Government to enact gay 'marriage' by 2015

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/09/roger-helmer-mep-why-the-government-is-wrong-on-same-sex-marriage.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038427/Gay-marriage-legal-Britain-2015.html

Roger Helmer MEP: Why the government is wrong on same-sex marriage


Roger Helmer is a Conservative MEP. He blogs here (http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/) and recently published "Sceptic At Large" (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/gazette/2011/06/roger-helmer-launches-his-new-book-at-the-headquarters-of-the-occupying-power-.html). The Coalition government, apparently with the personal support of the Prime Minister, wants to introduce a bill to allow same-sex marriage (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/09/the-government-is-set-to-look-into-equal-civil-marriage-for-same-sex-couples-.html). I think it is wrong.


http://static.nacional.hr/img/5a2d5c624933b6bc2ebeb267c0f58f8e_large.jpg
Roger Helmer MEP: Although a member of the Conservative Party, at least he's conservative.




There. I’ve said it. And because any comment on homosexuality, at least from the right-hand-side of the house, attracts a storm of vituperation from the monstrous regiment of the politically-correct, I’d better get my rebuttal in first.

I don’t approach this as a question of morality. Indeed I take a broadly libertarian approach. I am content, subject to the usual caveats on consenting adults, for people to do pretty much as they please, though in some cases I’d be grateful if they could avoid doing it in the street and frightening the horses.

Of course I know that some people find the idea of homosexual behaviour repugnant. Maybe some homosexuals find the idea of heterosexual behaviour repugnant. And as a libertarian, I support the right of people to hold those opinions, just as I support the right of individuals to behave as they choose -- though it seems that in these politically-correct times, it is no longer acceptable to voice such views. It is worth adding that these opinions may be intrinsic, and not a matter of choice. I did not (for example) choose to like ice-cream and to dislike foie gras. It’s just the way I feel.

But how we feel about one behaviour or another is beside the point. My opposition to “gay marriage” is based not on the moral status or æsthetic appeal of homosexuality, but on quite different considerations.
First, a pedantic point. While legislators may occasionally need to define some technical term in the context of a piece of legislation, it is not the business of government to legislate to change the meaning of a common and well-established word, and least of all a word that describes such a key institution in society. The government doesn’t own the English language: the people do.

Second, yes, marriage is a right, but marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should have the right to marry, and no one seeks to deny that right to anyone else. And if they choose for personal reasons not to marry, that’s up to them. The question is whether a vocal lobby group can change the meaning of the word to suit an entirely different relationship. Everyone should have the right to procreate, but that doesn’t mean that a man can or should get pregnant. There are certain things that people can and cannot do because of their gender. It’s a limit placed on us by nature and biology, not by law.

Thirdly (and it cannot be stressed too often) marriage is a relationship between three parties: a woman, a man and society. Society down the ages has recognised marriage, and offered married couples recognition, respect and often financial benefits in terms of taxation and inheritance, because society recognises the importance of the institution. The expectation is that marriage will generally lead to procreation and children, and that the resultant nuclear family will promote stability in society, replenish the population, and provide the ideal circumstances in which children can be raised and socialised.

A same-sex partnership is a relationship between two parties, not three, and there is no reason why society should treat it in the same way as marriage, because it does not offer the same broad benefits to society as a whole. It is an entirely private matter between two individuals. It is their own affair, and there is no reason why it should be of interest or concern to anyone else. Finally (and a key point): any attempt to broaden the definition of marriage to include other relationships can only be seen as a deliberate device to dilute, demean and diminish the institution of marriage as it is generally understood. If marriage becomes broader, it becomes shallower, and the vital importance of marriage in our society will be further eroded.

Various Conservative politicians, not least Iain Duncan Smith, have argued passionately that marriage and the family are the bedrock on which our society is built, that children raised in a conventional family do better on a host of measures than those raised elsewhere, and that many of the problems our society faces are created or exacerbated by the widespread break-down of marriage as an institution. I believe that IDS is right, and it is clear that this proposal to recognise “same-sex marriage” further undermines this vital institution, and is a move in precisely the wrong direction.

I shall have to add this Coalition initiative to the long and growing list of government policies which I am unable to support.

As a libertarian-conservative myself, I am conservative in outlook but libertarian in method. In terms of sorting this debate out, legalising gay 'marriage' is not the way to go. The government should simply remove itself from marriage and allow organisations/individuals to decide marriage contracts between themselves - whether you want a pagan marriage or a marriage between yourself and your computer desk.

This libertarian solution would allow whatever people want as I said, gay marriage, incest marriage, marriage between objects and people and you can call it marriage or whatever you want. But as a conservative, the only marriage I will ever accept or view as marriage will be marriage between a man and a woman in a Church/place of worship.

