thebishbus Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Another thing to remember, is why you were born in the first place. That is to have children, and pass your, your partners, and all your ancestors genes on to the next generation . By not having children not only are you letting down your ancestors, you are not adding to the human gene resistance structure . Difficult to have children in same sex marriages I think. Brian B. ps. Perhaps I should have said two males marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 CliveH - 2013-02-05 7:51 PM peter - 2013-02-05 7:43 PM I'm not a queer basher, but I find what they do is not natural and I find it extremely distasteful and as far as I'm concerned is an abomination. To sanction it in mariage is a retrograde step and the next thing will be to allow incest and bestiality. What's the difference in moral terms?. Well incest between bother and sister could procreate a child - so in that sense given that the production of children seems to be a prerequisite of marriage in the eyes of those anti gay marriage - it would seem that incest between a brother and sister would be OK on that basis. The child may have webbed feet and two heads but hey - what the f**k - its parents are not same sex so that's OK then. Lost interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave225 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 thebishbus - 2013-02-05 8:12 PM Another thing to remember, is why you were born in the first place. That is to have children, and pass your, your partners, and all your ancestors genes on to the next generation . By not having children not only are you letting down your ancestors, you are not adding to the human gene resistance structure . Difficult to have children in same sex marriages I think. Brian B. ps. Perhaps I should have said two males marriage. Ah but it will all be done in designer fertility clinics. If you have the right amount of dosh you can get any genetic makeup you like, the child's colouring will even match your wardrobe. of course the 'mistakes' will be thrown on the scrap heap. I think the Germans had ideas along these lines a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiesgrandad Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I think that for me this is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back. It seems that the country that I have worked for, and at one time was prepared to fight and die for, has gone. A friend used to joke that he could live with the liberalisation of homosexuality, but his real concern was that it might become compulsory. That seems to be be coming ever closer. I never voted to become an offshore province of Germany, I never voted to allow in so many immigrants and asylum seekers that the nature of our society will change, I never voted to give so much of our money to third world tyrants,( or members of parliament), nor did I ever vote to become a society where no-one has to take responsibility for their actions. Hand me the atlas. AGD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Archiesgrandad - 2013-02-05 8:42 PM I think that for me this is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back. It seems that the country that I have worked for, and at one time was prepared to fight and die for, has gone. A friend used to joke that he could live with the liberalisation of homosexuality, but his real concern was that it might become compulsory. That seems to be be coming ever closer. I never voted to become an offshore province of Germany, I never voted to allow in so many immigrants and asylum seekers that the nature of our society will change, I never voted to give so much of our money to third world tyrants,( or members of parliament), nor did I ever vote to become a society where no-one has to take responsibility for their actions. Hand me the atlas. AGD Amen to that, fecking Cameron and his posh pals.probably all closet homosexuals, they can come out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 peter - 2013-02-05 8:32 PM CliveH - 2013-02-05 7:51 PM peter - 2013-02-05 7:43 PM I'm not a queer basher, but I find what they do is not natural and I find it extremely distasteful and as far as I'm concerned is an abomination. To sanction it in mariage is a retrograde step and the next thing will be to allow incest and bestiality. What's the difference in moral terms?. Well incest between bother and sister could procreate a child - so in that sense given that the production of children seems to be a prerequisite of marriage in the eyes of those anti gay marriage - it would seem that incest between a brother and sister would be OK on that basis. The child may have webbed feet and two heads but hey - what the f**k - its parents are not same sex so that's OK then. Lost interest. Thought you might (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Well I said how I feel about this travesty, so that's the end of it. Nothing to debate. I am certainly not going to engage you or anybody else in an argument about it. Homosexuals are disgusting perverts and that's all you need to know. Unless you have a hidden agenda, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-02-05 6:24 PM John seen as you seem to dislike discrimination of any kind and you seem to agree with gay marriage in religious buildings will you be fighting for gay weddings in Mosques for Muslims ? I'm not fighting for anything but I believe that none of us has any right to prevent any religious organisation that wants to from marrying same-sex couples. If the Catholic Church or Islam doesn't want to I am not in the business of forcing them but, equally, I don't see why they should prevent, say, the Quakers from marrying gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 nowtelse2do - 2013-02-05 7:02 PM John 47 - 2013-02-05 4:49 PM nowtelse2do - 