Richard Drax column: Same sex marriage so emotive

Bournemouth Echo: Richard Drax column: Same sex marriage so emotive Richard Drax column: Same sex marriage so emotive

A nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance.

But during a controversial and emotive debate in the House over gay marriage this week, there was scant evidence of it being shown to the millions who believe that ‘marriage’ can only be between a man and a woman.

Instead, in what is arguably one of the most intolerant pieces of legislation in years, we have trampled on conscience and faith with abandon. There are no protections for teachers who refuse to promote same sex marriage or for registrars who conscientiously object to conducting gay marriages, or even for those, who, like me, happen to disagree.

And if this does become law, gay couples will be able to choose marriage or civil union, while heterosexual couples can only marry. The Government has no answer to these disparities.

There is no doubt that homosexuality was treated with prejudice in the past.

But times have changed and for the better – and many of us genuinely believed that the introduction of civil partnerships had helped to redress the balance. But now, under the guise of equality for all, more is being demanded, placing at risk religious liberty and freedom of expression.

There’s been no clamour for this legislation, so when this suddenly became Government policy, there was, understandably, surprise and anger. It was not in any party manifesto. It’s been opposed by representatives of all religious faiths.

During consultation, the votes against outnumbered the votes for by 10 to one. Yet, it’s been bulldozed through, as it has elsewhere. In France, despite violent protests, gay marriage is now law.

During the debate, Conservative colleagues talked of the ‘chilling effect’ legislation like this creates. That cold wind, silencing dissent, already blows across our country and it worries me.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:42pm Fri 24 May 13

biggestoaf says...

I'm not sure what "consultation" Mr Drax is referring to. He surely can't be suggesting that 90% of the public are opposed to gay marriage? In my very unscientific consultation, amongst people I live and work with, I could find almost no-one who was bothered by the idea of two people of the same sex who love each other being able to get married. I hope back bench Conservative MPs like Mr Drax and grass roots Conservative Party members continue to kick up a fuss as it serves only to prove how out of touch they are with the rest of us.
I'm not sure what "consultation" Mr Drax is referring to. He surely can't be suggesting that 90% of the public are opposed to gay marriage? In my very unscientific consultation, amongst people I live and work with, I could find almost no-one who was bothered by the idea of two people of the same sex who love each other being able to get married. I hope back bench Conservative MPs like Mr Drax and grass roots Conservative Party members continue to kick up a fuss as it serves only to prove how out of touch they are with the rest of us. biggestoaf

4:43pm Fri 24 May 13

s.whinstone says...

Nobody cares what the Tory spineless have to say, any more than the Labour traitors and Lib-dem slime.
Nobody cares what the Tory spineless have to say, any more than the Labour traitors and Lib-dem slime. s.whinstone

5:10pm Fri 24 May 13

Miniar says...

To give equal legal rights and protections to a minority even if there are people whose personal "beliefs" on the matter disagree with giving equal rights and protections to the minority in question is not "intolerant".

What is "intolerant" is to argue that denying the same legal rights and protections to a minority as is afforded to the majority is justifiable.

Take the case of same sex marriage for example.
If you replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" or the words "same sex" for the words "mixed race" (and heterosexual for "same race" ofc) and what you are saying comes off as a little bit racist, you can safely assume that you're being homophobic.

Seperate but equal can never be truly equal.
To argue for the seperation of rights between the hetereosexual population and the homosexual population is on par with arguing for the seperation of rights for any other biological reason.

It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for racism.
It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for sexism.
Therefore, it's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for homophobia.

If a person feels like the need to be allowed to carry on discriminating people, then they're bigoted.
If a person feels that they should be given legal rights to discriminate other people then they are not asking for "tolerance".
Calling a law that doesn't include permission to discriminate "intolerant" is at best just ignorant, but realistically, such a statement is rotten and bigoted to the core.
To give equal legal rights and protections to a minority even if there are people whose personal "beliefs" on the matter disagree with giving equal rights and protections to the minority in question is not "intolerant". What is "intolerant" is to argue that denying the same legal rights and protections to a minority as is afforded to the majority is justifiable. Take the case of same sex marriage for example. If you replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" or the words "same sex" for the words "mixed race" (and heterosexual for "same race" ofc) and what you are saying comes off as a little bit racist, you can safely assume that you're being homophobic. Seperate but equal can never be truly equal. To argue for the seperation of rights between the hetereosexual population and the homosexual population is on par with arguing for the seperation of rights for any other biological reason. It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for racism. It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for sexism. Therefore, it's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for homophobia. If a person feels like the need to be allowed to carry on discriminating people, then they're bigoted. If a person feels that they should be given legal rights to discriminate other people then they are not asking for "tolerance". Calling a law that doesn't include permission to discriminate "intolerant" is at best just ignorant, but realistically, such a statement is rotten and bigoted to the core. Miniar

6:14pm Fri 24 May 13

s.whinstone says...