I believe marriage is sacred between a man and a woman, and embodies the married family and should be protected by all possible means - it is vital in any civilisation which puts righteousness before lust, which we have slipped away from just as past civilisations did before us.


The once dominant Pound is close to worthlessness, NHS waiting lists have gone up, violent crime is on the increase, our already overcrowded country is being flooded with tens of thousands of unskilled, so-called workers every single week and the EU is demanding yet more money from us. And what does Cameron concentrate his efforts on? Marriage between two blokes.

- Jess, Liverpool, UK, 17/9/2011 1:50


But if this isn't more evidence that the Conservative Party is no longer conservative, I don't know what else can be. The supporters of the party who are conservative continue to vote for it in the vain hope that it will stand up for conservatism against fabian socialism, and time and time again it utterly fails. The likes of Roger Helmer and millions across this country need to realise that the party will continue to trample on their beliefs and spit on them whilst in office.

We should have a referendum on these issues at the very least as UKIP want, but whats interesting is that (to my knowledge) I don't think it [gay 'marriage'] ever been passed by the people at large in a referendum. Now doesn't that tell you something on why issues such as this are never put to the public vote? what a stake through the heart of the 'equality' revolutionaries that would be.

The runaway train of militant homosexuality rolls on.

Thoughts?

[Ardemax]

It's weird this should crop up because I'm doing law in school atm and the topic about civil partnership came up, and everyone was discussing how gays should be allowed to marry and blah blah blah. Of course, I don't agree with gays being allowed to marry (that does not mean a civil partnership) because marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you would like to "join" to people together, then do so through other means, marriage is religious, religion does not agree with homosexuality, therefore a gay marriage would come as a mockery to a LOT of people.

Imo, I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but if the "pro-gays" start changing laws and rules in society left right and centre, I can see things getting messy (no, not like that).

I would say that a referendum should be in order for this to be passed, or what not. :)

[FlyingJesus]

His point is moot as marriage isn't traditionally a contract between "a woman, a man, and society" but between two persons (whom by way of this contract become one) and God. In the beginnings of the institution of marriage it wasn't even limited to that as polygamy was only - in terms of the absolute history of man - abolished fairly recently, and even now still goes on in some parts of the world. Helmer states that the government doesn't own the English language, then places his own (wrong) spin on our words and their history, himself committing the act he quite rightly condemns. Despite what truths and untruths there may be in his more detailed arguments, it's nigh on impossible to have a decent debate with someone who doesn't even have grounding for the "facts" he's placed out.

[Inseriousity.]

This really depends on your interpretation as marriage. I do not see marriage between man and woman. I see marriage as lover and lover whether they're gay, lesbian or straight. Comparing procreation and marriage makes no sense because procreation is a biological act and marriage is socially constructed.

[dbgtz]

It's weird this should crop up because I'm doing law in school atm and the topic about civil partnership came up, and everyone was discussing how gays should be allowed to marry and blah blah blah. Of course, I don't agree with gays being allowed to marry (that does not mean a civil partnership) because marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you would like to "join" to people together, then do so through other means, marriage is religious, religion does not agree with homosexuality, therefore a gay marriage would come as a mockery to a LOT of people.

Imo, I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but if the "pro-gays" start changing laws and rules in society left right and centre, I can see things getting messy (no, not like that).

I would say that a referendum should be in order for this to be passed, or what not. :)

Well feminists were able to change laws and eventually the "equality" they brought actually lead to them getting superior things and much better treated in society, although some of them would just tackle anything. I mean I was watching the documentary on BBC3 about injunctions and the presenter (Rob Webb I think) said "do you think it's a bit unfair that the men can afford the injunctions and get out of the press' eye" and then she replied "yes it is a bit sexist" which totally baffled me, as it isn't at all. And the moment the "gay community" actually get their voice properly heard, then it is the moment where white straight males are screwed in terms of discrimination.

I think these people demanding gay marriage need to get a better view on this. I mean if you love them, then why should marriage matter and if marriage matters that much, why are you trying to do it with a man when it isn't allowed as "stated" in religious materials. Marriage, in my eyes, only really brings complications for the most part unless you can be sure that someone truely loves you and nothing will go majourly wrong, which is impossible to know. I mean if you get divorced, it could cost you so much and marriage today is just a "thing", with many people getting divorces not long after etc. It's ridiculous how society on the whole approves of marriage because of this, and it's hypocritcal how one day I will probably get married as I know girls generally like that kind of thing, so if I meet one who does then I most likely will assuming I care enough.