2013-02-05 4:27 PM Just doesn't seem natural to me and I don't condon a child being brought up in a same sex partnership environment, but that's my opinion others may think different. Dave For a long while we lived next door to a lesbian couple who raised two delightful children. We have also known several "normal" couples who raised horrendous children. I can't help thinking it has nothing to do with sexuality but attitude. But the environment that the child grows up in thinking that that is normal could make its life more complicated surely. Did your next door neighbours teach the children that men are bad or good, what happens when the children start asking questions like why don't I have daddy or mummy as the case maybe. And if the child is a boy is it going to be feminine. We all know that some children can be cruel especially when school age. Dave Our next door neighbours were good parents. Why should you think that lesbians might teach their children that men are bad? Why, also, should you think that a male child of a lesbian couple should grow up to be feminine? If sexuality was a thing you inherited from your parents then nobody would be gay! Yes, we all know that children can be cruel but they are cruel to other children of heterosexual couples too. I am sure we have all lived through childhood taunts of various kinds All I can say as far as our neighbours children are concerned is that they have both (one boy and one girl) grown up to be very well-balanced (and, as it happens, heterosexual) adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Lets be clear I'm not replying to you. Today will lose Cameron a lot of his core voters and supporters. An issue with such division of opinion SHOULD have been in the Tory manifesto, or people should have been given the option of a referendum. Even though Labour supported it, it will be Cameron and the Tories held to blame for something that has changed centuries of history and tradition all because of an increasingly vocal and intimidating (think outing )actions of many in the Homo/Les camp seem to revel in. I'm quite clear I find them disgusting in their ( private ) actions, and disgusting in their own hypocritical treatment of other Homo/Les couples in outing them. They are not, nor ever will be, the equal to heterosexual couples who marry, end of. It will just be a matter of time before clergy will be threatened with sanctions if they refuse to marry them, that will follow just as certain as day follows night when the goal posts are moved again, and yes it will happen Today is yet another sad day for a once great country that used to be governed with a degree of decency, that pillock Huhme is just another example of the rot that is now the UK today, with no moral compass, and anything goes mentality.. >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Just been looking at Facebook. It's full of comments from young people (most of them heterosexual, for what it matters) saying what a glorious day this is for the human race. I think Cameron can do without the votes of a few old farts on this forum; he is a very astute politician who knows that he has more to gain than to lose from this legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I know people post what they had for breakfast on facebook, but I had no idea they told people their own sexuality, queer or straight..? I'm fascinated, I must look where that info is ! my Missus may be a Lesbian without me knowing, but she could have confided that to everyone else on facebook I'm an old fart then and presumably the same as many of the Tory party that voted against, in that case I'm happy to be in their camp. It would be interesting as we've crossed swords on Muslims how many of them support this measure today, after all they are part of UK society you keep telling us, but perhaps today their views or religious sensibilities are of no importance. Just as a huge majority of ( now former ) Tory supporters count for little either.He had no mandate from the electorate for this either, or does that not matter either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 John 47 - 2013-02-05 10:12 PM antony1969 - 2013-02-05 6:24 PM John seen as you seem to dislike discrimination of any kind and you seem to agree with gay marriage in religious buildings will you be fighting for gay weddings in Mosques for Muslims ? I'm not fighting for anything but I believe that none of us has any right to prevent any religious organisation that wants to from marrying same-sex couples. If the Catholic Church or Islam doesn't want to I am not in the business of forcing them but, equally, I don't see why they should prevent, say, the Quakers from marrying gay people. But I thought your whole agenda was fighting discrimination of any kind ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 My views on homosexuals changed after two significant events. And this is sort of linked to what looks to be a truly shocking report on how people were cared for within the NHS - at Stafford Hospital. Whilst we did not have the issue of care being so bad that my elderly in-laws had to drink out of the flower vases - we did have some instances of staff on the ward not wanting to care or be bothered about the patient. In both cases of my in-laws where my FiL died over 18 years ago and my MiL dying in 2008, we found that the nurses that cared the most and did the most were two male gays. The first one has long since retired now but the second young guy was amazing - he looked after my MiL and all the other patients in his charge in the most highly professional way. In marked contrast when he was not on duty we would find ourselves talking to a nurse who you would see that after 10 seconds her eyes would glaze over and you got a silly answer as to why your loved one had been left lying in wet bedding for hours etc