Miniar wrote:
To give equal legal rights and protections to a minority even if there are people whose personal "beliefs" on the matter disagree with giving equal rights and protections to the minority in question is not "intolerant".

What is "intolerant" is to argue that denying the same legal rights and protections to a minority as is afforded to the majority is justifiable.

Take the case of same sex marriage for example.
If you replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" or the words "same sex" for the words "mixed race" (and heterosexual for "same race" ofc) and what you are saying comes off as a little bit racist, you can safely assume that you're being homophobic.

Seperate but equal can never be truly equal.
To argue for the seperation of rights between the hetereosexual population and the homosexual population is on par with arguing for the seperation of rights for any other biological reason.

It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for racism.
It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for sexism.
Therefore, it's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for homophobia.

If a person feels like the need to be allowed to carry on discriminating people, then they're bigoted.
If a person feels that they should be given legal rights to discriminate other people then they are not asking for "tolerance".
Calling a law that doesn't include permission to discriminate "intolerant" is at best just ignorant, but realistically, such a statement is rotten and bigoted to the core.
Of course everybody is ignorant except for the whining minority that wishes to encroach on someone else's traditions.
[quote][p][bold]Miniar[/bold] wrote: To give equal legal rights and protections to a minority even if there are people whose personal "beliefs" on the matter disagree with giving equal rights and protections to the minority in question is not "intolerant". What is "intolerant" is to argue that denying the same legal rights and protections to a minority as is afforded to the majority is justifiable. Take the case of same sex marriage for example. If you replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" or the words "same sex" for the words "mixed race" (and heterosexual for "same race" ofc) and what you are saying comes off as a little bit racist, you can safely assume that you're being homophobic. Seperate but equal can never be truly equal. To argue for the seperation of rights between the hetereosexual population and the homosexual population is on par with arguing for the seperation of rights for any other biological reason. It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for racism. It's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for sexism. Therefore, it's not "intolerant" not to include provisions for homophobia. If a person feels like the need to be allowed to carry on discriminating people, then they're bigoted. If a person feels that they should be given legal rights to discriminate other people then they are not asking for "tolerance". Calling a law that doesn't include permission to discriminate "intolerant" is at best just ignorant, but realistically, such a statement is rotten and bigoted to the core.[/p][/quote]Of course everybody is ignorant except for the whining minority that wishes to encroach on someone else's traditions. s.whinstone

6:24pm Fri 24 May 13

Andypet says...

Why is it intolerant to want to get married? It does not prevent Mr Drax and his sympathisers from continuing to believe in their traditional view. So those who support same sex marriage and not encroaching on anyone's beliefs. However those who wish to ban it are.
He's absolutely right about the anomaly of civil partnerships being only for gay couples after same sex marriage is legalised. They should be abolished. To open them up to straight people really would undermine marriage.
Why is it intolerant to want to get married? It does not prevent Mr Drax and his sympathisers from continuing to believe in their traditional view. So those who support same sex marriage and not encroaching on anyone's beliefs. However those who wish to ban it are. He's absolutely right about the anomaly of civil partnerships being only for gay couples after same sex marriage is legalised. They should be abolished. To open them up to straight people really would undermine marriage. Andypet

6:34pm Fri 24 May 13

zoebs36 says...

So Dick, you're not opening up your vast estate as a venue? Easy money for the out of touch? Dorset has a huge gay population you show nothing but ignorance.
So Dick, you're not opening up your vast estate as a venue? Easy money for the out of touch? Dorset has a huge gay population you show nothing but ignorance. zoebs36

6:39pm Fri 24 May 13

Duckorange says...

Poor, wrong Richard Drax.
Poor, wrong Richard Drax. Duckorange

8:29pm Fri 24 May 13

mackem says...

"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his!
"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his! mackem

8:42pm Fri 24 May 13

s.whinstone says...

mackem wrote:
"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his!
I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive.

Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems.

The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.
[quote][p][bold]mackem[/bold] wrote: "As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his![/p][/quote]I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive. Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems. The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time. s.whinstone

11:18pm Fri 24 May 13

Dave Aitch says...

Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this.
Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this. Dave Aitch

1:27am Sat 25 May 13

ohsweetjesusholymarymothertheycan'tbeseriouscanthey? says...

s.whinstone wrote:
mackem wrote:
"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his!
I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive.

Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems.

The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.
That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth.
As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless.
[quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mackem[/bold] wrote: "As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his![/p][/quote]I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive. Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems. The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.[/p][/quote]That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth. As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless. ohsweetjesusholymarymothertheycan'tbeseriouscanthey?