[Technologic]

I have a right to be miserable too. Also, what does gay marriage do? Really? Society has collapsed already so things aren't going to get worse....

[October]

Why is marriage in quotes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

His point is moot as marriage isn't traditionally a contract between "a woman, a man, and society" but between two persons (whom by way of this contract become one) and God. In the beginnings of the institution of marriage it wasn't even limited to that as polygamy was only - in terms of the absolute history of man - abolished fairly recently, and even now still goes on in some parts of the world. Helmer states that the government doesn't own the English language, then places his own (wrong) spin on our words and their history, himself committing the act he quite rightly condemns. Despite what truths and untruths there may be in his more detailed arguments, it's nigh on impossible to have a decent debate with someone who doesn't even have grounding for the "facts" he's placed out.

A marriage is traditionally and absolutely a contract between a man and a woman ever since we have been a Christian country (both Catholic and Protestant), to pretend otherwise is delusional. Marriage embodies the traditional family.

..and thats something, ever since the 1960s cultural revolution, that has been worn away with disasterous consquences.


I have a right to be miserable too. Also, what does gay marriage do? Really? Society has collapsed already so things aren't going to get worse....

We don't have to stamp all over its corpse. :P

[Technologic]

In my view, gay marriage should be allowed but it must NOT be forced upon any religious institution, individual vicars, priests (unlikely lolol) etc must be able to decide whether they want to conduct gay marriages. If they don't then fine, if they do then good on them. I know this will limit the number of venues but it would be the least controversial option imo. I've been to a few civil partnerships which have been conducted in the presence of a vicar and then blessed by them and they were all forward thinking and willing to conduct gay marriages when it eventually becomes legalised.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In my view, gay marriage should be allowed but it must NOT be forced upon any religious institution, individual vicars, priests (unlikely lolol) etc must be able to decide whether they want to conduct gay marriages. If they don't then fine, if they do then good on them. I know this will limit the number of venues but it would be the least controversial option imo. I've been to a few civil partnerships which have been conducted in the presence of a vicar and then blessed by them and they were all forward thinking and willing to conduct gay marriages when it eventually becomes legalised.

Or any institution for that matter.

But we all know it will be forced upon organisations who conduct marriages.

[Technologic]

Or any institution for that matter.

But we all know it will be forced upon organisations who conduct marriages.

Well if it has to be forced, so be it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well if it has to be forced, so be it.

What right do homosexuals, or the state, have to enforce views upon organisations?

Remove the government out of the institution of marriage entirely.

[Technologic]

What right do homosexuals, or the state, have to enforce views upon organisations?

Remove the government out of the institution of marriage entirely.

What right do religions, or the state, have to deny people marriage?

[FlyingJesus]

What right do religions, or the state, have to deny people marriage?

Quite a lot of protective right if you've ever looked into how much paperwork there is involved

[-:Undertaker:-]

What right do religions, or the state, have to deny people marriage?

Because marriage is based in religion, and the state has a 'right' to deny gay marriage based on the fact it denies many other things including incest marriage/marriage between objects and humans and so forth. I believe the state shouldn't have any right to define marriage, therefore I would remove it from marriage completely but I also reject its wish to define gay 'marriage' for me.

A religious insitution/an organisation has every right in a free society to deny you service.

[Wig44.]

Two responsible parents, one male and one female (typically married) represent the traditional family that produce a stable environment for children growing up, producing more stable children. Marriage really has little to do with the nuclear family. Marriage is just a tradition, the reason our society is failing is not because people aren't getting married, it's because people get divorced. Seperation is the problem, I do not for a second believe marriage is anything but an old tradition and has no real bearing on the upbringing of a child.

So go ahead and allow gay marriage, the problem is not the dilution of marriage, it is the tendency for children to be brought up by single parents or parents who split up before the child leaves home.

[Ardemax]

Society is falling part because of LOOOOAAAADSSS of things.

Divorce becoming easier and getting a civil partnership easier are just some small thing.

Also the divorce rate is slowing down, if I remember correctly...

[GommeInc]

As long as it's not rammed down the throats of everyone causing more inequality, then I have no problem with it. Personally I'd rather see the abolishment of the Equality Act 2010 - that piece of inequality should never of been made law, it gives people who want to be more equal in society more rights than Mr and Mrs. Bloggs when equality should be about equal rights, not more rights to create a fake air of equality.

I can't wait to see the court cases between churches and gay couples, about how the church does not want a gay couple to be married within its walls. Churches are strictly religious places and if the people of the church say no it should mean no. But that's just pessimism and assuming homosexuals will start crying wolf because they're not getting their own way :P

As for gay marriage, I don't see the point of it. Marriage is fast losing its traditional roots. Civil partnerships are what most marriages are about these days - easily broken, not that strict and between two people who love each other and not necessarily in the eyes of God or a society.