etc. Now there were some caring "straight" staff of course - but in both cases with my MiL and FiL - two separate gay male nurses were miles ahead of the rest when if came to professionalism and caring attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-02-06 7:15 AM John 47 - 2013-02-05 10:12 PM antony1969 - 2013-02-05 6:24 PM John seen as you seem to dislike discrimination of any kind and you seem to agree with gay marriage in religious buildings will you be fighting for gay weddings in Mosques for Muslims ? I'm not fighting for anything but I believe that none of us has any right to prevent any religious organisation that wants to from marrying same-sex couples. If the Catholic Church or Islam doesn't want to I am not in the business of forcing them but, equally, I don't see why they should prevent, say, the Quakers from marrying gay people. But I thought your whole agenda was fighting discrimination of any kind ? My fighting days are over - but you are correct in saying that I am opposed to discrimination of any kind. And, despite the pathetic attempts by some on here to brand me as a Muslim, that extends to any Muslim who discriminates too. My case is quite clear: providing people are doing nobody else any harm and providing they are acting within the law then I see no reason for anybody to interfere in their lives. I am not asking Muslims or Catholics to marry gays in their religious buildings; I am simply saying to both of them (and anybody else in a similar camp) that they have no right to stop, say, Quakers allowing gay marriage if they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-02-05 11:55 PM I know people post what they had for breakfast on facebook, but I had no idea they told people their own sexuality, queer or straight..? I'm fascinated, I must look where that info is ! my Missus may be a Lesbian without me knowing, but she could have confided that to everyone else on facebook I'm an old fart then and presumably the same as many of the Tory party that voted against, in that case I'm happy to be in their camp. It would be interesting as we've crossed swords on Muslims how many of them support this measure today, after all they are part of UK society you keep telling us, but perhaps today their views or religious sensibilities are of no importance. Just as a huge majority of ( now former ) Tory supporters count for little either.He had no mandate from the electorate for this either, or does that not matter either. Well, judging by the latest poll (54% in favour; 34% against) I'd say that Cameron had judged the mood better than some on here. I wasn't claiming that those Facebook posts formed any kind of scientific survey - I just found it interesting that there was such a high level of support from young people and that all of the opposition that I have heard comes from older people. And I don't care whether Muslims agree with me or not. Neither they nor I nor you have any right to tell law-abiding and consenting adults how to live their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 John 47 you actually said "Just been looking at Facebook. It's full of comments from young people (most of them heterosexual, for what it matters) " I was just curious to know where they state their sexual orientation , or were you mistaken,? Also it was a majority in the Tory party that voted against their own leaders pet policy, Mmmmmm good bye Dave ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly58 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The next thing to come out of this debackle will be the No Win No Fee Parasites taking up the case in the court of Human Rights because any organisation that will not carry out a Gay Marraige will be taken to court as their actions will infringe on the Gay's Human Rights . Talk about the Lunitics running the Asylem , Stop the World I want to get off !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 kelly58 - 2013-02-06 11:29 AM The next thing to come out of this debackle will be the No Win No Fee Parasites taking up the case in the court of Human Rights because any organisation that will not carry out a Gay Marraige will be taken to court as their actions will infringe on the Gay's Human Rights . Talk about the Lunitics running the Asylem , Stop the World I want to get off !! Me too mate,sadly we've been written off by some on here as just "old farts" Mind you your awaiting a new arrival, so you can't be as old as me :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-02-06 10:54 AM John 47 you actually said "Just been looking at Facebook. It's full of comments from young people (most of them heterosexual, for what it matters) " I was just curious to know where they state their sexual orientation , or were you mistaken,? Also it was a majority in the Tory party that voted against their own leaders pet policy, Mmmmmm good bye Dave ! Well, the comments link was started by my niece and blossomed from there as more and more people commented. I know a lot of them and those that I don't were either posting as couples (heterosexual) or made specific reference to their sexuality. As I said above, it's not a scientific survey but interesting that so many young people (hundreds of them on this one link) feel moved to comment on this particular issue when there are so many other things for young people to comment on. As for the majority of Tories voting against Cameron, well perhaps he has his finger on the pulse more than they do. If his poll ratings improve they will no doubt sit on their hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 kelly58 - 2013-02-06 11:29 AM The next thing to come out of this debackle will be the No Win No Fee Parasites taking up the case in the court of Human Rights because any organisation that will not carry out a Gay Marraige will be taken to court as their actions will infringe on the Gay's Human Rights . Talk about the Lunitics running the Asylem , Stop the World I want to get off !! I can't see that happening because the proposed legislation compels no organisation to do what they don't want to. It simply allows those that do to proceed. It seems to me therefore that there would be no basis for a case of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 John 47 said.... As for the majority of Tories voting against Cameron, well perhaps he has his finger on the pulse more than they do. If his poll ratings improve they will no doubt sit on their hands! 