7:50am Sat 25 May 13

s.whinstone says...

ohsweetjesusholymary
mothertheycan'tbeser
iouscanthey?
wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
mackem wrote:
"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his!
I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive.

Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems.

The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.
That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth.
As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless.
Well thanks for making my point for me. Anyone who does not agree with the usual gobby minorities gets the shaming language and name calling. The fascism of the left.

As for "nobody cares", I suggest the hatred that Cameron is given by his core voters and own party members and the fact the Conservative party has doomed itself by selling out its principals says otherwise, the cowardice and treachery of Cameron's betrayal of conservatism is only overshadowed by the spineless little man's confusion as to what group of lobbyists he scrapes too first, the front orifice or the rear.
[quote][p][bold]ohsweetjesusholymary mothertheycan'tbeser iouscanthey?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mackem[/bold] wrote: "As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his![/p][/quote]I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive. Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems. The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.[/p][/quote]That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth. As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless.[/p][/quote]Well thanks for making my point for me. Anyone who does not agree with the usual gobby minorities gets the shaming language and name calling. The fascism of the left. As for "nobody cares", I suggest the hatred that Cameron is given by his core voters and own party members and the fact the Conservative party has doomed itself by selling out its principals says otherwise, the cowardice and treachery of Cameron's betrayal of conservatism is only overshadowed by the spineless little man's confusion as to what group of lobbyists he scrapes too first, the front orifice or the rear. s.whinstone

8:44am Sat 25 May 13

Yllas64 says...

I received this reply from Mr Drax when I emailed him requesting more information on how his views were formed.
Thank you for your email.
At no stage whatsoever have I said or thought that you were a "lesser person".
This is a persecution complex that many gay people have and understandably so when in the past a lot of intolerance was shown.
The situation is very different today, and rightly so.
This whole debate is nothing to do with who's better than who.
This is about the State stamping on conscience and faith and a thousand years of history.
Civil partnerships were introduced nine years ago to meet the hopes and expectations of the gay community and there the state had a role to play.
Equality - and I use that word reservedly - was achieved and with it I would have hoped responsibility, that of the gay community respecting the institution of marriage for what it is.
It sounds trite, but I have gay friends, like most people, but redefining marriage is a step too far.
You are clearly a lovely, hard working, tax-paying mum and you have my deepest respect, but again this is not the issue.
We all have different views on things and I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.
My warm regards and thank you for contacting me.
Richard
Words failed me
I received this reply from Mr Drax when I emailed him requesting more information on how his views were formed. Thank you for your email. At no stage whatsoever have I said or thought that you were a "lesser person". This is a persecution complex that many gay people have and understandably so when in the past a lot of intolerance was shown. The situation is very different today, and rightly so. This whole debate is nothing to do with who's better than who. This is about the State stamping on conscience and faith and a thousand years of history. Civil partnerships were introduced nine years ago to meet the hopes and expectations of the gay community and there the state had a role to play. Equality - and I use that word reservedly - was achieved and with it I would have hoped responsibility, that of the gay community respecting the institution of marriage for what it is. It sounds trite, but I have gay friends, like most people, but redefining marriage is a step too far. You are clearly a lovely, hard working, tax-paying mum and you have my deepest respect, but again this is not the issue. We all have different views on things and I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. My warm regards and thank you for contacting me. Richard Words failed me Yllas64

8:45am Sat 25 May 13

Yllas64 says...

Rather a lazy column ....notnsurevhe finished it before it was sent.

A better ending welcomed...suggestio
ns please
Rather a lazy column ....notnsurevhe finished it before it was sent. A better ending welcomed...suggestio ns please Yllas64

10:09am Sat 25 May 13

s.whinstone says...