Society is falling part because of LOOOOAAAADSSS of things.

Divorce becoming easier and getting a civil partnership easier are just some small thing.

Also the divorce rate is slowing down, if I remember correctly...
Ooo, may have to look that up :D I studied nuclear families and divorce/marriage not so long ago. If its slowing down then it would be interesting to speculate on why that's happening :P Any news on what's the cause? I presume it's because the effort put into marriage is not worth it when you do not need to prove you love someone with a ceremony.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ooo, may have to look that up :D I studied nuclear families and divorce/marriage not so long ago. If its slowing down then it would be interesting to speculate on why that's happening :P Any news on what's the cause? I presume it's because the effort put into marriage is not worth it when you do not need to prove you love someone with a ceremony.

Because in the 1960s, we decided, or our politicians decided, that we would turn our backs on the Church of England, our beliefs and morality, of which the void would be filled with celebrity worshiping, the pagan-like cult of football and the state itself. The late 1960s relaxation of divorce laws played a huge part in this breakdown of which the useless Conservative Party failed to do the conservative thing and reverse these changes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzGDIFYV14g


All of these factors have led to the problems we see today, gay 'marriage' being another blow to the married family. If your interested in the topic (having studied it) i'd recommend a read of The Abolition of Britain by Peter Hitchens [above])

[Ardemax]

Ooo, may have to look that up :D I studied nuclear families and divorce/marriage not so long ago. If its slowing down then it would be interesting to speculate on why that's happening :P Any news on what's the cause? I presume it's because the effort put into marriage is not worth it when you do not need to prove you love someone with a ceremony.

Some would say that since divorce has gotten a lot easier, a lot of people tried to get one all at once. Imagine if a married couple wanted to split, but couldn't and had to wait until such a date to do it. Repeat this by blah amount and that causes the sudden increase in the divorce rates. Then, as time goes by, there is less need for more people to get divorced, and, as more people get civil partnerships, the number goes down even more.

That's just my thoughts :)

[Catzsy]

Because marriage is based in religion, and the state has a 'right' to deny gay marriage based on the fact it denies many other things including incest marriage/marriage between objects and humans and so forth. I believe the state shouldn't have any right to define marriage, therefore I would remove it from marriage completely but I also reject its wish to define gay 'marriage' for me.

A religious insitution/an organisation has every right in a free society to deny you service.



Yes they do have the right to deny - but we are talking about 'biblical marriage' here. It is not lawful unless the register is signed and a certificate is issued and then it is a 'state' marriage. If you are basing your views on the bible don't forget that 'woman was made out of the rib of man'. Is this fact or fiction? For someone who believes in a free society you certainly support denying quite a large proportion of the population their rights, frequently. I do not believe many religious institutions will in fact perform gay weddings, but may do so if they want to, which will bring the people involved in line with the rights of all married couples. In the end it just means changing the words 'civil partnerhip' to 'marriage' As for allowing marriage between objects and animals I think you may have gone way over the top here. :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes they do have the right to deny

For how long? people such as yourself would love to take away our liberty in the name of equality (vast chunks have already gone).


but we are talking about 'biblical marriage' here. It is not lawful unless the register is signed and a certificate is issued and then it is a 'state' marriage. If you are basing your views on the bible don't forget that 'woman was made out of the rib of man'. Is this fact or fiction? For someone who believes in a free society you certainly support denying quite a large proportion of the population their rights, frequently. I do not believe many religious institutions will in fact perform gay weddings, but may do so if they want to, which will bring the people involved in line with the rights of all married couples. In the end it just means changing the words 'civil partnerhip' to 'marriage' As for allowing marriage between objects and animals I think you may have gone way over the top here. :P

You have just completely ignored my suggestion as to what we should do concerning marriage. I want the state out of marriage. This means that gays can sign a contract between themselves and call it marriage, blueberry pie or Dobbykins - as can hetrosexuals, those who are 'in love' with objects, incest couples - the lot. I'm not denying any rights at all, I think everybody should have the right to call their contract between themselves and the organisation performing the 'marriage' whatever they please without the state barring them/laying obstacles. But on the other hand, I oppose the state making this decision for me as to what I consider marriage (state gay marriage).

It would work both ways, its a libertarian solution - conservatives aren't having something forced upon them by the state, nor are the socialists. As a conservative I only view hetrosexual marriage in a Church as real marriage, you don't. As a socialist you believe in gay marriage being equal to hetrosexual religious marriage - I don't.

