Government to enact gay 'marriage' by 2015

[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 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]

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.

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]

[-: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.

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.