Yllas64 wrote:
I received this reply from Mr Drax when I emailed him requesting more information on how his views were formed.
Thank you for your email.
At no stage whatsoever have I said or thought that you were a "lesser person".
This is a persecution complex that many gay people have and understandably so when in the past a lot of intolerance was shown.
The situation is very different today, and rightly so.
This whole debate is nothing to do with who's better than who.
This is about the State stamping on conscience and faith and a thousand years of history.
Civil partnerships were introduced nine years ago to meet the hopes and expectations of the gay community and there the state had a role to play.
Equality - and I use that word reservedly - was achieved and with it I would have hoped responsibility, that of the gay community respecting the institution of marriage for what it is.
It sounds trite, but I have gay friends, like most people, but redefining marriage is a step too far.
You are clearly a lovely, hard working, tax-paying mum and you have my deepest respect, but again this is not the issue.
We all have different views on things and I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.
My warm regards and thank you for contacting me.
Richard
Words failed me
He is spot on in that regard. This is all nothing more than the Gay community and the anti-christian left deliberately interfering with heterosexual institutions and traditions as the left and it';s other bedfellows have been doing in most areas.
[quote][p][bold]Yllas64[/bold] wrote: I received this reply from Mr Drax when I emailed him requesting more information on how his views were formed. Thank you for your email. At no stage whatsoever have I said or thought that you were a "lesser person". This is a persecution complex that many gay people have and understandably so when in the past a lot of intolerance was shown. The situation is very different today, and rightly so. This whole debate is nothing to do with who's better than who. This is about the State stamping on conscience and faith and a thousand years of history. Civil partnerships were introduced nine years ago to meet the hopes and expectations of the gay community and there the state had a role to play. Equality - and I use that word reservedly - was achieved and with it I would have hoped responsibility, that of the gay community respecting the institution of marriage for what it is. It sounds trite, but I have gay friends, like most people, but redefining marriage is a step too far. You are clearly a lovely, hard working, tax-paying mum and you have my deepest respect, but again this is not the issue. We all have different views on things and I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. My warm regards and thank you for contacting me. Richard Words failed me[/p][/quote]He is spot on in that regard. This is all nothing more than the Gay community and the anti-christian left deliberately interfering with heterosexual institutions and traditions as the left and it';s other bedfellows have been doing in most areas. s.whinstone

10:13am Sat 25 May 13

s.whinstone says...

I wonder why the Gay lot have been so quiet with the Muslims at shoving this interference down their throats?
I wonder why the Gay lot have been so quiet with the Muslims at shoving this interference down their throats? s.whinstone

10:29am Sat 25 May 13

Parkstreetshufle says...

Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life. Parkstreetshufle

11:16am Sat 25 May 13

s.whinstone says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ! s.whinstone

11:36am Sat 25 May 13

opera lover says...

Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have. opera lover

1:38pm Sat 25 May 13

The Resonant Bird says...

Risking religious liberty?? If people wish to practice religion then they're entirely free to do so, even after this has been "bulldozed through".

Religion should have absolutely no place when it comes to politics however, to allow a collection of 2000 year old fairy tales to influence political decisions is utter madness.

If Mr Drax is not homosexual, then what on earth has this got to do with him?! The only people who are going to be affected by this law are homosexuals who I imagine will be quite pleased...so I really struggle to see why anyone would have any objections!
Risking religious liberty?? If people wish to practice religion then they're entirely free to do so, even after this has been "bulldozed through". Religion should have absolutely no place when it comes to politics however, to allow a collection of 2000 year old fairy tales to influence political decisions is utter madness. If Mr Drax is not homosexual, then what on earth has this got to do with him?! The only people who are going to be affected by this law are homosexuals who I imagine will be quite pleased...so I really struggle to see why anyone would have any objections! The Resonant Bird

2:58pm Sat 25 May 13

Parkstreetshufle says...

s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
Are you Mel Gibson? If that is you Mel, I've got a great script about a man that walks on water. Give me a call and we'll do lunch.
[quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]Are you Mel Gibson? If that is you Mel, I've got a great script about a man that walks on water. Give me a call and we'll do lunch. Parkstreetshufle

3:03pm Sat 25 May 13

Parkstreetshufle says...

The Resonant Bird wrote:
Risking religious liberty?? If people wish to practice religion then they're entirely free to do so, even after this has been "bulldozed through".

Religion should have absolutely no place when it comes to politics however, to allow a collection of 2000 year old fairy tales to influence political decisions is utter madness.

If Mr Drax is not homosexual, then what on earth has this got to do with him?! The only people who are going to be affected by this law are homosexuals who I imagine will be quite pleased...so I really struggle to see why anyone would have any objections!
I don't know, that jacket and haircut say someone's in the closet to me...hiding in plain sight.
[quote][p][bold]The Resonant Bird[/bold] wrote: Risking religious liberty?? If people wish to practice religion then they're entirely free to do so, even after this has been "bulldozed through". Religion should have absolutely no place when it comes to politics however, to allow a collection of 2000 year old fairy tales to influence political decisions is utter madness. If Mr Drax is not homosexual, then what on earth has this got to do with him?! The only people who are going to be affected by this law are homosexuals who I imagine will be quite pleased...so I really struggle to see why anyone would have any objections![/p][/quote]I don't know, that jacket and haircut say someone's in the closet to me...hiding in plain sight. Parkstreetshufle

3:53pm Sat 25 May 13

s.whinstone says...

opera lover wrote:
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
There's that word again, they just can't help it....
[quote][p][bold]opera lover[/bold] wrote: Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.[/p][/quote]There's that word again, they just can't help it.... s.whinstone

5:50pm Sat 25 May 13

monkeydog says...

s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.
[quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island. monkeydog

8:47am Sun 26 May 13

JamesYoung says...

opera lover wrote:
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
Last time you checked?
You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes.
There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer.
So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite.
As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong.
One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.
[quote][p][bold]opera lover[/bold] wrote: Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.[/p][/quote]Last time you checked? You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes. There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer. So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite. As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong. One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong. JamesYoung

9:58am Sun 26 May 13

woodsedge says...