Under libertarianism, neither of us would be using the state to force the other to follow our way.

[Ardemax]

As far as Catholics go to ever carrying out a gay marriage, that's a no.

I think Protestants would be mostly against carrying it out, however there might be a few who see no problem in doing so.

[Technologic]

You know I really don't see the problem here....

[-:Undertaker:-]

You know I really don't see the problem here....

Because many people do not approve or accept of gay marriage and believe that it demeans the insitution of marriage, including myself.

[FlyingJesus]

Because many people do not approve or accept of gay marriage and believe that it demeans the insitution of marriage, including myself.

Yet you're suggesting that we instead remove all ties between marriage and any sort of authority which makes it an institution...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yet you're suggesting that we instead remove all ties between marriage and any sort of authority which makes it an institution...

No, it would remain with the organisations and not the state - I would only view religious ones between hetrosexuals as marriage though. I do agree however that even this weakens marriage to a degree, but not to the extent that state gay marriage does.

[FlyingJesus]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged

[Technologic]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged

But they're foreign so they're obviously wrong.

[FlyingJesus]

Silly me forgetting that only the Victorians have ever had the right morals

[GommeInc]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged
Not sure about Rome, but in general Romans were down with the gays, Hadrian had a gay lover called Antinous, which I learnt at an exhibition at the London Histroy Museum :P Quite an interesting exhibition. That said, I think it depends on the definition behind marriage and indeed the translation. The Chinese and Greeks may of had the coupling of any two souls and in translation was called marriage, but it may of had a different meaning. Plus meanings evolve within different regions and countries. Traditionally in the UK, marriage is a religious event between a man and a woman though the basic ceremony (officially declaring the commitment of two individuals) may vary around the globe.

But as I stated somewhere before. I'm not too fussed by it, as long as it's not rammed down our throats. Because nothing is more annoying than to have 'equality' forced upon you (therefore creating a force of inequality) and as long as there aren't ridiculous court cases between churches and gay rights campaigners.

[Catzsy]

[QUOTE=-:Undertaker:-;7276929]For how long? people such as yourself would love to take away our liberty in the name of equality (vast chunks have already gone).

Oh here we go again. People such as myself' huh? There is also a huge list of what you would deny to UK citizens despite the fact you think that your beliefs are the paragon of 'freedom and liberty'. This is one of them.




You have just completely ignored my suggestion as to what we should do concerning marriage. I want the state out of marriage. This means that gays can sign a contract between themselves and call it marriage, blueberry pie or Dobbykins - as can hetrosexuals, those who are 'in love' with objects, incest couples - the lot. I'm not denying any rights at all, I think everybody should have the right to call their contract between themselves and the organisation performing the 'marriage' whatever they please without the state barring them/laying obstacles. But on the other hand, I oppose the state making this decision for me as to what I consider marriage (state gay marriage).

It would work both ways, its a libertarian solution - conservatives aren't having something forced upon them by the state, nor are the socialists. As a conservative I only view hetrosexual marriage in a Church as real marriage, you don't. As a socialist you believe in gay marriage being equal to hetrosexual religious marriage - I don't.

Under libertarianism, neither of us would be using the state to force the other to follow our way.

Well you are entitled to your opinions but the equalisation of the law will not effect 'religious marriage' at all -
all churches will be free to do what they want in respect of it. Why try to hype this all up by using 'incest' in the same sentence. Incest is against the law. Also you can't stereotype 'beliefs' - they are a personal thing.
I am not a sheep I make my own mind up.


The runaway train of militant homosexuality rolls on.

All I can do is laugh at the the almost 'soap opera' drama of this comment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged

However we live in our time era, with our established insitutions.




Oh here we go again. People such as myself' huh? There is also a huge list of what you would deny to UK citizens despite the fact you think that your beliefs are the paragon of 'freedom and liberty'. This is one of them.

Well yeah you do - from what I recall you don't support freedom of speech for fear of 'offending', you think the terrrorists and the rest of the world are out to get us therefore support introducing ID cards, fingerprinting and all sorts which removes the mantra of innocent until proven guilty amongst other things such as detention without trial being 'limitless' in your own words... i'm against all of this.

As for gay 'marriage' you've just (again) totally ignored what I have said, I have said that gays should be allowed to 'marry' amongst many others 'couples' (see my libertarian stance on the state being removed from marriage). My beliefs are about liberty and I challenge you to find me an issue otherwise.


Well you are entitled to your opinions but the equalisation of the law will not effect 'religious marriage' at all

What, you mean like equality and how that destroyed freedom of speech gradually?


all churches will be free to do what they want in respect of it. Why try to hype this all up by using 'incest' in the same sentence. Incest is against the law. Also you can't stereotype 'beliefs' - they are a personal thing.

You've just said my beliefs *about allowing anybody to marry* deny British subjects rights, personally I think you've mixed myself up with yourself seen by your example with incest - I would simply legalise incest and remove the government out of marriage therefore I am not denying anybody anything rather i'm allowing it even though I may disagree with it. I can't make it anymore clearer than that.


All I can do is laugh at the the almost 'soap opera' drama of this comment.

Come on, we've all seen and heard stories about how anybody who insults homosexuals or disagrees with homosexuality is either arrested or branded a bigot or homophobe on television. The very fact people can now be arrested for saying things is very very scary, although you support that don't you?

[Wig44.]

Because in the 1960s, we decided, or our politicians decided, that we would turn our backs on the Church of England, our beliefs and morality, of which the void would be filled with celebrity worshiping, the pagan-like cult of football and the state itself. The late 1960s relaxation of divorce laws played a huge part in this breakdown of which the useless Conservative Party failed to do the conservative thing and reverse these changes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzGDIFYV14g



All of these factors have led to the problems we see today, gay 'marriage' being another blow to the married family. If your interested in the topic (having studied it) i'd recommend a read of The Abolition of Britain by Peter Hitchens [above])

Generalisation. I'm an anti-theist but I have morality and interest beyond celebrities.

[Catzsy]

Well yeah you do - from what I recall you don't support freedom of speech for fear of 'offending', you think the terrrorists and the rest of the world are out to get us therefore support introducing ID cards, fingerprinting and all sorts which removes the mantra of innocent until proven guilty amongst other things such as detention without trial being 'limitless' in your own words... i'm against all of this.

Huh where have I ever said ' you don't support freedom of speech for fear of 'offending'' ?
You seem to enjoy quoting things that people have never ever said. Again I am not paranoid to think 'the rest of the world is out to get us'. Terrorism is a worldwide problem and if you can't appreciate this then you live in 'la la land'. Again I have never said detention should be limitless. :S Get a grip, Dan.


As for gay 'marriage' you've just (again) totally ignored what I have said, I have said that gays should be allowed to 'marry' amongst many others 'couples' (see my libertarian stance on the state being removed from marriage). My beliefs are about liberty and I challenge you to find me an issue otherwise.
Well I am sure Gays will be pleased to see you support their case for equalisation of rights in respect of marriage which is long overdue.

You've just said my beliefs *about allowing anybody to marry* deny British subjects rights, personally I think you've mixed myself up with yourself seen by your example with incest - I would simply legalise incest and remove the government out of marriage therefore I am not denying anybody anything rather i'm allowing it even though I may disagree with it. I can't make it anymore clearer than that.

Why should the state be taken out of marriage? What happens when things go wrong without this? People would go to their church for a divorce and what about agnostics, athiests etc, etc.


Come on, we've all seen and heard stories about how anybody who insults homosexuals or disagrees with homosexuality is either arrested or branded a bigot or homophobe on television. The very fact people can now be arrested for saying things is very very scary, although you support that don't you?
Well not being funny but anybody who insults anybody else for their race/sexual orientation etc etc is guilty of some sort of 'ism'. What has this got to do with militant homosexuals? I don't think anybody would get arrested for insulting anybody unless they breached the peace and this applies to whether you are black, white, straight or gay. What you would get arrested for is inciting hatred which I do agree with. It seems to me Dan that you like to think you stand for freedom of speech and liberty but the proviso seems to be only if it applies to white straight males.

[FlyingJesus]

However we live in our time era, with our established insitutions.

Which clearly indicates that changes do and should happen. Your argument seems to be that the only era worth living in is the one where we had slave markets, mass poverty, an abundance of child death, and unhealthily high doses of social repression. If you have arguments other than IT'S JUST RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS then do go ahead, but deontological ethics such as you employ make very little logical sense and without heavy policing almost no pragmatic sense.

[October]

http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Shocking-Chart-Reveals-What-Gay-Marriage-Means-for-our-Country.png

[-:Undertaker:-]

Huh where have I ever said ' you don't support freedom of speech for fear of 'offending'' ?
You seem to enjoy quoting things that people have never ever said. Again I am not paranoid to think 'the rest of the world is out to get us'. Terrorism is a worldwide problem and if you can't appreciate this then you live in 'la la land'. Again I have never said detention should be limitless. :S Get a grip, Dan.

In the past you've called on hate speech to be banned, supported the illegalisation of racism/homophobia and so forth (which are just words at the end of the day) and you've called for people to be held without trial for a limitless period, see here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718887).

