shetlandpeat Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 A relationship with a partner is one of love and companionship.A relationship with religion seems to be one of fear. Why should marriage not be open to all, as said, you do not need religion to get married now. I do have difficulty in folk demanding a religious marriage for same sex (at birth) couples when that religion thinks less of you. The biggest scandal is the lack of respect.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo6 Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 To me, Marriage is a religious act/ceremony and therefore shouldn't be allowed for a non-religious couple. Civil partnerships are, to me, the appriopriate event for gay couples to demonstrate their public commitment to each other. Emotive subjects such as this are always going to be hard to discuss but please, everyone, try to stay civil. Heterosexuals can already get married in a registry office, I did, I'm an atheist so where else would I get married? I take it from the above that you are advocating that should be banned then and I should never have been allowed to marry? So non-religious folk should only be allowed to have illegitimate children? Its hard to be civil in response to such a narrow minded point of view, but I will seen as you asked nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 PapaStour, can you please explain to me why you should have the right to force your bigoted, bronze-age morality on the rest of us? The solution is simple. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Just been sent this short video clip on Why traditional marriage is important I see Elton John (aged 63)and husbad David Furnish is trying to adopt another child.These chidren may never know the love of a Mother. A New Baby for Xmas!! http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1654959/elton-john-husband-welcome-new-son.jhtml So you'll be advocating for forced marriage for all single mothers and single fathers then? A complete ban on divorce where there are children involved? Come on now, let's hear all your plans for interfering in the lives of others and trampling all over their rights. We're all on tenterhooks here. however we know this wont end with the right to marry. the antis will become targets for the militant gay groups to start law cases. Absolutely. I have always seen gays as political pawns for larger interests that are more about the dissolution of the family and religion. I think nothing of the "gay lifestyle", Then don't live the "Gay lifestyle". ...but the bigger villains are those who throw political clout behind them, such as population control groups and militant anti-religion atheists. This gay marriage "win" won't be enjoyed for long as the political partners of the gay movement turn the tables in the coming all-out war against ALL marriage and familial bonds. In a larger irony to the pathetic pawns, be careful who you slip into bed with! And out comes the tinfoil hat brigade. Population control. Well that might actually be a good idea, don't you think? Considering there are now 7 billion people living on a planet that can comfortably support 3 billion. Militant anti-religion atheists. Militant, eh? Yeah it's all over the news every day. Atheist suicide bombers blowing up religious congregations, murdering anti-abortion campaigners, shooting schoolgirls in the head and throwing acid in their faces because they dare to attend church, burning priceless works of historical religious literature and blowing up thousand year old religious statues... No, wait? Hang on a minute... Perhaps it's time we did take a stricter line against the religious barbarians among us. Imagine a world where the Catholic church preached family planning from the pulpit and ran health centres in it's churches providing contraception on demand and abortion when required, instead of grooming alter boys for rape and using women as slave labour. Imagine a world where every mosque contained a school where girls were given even a basic education, and where rape victims weren't forced to marry their rapists on pain of being murdered by their own families to save their "honour". Imagine a world where the fundamentalist christian churches didn't use every means at their disposal to force creationism into school science classrooms and use their money and influence to sponsor laws which would subject gay and lesbian people to the death penalty. Where they didn't picket clinics providing contraception, women's reproductive healthcare and abortion services. Where they didn't sponsor laws which would criminalise rape victims who get pregnant if they seek an abortion because that would be "destroying evidence". ...what's that? Oh, yes, I suppose I am a "militant atheist", since you ask. I mean, just look at that "militant" rant I posted above. What do you mean, "that's not what militant means", damn it, I worked hard for that title. I read all the atheist websites and I even post comments sometimes. How much more militant do you expect me to be... Oh,... that's what it means. No, I don't do that. I guess I better shut up then. BigMouth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 {'f' it was funny in Father Ted 'eck'} me, AT and I are in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 must mean one of you is wrong. just spotted the bit about elton john. good or him better to have two loving parents than none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 If two people want to go through a ceremony to commit to each other, then let them get on with it. It's nowt to to do with any sausage else. AND: [rant=]The sooner we get rid of medieval tomes based upon oppression and the accompanying blinkered mindsets, the better. [rant/] I have an intense dislike of religions that attempt to foist their bile and hatred upon others, yet I would never call for them to be banned. Christians? My ass they are. As someone once said: "Going to church or reading the bible doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage or reading a Haynes manual makes you a car". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I would imagine that even if this was a "free vote" as a Government whip Alastair would be expected to support the government regardless of his feelings on the issue and those of his constituents who contacted him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I would imagine that even if this was a "free vote" as a Government whip Alastair would be expected to support the government regardless of his feelings on the issue and those of his constituents who contacted him. Nope: BBC[/url]"]Voting lists show that 136 Conservatives - almost half of the party's MPs - opposed the bill. This figure included two cabinet ministers - Environment Secretary Owen Paterson and Welsh Secretary David Jones - eight junior ministers, and eight whips. Although Labour and the Tories promised a ‘free vote’, there have been reports of severe behind-the-scenes pressure put on MPs by the hierarchy of both parties. That is shameful, but well done to those brave MPs who resisted the arm-twisting. This is just the usual paranoid conspiracy thinking the bigots always respond with when they discover their neanderthal views are not in fact shared by the rest of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exciseman Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I would imagine that even if this was a "free vote" as a Government whip Alastair would be expected to support the government regardless of his feelings on the issue and those of his constituents who contacted him.I don't understand - Why should his constituents contact him? (unless they wish to get married in England) – an English Bill in Westminster it isn’t a Scottish issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speccy Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 To me, Marriage is a religious act/ceremony and therefore shouldn't be allowed for a non-religious couple. Civil partnerships are, to me, the appriopriate event for gay couples to demonstrate their public commitment to each other. . I might just point out, in case you really don't know, that gay people might well be religious. As to Papastour - God help the new neighbours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I don't understand - Why should his constituents contact him? (unless they wish to get married in England) – an English Bill in Westminster it isn’t a Scottish issue. It might be if you were English and lived (at the moment) on Papa Stour... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exciseman Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I don't understand - Why should his constituents contact him? (unless they wish to get married in England) – an English Bill in Westminster it isn’t a Scottish issue. It might be if you were English and lived (at the moment) on Papa Stour... Ah! - I didn’t realise Papa Stour was a county of England, I thought it was a protectorate of Forvick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righter Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I am so attracted to christianity when it shows so much love and tolerance..(insert sarcasm emoticon) So your MP did not vote how you instructed...cough..asked,him to. As far as I am aware the MP`s were left to vote according to their conscience,and even so we live in a democracy...so someone has to lose. You do realise,i could equally threaten Alistair Carmichael with the complete inverse of your letter (pun intended...and no threat intended!!)since my views are the exact opposite of yours...so what's an MP to do?...vote according his conscience i guess! The churches (again,as far as I know) will be protected against being forced to marry same sex couples,if they choose not to. So please don`t try to stir up "christian persecution" nonsense....or i will have to get my lions out again. I only consider myself a militant atheist,when christians persist in trying to interfere with secular life....apart from that,i don`t care what you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righter Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 also..link..who might be behind Coalition for marriage (they made the video linked by the op) .......http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gay-marriage-the-fight-is-on-but-who-is-calling-the-shots-7624915.html and a quote re "the slippery slope "argument regarding gay marriage leading to us all marrying animals next...sigh “New Rule: Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are “same sex†marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex.â€â€• Bill Maher, New Rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.