JamesYoung wrote:
opera lover wrote:
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
Last time you checked?
You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes.
There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer.
So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite.
As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong.
One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.
Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]opera lover[/bold] wrote: Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.[/p][/quote]Last time you checked? You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes. There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer. So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite. As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong. One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.[/p][/quote]Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset. woodsedge

10:11am Sun 26 May 13

Dan Brember says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
opera lover wrote:
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
Last time you checked?
You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes.
There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer.
So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite.
As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong.
One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.
Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset.
@Woodsedge

It's also nice to see that a majority of people responding to this article overwhelmingly reject the narrow perspective of those dinosaurs.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]opera lover[/bold] wrote: Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.[/p][/quote]Last time you checked? You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes. There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer. So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite. As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong. One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.[/p][/quote]Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset.[/p][/quote]@Woodsedge It's also nice to see that a majority of people responding to this article overwhelmingly reject the narrow perspective of those dinosaurs. Dan Brember

11:22am Sun 26 May 13

melcombe boy says...

The hypocrisy of the Christian church is there for us all to see.
If a heterosexual couple who physically can't have children are allowed to marry for love alone then the same rights should be offered to gay people.
It is that simple.
The hypocrisy of the Christian church is there for us all to see. If a heterosexual couple who physically can't have children are allowed to marry for love alone then the same rights should be offered to gay people. It is that simple. melcombe boy

8:23pm Sun 26 May 13

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
opera lover wrote:
Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church.
Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people.

If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.
Last time you checked?
You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes.
There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer.
So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite.
As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong.
One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.
Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset.
Woods edge, you misunderstand me. I was addressing two separate points. Firstly, the bible does not say what people (including Christians) think it says about divorce.
I don't the state or church should have any say in the relationship between consenting adults; but neither do I think that churches should be forced to perform the ceremonies.
There is also an argument incidentally, that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, since the only book in which it is explicitly condemned is Leviticus, and Leviticus is a purity code for the Levites (temple servants).
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]opera lover[/bold] wrote: Just an aside, but it might be worth Mr Drax confirming whether both his marriages were conducted in a church. Last time I checked the Bible isn't too crazy about divorce either and certainly even 20-30 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican Vicar willing to marry divorced people. If this is the case I wonder where his objection to same sex couples overturning thousands of years of history lies? His belief in the sanctity of Christian Marriage? Or just plain old ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Actions speak louder than words Richard. I don't judge you, many people marry young and realise the marriage doesn't have legs and go on to have long happy successful 2nd marriages as I believe is true in your case. But how dare you judge me and my life, you might not like it but I am a tax payer, a customer. I work hard, I give back to my community through my taxes and my time and yes it does matter to me that one day I will be able to say I have married my boyfriend. It is important to me as a (small c) conservative to have that foundation and recognition of my relationship, not some dressed up legal contract signing as we currently have.[/p][/quote]Last time you checked? You obviously didn't check very hard since the Bible actually says you can divorce your wife if she finds no favour in your eyes. There are two words for divorce in the Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament). One effectively means "sending away" and the other "bill of divorce". If the words were translated correctly, the Bible would say that you should not send her away without a certificate of divorce, since by doing so you make her an adulterer. So Drax's marital status does not make him a hypocrite. As for gay marriage, i have no issue with it, except that the next thing will be a demand that churches perform this ceremony, and i think that is wrong. One other thing that concerns me - to take divorce as an example, any decisions regarding custody of the child are taken entirely with the child's wellbeing in mind, When it comes to gay adoption, i suspect that the rights of the child will be subjugated to the "needs" of the gay couple concerned. This is manifestly wrong.[/p][/quote]Here we go again, the Christian fraternity interpreting the so called book of books the way best to suit there argument. You only have to look at what has happened this week to see how twisted religious believers can justify extreme views and actions in the name of their god. And religion to one side hetrosexuals cannot stand on a platform of righteousness for the heterosexual community claiming they have made a great success of marriage. Just take a look at are broken society and the churches still sitting on millions of pounds worth of property and resources, yet who pays for replacing the new roof! Equality means equal rights for all and lets hope the gay community can make a better go of marriage than heterosexuals have. Nice to know that Drax and fellow dinosaurs are a live and well in Dorset.[/p][/quote]Woods edge, you misunderstand me. I was addressing two separate points. Firstly, the bible does not say what people (including Christians) think it says about divorce. I don't the state or church should have any say in the relationship between consenting adults; but neither do I think that churches should be forced to perform the ceremonies. There is also an argument incidentally, that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, since the only book in which it is explicitly condemned is Leviticus, and Leviticus is a purity code for the Levites (temple servants). JamesYoung