1foot says Or it could be that they were voting after speaking to their constituents and representing their views rather than towing the party line. As for labour voting it in it could for arguments sake being that they played a blinder knowing it will be Cameron that will be remembered for bringing about change, and not them, who knows, But not wanting to open old arguments, this move will further alienate certain sections of the population. Not good for social cohesion to use that phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-02-06 12:02 PM As for the majority of Tories voting against Cameron, well perhaps he has his finger on the pulse more than they do. If his poll ratings improve they will no doubt sit on their hands! Or it could be that they were voting after speaking to their constituents and representing their views rather than towing the party line. As for labour voting it in it could for arguments sake being that they played a blinder knowing it will be Cameron that will be remembered for bringing about change, and not them, who knows, But not wanting to open old arguments, this move will further alienate certain sections of the population. Not good for social cohesion to use that phrase. Well, since all polls (including that latest one I quoted above) show that most people are in favour, I suspect those Tory MPs were talking primarily from their own particular prejudices. It is inevitable that any major change will upset or alienate some sectors of society. If the vote had been no it would clearly have alienated the gay community and a lot of young people; the yes vote alienates half the Tory Party and some rigid religious organisations. From a personal point of view, I know which of those groups I would rather upset! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 John 47 - 2013-02-06 12:13 PM 1footinthegrave - 2013-02-06 12:02 PM As for the majority of Tories voting against Cameron, well perhaps he has his finger on the pulse more than they do. If his poll ratings improve they will no doubt sit on their hands! Or it could be that they were voting after speaking to their constituents and representing their views rather than towing the party line. As for labour voting it in it could for arguments sake being that they played a blinder knowing it will be Cameron that will be remembered for bringing about change, and not them, who knows, But not wanting to open old arguments, this move will further alienate certain sections of the population. Not good for social cohesion to use that phrase. Well, since all polls (including that latest one I quoted above) show that most people are in favour, I suspect those Tory MPs were talking primarily from their own particular prejudices. It is inevitable that any major change will upset or alienate some sectors of society. If the vote had been no it would clearly have alienated the gay community and a lot of young people; the yes vote alienates half the Tory Party and some rigid religious organisations. From a personal point of view, I know which of those groups I would rather upset! Hang on is this the same John47 supporting the most rigid religion known to man in another thread >:-) >:-) >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 Archiesgrandad - 2013-02-05 8:42 PMI think that for me this is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back. It seems that the country that I have worked for, and at one time was prepared to fight and die for, has gone. A friend used to joke that he could live with the liberalisation of homosexuality, but his real concern was that it might become compulsory. That seems to be be coming ever closer.I never voted to become an offshore province of Germany, I never voted to allow in so many immigrants and asylum seekers that the nature of our society will change, I never voted to give so much of our money to third world tyrants,( or members of parliament), nor did I ever vote to become a society where no-one has to take responsibility for their actions.Hand me the atlas.AGD I'll happily second your comments.......and add...... Every one knows their 'rights' but no one seems to know their responsibilities within society. It has become a society of 'me me me'. Christian B&B owners sued for discrimination....even someones own home and beliefs have succumbed to 'gay rights'. Scumbag prolific criminals let off with a slapped wrist......honest working Joe Public hit in the pocket for everything, bankers who brought the country to it's knees still laughing all the way to the bonus pot, politicians more knowingly corrupt than ever before, petulant Political parties (Calamity Cleggs mob of loonies) voting against the public interest to 'get even' and today a report on Stafford hospital (the fifth report into this House of Death) where over 400 died due to lack of care!! Education in a mess, Armed Forces cut to unimaginably low levels......ad infinitum. The 'morality and responsibility' compass of this country, most importantly applicable to all Political parties and upper management of public bodies (NHS/Education/Social services/local government etc) has been totally lost. Where do I sign up for the 'Old Farts Club'? UKIP here I come........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.