So if its the case of me getting the wrong end of the stick, you have your chance to now tell me that you do not believe people should be punished/silenced by the state for unpopular speech and that you don't support detention without trial for a limitless period.


Well I am sure Gays will be pleased to see you support their case for equalisation of rights in respect of marriage which is long overdue.

Not really, I don't believe there's such a thing as gay marriage - however, my solution (libertarianism) accepts the fact that there's two sides to the debate and that if its possible, the state shouldn't side with either side and allow organisations/individuals to define their own terms of marriage.

It means I don't have your defintion of marriage imposed upon me via the state and the same vice versa in regards to my definition.


Why should the state be taken out of marriage? What happens when things go wrong without this? People would go to their church for a divorce and what about agnostics, athiests etc, etc.

Then they would go to their organisation which does ceremonies/weddings for agnostics and so forth, we already have registery offices for example. As for the state being removed from marriage, why not? i've already explained that by not allowing gay marriage conservatives would be trampling on the views of those on the left, and that by allowing gay marriage socialists would be trampling on the views of the conservatives in this country.

Remove the tool of control (the state) out of this, and the problem vanishes.


Huh where have I ever said ' you don't support freedom of speech for fear of 'offending'' ?

Well I actually said that was you, but nevermind.. its right here......


Well not being funny but anybody who insults anybody else for their race/sexual orientation etc etc is guilty of some sort of 'ism'. What has this got to do with militant homosexuals? I don't think anybody would get arrested for insulting anybody unless they breached the peace and this applies to whether you are black, white, straight or gay. What you would get arrested for is inciting hatred which I do agree with. It seems to me Dan that you like to think you stand for freedom of speech and liberty but the proviso seems to be only if it applies to white straight males.

Come on now, give some examples.


Which clearly indicates that changes do and should happen. Your argument seems to be that the only era worth living in is the one where we had slave markets, mass poverty, an abundance of child death, and unhealthily high doses of social repression. If you have arguments other than IT'S JUST RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS then do go ahead, but deontological ethics such as you employ make very little logical sense and without heavy policing almost no pragmatic sense.

Actually thats you, because I think marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman i'm confronted with utter rubbish like 'well the Greeks and Romans had it so its not between a man and a woman' - forgetting, perhaps purposely, that we a different civilisation to the Greek and Roman Empires. I'm also confronted, when defending tradition, with more reactionary nonsense like 'you just want children down the coal mines again!'.

The past wasn't perfect, but many things within the past were much better than they are today.


Generalisation. I'm an anti-theist but I have morality and interest beyond celebrities.

But for a large proportion it is true, look around the forum at the worshipping of these people who stand for nothing.

[FlyingJesus]

Ancient Greece and Rome were very different civilisations, yes I quite agree. As was Victorian Britain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ancient Greece and Rome were very different civilisations, yes I quite agree. As was Victorian Britain.

And my argument is that Victorian Britain and later Britain had good qualities which have been ruthlessly squashed under cultural marxism.

[FlyingJesus]

...And now you're doing exactly as I said in my previous post that you attempted to deny - merely stating that it was good and completely ignoring all of the negatives that had to occur to make the positives you promote happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

...And now you're doing exactly as I said in my previous post that you attempted to deny - merely stating that it was good and completely ignoring all of the negatives that had to occur to make the positives you promote happen.

I've not said it was all perfect, we're talking about marriage here however and the family - not children working in the mines.

[Catzsy]

In the past you've called on hate speech to be banned, supported the illegalisation of racism/homophobia and so forth (which are just words at the end of the day) and you've called for people to be held without trial for a limitless period, see here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718887). So if its the case of me getting the wrong end of the stick, you have your chance to now tell me that you do not believe people should be punished/silenced by the state for unpopular speech and that you don't support detention without trial for a limitless period.

I agree that inciting racial hatred etc should be banned. Yes I agree with that. That is my opinion and has nothing to do with 'free speech'. You don't seem to understand the implications of this at all. It can and usually does lead to harrassment, bullying and quite often acts of violence against these people who are usually sheep led by an often intelligent but warped & bigoted view on life who knows exactly what they are doing. e.g. Osama Bin Lade, Abu Hamza etc. I do not believe in limitless detention - that is where people are just detained without even going before a court at all for an indeifinite time by the state. The example you gave was somebody who had been through a court on numerous occcasions and detained for a certain time and then bought back before the court. Obviously things appear to have gone wrong with this case but only time will tell.





Not really, I don't believe there's such a thing as gay marriage - however, my solution (libertarianism) accepts the fact that there's two sides to the debate and that if its possible, the state shouldn't side with either side and allow organisations/individuals to define their own terms of marriage.

It means I don't have your defintion of marriage imposed upon me via the state and the same vice versa in regards to my definition.



Then they would go to their organisation which does ceremonies/weddings for agnostics and so forth, we already have registery offices for example. As for the state being removed from marriage, why not? i've already explained that by not allowing gay marriage conservatives would be trampling on the views of those on the left, and that by allowing gay marriage socialists would be trampling on the views of the conservatives in this country.

Remove the tool of control (the state) out of this, and the problem vanishes.

So religious people would go to their church and others would go back to the registry office/ place of civil marriage. How on earth would this work and be specific please. Also a civil marriage is conducted ohn behalf of the state so how would that work?




Well I actually said that was you, but nevermind.. its right here......


If you feel that some psychotic, bigoted person should be allowed to stand on a corner
spouting out racial hatred etc inciting other people to commit criminal acts is curbing 'freedom of speech' then I guess you are right. But that's your view - it doesn't mean you are correct.



Come on now, give some examples.

Woman are not suited as as men to to be MPs.

Burkas should be banned.

Gays should not allowed to be married.

There should be no equalisation of representation in parliament to reflect society as it is today - it should be left as it always has been despite the fact that straight men have always had full rights throughout history.

Any homosexual or woman who expresses any view that oppose yours is labelled 'militant'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree that inciting racial hatred etc should be banned. Yes I agree with that. That is my opinion and has nothing to do with 'free speech'. You don't seem to understand the implications of this at all. It can and usually does lead to harrassment, bullying and quite often acts of violence against these people who are usually sheep led by an often intelligent but warped & bigoted view on life who knows exactly what they are doing. e.g. Osama Bin Lade, Abu Hamza etc.

Then you don't understand free speech or believe it in, next point.

I must ask though, why should gay marriage be allowed by the state (or homosexuality for arguments sake) but things (radical opinions) you disagree with cannot be spoken? homosexuality leads to acts of violence itself, yet you do not call for this to be banned on the basis of 'it will lead to violence' - is it simply the case that you pick and choose what you wish to ban on the basis on whether it suits your own opinion?


I do not believe in limitless detention - that is where people are just detained without even going before a court at all for an indeifinite time by the state. The example you gave was somebody who had been through a court on numerous occcasions and detained for a certain time and then bought back before the court. Obviously things appear to have gone wrong with this case but only time will tell.

Why did you say this then?


My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it but as I said before 24 hours is nowhere near long enough to gather evidence that is all.

........


So religious people would go to their church and others would go back to the registry office/ place of civil marriage. How on earth would this work and be specific please. Also a civil marriage is conducted ohn behalf of the state so how would that work?

What do you mean how would this work? it would simply mean that any documentation and/or permission usually needed by the state to carry out marriage wouldn't be needed. You go to the religious place of worship/registry, sign the contract of marriage/civil partnership (whatever you wish to call it) and you are then married - any disputes which arise would be tried in public courts based on the contract you signed when you got married. Its that simple, you don't need government to tell you how to do the simplest things you know, as hard as that may be for some to grasp the concept of.

So as i'm allowing any type of 'marriage' by getting the government out of marriage (hetrosexual, homosexual, pagan, incest, objects - the lot) i'm allowing people to do things which I may not approve of but in doing so they are not forcing their ideas upon me of gay 'marriage' - just as I wouldn't be forcing my conservative views of what a marriage is upon you or homosexuals.

Now why is this such a bad idea I ask you? is it the case that you simply wish to force me to accept it?


If you feel that some psychotic, bigoted person should be allowed to stand on a corner
spouting out racial hatred etc inciting other people to commit criminal acts is curbing 'freedom of speech' then I guess you are right. But that's your view - it doesn't mean you are correct.

Woman are not suited as as men to to be MPs.

Burkas should be banned.

Gays should not allowed to be married.

There should be no equalisation of representation in parliament to reflect society as it is today - it should be left as it always has been despite the fact that straight men have always had full rights throughout history.

Any homosexual or woman who expresses any view that oppose yours is labelled 'militant'.

Hang on, why are you saying to me then that I don't stand for freedom and liberty? I don't think you quite understand what those words mean then. While I do think men are more suited to be MPs, private owners should be able to ban burkas (i'm not in favour of a ban through legislation at all) and everyone shouldn't have the idea of gay marriage forced upon them by the state - this does not mean I do not think others people shouldn't be allowed to do these things. That is liberty as with free speech.

Libertarian in method, conservative in person as outlined with my views on marriage.