8:29pm Sun 26 May 13

JamesYoung says...

melcombe boy wrote:
The hypocrisy of the Christian church is there for us all to see.
If a heterosexual couple who physically can't have children are allowed to marry for love alone then the same rights should be offered to gay people.
It is that simple.
Completely agree. However, I do not think it is right that they adopt (at least not without sufficient academic research into impacts).
[quote][p][bold]melcombe boy[/bold] wrote: The hypocrisy of the Christian church is there for us all to see. If a heterosexual couple who physically can't have children are allowed to marry for love alone then the same rights should be offered to gay people. It is that simple.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. However, I do not think it is right that they adopt (at least not without sufficient academic research into impacts). JamesYoung

8:43pm Mon 27 May 13

patience567 says...

You can still choose who or if you want to marry so I don't see what the fuss is.
You can still choose who or if you want to marry so I don't see what the fuss is. patience567

3:53pm Tue 28 May 13

Hedgehogspring says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this.
Totally agree ! This country is in a mess and is in dire need of proper leadership to get us out of the mess, and yet the "leaders" we do have seem to think the most important, most pressing and most urgent thing to deal with is whether homosexuals can marry !! I have no opinion on this subject, and to be honest I really couldn't care less. There are far more urgent things which need fixing in this country, and the amount of time spent on this particular issue to appease the vocal gay minority is ridiculous. We are bing over run by extremists, the economy is a mess, people are struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, poverty and homlessness are major problems.....but in Cameron's world, so long as homosexuals can marry, everything is hunky-dory.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this.[/p][/quote]Totally agree ! This country is in a mess and is in dire need of proper leadership to get us out of the mess, and yet the "leaders" we do have seem to think the most important, most pressing and most urgent thing to deal with is whether homosexuals can marry !! I have no opinion on this subject, and to be honest I really couldn't care less. There are far more urgent things which need fixing in this country, and the amount of time spent on this particular issue to appease the vocal gay minority is ridiculous. We are bing over run by extremists, the economy is a mess, people are struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, poverty and homlessness are major problems.....but in Cameron's world, so long as homosexuals can marry, everything is hunky-dory. Hedgehogspring

4:18pm Tue 28 May 13

JamesYoung says...

Hedgehogspring wrote:
Dave Aitch wrote:
Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this.
Totally agree ! This country is in a mess and is in dire need of proper leadership to get us out of the mess, and yet the "leaders" we do have seem to think the most important, most pressing and most urgent thing to deal with is whether homosexuals can marry !! I have no opinion on this subject, and to be honest I really couldn't care less. There are far more urgent things which need fixing in this country, and the amount of time spent on this particular issue to appease the vocal gay minority is ridiculous. We are bing over run by extremists, the economy is a mess, people are struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, poverty and homlessness are major problems.....but in Cameron's world, so long as homosexuals can marry, everything is hunky-dory.
Which is actually quite funny, because over in Bournemouth, the openly gay MP has himself stated that he sees this as a distraction and has stated his opposition to the move. I'm not even sure that the gay community see it as the number one priority. But then all governments like headline grabbing measures. While i am completely anti fox hunting, the bill to ban hunting was clearly not the number one issue of that day either.
[quote][p][bold]Hedgehogspring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: Mr Drax and Co should be more concerned about other more important subjects than this.[/p][/quote]Totally agree ! This country is in a mess and is in dire need of proper leadership to get us out of the mess, and yet the "leaders" we do have seem to think the most important, most pressing and most urgent thing to deal with is whether homosexuals can marry !! I have no opinion on this subject, and to be honest I really couldn't care less. There are far more urgent things which need fixing in this country, and the amount of time spent on this particular issue to appease the vocal gay minority is ridiculous. We are bing over run by extremists, the economy is a mess, people are struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, poverty and homlessness are major problems.....but in Cameron's world, so long as homosexuals can marry, everything is hunky-dory.[/p][/quote]Which is actually quite funny, because over in Bournemouth, the openly gay MP has himself stated that he sees this as a distraction and has stated his opposition to the move. I'm not even sure that the gay community see it as the number one priority. But then all governments like headline grabbing measures. While i am completely anti fox hunting, the bill to ban hunting was clearly not the number one issue of that day either. JamesYoung

11:49pm Tue 28 May 13

ohsweetjesusholymarymothertheycan'tbeseriouscanthey? says...

s.whinstone wrote:
ohsweetjesusholymary

mothertheycan'tbeser

iouscanthey?
wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
mackem wrote:
"As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his!
I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive.

Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems.

