbers of abandoned / orphaned kids. Legalising gay marriage makes the possibility of human rights litigation less likely for them. Particularly since it has now become trendy among gays to acquire 'designer babies' to enhance their life styles.

........and the thousands and thousands of kids that are now happy, well adjusted, thoughtful, compassionate adults that have gay parent(s).
martinmax 69 you seem to have invented something resembling virgin birth ... how is it done ... two males = baby or two females = baby or perhaps there is a bit of illicit intermingling within the gay community ... we should be told :eek:

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 08:56
I would really like to know if you would ban homosexuality.
I don't CARE about your (or anybody'd) sexual life, are you able to understand?
And I am not the opinion poll. Not so long time they would put you in jail or psychiatric hospitals, the same opinion poll you are refering with so much happiness today when people like me always existed: balanced viewpoint.

Now, the same opinion polls, they want you to have kids with a systematical fake filiation. If you think the opinion poll is your friend, if you think it is stable, then you are kidding yourself. If you think the opinion poll will remain the same in the millions years to come, you are kidding yourself.
Remains people like me who don't think you are sick, respect the same way heterosexual, homosexual, adults, and kids TOO. Pay attention to choose carefully your friends...

You still pretend you don't understand, still don't want to tell us about what the kids will think about their filiation. Are you able to discuss about that, answering the question without avoiding it by any means you can?

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 09:03
vee-tail, I think your confusing Paedophilia with homosexuality. They are not the same. Many others here see the distinction and recognize it.

"martinmax 69 you seem to have invented something resembling virgin birth ... how is it done ... two males = baby or two females = baby or perhaps there is a bit of illicit intermingling within the gay community ... we should be told".
No, its not magic. Homosexuality isn't a new fad. Its been here since the dawn of time. And shock/horror, its even alive and well in the animal kingdom. As I said earlier, I know many gay parents who are friends. Their children are very well adjusted kids/adults who are very happy people.Yet you seem not to wish that for gay people. I haven't invented anything. I haven given you facts which you chose to ignore. What do you have to say about single mothers? Are they damned too because of a lack of 'father' figures? Where's the father in those situations? What of the family who stays together for '' the kids sake'' when its obviously detrimental to those children if they witness verbal and physical abuse?

......but all the above is just ''hunky-dory" because its with-in the hetrosexual world.

Krystal n chips
4th Feb 2013, 09:07
" If babies and young children are given by the social services for adoption by two men then yes we are. The potential for physical and mental abuse is unacceptable. With two women the risk potential of physical abuse is probably slightly less. "

So, let see if I understand this correctly.

In your opinion, gay and lesbian couples are invariably paedophiles based on your comments above. Can you substantiate this at all, if so, please do.

And of course, as we all know, physical and mental abuse never happens with heterosexual couples and children now does it.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 09:17
Well, that's obvious, that's 2 different separate things.
However I see nowhere V tail one wrote it was the same thing.
Why not directly asking him what he means instead of accusing him of what you believe he said without writing it?

What do you mean V tail one? (you see, that's not hard to ask the question)

MOSTAFA
4th Feb 2013, 09:18
We been here before MM 69 in answer to POST 65.

I've told you this before MM69 you arbitrarily recognise only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered - Why?

Because for you to recognise other orientations - pedophilia, your example - would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct. When a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

vee-tail-1
4th Feb 2013, 09:20
So martinmax ...

If two 'blokes' obtain a civil partnership / gay 'marriage'.
And two gays obtain a civil partnership / gay 'marriage'.

How do adoption agencies decide that one couple is safe and the other not?

Most particularly what is it about the magical bond between a child and its real mother and father do you not understand? Are you aware that it is hugely important for adopted children to find out and make contact with their real parents? Many search all their life to find them, and feel incomplete without succeeding in their quest.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 09:24
Mostafa: just to understand because I start to be a bit lost: homosexual that's between 2 adults willing to have sex together, and probabely (what do I know) enjoying it. An adult and a kid having sex, that's being a criminal abusing a kid and that's totally different, that's an other world, that's what you mean right?

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 09:24
...yes, I know, yet no wiser.

....no more to be said.

toffeez
4th Feb 2013, 09:26
Most of us can't think far into the future. We assume present trends will continue.

In the 1950s it was obvious that car crash deaths would increase year on year.
Likewise London would be smothered in smog every winter for years to come.

Gay marriage is not necessarily a right cast in stone for decades to come.

I too feel sad for offspring of such a union. They can, though, swear
to reverse the perceived injustice when they have the vote.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 09:29
Most particularly what is it about the magical bond between a child and its real mother and father do you not understand? Are you aware that it is hugely important for adopted children to find out and make contact with their real parents? Many search all their life to find them, and feel incomplete without succeeding in their quest. Please don't speak common sense and truth, people are not interested in them anymore nowadays.

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 09:35
M
...I am not going down your road like last time BUT I know you will and run with it..Gay is not illegal.The others you quote are.
adjure

vee-tail-1
4th Feb 2013, 09:40
Ah KAG
if only common sense and truth were more clearly & passionately stated; as in your post # 52

My instinct is to shout my truths without regard to the sensibilities of those listening. It has been a difficult path for me to begin to tone down my posts a bit .... and some would say that I have yet to succeed :bored:

MOSTAFA
4th Feb 2013, 09:42
Kag

Sexual orientation is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

Orientation describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc. By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations.however, MM69 arbitrarily recognies only the ones he likes - Why? Because to recognise other orientations - pedophilia, his example - would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct.

Hope that helps

Sorry I'm off now but some of us have to fly.

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 10:03
Mostafa: I am a bit confused here.

There is nothing to compare.

2 adults who agree to have sex, I don't care, I don't even want to know how they do it and who does what, who is who and the gender of each ones.

However an adult and a kid, that not sexual orientation anymore, that's a crime, for many reasons (the kid cannot agree to start with......), that's quite clear, and I have the weird feeling to state the obvious.

I am not a sexual expert, I am not Freud neither philosopher, so maybe I missed your point probabely. I am willing to believe you don't mix homosexuals and paedophile, I am willing to take into consideration that there is some misunderstanding here.

ORAC
4th Feb 2013, 10:06
This is all completely irrelevant to the vote on gay marriage.

The current situation in the UK (https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/overview) is that children can be adopted by either married couples, unmarried couples (same or opposite sex), those in civil partnerships and single people.

Any change to the law concerning marriage is irrelevant to the adoption of children and the discussion about "filiation" and children above reflects more the phobias and fears of the authors than a valid objection to the vote and any change to the law.

If you really fear what you say, you're complaining about the wrong laws. :ouch:

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 10:20
ORAC: yes thank you, it starts to get irrelevant and I am not sure I know in what kind of waters we are sailing here anymore with the few last posts... Or maybe I have missed something.


However when you say filiation won't change and this is only a matter of fears, let be get that straight to you: fear there is not. However concerns for many children to come, yes.

The main issue is that 100% of the same sex married couple who will have kids will have to twist reality concerning the filiation each time. And the way I understand the new familly law that is coming in UK and France this winter, everything will be perfectly legal to have officially 2 fathers or 2 mothers.
Seems like a joke to me, but not a funny one...

Mr Chips
4th Feb 2013, 11:20
wow, we start about gay marriage and get to paedophilia via the catholic church!

I mentioned the catholic church stance on homosexuality merely to show that the argument about annulment was a nonsense, but some use the thread as a chance to bash the church...again.

Kag - you posted some long ramble that frankly lost me about parents explaining to their child where they came from. let me offer you two alternative scenarios

Parents to child - "we chose you because we love you" See, no technical nonsense, just parent/child love. Ask any adoptive parent, they will tell you the same.

Or "I met your dad at a club, took him home, shagged him, I've never seen him since. Thank god you don't have two loving committed gay parents eh?"
Sadly, that one is rather more prevalent in the modern UK

vee-tail-1
4th Feb 2013, 11:31
We debated these issues at length here recently, perhaps I had better pin my colours to the mast for clarity:

I object to gay marriage because it fundamentally changes the accepted definition of the nature and purpose of marriage. For thousands of years in all human communities marriage has been the union of a man and a woman for the creation of children. Gay people cannot create children and cannot be married. To pass a law that says gays are the same as married people is simply BS. Even if those gays adopt someone else's children they are not real parents. If this bit of Orwellian BS did not affect children it would be of no concern to me.
However (and this was also well covered in the previous debate) there are a lot of kids in care who deserve, but never had, the love of a mother & father. Some of them have been really screwed up by druggie parents, and the horrendous care system. Those who have never received love need lots of it and genuinely caring gay couples can give that. Damaged kids feel ostracised, rejected, different, feared ... just like so many gays for so many years. But let’s have honesty here, not some fake pretence of parenthood. Charles and Damian can give real love to the kids using their real names and gender, and not pretending to be 'dad 1 and dad 2’. What the kids need is unconditional love and acceptance which they might give back in spades to those gay foster parents who take the trouble to help them. Leave marriage to opposite sex couples, leave civil partnerships to same sex couples. Then allow suitably genuine couples to adopt children, the kids will vote by their smiles and happiness regardless of the gender of those that love them. :)

Mr Chips
4th Feb 2013, 11:50
Vee tail you've lost me.

Gay parents can foster but not adopt? So they can bring up children or they can't? Parenting is not about having one of each gender, and to suggest otherwise is not only absurd but an insult to all single parents who are doing well at bringing up children with only one gender represented.

If you think that the parents lifestyle is going to adversly affect the children, then where do you stop?
No kids for bikers?
No kids for catholics?
No kids for smokers?
No kids for fans of Manchester United?

Even if those gays adopt someone else's children they are not real parents by your reasoning (!) not one single adoptive parent is a "real" parent.

Spoken to many adopted kids have you?

Respo
4th Feb 2013, 12:15
We have been a couple for 12 years and have a baby through surrogacy.
We're not married, although we live in a country where this is possible since many years.
What's this doing on an aviation website anyway?

Whirlygig
4th Feb 2013, 12:45
union of a man and a woman for the creation of children. Gay people cannot create children and cannot be married.
What about a man and a woman who want to marry but where one or both is infertile? They cannot create children so should they not be married?

Definitions change all the time throughout the history of the English language.

Cheers

Whirls

KAG
4th Feb 2013, 13:31
Chips: Parents to child - "we chose you because we love you" See, no technical nonsense, just parent/child love. Ask any adoptive parent, they will tell you the same.Adopting comes from a kid needs. Well done to the parents who are generous. Marriage of two person of the same sex works the opposite: it comes from the adult need because they are not able to have kids, hence their close interest in surrogate mothers, medically asisted procreation (normally for sterile people!!!) and others. I am sure this is a kind of progress of some kind, but you will never convince me this is a progress for the kids.



Or "I met your dad at a club, took him home, shagged him, I've never seen him since. Thank god you don't have two loving committed gay parents eh?"If you have to compare gay filiation to this kind of situation to make it look good, it means you don't consider it very well yourself.







Respo: What's this doing on an aviation website anyway?
You have the perfect profil of somebody posting only on Jet Blast, and the perfect profil of somebody who has multiple usernames (new posters without post don't come to this pilot website to speak about gay marriage on JB only, JB being the last line of this website, like you are doing), so please don't play the naive virgin on that one, it doesn't work ;)






Whilygig: What about a man and a woman who want to marry but where one or both is infertile? They cannot create children so should they not be married?Changing the definition of marriage and allowing 2 fertile male or 2 fertile female to marry together won't help on that one. That's not because your float airplane on tha lake cannot fly that you can call all the boats "airplanes" that just doesn't make any sense.
An infertile couple is an exception, an accident, a misfortune, it doesn't change the fact that in our world only a woman and a man can make a kid last time I checked. Politics, ideology and law won't change it.

Mr Chips
4th Feb 2013, 15:30
KAG even allowing for English not being your first language
If you have to compare gay filiation to this kind of situation to make it look good, it means you don't consider it very well yourself.

makes no sense at all. You appear to be saying gay parents = bad, straight parents = good. I have pointed out that in many, many cases straight parents = bad. You have failed to prove at all that gay parents = bad.

I'm kind of guessing you have a slight problem with homosexuality...?

Krystal n chips
4th Feb 2013, 15:54
" That's not because your float airplane on tha lake cannot fly that you can call all the boats "airplanes" that just doesn't make any sense.

How kind of you KAG, to summate your analogy so succinctly

" An infertile couple is an exception, an accident, a misfortune, it doesn't change the fact that in our world only a woman and a man can make a kid last time I checked. Politics, ideology and law won't change it.

That's a nice dimissive statement then. Just one, ever so slight problem here however.

We are discussing ( I use the term very loosely here ) marriage between gay and lesbian couples who, for KAGS and others benefit share the same emotional attachments to their respective partners as heterosexual couples...at least the one's I know do...and thus there is no valid reason why, in the 21st century in the UK they should not be allowed to marry.

After all, I am sure those who object so passionately would deny, vehemently, any suggestion or inference that they were, in essence, homophobic in any way, shape or form.

hellsbrink
4th Feb 2013, 15:57
I object to gay marriage because it fundamentally changes the accepted definition of the nature and purpose of marriage. For thousands of years in all human communities marriage has been the union of a man and a woman for the creation of children. Gay people cannot create children and cannot be married. To pass a law that says gays are the same as married people is simply BS. Even if those gays adopt someone else's children they are not real parents. If this bit of Orwellian BS did not affect children it would be of no concern to me.

And I object to your concept as it is based on some scribblings from over 2000 years ago which decided that being homosexual was somehow a deviant activity, and also decided that the woman's place in a heterosexual "marriage" was one of servitude and baby producing.

The world has moved on since then, and since various "churches" are happily ordaining homosexuals as priests/vicars/whateveryawannacallthem in conflict with said scribbles from over 2000 years ago then the whole concept of a "marriage" as seen in the archaic scribbles from over 2000 years ago should be changed too, such outdated ideas should go the same way as the segregation of people because of their skin colour.

The world has moved on, get used to it. Let the buggers do what they want as it sure ain't gonna harm you.

Curious Pax
4th Feb 2013, 16:13
PPrune never fails to entertain - who would have thought that Hellsbrink, normally somewhat to the right of centre (and often to the right of most things!) would be pro equal rights on this subject :ok:, whilst KAG, who I previously thought was somewhat to the left is so last century on the issue :ugh:.

Meanwhile the OP continues to battle with his phobias - Islamaphobia, homophobia, what's next?

I suspect that in a couple of years time the anti brigade will have largely forgotten about it, as they did in the sixties when homosexuality was legalised, and in the last decade when civil partnerships were created.

The 22 local Conservative Association chairmen fretting about it affecting their re-election chances in 2015 made me chuckle - says more about them than the electorate if they think it will make the slightest difference by then!

cavortingcheetah
4th Feb 2013, 16:54
In cases of divorce it is usually always the female of the species who manages to walk away with the moolah as a consequence of doing little more than lying around languorously and occasionally raising the odd fruit of her loins. On the hopeful assumption that fruits are not going to spring from that sort of a loin and that lying around will not constitute, per se, grounds for a divorce, then how are judges to assess damages in the inevitable occurrence of a same sex marital disaster? An easy enough way of piloting around this little quandary would be for one party in a same sex marriage to designate themselves as the subservient partner at the time of registry office registration. This would then quite clearly indicate to a future divorce judge which of the two same sexed beings was to be considered the as the more important in purely commercial or pecuniary terms.

toffeez
4th Feb 2013, 19:16
It seems the selfishness of adults always has priority and the kids have to put up with it.

"Their children lost their real identities and were told they were orphans going on holiday to a place where the sun always shines. A few have done well for themselves. Many more struggled after suffering the loss of their childhood and any sense of family".

BBC Inside Out - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series9/week_nine.shtml)

It takes over 50 years to admit an injustice was committed.

I've never been anti-gay. Today I am.
.

Mr Chips
4th Feb 2013, 20:02
toffeez You posted a link to an article, then you said that you are anti gay. is there a link between one and the other? I read the article, I saw no mention of the word "gay"

I was worried my eyesight was failing, so I pasted the article into Word and searched for "gay".

No results

Did I miss something?

Mick Stability
4th Feb 2013, 20:15
I have no objection to people doing what they want behind their own front door.

My marriage is however, for me, a sacrement.

In today's throw away, couldn't give a f%^& world; I don't expect anyone to understand this.

But for me and many others, I consider it very precious.

So why is it that the gay community want to steal this from me too?

Is it just important that I lose?

toffeez
4th Feb 2013, 20:16
"Did I miss something?"

Evidently.

Just like 50 years ago, the interests of the kids are being tossed aside.
When today's smug happy gays are old the children will demand justice.

stuckgear
4th Feb 2013, 20:20
Most particularly what is it about the magical bond between a child and its real mother and father do you not understand? Are you aware that it is hugely important for adopted children to find out and make contact with their real parents? Many search all their life to find them, and feel incomplete without succeeding in their quest.

my BIL and his siblings are all adopted. none have had any inclination to seek out their birth partents.

1. it takes more than fertilising an egg to be father
2. it takes more than squeezing a sprog out to be a mother.

the argument of a child needing to know his father is frankly eff rubbish.. by that argument, what about the wives of servicemen who have been killed in action?

by the raionale of that argument then servicement should not be allowed to have children until they are demob then.

or even in situations where a father has passed away before the child has grown to know its father or even been born.

then by logical extension of the same premise, then no-one should have kids.

there's more orpahns in this world than children of same sex parents.


as for linking homosexuality and pedophilia, we've been down this route before, and it's rigt up there with chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracy theories and monsters living in the closet.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.
Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.
Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989). For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age.

in other words, kiddy fiddlers can be male or female and predate on the opposite sex. In simple terms for those *not* able to understand...

a male kiddy fiddler can molest a girl or a boy.. it is the factor of age, not gender.

Mr Chips
4th Feb 2013, 20:42
Toffeez

even by Jetblast standards, comparing the actions of 50 years ago with gay marriage is a ridiculous stretch

The two issues are completely unrelated,

I'm guessing all those parents who allowed their children to be sent to Australia were straight too... damn those straight parents.

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 22:07
Some here think that gay people haven't had children yet. That's a false assumption. Gay people have been having children for eternity. Its not some sort of new fad.

I have to be honest and state that being an aussie Im not totally in the loop in regards to marriage and being gay in GB. As I have stated before, I have been with my partner for almost 30 years. Would we marry in a church? No, I wouldn't. Thats a personnel choice, but it's a choice I currently am prohibited from having. I would expect the same rights and privileges that 'marriage' affords to those that are straight. I think that is the main issue, not the one of two men or women walking down that isle. Is that offered in British civil marriage? I don't know as Im not familiar with the British law.

Here in Australia, we have a Civil Service, but it offers far less rights then the those who have the 'Marriage' certificate. Some gay people want the white wedding. It doesn't mean that all churches have to marry them. I think a compromise would be great. A church could opt in or out of same sex marriage. There are already Gay Churches around and I suspect that most gay people would want to be married in them than the Church s that currently object to the whole gay thing. Why would you want to marry in a Religious Establishment that thinks your an abomination?

In the end its actually about recognition and equality. That our relationships are valid and not lessor than straight relationships. Im a happy homo with a great partner. Is our love less because we are of the same sex? He is the only person I have ever been with and it has lasted nearly 30 years.You want to have that monopoly on tax breaks just because your hetrosexual? There are many more reasons why gay people want that recognition and equality, not just that dance down the isle. I think thats the reason why many of us want that 'Marriage Certificate'.

Equality.

G-CPTN
4th Feb 2013, 22:35
AFAIK, UK civil partnerships are exactly the same in law as civil marriages and the participants are treated equally as if they were married. They have the same rights to inheritance and pension rights as do legally-married partners.

Civil partnership in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom)

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 23:02
Thanks for the information G-CPTN. It does, on the surface, resemble what we have here. It does fall down when 'marriage' is compared. There are differences between Civil Unions and Marriage, though they are small.

It is still about choice , a choice which gay people are denied.

I've said what I needed too. I know I've not changed one single mind, but at least its a debate that has encouraged views from all sides. Who would ever have imagined that Spain and Portugal would recognize gay peoples rights to marry. I do think thats very progressive of them. It will happen eventually and I hope its in my life time.

G-CPTN
4th Feb 2013, 23:06
It does fall down when 'marriage' is compared. There are differences between Civil Unions and Marriage, though they are small.
In what ways?

martinmax69
4th Feb 2013, 23:22
G-CPTN


In another thread on this I gave the example of what occurred to my partner and myself. He was on life-support and decisions had to be made. The Specialist treating him denied me the right to make those decisions as we were not married, in a gay relationship that was not recognized. He did have the law on his side in the matter but due to his mothers intervention, I was given full control over medical matters. He was not happy at all about that and made it very clear to me on many occasions. If my partner had died, by law, his wishes and my own could have been over-ruled by his blood relatives. Thankfully, I knew his parents for decades and they accepted me as their son's partner and as such, a member of their family.


This is not always the case. I have one close friend who was in the same position 10 years ago. He was barred by the family from all medical input and denied the right to attend his funeral.

G-CPTN
5th Feb 2013, 00:00
Current UK civil partnerships grant exactly the same rights as civil marriage.

Agreed that things were less equal previously, but, circumstances now are identical.

The only differencethat remains is that you can't currently be 'married' in church (ie a vicar cannot solemnise the relationship - but a registrar can conduct the ceremony in a location of your choice (provided it has been authorised) such as a hotel, hotair balloon or whatever folk prefer nowadays instead of a church or religious building.

In the UK, Church of England vicars don't require a registrar to formalise a wedding, although Roman Catholic and Non-conformist ministers do need the services of a registrar to attend to legalise the ceremony. Only CofE clergy can marry couples without a registrar.
Of course, 'Registry Office' weddings are done directly by the Registrar (as are Civil Partnerships)

A civil partnership is formed once both individuals have signed the civil partnership document in the presence of a registrar and two witnesses.

In short, there is no difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding (other than civil partnerships do not apply to mixed-gender couples and civil weddings do not apply to same-gender couples).

vee-tail-1
5th Feb 2013, 09:02
In short, there is no difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding (other than civil partnerships do not apply to mixed-gender couples and civil weddings do not apply to same-gender couples).
To be fair and logical civil partnerships should be equally available to mixed-gender couples. To spread the trashing of sacred things equally so to speak :hmm:

Or perhaps the gay lobby, PC fascists, dystopian socialists would rather have their 'pound of flesh' :E

cattletruck
5th Feb 2013, 09:11
To be fair and logical civil partnerships should be equally available to mixed-gender couples.

Otherwise referred to a reverse discrimination. Oh to have first world problems.

cavortingcheetah
5th Feb 2013, 09:53
Talking of the pound of flesh, shouldn't those who enter into a civil union be excommunicated from their respective churches unless those churches or faiths are prepared to condone same sex marriage?

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 10:57
To be fair and logical civil partnerships should be equally available to mixed-gender couples

It is a one word difference. Find me mixed gender couples who don't want the word "marriage" included.

G-CPTN I'm pretty sure that some Catholic Priests are authorised as Registrars, but I can't find a reference for it. it seems to be a bit hit and miss!

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Feb 2013, 11:00
I am sure this is a kind of progress of some kind, but you will never convince me this is a progress for the kids.


KAG proves again that when the silent mojority speak the PC hamstrung are simply incapable of sensible arguement.

Allowing gay couples to foster or adopt children was never ever done with the very best interests of the child at heart. It was done simply because yet another minority grouping shouted loudly about how it was not being treated equally.

I am not for one single moment saying that gay or lesbian couples ALWAYS make bad parents or that hetero couples are ALWAYS perfect parents.

What I am saying is that the best place for a child is in a stable loving relationship with a mother and a father.

The above is not always available hence allowing gay or lesbian couples to foster or adopt certainly improves the lot of a child in care however it's not the 'best' outcome for the child, it's better but not the best.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 11:17
Not only is it not always available, the facts are that as at March 31st 2012, over 67,000 children were in local authority care homes last year. Irrespective of KAG's views, the realpolitik of the situation is that children without parents are a significant burden on the state during and after care.

The state is unable to deliver social justice in most cases. More than half of care children leave school at 16 with no qualifications, just 6% go on to higher education. Girls are disproportionately represented in teenage pregnancy statistics 20% compared with 5% of the general population and if you have been in the care system, you are far more likely to end up in prison than if you weren't.

Amid this, we have a queue of people talking about moral imperatives, ideal worlds and huggy fluffists & all the while, with no real idea of the actual outcome of their desired policy. I would place a child with a gay couple all day long as an alternative to denying them a 'family' environment whatever that actually means and sending them right back to the cradle of a wasted life.

Implying you would end up with some kind of confused mincing John Inman which in any event I doubt sincerely is far preferable to yet another junkie with no sense of self worth breaking into my home at 3am to steal for their habit.

Statistics: England | British Association for Adoption and Fostering (http://www.baaf.org.uk/res/statengland)

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 11:43
Not only is it not always available, the facts are that as at March 31st 2012, over 67,000 children were in local authority care homes last year. Google "Ukraine surrogate mother" just for fun. This is an exploding market, and the "experts" expect it to be booming in the future with more and more countries allowing same sex filiation. Same for medical assisted procreation. That's the main goal of same sex couples: the 10 years old orphan kids mostly don't dream to be adopted by 2 men, and the same 2 men mostly want a "real" kid (undertand: baby) most of the time, here is the dirty truth.
No need to play hide and seek, let's be frank. Your orphans will have to wait (and become adult themselves) I am afraid.


And if you insist with your orphans and same sex couples, then receive and digest this information: when adoption is choosen (against all the others means that are prefered), this is done 80% abroad (Asia, Africa...)

Do yourself a favor: have no illusion.

Ozzie Mozzie
5th Feb 2013, 11:57
What a load of rot this whole issue is. If two loving homosexuals want to get married, what business is it of anyone elses.

How could gay marriages possibly cheapen (steal was used before, seriously?) ones own marriage? If the answer to that question is based at all in religion I would remind you that the bible encourages all sorts of things we don't do today, including slavery.

Gay marriage laws will be passed in a lot of places in the short to medium term, it's not an issue thats going away so if you have a problem with it I suggest you start getting used to the idea.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 12:11
Ozzie: you fall in the same trap: you ignore same sex couple filiation. You ignore kids.
Me also I don't mind that much if 2 (or 3 why not, not need to be two anymore to make kids apparently) same sex person marry, as far as they won't use the surrogate and medical procreation industries to appease their natural kid desire that most human have.

That's not a contest of who will be the most open minded, this is about reponsability towards thousands of kids to come with a systematically twisted filiation (in addition to have 2 fathers or 2 mothers...) they will have to assume while they didn't ask anything special.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 12:14
Out of interest KAG, are you a parent?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 12:15
No I am not, but I am a kid nontheless. And I only speak about them if you have followed the thread.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 12:19
Defensive response! I made no judgement on you. Not publicly anyway.;)

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 12:23
Definitely a defensive response absolutely, as my point is to defend future kids who didn't ask a twisted filiation plus 2 fathers (mothers).

Definitely a defensive response as the law in UK and France will be voted anyway.

Definitely a defensive response as you get out of the subject and ask personal information, to which I have frankly and honestly answered.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 12:35
Arguing with you KAG is like banging your head against the wall. It's better when you stop.

Since you are so verbose on the same point over & again, I'll leave you with this: I think you have no idea what is involved in raising a child & that weakens your position. I further think you oversimplify arguments & ignore realities. Take the Ukranian red herring example. Essentially that boils down to the assertion that a demand is being fed but ignores the existing supply in the UK. A supply pent up by ideologues like you and in the process causing enduring misery for the children involved and in the longer term society as a whole.

This is the kind of thing you ignore in order to ram home the repeated point that I doubt anyone could prove one way or the other that homosexual couples will somehow corrupt a child in their care. However if you have proof beyond your own half formed opinions I would be pleased to review the data. I won't hold my breath though...

KAG, ever since you have been here, you have shown time & again that you exist in a twilit miasma of half truths, spurious assertions & ersatz reasoning. I see no change, so you are welcome to your views, but I place my analysis of them here on record.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 12:41
I think you have no idea what is involved in raising a child & that weakens your position.Thanks for showing your true colors concerning your question above. Defensive answer hey? Don't pretend to play an innocent game please.
Trying to find an angle to attack my credibility is only because you are out of argument.

Read your post again: you have zero argument.

toffeez
5th Feb 2013, 13:04
If I were a young lawyer I'd be preparing for the day when kids without a mother turn on the 'parents'.

If the public mood changes in 20 years there'll be a backlog of children demanding to know how
the law could have allowed them to be treated this way, and expecting compensation.

As the J Saville case showed, what was once acceptable provides no defence today.

Poor kids. Poor gays.

Ancient Observer
5th Feb 2013, 13:11
I am still puzzled by what "marriage" means in the context of a gay couple who have a full civil partnership.

As I understand marriage, you either do it in some place of your chosing, or in a church. In this new law, the church bit is not going to ba allowed.

So it is back to having a civil ceremony in a place of your chosing.

Er, isn't that a civil partnership? Then, if you want it to be blessed, find a friendly mullah/vicar/priest/rabbi/whatever.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 13:54
Toffeez: yep, nowadays we think about today, right now, the future and consequences do not exist.

What you say will happen.


If Cameron or Hollande think the marriage institution belongs to them, if they believe filiation belongs to them, if they beleive they can ignore and throw away thousands years of marriage/filiation history without no consequences, they are fooling themselves. If they think marriage and filiation is a political issue, they are fooling themselves.
In the future a time will come when people will ask: what were you thinking about then in 2013? WTF? Look at the mess now, it is even worse, and you thought you were solving the issues?


Really? What have we heard as argument?
-KAG is the cause of misery in the world,
-gay marriage/filiation will save kids,
-people who don't agree with me are fascist homophobic catholic (godwin point reached or what?),
-you are not gay so you don't know what is good for a kid,
-you are a kid so you don't know what is good for a kid,
-I am right you are wrong, final point because me I know...

That's all what you ve got you all? Well, then take your lack of argument as a serious warning.


There is no excuse to be naive and unable to see the consequences.
Everybody encouraging this nonsense: I hold you also responsible for what's going to happen to a few thousands kids (or more).

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 14:32
I am watching the UK/French news right now, as in both place they are discussing the marriage definition at the same time, and the MPs house of common/ deputy parliament are saying the same in both countries at the same time: we need more time to debat, discuss before voting.
That's what I think too.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 14:41
Kagnwhilst your ramblings and predictions of doom are very fascinating, adoption by same sex couples in the Uk has been legal for 'kin years.

Kind of irrelevant to the vote today then...

What the Fug
5th Feb 2013, 14:43
Would it not be simpler for the state to remove itself from what is after all is just a partnership agreement and property transaction.

radeng
5th Feb 2013, 14:54
Fug,

That proposal was, somewhat tongue in cheek, in A.P. Herbert's 'Misleading cases in the common law' back some 50 years or more. Sensible one in my opinion.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Feb 2013, 15:02
I would place a child with a gay couple all day long as an alternative to denying them a 'family' environment whatever that actually means and sending them right back to the cradle of a wasted life.


I doubt any right minded individual, myself included would disagree however if we accept the premiss that in the ideal world a child should be placed with a mother and father then we have to ask why do we now accept second best for kids being adopted.

Just a thought though does anyone posting on here think that if the 'question' had never been asked would society in general have come up with the notion that gay and lesbian adoption was a good thing?

cavortingcheetah
5th Feb 2013, 15:02
It's not an honest free vote in the Commons is it? No more than such a measure appeared in any political party's manifesto, did it? While the main vote is a free vote of conscience, Cameron has placed a three-line whip on the ‘programme motion’. This will limit discussion of the Bill to two days in a committee rather than on the floor of the Commons and it further means that ministers and parliamentary private secretaries who oppose the Bill will be sacked. Not that such niceties matter of course in the Orwellian socialist dystopia that some, quite correctly, call Britain.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 15:11
Chips: no prediction here, unless the law is not voted??? I don't think so, but who knows.


Some kids who have asked nothing will slowly become conscious when growing up they have a sorrogate "mother" they have never met, a "biological mother" they have never met neither (maybe the same one or not), and 2 official (married) fathers who cheated biology and filiation. They will see it. Impossible to escape it. Now take all the same sex couples wanting to have kids together and all of their kids will be in a similar twisted situation, 100% of the time.
Now add the normal problems: teenagers with special behavior, divorce, and everything else heterosexual couples already enjoyed: we are setting a social mess here. Some kids will be completely lost not because of life, but because politicians told some of us to cheat and make it official.



Now here is my questions, would you answer frankly? :

-would you personaly be happy to be in this situation as a kid? Everything else being equal obviously: two loving fathers (and the whole surrogate/female genes borrowed from somebody...) versus 2 loving real parents?

-do you realize it will actually happen and are not predictions?


I don't care about this marriage, I care about the government to set lies for kids.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 15:27
Kag

Would I be happy to have two parents of teh same sex who love each other and me, and raise me in a fit and proper way, in a supportive loving home?

Yes

Would I prefer it to a mother and father who barely tolerate each other, a father who abused my mother until the day i was old enough to put him on his arse if he ever tried it again, a father who had no parenting skills whatsoever and continues to give me no support?

Well, you work it out. I'll give you a clue, the answer is yes.

It may interest you that my father's lack of parenting skills is most probably related to his being brought up in the care system

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 16:14
I would still like to see KAG's data supporting his assertion that gay parents will f*ck you up as Phillip Larkin may have put it. You know, I have no argument especially in the arena of repeating the same thing over & over until it somehow magics itself into fact.

Data please. Linky? Anything quantifiable or peer reviewed at all?

ORAC
5th Feb 2013, 16:46
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02470/050213-MATT-web_2470899a.jpg

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 16:58
Chips: you are not answering the question, you forgot that part:Everything else being equal obviously: two loving fathers (and the whole surrogate/female genes borrowed from somebody...) versus 2 loving real parents?


No frank answer? That's what I was expecting.



What you wrote is complete nonsense. You don't know how to make a comparison without twisting everything. If you take the example of two real bad parents, you have to compare them to two bad fathers plus the whole surrogate business that comes with (or all homosexuals are good and all heterosexual are bad???). Anybody with a minimum educated knows how to make a comparison, or should I explain it to you? What you are doing in your last post is purely an intelectual fraud to prove against all logic you are right.
What you are telling us is that this is bad to have an abusing parents, nothing more. In addition to be very obvious to everybody, this is NOT the subject (because an homosexual that is not your real father can be abusing too).


Interesting how to see that nobody is able to come to give us an argument to say it is better to have two fathers, and a mother you will never met compared to having real parents.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:05
Jesus Kag how much more frank did you want?

You keep saying that gay parents can't be proper parents, and now you want an absolute comparison. So they can be "proper" parentys then?

So would I asccept same sex parents rather than mixed sex parents if everything else was equal? Yes. Although in truth, anyone brought up by type a knows nothing else, so can't really compare to type b

Do I think Elton John and David Furnish's children will have a problem growing up? No more than the Beckham's children.

Now, have you any evidence, links or data suggesting otherwise?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:05
And Chips, now that you have started to pretend to answer me, please don't go anywhere and answer the question that you have avoided, and you still avoid just above, stop making the question you want to answer it the way you want, I asked that question, are you able to answer?

-would you personaly be happy to be in this situation as a kid? Everything else being equal obviously: two loving fathers (and the whole surrogate/female genes borrowed from somebody...) versus 2 loving real parents?

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:07
Kag little tip - drop the condescending attitude. I've posted an answer and a question.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 17:08
Data? Evidence? Links? Peer reviewed literature? http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/wavey.gif

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:09
Chips: you are the one talking to me, you are the one with the attitude, remember? If you don't read the thread.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:13
Sprogget, do you even know what you are talking about?

You want datas about WHAT?
You question refers to WHAT?

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:14
Kag

And Chips, now that you have started to pretend to answer me, please don't go anywhere and answer the question that you have avoided condescending.

So would I asccept same sex parents rather than mixed sex parents if everything else was equal? Yes. answer

Although in truth, anyone brought up by type a knows nothing else, so can't really compare to type b mitigation

Do I think Elton John and David Furnish's children will have a problem growing up? No more than the Beckham's children further thought


Now, have you any evidence, links or data suggesting otherwise? question. Which you have now been asked at least three times

Need any help with anything else?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:17
Thank you for proving to everybody here you have no argument. Hence your last desperate and pityful attempt to attack me to hide you have nothing to say.

Thank you for proving you avoid to answer the question, like I was expecting.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 17:17
Your central assertion. This twisted filiation couliies you keep banging on about. Come on, it's your assertion, I posted facts and figures, let's see yours.

You have nothing do you? Just a set of bigoted opinions which is why you constantly avoid answering. So predictably predictable.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:19
Kag who was that aimed at? can't have been me as I made it clear that my answer to your question was yes

can't have been Sprogget as you haven't given him chance to reply

You got an imaginary friend or something?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:20
I ask you in front of everybody as a witness: you want datas about WHAT?

If you are not able to answer this simple question, it just shows you are a tourist here and you don't even know what you ask.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:23
Kag you continually assert that children of gay parents will suffer problems

this is the assertion that you should provide data to support

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:25
Chips, so to answer that question:

-would you personaly be happy to be in this situation as a kid? Everything else being equal obviously: two loving fathers (and the whole surrogate/female genes borrowed from somebody...) versus 2 loving real parents? Your answer is yes right? That's what we should all understand?


Sprogget, if you cannot name it quote me or something. What datas do you want?

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 17:26
Kag you continually assert that children of gay parents will suffer problems

this is the assertion that you should provide data to support

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:27
kag how many ways do you want to me to put it. Answer is yes. If you can't read that even when I repeated my post and labelled it for you....

No, quit stalling and provide data to support your assertion

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:34
Chips, so you say you would prefer 2 loving fathers when you won't know who is your mother versus your 2 loving real parents?

Do you realize everybody can notice you are being dishonest here? What's the point to speak with people who are not frank?



No, quit stalling and provide data to support your assertionNow, you want datas. Right. Datas about what?
And don't avoid it again.
WHICH ASSERTION? If you are not able to explain it, quote me.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 17:36
You can't answer a direct question asked repeatedly then. Good to know. It's frankly beneath my intelligence for you to continually ask for information. Do you think that people reading this came down in the last shower? Do you really take us for such fools?


Please close the door on your way out.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:37
Oh Kag you've blown it, you really have, and in front of witnesses!!

You asked me a question, I answered but as the answer doesn't fit with your twisted views you simply say i am a liar! Pathetic!

Now, I'm typing this slowly as you clearky don't read too well...

you have asserted that children of gay parents will have problems in life. Got that? that is what you have asserted? We together on this?

Now provide data to support your assertion.

Any questions?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:38
Sprogget: you failed to ask me about what you want datas.
Anybody in this thread can see you didn't ask me any specific, and you still don't. Do you know yourself? If you know just write it.


Chips: everybody in this thread can see you are not honest with your answer, you want to make us believe you would prefer not knowing your mother than having your 2 realsloving parents WHO CAN BELIEVE THAT?
It is clear this is only to prove you are right at any cost.

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 17:40
Quite interesting watching KAG's argument crumble under scrutiny. I don't know, but I'm betting he'll come back with questions demanding clarification.

hellsbrink
5th Feb 2013, 17:41
Can someone explain what the hell two gay people adopting a child has to do with MARRIAGE.

And don't give me any nonsense about "procreation" as dictated by the scribbles from over 2000 years ago, especially as so many heterosexual couples cannot have or do not want to have rugrats yet still get married, just ONE person explain why two homosexual people cannot have the same status, under the same terms, with exactly the same terminology called being MARRIED.

After all, it has been allowed here in Belgium for years and the country hasn't fallen into a pit of moral turpitude and depravity so someone just explain WHY it is such an issue whilst showing that bias against someone over their sexuality is not actually an issue.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 17:42
Kag you have been challenged for data over and over again, and I have made it clear what you are being asked, as has Sprogget.

You can't dismiss my answer just because you don't like it.

You are calling me a liar. That is outrageous. You are impugning my character. I expect an apology

wriggle out of that one. I will join Sprogget in ignoring your childish nonsense until you can hold a rational and adult conversation

cavortingcheetah
5th Feb 2013, 17:42
Articles which might help cloud the issues include this:
Friday Fax: Study Shows Homosexual Parenting Not Equal to Heterosexual Marriage (http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/study-shows-homosexual-parenting-not-equal-to-heterosexual-marriage.html)
This:
Gay Parents Study Suggesting Downside For Kids Draws Fire From Social Scientists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/gay-parents-study-kids-social-scientists_n_1589177.html)
or even this which is interesting for its conclusion alone, even allowing that Spokane ain't Sacremento.
http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/inetshare/autowebs/kimt/aw%20articles/children%20of%20lesbian%20and%20gay%20parents.pdf


edited: Cloud the issues of course - what a gay thought, Passing Clouds!

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:45
Sprogget: you still fail to ask me what datas you want.


I have been saying that same sex marriage will make filiation twisted 100% of the case concerning same sex married couple who will have kids together.
Systematically, whatever the mean (surrogate, adoption, medically assisted) one of the parent won't be the real parent, and one of the real prent won't be official, or unknown 100% of the time.

IS THAT THE DATA YOU WANT?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 17:52
Chips: You are calling me a liar.I didn't use this word, but I believe that when you say you would prefer as kid to be raised by 2 gay married loving fathers with an unknown mother instead of 2 your real loving parents NOBODY ON THIS FORUM BELIEVES YOU, do you realize?

yotty
5th Feb 2013, 17:56
Hey ho.... wait till the ECHR gets their teeth into the Religious Establishments who refuse to marry same sex people. And it gives the religious fundamentalist another reason (if they needed any more excuses ) to perpetrate further terrorist acts! :eek:

hellsbrink
5th Feb 2013, 17:57
I didn't use this word, but I believe that when you say you would prefer as kid to be raised by 2 gay married loving fathers with an unknown mother instead of 2 your real loving parents NOBODY ON THIS FORUM BELIEVES YOU, do you realize?

Except, KAG, he didn't say that

Would I be happy to have two parents of teh same sex who love each other and me, and raise me in a fit and proper way, in a supportive loving home?

Yes

Would I prefer it to a mother and father who barely tolerate each other, a father who abused my mother until the day i was old enough to put him on his arse if he ever tried it again, a father who had no parenting skills whatsoever and continues to give me no support?

Well, you work it out. I'll give you a clue, the answer is yes.

It may interest you that my father's lack of parenting skills is most probably related to his being brought up in the care system

So until you learn how to stop twisting others words and actually answer the clear questions posed, I suggest you pull your neck in because we all know there is an axe ready to drop on it.

hellsbrink
5th Feb 2013, 18:02
Hey ho.... wait till the ECHR gets their teeth into the Religious Establishments who refuse to marry same sex people. And it gives the religious fundamentalist another reason (if they needed any more excuses ) to perpetrate further terrorist acts!

Utter bollocks. Freedom of Religious Belief is protected under Article 9, and any such attempt to overturn said "freedom" would be thrown out by the ECtHR.

stuckgear
5th Feb 2013, 18:04
KAG,

here's something relating to your beloved EUtopia and gay marriage..


Currently 22 of the countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation

The governments of France, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg have all either introduced legislation which would permit same-sex marriage, or intend to do so in the near future. While the government of Finland itself has not introduced legislation which would permit same-sex marriage, a number of parties within the government support same-sex marriage and a Bill has been introduced with the support of many Finnish Members of Parliament.
France: The French Government, led by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and President François Hollande announced in 2012 that legislation would be introduced which would permit same-sex marriage as well as open up adoption to same-sex couples. The bill law was introduced by the Cabinet in November 2012 and is expected to be considered by the Parliament in February 2013 and passed by Spring 2013




The Government's controversial same-sex marriage legislation is being driven by an EU proposal which is set to become law later this year.

Many people have been asking what prompted the Prime Minister to pick this uncalled-for fight with many people in his own party and the country at large.

It has also been unclear why the same debate is being had simultaneously in other countries such as France.

An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament this November would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.

Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant 'all social benefits and other legal effects' such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.

If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 18:06
Answering its own questions on a forum makes no sense. Or he doesn't speak to me?

Everybody can read the thread and see my question clearly:

Now here is my questions, would you answer frankly? :

-would you personaly be happy to be in this situation as a kid? Everything else being equal obviously: two loving fathers (and the whole surrogate/female genes borrowed from somebody...) versus 2 loving real parents?


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/506852-gay-marriage-vote-tues-5th-feb-7.html#post7677267

hellsbrink
5th Feb 2013, 18:21
Well, I speak from the viewpoint of one who does not believe in the mystical content of such writings. Nevertheless within those 'scribbles' are rules which set out advice for harmonious living.
I doubt that many would disagree with the injunctions not to steal, murder or bear false witness (is that the same as 'perverting the course of justice'? ).
I would therefore, reiterate the ancient intention that marriage is there for the kids. The reason extra-marital liaisons were discouraged was that there would be progeny with no means of support. In the West, with modern facilities, there is little excuse for an unintended pregnancy so no problem with singles putting it about; except, of course, for the unintended consequence of the rise in STDs - soddit!

Except these "rules" that you are talking about as the basis of what you believe to be advice for "harmonious living" predate the scribbles from over 2000 years ago which say that "marriage" MUST be between a man and woman and MUST result in the production of rugrats (if some are to be believed here).

So the scribbles I refer to have absolutely nothing to do with some sort of "rules" as they nicked them from someone else anyway (like so many other things they nicked), so we're left with the outdated concept of "marriage" which is only a concept depending on which set of bloody scribbles you are told to believe in by someone who, in the past, didn't want you being too clever and being able to figure out how bogus the whole story was anyway!

And, as has been said, this country in which I live has allowed gay marriages for the best part of a decade, and we haven't regressed into savagery (well, we'll keep Schaarbeek out of this) so, given the experience of such concepts shown in various countries, where is the problem with two men slipping into each others ring under the status of matrimony?







PS. You bring the beer and I'll get the popcorn on for the next installment of the KAG and Chips show! :}

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 18:29
It's on it's way whatever the arguments. I guess it's Adam & Steve in the garden of Eden now.

BBC News - Gay marriage: Legislation passes first Commons hurdle (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220)

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 18:30
Sorry everyone - that show is over...It got pointless!

I work these days as a DJ, and although I am yet to DJ a "civil partnership", I notice other DJs advertise that they do "Weddings AND civil partnerships". now, apart from announcing the happy couple as "Mr&Mr" or whatever, I've never worked out the difference form a DJ's viewpoint! Isn't that like a car wash that does red cars AND blue ones?

(Hmm, I guess there may be a bit more "disco" in the music selection...)

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 18:31
A TV show called The New Normal will have its premiere on NBC in the US soon. It's about a gay couple and the single mother they engage to have their baby.

"She's just like an easy-bake oven except with no legal rights to the cupcake," the surrogate-mother broker tells Bryan and David. This is a hard-nosed description of the woman's role in gay marriage and child-rearing, but it sums it up accurately.

In heterosexual relationships, the birth rate rises when couples are married. One would expect similar dynamics to apply to same-sex couples. For lesbian couples, this is not a huge problem; all they need is a sperm donor. But male couples need surrogate mothers.

Where will these women come from?

Advertisement Unless the law of supply and demand is repealed, the answer is: where wombs are cheapest. At the moment, this is India, where surrogate motherhood has become a $2.3 billion industry, with the enthusiastic encouragement of some state governments. A recent investigation by the London Sunday Telegraph found there were only 100 surrogacies in Britain last year, but 1000 in India for British clients. The proportion in Australia is likely to be the same.

There are no official statistics, but it appears gay couples account for a substantial chunk of the overseas market. So will the legalisation of same-sex marriage lead to even more surrogate mothers in India? BioEdge, the bioethics newsletter I edit, emailed IVF clinics in India and the US asking whether they were preparing for a rising demand for surrogate mothers.

The answer was a resounding yes. Our survey is far from scientific, let alone comprehensive, but it suggests that poor women in developing or economically depressed countries will be recruited to service gay couples.

"The main reason patients travel from abroad to India is for excellent personal care, expertise and a lot of savings on the treatment costs," says Dr Samundi Sankari, of Srushti Fertility Research Centre in Chennai. "The costs that they pay here is almost one-fifth the costs they pay for surrogacy in US and Europe." He gets a lot of inquiries from gay couples in the US and Israel. Is he preparing for an increase in demand? "Definitely, yes."

Dr Samit Sekhar, of the Kiran Infertility Centre, in Hyderabad, also forecast an increase. He said a ''sizeable number'' of the centre's clients were gay. ''We have seen an increase in the number of gay couples and single men approaching our clinic as soon as legitimacy to their public union is granted in their respective states or country."

There was one dissenting voice. A spokeswoman for Dr Shivani Sachdev Gour, of Surrogacy Centre India, Megan Sainsbury, rebuked BioEdge for its inquiry. "We are not preparing for an expansion of services for gay couples. Why would you ask this?" However, most of the contented parents featured on Sachdev Gour's blog last month are gay.

Indian IVF clinics say surrogate mothers are adequately compensated. But it can be a dangerous job, and the contracts they sign are weighted heavily in favour of the commissioning parents. A surrogate mother in Ahmedabad collapsed and died in May, shortly before she was due. The client took the baby and her family was given only $18,000.

The award-winning British/Indian novelist and journalist Kishwar Desai deals with the surrogacy industry in her latest novel, Origins of Love. She told The Guardian: "There are hospitals where women are kept for the whole nine months while they carry someone else's child. There are good stories, where the surrogate is well looked after, but I would like to make people aware of the sheer exploitation of it, the fact that these women are extremely poor. They are carrying someone's child for two or three thousand pounds [$3000 to $4500]. They may do this three or four times. They may be forced to have a caesarean."

A leading US infertility doctor, Jeffrey Steinberg, who runs the Fertility Institutes in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, told BioEdge he got a surge of inquiries whenever a jurisdiction legalised gay marriage. At the moment he uses only carefully screened American surrogates, but he is thinking of outsourcing their jobs to Mexico.

Supporters of same-sex marriage must recognise they face a serious moral dilemma. Cheap wombs might bring gay men the happiness of being the father of a child of their own. But the cost of that happiness is often borne by poor and uneducated women.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 18:36
oh, i am creasing up now, this is too funny to pass up!!!!!

A TV show called The New Normal will have its premiere on NBC in the US soon. It's about a gay couple and the single mother they engage to have their baby.

ITS A FU:mad::mad::mad:NG COMEDY SHOW!!!!!!!

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 18:38
In other news, the world is an unfair place.:zzz:

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 18:42
Keep reading past the few first lines... And MAGIC! No comedy show anymore but real life.

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 18:45
There are no official statistics

Our survey is far from scientific, let alone comprehensive

:D

I read on, it got funnier :E

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 18:47
Yes, it means it doesn't exist then.

Hey? That was not supposed to be a comedy show anyway? ;)

angels
5th Feb 2013, 18:52
Sorry, can't be arsed. Have couple of gay friends - one teacher, one mega-oney in IT. They've now got two gorgeous surrrogate kids and I can see the love there is between them all.

These two excellent parents want to get married to finally seal their loving and productive union.

Why should reactionaries be out to get them -- or at the very least not allow them to enrich their lives? Why the waste of vitriol against decent, loving people?

Spare some of that vitriol for philanderers/wife beaters/wife rapers and in one case my mate's husband beater (she always kicked shit of him). But this is fine because one is a man and one is a woman.

Let gays marry, most people will welcome it, and live theuir lives without prejudice.

Good luck to all who are tying the knot, I am open to receiving cake and sausage rolls if I get an invit. I am a cheap and teettotal guest!!

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 18:54
Does is sound funnier to you?

Supporters of same-sex marriage must recognise they face a serious moral dilemma. Cheap wombs might bring gay men the happiness of being the father of a child of their own. But the cost of that happiness is often borne by poor and uneducated women.



Let's laugh:A leading US infertility doctor, Jeffrey Steinberg, who runs the Fertility Institutes in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, told BioEdge he got a surge of inquiries whenever a jurisdiction legalised gay marriage. At the moment he uses only carefully screened American surrogates, but he is thinking of outsourcing their jobs to Mexico.


Funny TV show: Dr Samit Sekhar, of the Kiran Infertility Centre, in Hyderabad, also forecast an increase. He said a ''sizeable number'' of the centre's clients were gay.



We are laughing so much...A surrogate mother in Ahmedabad collapsed and died in May, shortly before she was due. The client took the baby and her family was given only $18,000.


That's a comedy show anyway right?

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 19:17
Angels: do you think the kid when older will never regret to be unable to met her/his mother?
Are you sure this kid will approve all this process?
Are you sure that when thousands of those kids will be adult they won't start to set some associations and go to court to stop all this nonsense, baby becoming a merchandise with ancestors impossible to identify each time?

Can you imagine yourself being one of those kids? What you would feel as a teenager? You wouldn't want to find your mother? Really?

And can somebody explain here that comparing violent heterosexuals beating up kids with homosexual angels is a caricature and this choice doesn't really exist for a kid, this is a fantasy?
Homosexuals are not different than heterosexual, we really have to get real.

Do you know Luka Magnota? A young homosexual with an "angel face" who killed and chopped up his male lover and suspected of cannibalism? Homosexuals are no more angels than heterosexuals.

Why not comparing bad homosexual parents beating up their kids with excellent caring real parent then if we follow the same logic???

When will we start to see some honesty, some logic, and some thoughts for the kids here to get a real debat?

Mr Chips
5th Feb 2013, 19:17
MPs have approved legislation for same-sex marriage in England and Wales, despite the opposition of dozens of Conservative MPs.

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the move as "an important step forward" that strengthens society.


BBC News - Gay marriage: MPs back bill despite Conservative backbench opposition (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220)

KAG
5th Feb 2013, 19:20
So now we all no it was not prediction and this is real life we are talking about.


Congratulations :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

22 Degree Halo
5th Feb 2013, 19:56
I'm not a religious man, but I bet "God" is reeling.

Man and woman put on this planet to shag and have kids and all that:=

Sprogget
5th Feb 2013, 20:07
Then again maybe she isn't.

http://thumbsnap.com/s/YnkdRKtR.png

stuckgear
5th Feb 2013, 20:14
Message to KAG:

'SINK RATE'

'PULL UP'

'PULL UP'

:hmm:

martinmax69
5th Feb 2013, 22:26
I haven't posted for some pages now. I still see KAG is still talking on my behalf. Please stop as you do not speak on my behalf. You are still pushing your own agenda hoping to change all of those who do not agree with you. I suspect many here have simply dismissed your vitriolic statements and now just skip your rambling posts.

I, as many others here, have answered your questions many pages back. I even gave you "real" examples-real "data", but you have failed to produce any relevant facts to back-up what you pronounce. Being gay, I have many friends who have bought children up into healthy, well-adjusted, non-judgemental, productive, and most importantly, happy adults. They do know who their biological parents are and that is not a problem for them. My sister who is hetrosexual, is a single mother of a 22 year old who is currently studying Psychology at uni and is in her final year. She has never met her father and has absolutely no wish to know. That may change at some time but for now, she wishes no contact at all. So, here is a 'THIRD' real-world situation I have given you but again I know you will dismiss this as you did with the other two many pages back. Others here have also given you examples and you have yet to supply and 'facts' to support your ( and I'll use your word, "twisted", as that is how you describe me-twisted) twisted theories apart from some obscure comedy show on television. This isn't television. This is real life. I am so glad to hear that you have no children. That means that your very "twisted" and judgemental views will die with you and aren't afforded the opportunity to to live on with in your own gene-pool.

KAG, seeing as you love 'google' and pick and chose things that you think support your outlook on this matter, google "Heny Penny" or "Peter and the wolf". Then place your head in the sand for the next 20 years and I think you will find that much of what you want others to believe simply has not occurred. In fact, I think you will find it very hard to even ascertain any difference. Hellsbrink lives in a country that has legalised same sex marriage for many years. His country has not slipped into 'fire and brimstone' nor some modern day Gomorrah. There are good people and bad people, thats all. Being gay, Im not a bad person but there are others that are. I acknowledge that. But the percentage of 'bad' homosexuals is the same as in hetrosexuals. There are bad people everywhere.

I believe that if it was possible to jump 50 years into the future, we will all be saying, "well, that was rather an anti-climax wasn't it. We thought the sky would fall down but it didn't. My life is still the same. I see no change at all to my hetrosexual life. So what was all the fuss about?"

I know as much as the sun will rise that KAG will still be pushing his view hoping to change the world. But that world is slowly getting smaller and smaller as his rants continue with no substance at all. I find him rather comical now as he beats his own drum to a dwindling audience. Bang away KAG.

vee-tail-1
5th Feb 2013, 22:27
Today I sent this letter to the Muslim 'Engage' organisation in the UK.
My enemies’ enemy is my friend

Dear Sirs
I have long been critical of Muslim immigration to this country, believing that the UK’s Jewish & Christian traditions do not fit well with the customs of Islam. But it may be that I was wrong … indeed I am envious of the robust morality that all Muslims possess.

I don’t think there has ever been a time when I have been angrier (apart from Blair’s Iraq war!)

I see D Cameron as Judas … or even a pitiful Samson, for his wife Sam is undoubtedly Delilah. Between them they may well have destroyed the Conservative party, and its chances of winning the next election.

For a long time my newspaper has been the Independent, as its left of centre bias enabled me to keep up with the views of a majority of younger people. But NO MORE. Incredibly the Daily Telegraph is not easily obtainable locally, but the sanity of its reporting is balm to my outraged sense of hurt.

One by one those things that were a precious part of my country, my culture, my sense of morality and right & wrong have gone. Replaced by an Orwellian dystopia with socialist priests whose bible is labelled ‘Political Correctness’. In that same Orwellian theme the proles couldn’t care less about morality, and indulge themselves in sexual perversion, drugs, & violence, abusing and ridiculing those who point out their immorality.

Once long ago I flew missions to protect my country from its enemies, but could I feel the same patriotism now that moved me during my RAF service? The answer is NO! the country has become a cesspit of hedonists and liars.

It seems to me that good people must come together, particularly Muslims, and Christians of all denominations, and those folk whose hearts are in the right place even if they are not people of faith.

Once I fought for my country and its people … now there is little left that is not rotten.

In great sadness



Thanks KAG for continuing to fight the ignorant proles that infest this thread.

martinmax69
5th Feb 2013, 22:49
vee-tail-1

I just have a few words for you.

Humans are inevitably confused and afraid of the "ún-known'' . Thats human nature. If Im afraid of something I tend to want to learn about it so that I have a more balanced outlook. Once I gain that knowledge it is no longer frightening too me. Knowledge is the key. Same could be said about the topic of gay marriage. The sky wont fall, the sun will come up and we will get on with our lives.

Many in the world are NOT Christians, but they still marry. Marriage is a universal thing. I was a "Roman Catholic" but renounce that religion now. Im atheist. Am I evil? I see what the Catholic church has done and Im not talking about paedophile priests. I question my religion many times as a child. Our pet dog of 14 years had to be put-down due to cancer. I was told at the age of 7 that when I die I will not see my pet dog as they are banned from heaven. What a great religion. What about birth control? Thats also a no-no. Imagine your wife is gang-raped, becomes pregnant and then HAS to have that reminder with her for the next 8 months. Its like a goal sentence. What about the spread of Aides (no-it was never a homosexual disease as history has proven)? With all the above occurring due religion, I'm glad to be atheist!

vee-tail-1 said "Thanks KAG for continuing to fight the ignorant proles that infest this thread".

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge.

vee-tail-1
5th Feb 2013, 23:35
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/images1_zpsbdaf72b6.jpg
These are two mules who Cameron says can 'marry'
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/imagesCAW403SO_zps66e8b9f4.jpg
These are two donkeys that have been told they are same as mules.
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/564626_4563624258130_1527255788_n1_zps0c46b779.jpg
These are two young married couples. The sacred institution of marriage is theirs alone.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 00:12
Yeay.....after years of searching for who I am, vee-tail has told me.

I am a donkey and proud of it. Thanks vee-tail for your very simplistic, well thought-out 'knowledge' of the current state of play. Very simplistic even KAG will understand.

Opps, I almost forgot. As vee-tail has now informed everyone, the above 2 couple are married. Good for them. Here in Australia, it is those 2 couples who with in the 'sanctity of marriage', would have endless amounts of bonny babies in order to collect the "Çhild bonus scheme" payment, where they are given $1000 per child. Its not only limited to couples, a single mother is also eligible too! I only wish I could do what vee-tail has done and post a very unflattering picture of some whore with a drugged out husband with 20 kids living in poverty. Then I could post a pick of a very happy, sexually free bonobo doing what they love best!....but I cannot be bothered.

Goodness....I think I hear KAG beating his drum again!

Lon More
6th Feb 2013, 02:04
Not a great deal of the milk of human kindness around here.
Whatever happened to "Live and Let Live"?
They're not harming me, and i think there are more important issues to deal with

Krystal n chips
6th Feb 2013, 03:21
COMMUNIQUE FROM THE WESTERN FRONT

TENBY FALLS !

St DAVIDS UNDER SIEGE!

FISHGUARD STANDS ALONE !

TELEGRAPH LINES OF COMMUNICATION CUT

INDEPENDENT SOURCES UNRELIABLE

GUARDIAN MOBILISED

FIFTH COLUMNISTS SIGHTED !

VALIANT FRANCO-CHINESE MERCENARY URGENTLY IN NEED OF ASYLUM !

NEW STRATEGIC ALLIANCE FORMED WITH FORMER FOES.
BROTHERS IN ARMS NOW WELCOMED AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY !

DOG TO BE CHARGED WITH DESERTION !

Middle of the Road - Samson and Delilah - HD. - YouTube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPLrXFw76Qg

MTOW
6th Feb 2013, 03:56
You poor, misguided Brits... You only got it half right. Your cousins across the pond (way across the pond, in this case) did. See below:

For those who haven't heard, Washington State just passed laws allowing gay marriage and legalizing marijuana.

The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day
makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies
with another man they should be stoned."

We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 06:44
Martin: I still see KAG is still talking on my behalf.I speak on my behalf: KAG, this is a fact well known now on JB.
My name is not Martin.
And if you are afraid somebody could have a doubt, then I have an official announcement: what KAG writes is written on his own behalf, and he is proud of it :ok:
And if you are still not sure on that one: I don't really care about us adults in this thread and subject, I don't care about me or you or what we want, my only point being some kids to come, and not Martin and his sexual taste/orientation that I respect even though I am not interested in to know.

Is that clear enough for you? I remain at your service for more explanation on what I am speaking about if still confused.
Anyway I still aknowledge and appreciate your effort to speak frankly "as a gay" here, not everybody would have the courage to do it on JB I guess. Good for you. I just point out the fact that when it comes to the kids destiny, it becomes irrelevant and you have no more credibility than any of us.
Cheers.


Martin:I, as many others here, have answered your questions many pages back. I even gave you "real" examples-real "data", but you have failed to produce any relevant facts to back-up what you pronounce.Haha! I see you happily jump on the sprogget trap... Then you will have the same result... You have not followed what happened apparently and you repeat what you just read without even thinking.

So let me get it straight (I am not playing with words) to you:
100% of the Gay married couple having kid together will set a filiation arranged that won't match reality, systematically, each time.

Now I have 3 questions to ask you, you don't have to answer here (because I guess you will, like some others, avoid to answer or change the question) but those are still questions for you:

1- Am I speaking about kid filiation here or not since the beginning?

2- Do you think the 100% data related to my assertion concerning filiation above since the beginning given is wrong?

3-Do you need a google quote to understand 2 same sex people cannot have kids together to support my 100% data?

Some honesty, some courage please, no need to avoid it and look somewhere else, thank you very much.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, now that's why I came today: What do I hear??? No same sex marriage in Scotland??? I see, this subject is more one of division than unity and equality.

Sprogget
6th Feb 2013, 06:51
Haha! I see you jump on the sprogget trap... You have not followed what happen apparently in asking stuff you have no idea about.
Riiight. Take the blinkers off KAG, take them off now, read back through the thread & explain why your conclusions are so different from everyone else's. Your hubris is your undoing again & again.

Vee tail. The enormous irony is that us ignorant proles fought a war for the freedoms you would have done away with. Sorry but you were at least two generations out & on the wrong side, mensch.

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 06:58
Spogget, same thing:


1- Am I speaking about kid filiation here or not since the beginning?

2- Do you think the 100% data related to my assertion concerning filiation above since the beginning given is wrong?

3-Do you need a google quote to understand 2 same sex people cannot have kids together to support my 100% data?

Some honesty, some courage please, no need to avoid it and look somewhere else, thank you very much.



PS: no godwin point, no personal attacks will save you here. Answer the questions even for yourself, even mentally, but escaping and fooling around means you don't want to look frankly what I am talking about for ideological and political reasons.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 07:20
KAG, still talking and talking and talking and talking but no one is listening any more. Honestly, all those questions have been answered many times over. Just because they aren't the answers that fit your theory you 'gloss' over them and don't acknowledge them. I gave you examples of real adults who were brought up by gay parents. You avoided that because it doesn't fit with your views. You keep talking but you don't listen ( why am I bothering to talk with you?).

Do I really need to go back to where you say that äll gays want is children. I don't. You cannot talk for me or my friends. I actually doubt that you know any gay people. Also, Im not courageous for speaking out

,Kag said- "appreciate your effort to speak frankly 'as a gay' here".

Jeee, thanks, you make me sound like some kind of leper, a disease.This is the 21st century. It should not matter. It does to you. Even allowing for the fact that English is not your 1st language, you still have a rather judgemental approach to my "kind", don't you. Of course you can wrap it all up with "Ï don't care what you do, its all about the children" crap. I gave you examples of happy adults brought up by gay parents. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Do you honestly think that all gays will be terrible, abusive parents? Well, thank-you very much for judging me as an unfit possible parent and once again for talking for me(All gays want are children-thats what you said about me). I must show your response to my sister. Do you remember her? I gave her as an example to you but as that didn't fit your "model" you ignored it.Do you remember "Hellsbrink" (I hope thats right) telling you that his/her country has allowed gay marriage for a number of years without any problems? Do you remember that? You do that quite often-Ignoring-don't you! Its just an observation.

Oh and KAG, please quit with the "filiation" thing. Im getting confused with another similar sounding word that I have no experience with.:E

Bang,bang,bang....I can hear that drum again.

ORAC
6th Feb 2013, 07:40
KAG,

It was pointed out to you many pages back that the law in the UK, yes including Scotland, already allows married, partnered, unmarked couples (same and opposite sex) and single people (gay or heterosexual) to adopt; and that therefore your rants about "filial ion" are totally irrelevant to the law voted on last night.

However you have continued to scrawl your exremental graffiti across this thread, for no conceivable purpose. Thankfully I believe you have done whatever ends you desire much more harm than good.

Bee-tail1,

In allying yourself with Engage you link yourself to an organisation with along and documented history of racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to violence. Those who sup with the devil should use a long spoon.

I to served in the RAF for over 25 years. The views you espouse bear nothing to do with the "patriotism" you espouse. May I publically repudiate any connection between your views and the RAF. There are also ex-servicemen who join the EDL and proclaim their "patriotism". Perhaps you should meditate on the unwise ness of doing the same.

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 07:43
Martin: if nobody is reading me so why you keep answering me?
I couldn't careless if you ignored me. Really. If you talk to me I answer, that's all. Do you see any troubles with that? If yes don't come on this forum and speak with people who agree with you.

2 points:

-I have never said ALL gay individuals want kids, neither I think so. So you make me say what I didn't to fit conveniently your argument you invent.

-I have said, however, that 100% of the same sex married couple will have to cheat reality when having kids together. Fact you keep ignoring, fact you don't even dare to acknowledge, what tells a lot.



Then you tells me I say all gay will be abusive parents, something I have NEVER wtote neither: you keep avoiding my subject, filiation, inventing stuff and hopping we will get lost in your smoke screen.



Finally: you are in no right to tell me I cannot speak about filiation.


Your whole post is built on false assumption, that I didn't say, and you build your whole argument against me from it avoiding what I am talking about.


Let me tell you something, when on JB people desagree with me but are short of argument, they always use the same irrelevant escape:

-off topic
-godwin point
-personal attacks on me or my job
-make me say whay I haven't

Each time: it doesn't fail. At the end they have won nothing with it. They lost some credibility, they lost maybe some consideration from some posters, but they never won anything.
Learn from the others mistakes.


I am speaking about filiation for gay married couple having kids together, because it is a reality now, like it or not.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 07:46
KAG,

"-I have never said ALL gay individuals want kids"......you have.

"-I have said, however, that 100% of the same sex married couple will have to cheat reality when having kids together. Fact you keep ignoring, fact you don't even dare to acknowledge, what tells a lot."....I answered that too but you 'ígnored' my answer. Others have pointed out the flaws in your theory. What do you say to hetrosexual couples using IVF? I'm all ears.

You are beyond help.....I'm happy to give you a shovel....just keep digging.

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 07:56
Martin:
"-I have never said ALL gay individuals want kids"......you have.
Quote me. If you are unable then better to keep quiet on that one.


I answered that too but you 'ígnored' my answer.You said no filiation problems for the kids right I think I even remember you try to explain us it was better than real filiation? So me I am answering you you live in the Alice wonderful rosy world, and you speak about your viewpoint, not the kids one. Let them speak for themselves before saying this twisted filiation is no problem.



ORAC: what a lot of politic and history to avoid to think that surrogate mother and medically assisted procreation plus having 2 official fathers no mother are in no way a progress for the babies and future kids.


What a lot of accusation (racism, good one!) to avoid to admit same gay marriage will (and already has in other country with same gay marriage) increase gay filiation, surrogate mothers, and deletion of one part of the ancestors each time.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 07:59
KAG....again your displaying such a superior attitude. "Agree with me or I'll ignore you"....where have I seen this attitude before? Im not given a voice but your still allowed to talk about me, tell me how wrong I am and in essence, "judge'' me when you don't even know me. Do you really need me to point out where you have stated that any gays wanting kids are selfish...mmm....same could be said about Ethel wanting that "Baby bonus". I suspect you will ignore my examples, I've given them to you on a plate. REMEMBER??? oh, thay don't fit your theory do they?

KAG said "You said no filiation problems for the kids right I think I even remember you try to explain us it was better than real filiation? So me I am answering you you live in the Alice wonderful rosy world, and you speak about your viewpoint, not the kids one. Let them speak for themselves before saying this twisted filiation is no problem."

....Im happy to give you their phone numbers and you can talk with them directly. They are very well adjusted adults now. Remember? They are the adult children of gay parents.Thats what being a gay parent is about, well adjusted, non-judgemental adults. You sir, on the other hand, are very judgemental and ignore the facts. Facts that have been given to you ad nauseam.


bang, bang, bang........heres that shovel!

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 08:07
Martin: "Agree with me or I'll ignore you"....Again: you invent stuff I have never said, your argument always start with a convenient flawed assumption. I have never said I will ignore you, nor I am ignoring you. I just said I couldn't careless if you ignored me, which is the opposite (do you have understanding problems?) answering you:

KAG, still talking and talking and talking and talking but no one is listening any more. It sounds like to give the idea people are ignoring me hey? Funny enough this is what you accuse me off... Wow! Impressed by your honesty and your logic here.
As reminder: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/506852-gay-marriage-vote-tues-5th-feb-10.html#post7678600


The good thing with an internet forum, is when somebody keep fooling around and invent stuff, it shows clearly.

Back on subject: do you think this is a progress for kids to be made with different genes that at the end he won't be able to keep track on his real filiation systematically?

Sprogget
6th Feb 2013, 08:07
will have to cheat reality when having kids together.Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury, this is KAG the repetitive's central point. What he means is gay parents will f*ck you up.

When he is cornered on the point as he was last night, he retreats towards a narrow definition of gay parents not being the natural state of things - which they aren't. This is only when he can no longer sustain the feigned ignorance that he doesn't know what we're talking about & how much clearer can he make things?

In short, he is a twisting ephemeral shape shifter of a debater who turns answers around, ducks straight questions & accuses everyone around him of being evasive when in fact it is his stock in trade.

I doubt the guy could walk in a straight line let alone argue one.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 08:12
KAG....you Sir are a hypocrite. I never start with a 'false assumption', thats your area of expertise. I shall now depart down that 'rabbit hole' with my 'rosy glasses' as I obviously know nothing about this subject:rolleyes:

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 08:15
martin, welcome to attempting to engage in discussion with our 'sweet and sour dilletante'.

in all reality, it's like trying to have a discussion with a drunk.

KAG
6th Feb 2013, 08:26
Sprogget: you are still speaking about me, which is better to speak about the subject I am raising right?


When he is cornered on the point as he was last night, he retreats towards a narrow definition of gay parents not being the natural state of thingsHaha! You still have some illusion about your last night performance hey?
Look what I was saying in my FIRST post on this thread:

Funny enough France is following a very similar politic time table concerning gay marriage: I feel a bit concerned.

I tend to agree with you Vee tail 1.
If it were only about marriage... But it will change the definition of filiation too.
In France it will happen, alright. I don't see myself to fight against it, I don't care much after all. But if I am asked, I have to answer we should think twice about it because it looks like a big mistake.
My major concern is that 100% of the time a gay couple will have kids, it will be fake somewhat, systematically. The whole story doesn't sound like common sense to me. But we are all so embarked in a rat race to prove everybody else we are open minded that there is no limit to anything anymore. This is all politic. We just forgot marriage has nothing to do with politics.
Reference:http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/506852-gay-marriage-vote-tues-5th-feb-2.html#post7672217
Does it look like retreating to you? Did I change anything?
Good to have illusions I beleive.

Alright, so this filiation I am talking about is no issue right? Fine, you are responsible then for the mess to come. As I already said: being naive is no excuse.

That will be my last post on this subject. I will wait for the kids I mention to be adult and listen to what they have to say.

Continue with your blind attitude, if you think it makes you better or more right on the subject, if you think KAG is the problem and reality doesn't exist, I leave you to your illusions.

martinmax69
6th Feb 2013, 08:28
......please, please pass me some popcorn.:}

Stuckgear, I like your humour!:}

Sprogget
6th Feb 2013, 08:35
Haha! You still have some illusion about your last night performance hey?
Look what I was saying in my FIRST post on this thread:




Arguing with you KAG is like banging your head against the wall. It's better when you stop. When will I learn?:}

Solid Rust Twotter
6th Feb 2013, 08:53
What took you guys so long?

vee-tail-1
6th Feb 2013, 10:00
Perhaps it’s time to sum up this debate and put it to bed.
For some of us, perhaps a majority, gay marriage is as Cameron says “The right thing to do”.
For me and people like me marriage is exclusively a bond between a man and a woman to create children. So it is impossible for two men or two women to marry. Some of us in public office will encounter problems because of our firm belief.
For gays it is yet another victory in their campaign for equality. But it has hardened the attitude of those who were prepared to accept homosexuality. There will be consequences.
For adopted children it may or may not be a good thing, and only time will tell.
For Judas Cameron the destruction of the UK Conservative party will be his epitaph.
On a personal level, the various off-grid and sustainable communities that I frequent will continue to prepare for what is to come. We have no doubt that the UK is in an ever increasing moral decline, and wish to be far away from the resulting chaos. So back to the digging, the hydro power, the methane digesters, the solar panels, and the evolving healthy self reliant morality that motivates us. :)

Sprogget
6th Feb 2013, 10:08
No one is ramming it down your throat eh Vee Tail?

At least you've given up referring to those who don't er...live in the 1950's as ignorant proles. Small steps.

Mr Chips
6th Feb 2013, 10:21
The great thing about being self employed is that I have plenty of time to waste on here playing with the bigots!

kag you are accusing people of dishonesty and untruths and twisting and whatever else (your ramblings are hard to follow) but you twice called me a liar in this very thread

You asked me a question

I answered it truthfully

You claimed I was lying and that nobody on the thread believed me.

Nobody, not one person, has agreed with you on that point so I still await your apology.

Vee-tail you do realise that just because you don't agree with something, it isn't necessarily wrong? Oh, and "Judas Cameron" - doesn't help with your image as a rational person. Just saying :8

MagnusP
6th Feb 2013, 11:13
Gee, this is fun.

martinmax69, if you find you have a surplus of popcorn, then I'm getting the munchies, too!

Hey, KAG, a few questions for you;
Angels: do you think the kid when older will never regret to be unable to met her/his mother?

What's the difference between that child and one adopted into a heterosexual marriage?

Who let you decide that gay couples would only have surrogate children and not adopt orphans or children taken into care from broken homes?

Am I correct in assuming you would rather have been brought up in a care home or orphanage, than in a loving family with parents who were same-sex?

Take your time; any honest answers will do.

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 11:39
For me and people like me marriage is exclusively a bond between a man and a woman to create children.

so then you equally disagree with and consider that it should not be legal for non-married couples to have children.. or in cases where say the male has a terminal disease and placing his sperm on 'ice' so that the female may have a child, or another child that the male will not live to see...

or perhaps in cases where one of the man/woman partnership meets an untimely end and the child is going to raised with only one parent; that the child should then be taken awy from the remaining aprent and placed into the care system, for the sake of the child [sic]. <--- This also applies KAG's ramblings and postulations.

or what about situations where parents separate.. perhaps then the children of that couple should be removed from the now single parents and placed into the care system, for the sake of the child [sic]

what you are trying to do is justify a prejudice, and when the postulation is examined and extended to practice, it basically falls flat on it's arse.

using religion as a justification for homophobia is equally irrational, there is proof that same sex couples exist, yet there is no proof that god exists, belief in god is based on faith alone of something that cannot be either proven or disproven.

ORAC
6th Feb 2013, 11:50
For me and people like me marriage is exclusively a bond between a man and a woman to create children. And, of course, in line with Vatican guidance; the use of the Pill, condoms or any other form of preventing pregnancy is anathema as it prevents god's purpose for sex and renders it merely a carnal lust and a sin. No better, say, than that sodomy or buggery.

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 12:09
well if one is going to follow the bible, how is your roof..


Deuteronomy
22.8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.



And don't be mixing the fibres in your clothes either...


22.11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.



Better put that lobster down. And forget the crab cakes too.. oh and the Moule et Frites , the clam chowder and the shrimp too.


Leviticus
11.10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.


A bacon sandwich is out too.. regarding pigs..


Leviticus
11.8 You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.


Oh and don't be having sex with your girl and blowing your wad over her.. God doesn't like that... In fact so much, he'll smite you.. that goes for 'knocking one out' too..


Genesis
38:9-10: Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.


I can go on and on... but I think many will get the point.

vee-tail-1
6th Feb 2013, 12:28
This non religious pressure group is still upbeat about defeating this bill.

PM'S PLANS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE SUFFER BLOW

Dear marriage supporter,
The Prime Minister’s plans to redefine marriage suffered a serious blow tonight, as most Tory MPs failed to back his Bill to redefine marriage.
David Cameron had to rely on support from Labour and the Lib Dems to make sure the Bill progressed to the next stage.
The size of the Tory vote against the Prime Minister is a significant moment in the campaign to retain the real meaning of marriage.
Overall, MPs voted 400 to 175 in favour of allowing the Bill to move to committee stage in the Commons. The Bill will eventually pass to the Lords where the voting arithmetic is very different.
We are still at an early stage in the Parliamentary battle and there is all to play for. We will continue to vigorously defend the real meaning of marriage.
Tonight’s vote is good news, and we will keep the pressure on.
Yours sincerely,

Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
8 Marshalsea Road
London
SE1 1HL

You received this email because you chose to be 'kept informed' when you signed the Petition for Marriage at c4m.org.uk or on paper. If you no longer wish to receive information from Coalition for Marriage, click 'Unsubscribe' below, or for other enquiries, contact us here.

Tel 0207 403 7879 Unsubscribe
View as plaintext
© 2012


Coalition for Marriage Ltd is a Not-for-Profit Company registered in England. Company No. 07880604.

ORAC
6th Feb 2013, 12:40
This non religious pressure group is still upbeat about defeating this bill. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif

Coalition for Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Marriage)

The Coalition for Marriage, often abbreviated to C4M,[1] is a Christian[2] campaign group in the United Kingdom which opposes UK government proposals to allow marriages for same-sex couples.

Links to conservative Christian groups

The Coalition for Marriage is a not-for-profit public limited company[10] whose directors have links to high-profile conservative Christian groups.[11]

C4M director Colin Hart is director of the Christian Institute, an evangelical Christian pressure group.[12][13].
C4M director Nola Leach is head of the pro-life organization Christian Action Research and Education (CARE).[14][15]
C4M director Donald Horrocks is the head of public affairs for the Evangelical Alliance.[16]
C4M director Andrea Minichiello Williams, a barrister, is a founder of pressure group Christian Concern and is the CEO of the Christian Legal Centre.[17]
The coalition also shares the same address as the Christian Medical Fellowship, a pro-life group who have published papers claiming to show miracle cures for controversial conditions including demon-possession.[18] The CMF has been accused of homophobia by trying to link homosexuality and paedophilia in an article using evangelical views in the same context as scientific evidence[19] and they have also been accused by Hindu leaders at the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences of calling minority religions and Hinduism false religions.[20][21]

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 12:44
vee-tail,

ORAC just handed you your *ahem* ass!

hellsbrink
6th Feb 2013, 15:08
vee-tail,

ORAC just handed you your *ahem* ass!

And he didn't covet it either!!

Lightning Mate
6th Feb 2013, 15:16
Let's get this straight (sic).

""gay"" marriages degrade mine and that of every other heterosexual marriage.

Cameron will regret this I assure you.

rgbrock1
6th Feb 2013, 15:31
stuckgear wrote:

Oh and don't be having sex with your girl and blowing your wad over her.. God doesn't like that... In fact so much, he'll smite you.. that goes for 'knocking one out' too..

As I was reading through your list of Bible quotations I was having a chuckle until I read the one above.

That put an end to any further reading! :}:*:mad:

hellsbrink
6th Feb 2013, 15:34
using religion as a justification for homophobia is equally irrational, there is proof that same sex couples exist, yet there is no proof that god exists, belief in god is based on faith alone of something that cannot be either proven or disproven.

And, of course, using religion as any sort of "moral standpoint" in view of

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/507148-only-15-years-ago.html

BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741)

Girl, 14, Raped and Pregnant, Is Caught in Web of Irish Law - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/18/world/girl-14-raped-and-pregnant-is-caught-in-web-of-irish-law.html)

German rape victim 'turned away by Catholic hospitals over pregnancy fears' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9811443/German-rape-victim-turned-away-by-Catholic-hospitals-over-pregnancy-fears.html)

, as well as many more examples from what can only be described as child abuse and child abduction, does show how tragically irrelevant the argument is, especially with the Anglican Church openly allowing homosexuals to be Bishops, in clear opposition to what their "rule book" actually says regarding homosexuals. So when an organisation as twisted and hypocritical as any "church" representing any type of organised religion is being held up as some sort of "moral standard", then you know the argument against common sense and basic human decency has been lost by those who are nothing more than pathetic little bigots who have no place in a civilised society.

ORAC
6th Feb 2013, 16:34
I think Dan Hodges sums it up (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100201797/labour-and-the-tories-are-both-swimming-against-the-tide-of-history-the-tories-on-social-policy-labour-on-economic/) well in his Telegraph blog:

...........Those Tory MPs who voted against gay marriage undoubtedly did so out of conviction. But they were wrong. Just as those who stood against votes for women, or against hiring or sacking people on the basis of race and gender, or the legalisation of homosexuality in the first place, were wrong.

There are some on the Right who like to refer to last night’s vote as being part of a “culture war”. It isn’t. The guns fell silent decades ago. Those who opposed gay marriage weren’t fighting a battle. They were sitting round a campfire, singing a few old regimental drinking songs, toasting the dead.

The debate on gay marriage isn’t cultural, it’s generational. Very few of my generation are unduly bothered by the idea of two people of the same sex getting married, and I’m in my 40s. Anyone in their 20s, watching Peter Bone standing up in the Chamber describing the saddest day of his parliamentary life, and banging on about another referendum, may as well have been looking at a Martian.

The Right can continue to take a stand on these issues if it wants. But it should ask itself one very simple question: "When was the last time we actually won one of these?"

Almost every progressive social policy change since the war has been introduced in the face of opposition from the parliamentary Conservative Party. And what does the Conservative Party have to show for it?

This is not just political navel-gazing. True, most people don’t feel that strongly either way about gay marriage. But once again, the narrative of the Tory party as somehow being out of touch – actually, of occupying a different place and time to the rest of us – has once again been reinforced...........

Krystal n chips
6th Feb 2013, 17:04
" gay marriages degrade mine and that of every other heterosexual marriage."

Really ?.....the more astute of us would say they would enhance marriage, irrespective of genders and sexuality. I took the liberty of deleting the, presumably, typo error in your original post as you may have noticed.




" Cameron will regret this I assure you"

Anything that leads to the detriment of CMD can only be applauded...

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 17:39
""gay"" marriages degrade mine and that of every other heterosexual marriage.



it certainly doesnt degrade mine. in fact it makes not the blindest jot of difference to mine. My marriage is valued on the relationship between my wife and myself and how we behave toward each other.

by extension of your premise then, is a hetrosexual marriage worthy when one partner indulges in physical or mental abuse of the other...

and then by extension from that, are you saying that an abusive or violent hetrosexual marriage has more value than a gay marriage where both both partners accord each other mutual respect?

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 17:47
" Cameron will regret this I assure you"

Anything that leads to the detriment of CMD can only be applauded...

oh grief, the Socialist Worker's Party are sharpening their pitchforks.

Ironically, the comment by our dear Komrade is highly poignant;

The rabid homophobes would serve to give Cameron a good kicking at the ballot box in order to instil their homophobic rage at what is, as i pointed out earlier an EU led directive (see a few pages back), not Cameron's and as such opening the door for the marxist mental miget, Milivolt, to gain a political lead.

Thus, the rabid homophobes would rather see the country flushed down the toilet by opening the door for Labour to take another shot at finishing off flushing the country down the crapper, rather than just accept that their homophobia is actually irrational.

That, I think, is a good example of 'cutting ones nose off to spite one's face'.

Brilliant.
:hmm:

And some people wonder why I want to get the hell off this bloody island !

stuckgear
6th Feb 2013, 17:54
RGB wrote:
stuckgear wrote:

Quote:
Oh and don't be having sex with your girl and blowing your wad over her.. God doesn't like that... In fact so much, he'll smite you.. that goes for 'knocking one out' too..
As I was reading through your list of Bible quotations I was having a chuckle until I read the one above.

That put an end to any further reading! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


ah I wouldn't sweat it RGB... i havn't been smited..


:}

Dop
6th Feb 2013, 20:47
The side of right and proper won by a resounding majority against the side of ignorance and bigotry.
There is not one single logical argument against equality of marriage. All the arguments against are based on superstition and homophobia.

Some of the bigoted nonsense I was watching anti-equality MPs spout on my television made me feel they should have been watched on a 405-line black and white set.
Their views are as outdated as the views of people who wished to deny women the vote.

Yesterday was a good day for the country. It was a day when MPs resoundedly voted for what was right and proper.

hellsbrink
6th Feb 2013, 20:58
That's it, Basil, just let one off by taking one part of a sentence and quoting it completely out of context whilst ignoring the actual point being made, the one where I state, with examples, why using any sort of "morality" based on the religious grounds mentioned is an absolute joke as these very "religions" have been shown to have been completely "immoral" when it comes to practicing what they preach.

But I guess answering the actual point being made would have been to hard, so just "have a go at hellsbrink" for daring to say what people are actually thinking over this whole matter.

22 Degree Halo
6th Feb 2013, 21:22
Bum hole engineers, the lot of you! :E

Oh, and hellsbrink:

would have been to hard

too

so just "have a go at hellsbrink"

You reap what you sow :-D

fireflybob
6th Feb 2013, 23:51
Have to say I agree with Peter Hitchens analysis here - love the "Mr Slippery" bit!

Peter Hitchens on Gay Marriage

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 01:35
To KAG,

KAG, I just want to apologise for the last few comments made by me. I know English is not your 1st language and sometimes the point your trying to make is 'lost in translation'. I also acknowledge that your culture etc may be vastly different to mine. I meant no offence. I do respect your right to have the opinions you have voiced.

To every one else, please forgive my atrocious spelling and grammar. I usually don't treat people that way I reacted to KAG. Sometimes I really should just lock my keyboard away and go and have a stiff drink.

Hellsbrink, I agree with you when it comes to religion. It has caused more wars, distress, humiliation, bigotry than any other cause.

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 01:47
Marriage is all about a man and a woman. The rest is about a shag and the ******* law.

Caco

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 01:54
I've just had that stiff drink and found my keyboard.

@Cacophonix
I have been in a committed same-sex relationship for almost thirty years now. You are telling me that your relationship is of more importance/value then mine?

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 02:00
Martin

Don't get me wrong. I am not dissing you or your relationship, or, with respect your love and care for each other. It may be love but it is not marriage.

Caco

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 02:07
What is it then? Please, I'd like to know if I've wasted the better part of three decades.

You said, " The rest is about a shag and the ******* law". Not very Christian nor knowledgeable about being gay is it?

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 02:12
Martin

Being homosexual - It is not about kids and that kind of thing that's for sure.

With respect

Caco

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 02:17
....and you would prefer us not to be around right? You don't know many gay people do you? Be honest. You don't. Thank-you for your insult . I must tell my partner that it was a great "shag" for the last 30 years but thats all it was. Once again we have a hetrosexual person called Cacophonix who has told us what we are and how we think and what we do.

"With respect", well, I certainly see no evidence of that.

.....off to have a another stiff drink and padlock the keyboard

pigboat
7th Feb 2013, 02:20
" gay marriages degrade mine and that of every other heterosexual marriage."
Homosexual marriage no more degrades heterosexual marriage than does some movie star or public figure who has been married more times than they have fingers and toes.

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 02:24
Oh for goodness sake man, I last took last this debate seriously in the SA army when my commanding officer told me he loved me! I told him to stop being an idiot.

Marriage is about men and women.

Caco

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 02:29
Well, I'll just 'mince' my way back to the 'gutter' then.

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Feb 2013, 02:38
Yup! Homophobe, nigger, commy, bigot, Nazi, ginger, queer, toff, racist, Jew, Scot; all terms of abuse used over the years when reasoned argument failed. Certainly seeing a few on this thread. :hmm:

This thread is symptomatic of society today, anyone within the silent majority who voices any opinion that does not follow the PC mantra of the day is instantly labelled intolerant. In fact you would be forgiven for thinking that the keyboards of the usual suspects have a special warning light fitted to them telling where the non PC posts are appearing.

Just a thought but for shits and giggles next time there is a group gathering in the office try throwing in a one line hand grenade about sexuality or gender or race, in fact about any vocal minority grouping and watch everyone freeze in abject terror :ok:

An original thought is often very difficult to find in here.......

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 02:43
....no, but I see you all over this thread like the last one sprouting your 'silent majority' crap. Why don't you mobilize that silent majority SFP? Im sure we'd all like living in the 1950's again.

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 02:48
Martin

Get a hold man and be a man...

You are not a woman...


Hells Angels - 81 Nomads DVD - Australia. - YouTube

Caco

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 03:04
Great observation. Last time I checked I was male. Thankyou for the gender lesson.It proves to me that you are capable of posting a video in two (2) different threads. have a bex and a lie down

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 03:13
Well shucks Martin, you are gonna be an ersatz human. I guess you are still lovable man.

Joe Bonamassa - Sloe Gin @ North Sea Jazz 2007 - YouTube

Caco

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 03:19
Come on Martin. If Aussie males **** each other, they do it in Gold.. (the place with ******* concrete sheep)...

Mike (aka Caco)

martinmax69
7th Feb 2013, 03:25
Fantastic, you have just displayed (both of you) how intelligent and capable you are at maintaining an out-dated, archaic view of the world. Why don't you stick both of your heads back in the sand and dream of the 1950's. If you say that the 'silent majority' oppose gay marriage then you have obviously failed to convince your local member of parliament to put forward your views. What happened?

....bottle of Scotch has been bought, pop-corn machine is set to áutomatic and key-board has been pad-locked. Please continue. I think KAG still has the shovel I gave to him. Just wait a while and he will be here shortly. So far the 'silent majority' has just three (3) members. Perhaps you should just stay 'silent'.

Cacophonix
7th Feb 2013, 03:37
Mad Max - YouTube

Laughable though.

Caco

hellsbrink
7th Feb 2013, 03:57
This little pic sums things up

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429859_282333215161617_2093148810_n.jpg



And, Basil, as said, I see you cannot find a single thing to disagree with in the post concerned. Why not just admit you agree with me, that using "religion" as some sort of "moral high ground" is something that is a true contradiction when you see the immorality shown by ALL religions......

Slasher
7th Feb 2013, 03:59
Im sure we'd all like living in the 1950's again.


Bloody right. I was born too late.

stuckgear
7th Feb 2013, 07:26
This thread is symptomatic of society today, anyone within the silent majority who voices any opinion that does not follow the PC mantra of the day is instantly labelled intolerant.

SFFP,

that's rot and you know it.

it is the instilling of personal views and agendas on another group of people for no rational reason.
it has toss all to do with political correctness or majority/minority, you're just to divert and justify your own irrationality.

so, gay people want the ability to have their committed relationship recognised as many others are.

what difference does that actually make your own life?

none, nothing, zip, zilch, nada.

Low Flier
7th Feb 2013, 09:27
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02472/060213-MATT-web_2472112a.jpg

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Feb 2013, 09:36
....no, but I see you all over this thread like the last one sprouting your 'silent majority' crap. Why don't you mobilize that silent majority SFP? Im sure we'd all like living in the 1950's again.

Martin,

Thanks for that response which confirms exactly as I suggest, anyone who steps to the left or right of the PC highway is immediately labelled.

You have absolutely no clue as to my sexuality or preference or inclination yet have instantly pigeonholed me using your blinkered mind.

V-tail has an opinion that I do not share however unlike our resident Manc Sarcasm Machine I respect his entitlement to that opinion and respect his bravery in voicing it.

KAG has also voiced a theory on Gay Adoption and whilst I don't agree with his conclusions I agree that gay adoption is not the best option for a child. It's a better option than remaining in care but it's certainly never going to be the best option.

The biggest cop out on here is from those that simply say 'each to their own' or 'live and let live' as it adds nothing to the discussion.

My daughter does not like tomatoes, she will happily watch the rest of the family eat tomatoes but if you ask her why she doesn't she will tell you the very notion of eating a tomatoe makes her feel sick.

Martin,

Serious question for you, how many of those folk who adopt the live and let live approach do you reckon if asked to honestly voice an opinion would not say that the idea of their own participation in 'man love' in any shape or form is guaranteed to bring forth anything from a grimace to vomit?

Live and let live is a fantastic notion but why can't someone feel free to add 'but thought of noshing off another man makes me sick to the core' without the inevitable homophobic label from the PC Stasi.

Try asking the Stasi to voice an honest opinion and the amount of obfuscation that takes place is astounding.

If the idea that chowing down on a mate is not stomach churning then everyone assumes you have a gay tendency.

If the idea of chowing down on a mate is stomach churning then you get the homophobe label.

Why have we got to a stage as a society where by an honestly voiced opinion is so unacceptable?

Martin,

As I said at the start of this post you have no idea of how I 'swing' so speak and the above is in o way an attack on your sexuality, it's a simple comment on the crazy notion that society is no longer allowed to say urghhh without out being vilified.

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Feb 2013, 09:42
SFFP,

that's rot and you know it.

it is the instilling of personal views and agendas on another group of people for no rational reason.
it has toss all to do with political correctness or majority/minority, you're just to divert and justify your own irrationality.

so, gay people want the ability to have their committed relationship recognised as many others are.

what difference does that actually make your own life?

none, nothing, zip, zilch, nada.

Whoosh.........

Why can't someone voice an opinion without being taken to task for it?

Question,

If someone says

'What gay couples get up to in the privacy of their own homes has nothing to do with me but the idea of two blokes playing hide the salami makes feel really nauseous'

Are they being tolerant or intolerant.....