The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.
That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth.
As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless.
Well thanks for making my point for me. Anyone who does not agree with the usual gobby minorities gets the shaming language and name calling. The fascism of the left.

As for "nobody cares", I suggest the hatred that Cameron is given by his core voters and own party members and the fact the Conservative party has doomed itself by selling out its principals says otherwise, the cowardice and treachery of Cameron's betrayal of conservatism is only overshadowed by the spineless little man's confusion as to what group of lobbyists he scrapes too first, the front orifice or the rear.
I may just point out that traditions start somewhere. Also, that there comes a point where such unchanged behaviour becomes said tradition. Why is it, that just because things have gone on for a period of time, it is not only right to preserve the practice in perpetuity, but it is a civil disobedience to challenge them? A long time doesn't make it right, or else the Catholic church wouldn't be in crisis (and hopefully transition). Another thing, if the Conservative ideals are to maintain the status quo regardless of the wishes of a substantial part of the population, what use are they? They are not here to control what we think, but to reflect it. If you do not agree with gay marriage, fine. My issue with people in general, is that they do not think about the whole picture, and as to whether a slight change in circumstance might alter their view, whatever the situation. The world is bigger than your snippet of it.
[quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohsweetjesusholymary mothertheycan'tbeser iouscanthey?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mackem[/bold] wrote: "As a nation, we pride ourselves on tolerance". So we must tolerate people who want to commit to each other, even if we do not like the particular choice of who those people wish to commit to. This column shows Richard Drax to be very intolerant of those with diferent views to his![/p][/quote]I disagree, marriage, especially church based is a religious based tradition and institute and comprised of religions to which homosexuality is offensive. Like I said, it is nothing more than yet another minority bullying its way into other peoples/majority's systems. The biggest Bigots are those who love to use the word all the time.[/p][/quote]That cold wind? Should be warmed nicely by the tripe spilling from his mouth. As for the thinnest of thin arguments that teachers and registrars aren't being looked after, those with bent prejudice, this is a time of transition. Their is time to offer narrow minded officials a way out to an extent. Offering many people the vote caused controversy at one point or other, but had they not bothered in case they upset a few at the time, we would be in a very bad way. Truth be told, the average straight person is fine with gay/lesbian couples marrying because nobody really cares, in as much as that treating them differently in that respect is as discriminatory as initial homophobia. Pointless.[/p][/quote]Well thanks for making my point for me. Anyone who does not agree with the usual gobby minorities gets the shaming language and name calling. The fascism of the left. As for "nobody cares", I suggest the hatred that Cameron is given by his core voters and own party members and the fact the Conservative party has doomed itself by selling out its principals says otherwise, the cowardice and treachery of Cameron's betrayal of conservatism is only overshadowed by the spineless little man's confusion as to what group of lobbyists he scrapes too first, the front orifice or the rear.[/p][/quote]I may just point out that traditions start somewhere. Also, that there comes a point where such unchanged behaviour becomes said tradition. Why is it, that just because things have gone on for a period of time, it is not only right to preserve the practice in perpetuity, but it is a civil disobedience to challenge them? A long time doesn't make it right, or else the Catholic church wouldn't be in crisis (and hopefully transition). Another thing, if the Conservative ideals are to maintain the status quo regardless of the wishes of a substantial part of the population, what use are they? They are not here to control what we think, but to reflect it. If you do not agree with gay marriage, fine. My issue with people in general, is that they do not think about the whole picture, and as to whether a slight change in circumstance might alter their view, whatever the situation. The world is bigger than your snippet of it. ohsweetjesusholymarymothertheycan'tbeseriouscanthey?

8:04am Wed 29 May 13

Hedgehogspring says...

monkeydog wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.
I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society.
This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.
[quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.[/p][/quote]I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society. This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy. Hedgehogspring

1:08pm Thu 30 May 13

Monmouthsman says...

What a great distraction from the severity of the economic and serious social problems facing this country and the EU.
Get on with takling the serious issues facing the country, Mr Drax. Equal rights for all deserving citizens should be a given without valid argument regardless of race, sex, age, inherited wealth or even religion in the 21st century.
What a great distraction from the severity of the economic and serious social problems facing this country and the EU. Get on with takling the serious issues facing the country, Mr Drax. Equal rights for all deserving citizens should be a given without valid argument regardless of race, sex, age, inherited wealth or even religion in the 21st century. Monmouthsman

1:23pm Fri 31 May 13

Parkstreetshufle says...

Hedgehogspring wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.
I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society.
This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.
Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married?
I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right...
[quote][p][bold]Hedgehogspring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.[/p][/quote]I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society. This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.[/p][/quote]Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married? I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right... Parkstreetshufle

1:54pm Fri 31 May 13

JamesYoung says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Hedgehogspring wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.
I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society.
This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.
Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married?
I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right...
One could make a convincing argument that it is promiscuity, rather than choice of partner, that the Bible argues against.
My only issues with gay marriage are (1) acceptance of one person's belief should not be to the detriment of another - ie, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies and (2) the question of gay adoption - which is a logical extension - should be addressed from the point of view of the welfare of the child. I don't know whether gay adoption is good or bad, but it shouldn't be accepted for political reasons without independent evaluation.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hedgehogspring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.[/p][/quote]I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society. This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.[/p][/quote]Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married? I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right...[/p][/quote]One could make a convincing argument that it is promiscuity, rather than choice of partner, that the Bible argues against. My only issues with gay marriage are (1) acceptance of one person's belief should not be to the detriment of another - ie, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies and (2) the question of gay adoption - which is a logical extension - should be addressed from the point of view of the welfare of the child. I don't know whether gay adoption is good or bad, but it shouldn't be accepted for political reasons without independent evaluation. JamesYoung

2:46pm Fri 31 May 13

Hedgehogspring says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Hedgehogspring wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
s.whinstone wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash.
There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything.
Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence.
If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex.
The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.
Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives.

Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc?

Exactly !
I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.
I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society.
This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.
Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married?
I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right...
Worried ? Of course I am not worried....
Ok, the definition of homophobic is "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals". I neither hate or am afraid of homosexuals, so no I am not homophobic. I just happen to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. A traditional view, which has been held for hundreds and hundreds of years. But now, we are being forced, to believe the view held by vocal homosexuals and pressure groups that this traditional opinion is wrong, and if we dare to disagree then we are labelled bigots, homophobes and dinosaurs.
Whether I am right, or they are right, does not matter. But if we are led to believe that we live in a free society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, then surely I am free to say I disagree with gay marriage without having to justify my opinion to people like you, right ?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hedgehogspring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s.whinstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Dressing up a bigotry by saying its an affront to someone's rights it utter eyewash. There is absolutely no sound reason for hating homosexuality unless you are doing so under a religious banner in which case you can justify just about anything. Like we don't have enough woe and despair in the world, wars and genocide. We have to concern ourselves with something that is of absolutely no consequence. If I were gay I would have to question the validity of a society the allowed me to simultaneously be an upstanding member of the community, pay taxes, help support others, and at the same time vilify me because I had a preference for sex with someone of the same sex. The sooner we become a secular society that bases it's morales on reasoned thinking over a religious view, the sooner we might move on to deal with the real issues that mankind has - war, destruction of the planet and sharing the resources for everyone to have a happy, comfortable life.[/p][/quote]Oh stop wringing your hands, nobody is vilifying anyone being gay, it is the deliberate bullying and encroachment by the gay community (pursued by it's left wing fascists) in attempting to encroach on hetrosexual beliefs and institutions in order to undermine them. More people than you think know exactly what is going on behind it and the real anti-christian motives. Like I said...why are they so quiet when it comes to forcing this down the throats of Muslims, Hindu, sheikh etc? Exactly ![/p][/quote]I've read your comments half a dozen times and still can't understand them. What bullying and encroachment are you referring to? What is anti-christian about this story? How do you know other faiths are relieved of duty as it were? And why do people from Portland constantly go on about ' left-wing fascists'? I read that phrase over and over on these pages and can only assume there are a great many mean spirited, frustrated people on the island.[/p][/quote]I agree. I dont think there are many people have an actual problem with homosexuals. The problem is being forced, by the vocal, forceful minority of homosexuals, to agree to a change something which goes against many people's beliefs. We has been pushed by these people into a state where now anyone who says anything, however small, about disagreeing with the principle of gay marriage is labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a dinosaur or completely out of touch with modern society. This is wrong, but so long as the little t*sser in No 10 gets the votes by appeasing this minority, he is happy.[/p][/quote]Please explain why it's a problem for two men to get married? I don't want to hear because 'the bible says so' - the bible says people can be stoned to death, or women can be beaten and we don't allow that, I want you to explain to me why you do not want gay people to be married? This should be simple as your not homophobic, you have nothing to worry about right...[/p][/quote]Worried ? Of course I am not worried.... Ok, the definition of homophobic is "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals". I neither hate or am afraid of homosexuals, so no I am not homophobic. I just happen to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. A traditional view, which has been held for hundreds and hundreds of years. But now, we are being forced, to believe the view held by vocal homosexuals and pressure groups that this traditional opinion is wrong, and if we dare to disagree then we are labelled bigots, homophobes and dinosaurs. Whether I am right, or they are right, does not matter. But if we are led to believe that we live in a free society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, then surely I am free to say I disagree with gay marriage without having to justify my opinion to people like you, right ? Hedgehogspring

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree