BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

I do not recognise myself in that John.
You are joining the others in throwing abuse instead of discussing.
The definition of marriage is NO strawman.
It means much to many people whose views do not deserve to be trampled over.
And for what?
If there is a strong common consent for it to change then it should change, but not without the normal democratic considerations.
Why do you all want it done without that?
Why do you have such contempt for the views of others and want them dismissed without any consideration.
That is Stalinism masquerading as liberal tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM

And for millennia we endorsed slavery and subjugation of women.

Any more bright ideas Keith?

Look, it would be less of a problem if you admitted you find gays repulsive. At least you would have the benefit of honesty instead of insulting the intelligence of decent people by trying to tell us people don't want it.   Gay people seem to want it and so what the hell has it to do with the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

Well said Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:05 PM

Paper # 971   
A Comparison of Sexual Behavior Patterns among Heterosexual Men and Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men
Sara Nelson*1, M Morris1, B Foxman2, S Aral3, L Manhart1, K Holmes1, and M Golden1
1Univ of Washington, Seattle, US; 2Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, US; and 3CDC, Atlanta, GA, US

"Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have higher rates of HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STI) than heterosexual men and women. This elevated risk reflects biological and behavioral factors.

Methods: We compared sexual behavior patterns between MSM and heterosexuals using 4 population-based random digit dialing (RDD) surveys. A 1996 to 1998 survey of MSM in 4 US cities and 2 surveys of Seattle MSM (2003, 2006) provided estimates for MSM; a 2003 to 2004 Seattle survey provided data about heterosexual men and women.

Results: The heterosexual survey targeted a younger population (age 18 to 39 years vs age ≥18 years), but participants were similar to MSM in education and race/ethnicity. Age at same-sex sexual debut was slightly younger (age 16.5 to 17.0 years) than opposite-sex sexual debut (17.6), although among MSM anal sex sexual debut was years later (19.6 to 20.2). Among those aged 18 to 24 years, the median lifetime number of sex partners was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in MSM. The proportion of heterosexuals who formed a new partnership in the prior year declined from 44% at age 18 to 24 years to 15% at age 35 to 39 years. In contrast, among MSM, 86% of 18 to 24 year olds and 72% of MSM aged 35 to 39 years formed a new partnership in the prior year. The median lifetime number of sex partners for persons aged 35 to 39 years was 10 among heterosexuals and 67 among MSM. Over one-third of MSM aged <30 years had a recent partner who was >5 years older, compared to only 7% of male and 20% of female heterosexuals. MSM reported that 51% of their recent partnerships, and 42% of their recent anal sex partnerships, had lasted ≤3 months, compared to only 22% of heterosexual men and 10% of women. Among recent partnerships lasting ≤3 months, approximately two-thirds of MSM always used condoms during insertive anal sex and three-quarters during receptive anal sex; only 53% of heterosexuals in partnerships of similar duration reported consistent condom use. For longer partnerships, consistent condom use ranged from 25 to 50% in MSM and was 23% in heterosexuals. In the Seattle surveys, MSM met 17% of their most recent partners online compared with only 3% of heterosexuals.

Conclusions: MSM have higher early rates of partnership acquisition, continue to form partnerships later into life, meet more partners online, and display more age disassortative mixing than heterosexuals. These factors likely help explain the higher HIV and STI rates among MSM, despite higher levels of condom use."
These are median numbers and do not represent the highest or lowest reports

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM

Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are, and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote. A hundred years ago, would you have been standing up for those who thought women shouldn't be able to vote? I confess that I don't know if the UK has anything like our Constitution that guarantees certain rights, but the thing about rights is that they are rights and shouldn't be subject to a vote. I ask again, when do we get to vote on which rights you get to have?

All of which begs the question of why you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed. You can say that gay sex is legal all you want to, but as long as you support laws that discriminate against gay people, you are poking your nose into other peoples' sex lives and using the law of the land to do so. There is no conversation about homosexuals that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. There is no law about gay people that isn't a law about what people may or may not do in bed. Just out of curiosity, why stop with gay people? There's lots of groups of people you could try to make laws about. Have at it.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, one of your points seems to be: "You are being intolerant of people who want to be intolerant. This is Stalinism." First of all, no, it isn't Stalinism. That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Go read some history. Two, the logic is backwards. The same thing gets said over here a lot by Christians who feel discriminated against because the rest of us don't want them to pass laws enforcing their religion, not understanding that forcing other people to follow their dictates is the only discrimination going on. Think it through. That dog just won't hunt.

If you really want to have a moderated debate on the subject, we'll have to find a logic professor to be one of the moderators. You don't seem to have a very good innate grasp of the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

Monogamy seems quite attractive, actually, to those who want to enjoy gay marriage. You should be supporting it. As for that template you mention that you hoped I wouldn't notice, well that's just your preferred template out of hundreds the world over. Very imperialistic of you to promote yours above all the others.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

62% in favour of gay marriage, just 31% agin. I am utterly bewildered that several homophobes here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.

That would be the one ancient definition of marriage out of many that you personally happen to prefer. There are hundreds of definitions of marriage on this planet. You prefer our one because of the random event of your having been born here, no more, no less.

Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.

"Studies say..." is weasel words. Go and look that up and don't bloody well do it again. In fact, your whole sentence is a complete lie which is intended to demonise homosexuals (you'll be telling me next that you're not a homophobe). Let's have your "studies", please.

And one more thing. Yes, repeated inbreeding of close family members results in a higher level of genetic abnormalities. But occasional reproduction by first cousins carries approximately the same increased risk of genetic abnormality as the risk taken by women over 40 having babies. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:32 AM

you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed.
You keep saying that John, but it is not true.


Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are,
Correct.
It is not your views that make you liberal, it is your tolerance and respect for the views of others.
and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote.
No.
Parliament should decide after giving a proper hearing to all dissenting views.
That is how these things should be done.
Why are you all against letting other people have they say.
That is intolerant and bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:51 AM

Keith. Letting others have their say is sound in principle but falls at the first hurdle if your say restricts the say of others.

You feel it is a legitimate say to inflict inequality on others? So, , doyou think those who demonstrate when dead soldiers are returned have every right to be heard? Back in the '70s did you support The Paedophile Information Exchange to have their views aired?

So why does discrimination of Gay people seem a legitimate cause for acceptable debate?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

I have posted EXTENSIVELY about my objection to the lack of democratic process.
Every word has been ignored, except by Don who had got all his dates mixed up.
Instead, John keeps going on about bedroom behaviour, and he accuses ME of being obsessed about it!
I have told you that I do not care, and have never posted anything that could be so interpreted.
That John is a strawman.
You pretend that I have made a silly case so you can appear to knock it down.
How about responding to what I actually say John?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:58 AM

So why does discrimination of Gay people seem a legitimate cause for acceptable debate?
It is not.
The issue is whether to make a change to an ancient institution.
Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, and so is Civil Partnership.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 06:11 AM

""Don, the Labour leadership elections, and the wheeze to put same sex marriage in their NEXT manifesto, came AFTER the last election.
Not one single party went in to the last election with the remotest suggestion to voters that they planned, never mind were "DETERMINED", to push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage.""

Well Keith, if you recall, the election to leadership of Ed Milliband predated the General Election.

Now, try very hard to get your head round this:

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.""

They endorsed it as policy and went into the General Election with that firmly established.

The voters, who you claim were unaware of this must, like you, have been asleep at the time, if you are right.

It was all done in a blaze of pre-election publicity.

Your problem is that your memory is terminally selective, and only supplies you with what you WISHwere true.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:11 AM

Don dear, you have got it all wrong, but please don't bother to apologise.
The 2010 Labour Party leadership election was triggered by a general election on May 6th which resulted in a hung parliament. On 10 May, Gordon Brown resigned as Leader of the Labour Party. The following day, he stepped down as Prime Minister.[1] The National Executive Committee decided the timetable for the election the result of which would be announced at the annual party conference.[2][3] On 25 September, Ed Miliband became the new Leader of the Labour Party.[4]

Not one party went in to the last general election with same-sex marriage or any suggestion of changing marriage on their manifesto.
It had been discussed at no party conference, and no consultations had ever taken place.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM

Why are you all against letting other people have they say.
That is intolerant and bigoted.

How about responding to what I actually say John?

I have. I'll try again: We are saying, "You don't get to discriminate against us." You are saying, "It is discriminatory to tell us we can't discriminate against you."

We are saying that you must leave us alone, not intrude on our lives, not tell us what rights we may and may not have. You are saying that you should be able to tell us what rights we may and may not have, and that by telling you to back off we are trying to silence you and are, in fact, discriminating against you. If you don't understand that this is faulty logic I don't have much hope of having a rational discussion with you.

And yes, you are obsessing about what people do in bed, to the point where you are willing to lay claim to the word 'marriage' and the concept behind it and deny its use to other people because of what they do in bed. No one is trying to change the definition of the word. We are saying that if it is a legal right that is available to some, it is a legal right that ought to be available to all. We are saying that there should be no difference between gay people and straight people in the eyes of the law, and that no one should get to vote on that. The courts should simply toss out all discriminatory laws and be done with it. I'm not obsessing about it. I'm saying you should have the decency to keep your nose out of other peoples' bedrooms. I'm also saying that since you don't respect the sexual privacy of other people, you have lost the right to expect sexual privacy for yourself.

Do you not understand how dangerous it is to our society to say that the public or their Congressional/Parliamentary representatives should have the right to vote on other peoples' civil rights?

You say that you don't have any problem with gay marriage, yet every post you make has something somewhere in it that says that we are trying to change the 'ancient definition of marriage' or that we are trying to trample the rights of people who don't think gay people should be able to get married. I'm saying that, since there is widespread disagreement about the definition of marriage, we should go with the definition that doesn't discriminate against a group of people. The whole concept of the 'ancient definition of marriage' is a straw man. It was made up fairly recently by people who are opposed to gay marriage. The reason many of us are badgering you about this is because you are supporting it. It is a discriminatory position for you to hold.

Keith, so far you have called me Stalinist, intolerant, and bigoted. All because I deny that you should have the right to have anything to say about whether or not a group of people gets to enjoy the same civil rights as you do, and because I deny you the right to lay claim to the institution of marriage and to define it to suit your whim. Please back up a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 11:17 AM

And one more thing. Yes, repeated inbreeding of close family members results in a higher level of genetic abnormalities. But occasional reproduction by first cousins carries approximately the same increased risk of genetic abnormality as the risk taken by women over 40 having babies. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

I do not believe that Steve.
Where did you get this information please?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 11:21 AM

John.
How about responding to what I actually say John?

I have. I'll try again: We are saying, "You don't get to discriminate against us." You are saying, "It is discriminatory to tell us we can't discriminate against you."

BUT I HAVE NOT SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE SO INTERPRETED!
So, how about responding to what I actually say John?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 12:17 PM

Steve.
risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.
The risk for mothers aged 40 is 1.6%

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 02:06 PM

""I have no issue with same sex marriage, but I respect the views of those many people who do, except those who just object to anything concerning gays out of prejudice.""

The standard Keith A get out clause. I am just reporting what people whose opinions are more credible than mine have said, so you can't accuse me of having views of my own.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM

It happens to be the truth Don.
Sorry if that is not good enough for you.
And never mind all the abuse you gave me, selective memory and such, in your confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 07:23 PM

Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined

Let me expand this into its full meaning: "Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, including to homosexuals as long as they deny their natural sexuality and find a partner of the opposite sex to marry."

Nice one, Keith. The very definition of homophobia, neatly done in such a short sentence.

Parliament should decide after giving a proper hearing to all dissenting views.
That is how these things should be done.
Why are you all against letting other people have they say.

You are being a bit vague here, Keith. What "other people" do you mean? For gay marriage to become legal, legislation will be required. The three main parties all support gay marriage. Tough, eh? That's democracy for ya! They will have to debate it in parliament and pass a law. And in just about every poll in the last ten years, there has been a majority in the country for gay marriage (look it up on wiki, why don't you). We elect our MPs to act legislatively on our behalf. If you don't like your MP's stance on gay marriage, then vote against him next time (actually,you'll be all right with your bloke, eh, Keith, a nice Tory backwoodsman!). Are you asking that priests and bishops should have a lot more say or something? What exactly are you asking? For gay marriage to be a special legislative case? Wanna referendum??? (you'd lose!)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 07:45 PM

Steven....sorry for delay hospital visit.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested.
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· Also Bell and Weinberg "Male and female homosexuality"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM

Wiki(sorry)
A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found that 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners.[15] More recent studies have reported similar numbers. [16] Early studies found men with homosexual contact were more likely to have a very large number of sexual partners, but a 1989 study found a very high number of partners (over 100) to be present though rare in that demographic. The difference was attributed to sampling problems with earlier studies, and the influence of AIDS.[17]

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM

Ake, how many partners do you think heterosexual men and women might have over a lifetime if adequate birth control were readily available and marriage was not an option?

Here's a bulletin:   marriage, and the emotional relationship that prompts it, is NOT just about sexual intercourse. That's true for BOTH heterosexual AND homosexual people.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:24 PM

I admire anyone who can keep count after about 40 or 50 (ol' Cleggie couldn't!). Lucky buggers. But, ake, even if these figures are accurate, they are making a very strong case in favour of gay marriage. In the kind of marriage that you and Keith "approve" of, you pledge loyalty to just the one person. You should be a strong advocate for gay marriage then, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM

""In the kind of marriage that you and Keith "approve" of, you pledge loyalty to just the one person. You should be a strong advocate for gay marriage then, innit!""

You would think so, wouldn't you Steve?

But dear old Ake has been shying away from any thought of comparing with Heterosexual statistics,

After all it's apples and oranges ain't it. "Heteros are normal", says Ake and Homos are a bit queer.

As for Keith, he's just admitted that he hides his own opinion by finding somebody who thinks the same way and blaming him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 02:56 AM


As for Keith, he's just admitted that he hides his own opinion by finding somebody who thinks the same way and blaming him.
I did not Don.
Either by confusion, forgetfulness or dishonesty you have have posted yet another untruth about me.
Why can you people never confine yourselves to the truth and what people actually say?

Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing?
I agree that same sex marriage is going to happen and that is fine.
Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?
After millennia, why the unseemly rush given the deeply held convictions that people have?
It has certainly not been thought through.
Are you clear on what role churches can play, what they must play, and what they can not play?
That should have all been worked out before the consultation.
It was not, and the consultation has anyway failed to win the confidence of those with genuine reservations as a fair hearing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM

Err
Keith.   Should dissenting views get a fair hearing?

Now's your chance to get your views in then.

Where do you stand on Muslim marriage? Been going only half the time that Christian ones have so fail at your ancient clause.   How about black people? What rights should they have? Slaves used to jump over a broom stick because tradition said they couldn't be legally married. That was the preserve of white Christians.

Do you support civil partnerships because it is a system of apartheid? Do you like being able to legally point and say they are different?

In fact do you like being compared to Akenaton? Or don't you think your bigotry is as bad as his so somehow more acceptable?

If you as usual ignore the above, how about whether a view is valid regardless? There are those who if pressed would say they would like to abuse children without it being illegal. Let's buy them a soapbox. Fancy Chipping in?

No different to those who hate gays on the basis of it once being illegal and related to old men cottaging in public toilets.   Cottaging. That's an old word eh? Used by our local UKIP candidate. Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM

"Where do you stand on Muslim marriage? Been going only half the time that Christian ones have so fail at your ancient clause."
Marriage is older than both religions.
I do not think we should allow child marriage or polygamy here without considerable debate and consultation.
" How about black people? What rights should they have? Slaves used to jump over a broom stick because tradition said they couldn't be legally married. That was the preserve of white Christians."
That was how poor people were married too.
I do not believe in discrimination.

"Do you support civil partnerships because it is a system of apartheid?"
No opinion really.
There was widespread support, and some objections by excluded groups.

" Do you like being able to legally point and say they are different? "
No.

"In fact do you like being compared to Akenaton? Or don't you think your bigotry is as bad as his so somehow more acceptable?"
Neither of us is in the slightest way bigoted.

"If you as usual ignore the above, how about whether a view is valid regardless? There are those who if pressed would say they would like to abuse children without it being illegal."
I do not think that child marriage should be brought back.
Some would say that is discriminatory.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM

No-one EVER answers my questions!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 04:48 AM

""The standard Keith A get out clause. I am just reporting what people whose opinions are more credible than mine have said, so you can't accuse me of having views of my own.

Don T.""

Response:

""It happens to be the truth Don.
Sorry if that is not good enough for you.

Keith A.""

An absolutely clear admission.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM

""Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?""

Yes, I would emphatically deny that. If a government were only able to legislate that which was in its manifesto, it would be totally hamstrung in the face of changing circumstances. Also, secondary legislation commonly follows on from a manifesto pledge (e.g. Equality foe all, not just for those Keith A finds worthy).

""Are you clear on what role churches can play, what they must play, and what they can not play?
That should have all been worked out before the consultation.""

YES! The whole country (except apparently you) knows the answer to this. They can if they wish, but they do not have to, carry out same sex marriages.

That would seem to address the views of dissenting churches.

""-snip- Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing? -snip-

-snip- the consultation has anyway failed to win the confidence of those with genuine reservations as a fair hearing. -snip-""

The only thing that you would accept as a fair hearing or a proper consultation would be one which dragged on until everybody agreed with your biased views.

And there is somebody who answers your questions, ME!

You just don't like the answers!

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:40 AM

You don't belieive in discrimination, eh, Keith? So what's this, then?

Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined

Which means:

"Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, including to homosexuals as long as they deny their natural sexuality and find a partner of the opposite sex to marry."

As currently defined, marriage is unavailable to homosexuals who refuse to deny their sexuality by marrying a partner of the opposite sex. On the other hand, heterosexuals may enter into marriage without denying their sexuality. That is treating people differently. One group has it better than the other by design. By any measure, that is discrimination and you appear to condone it. You may think that's trivial, Keith. A piece of piss for a gay person. Well that shows how intolerant you are and how little you understand same-sex relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:57 AM

Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing?

Yep. And they're getting it. There is plenty of scope for open debate on all manner of platforms, including this one. I think your problem is that there is nothing like the groundswell of opinion against gay marriage that you seem to think there is. I've scarcely heard anything at all except from a few out-of-touch churchmen and the odd Tory MP from Backwoodshire.

Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?

From nowhere? You mean it wasn't in a manifesto somewhere? Blimey, if we held every party strictly to its manifesto we wouldn't half be having fun here, wouldn't we! As long as proper parliamentary procedure is followed (and this is hardly being played out in private either, is it), there's nothing wrong. Gay marriage is a big change, but so was abolishing hanging and allowing abortion and cutting the tax rate for millionaires. You have to do these things in one go on the whole, not drag them out. You can hardly complain that equality for gay people in general, and gay marriage in particular, has suddenly come out of the blue. Let's get on with it!

After millennia, why the unseemly rush given the deeply held convictions that people have?

After millennia of what? Your kind of marriage tradition out of all the hundreds of marriage traditions the world over?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:58 AM

Steve, marriage always has had, and always will have restrictions.
Over the centuries some restrictions are challenged and changed.
Child marriage for instance.
Then again, different cultures have different restrictions.
Although no known culture in all human history has ever allowed same-sex marriage, it may be time for that to change in our culture now.

Don.
Yes, I would emphatically deny that. If a government were only able to legislate that which was in its manifesto, it would be totally hamstrung in the face of changing circumstances. Also, secondary legislation commonly follows on from a manifesto pledge
Very silly Don.
Of course issues come up suddenly but this one is centuries old, so why the mad rush?
What has "secondary legislation" to do with this?

Don you are wrong about the position of churhes, but this time the confusion is not your fault.
It keeps changing because the implications had not been thought through.
I think the latest wheeze is that some churches are prohibited from doing it, but I am confused too.

And Don, I clearly admitted that I post the views of others.
I have stated my own views.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM

I've scarcely heard anything at all except from a few out-of-touch churchmen and the odd Tory MP from Backwoodshire.
Then you have had your eyes closed Steve.
MPs and Peers from all parties.
High Court Judges.
Huge petitions.
Many, many people of all faiths and none.

Do you even know what the main objections are Steve?
Quickly. No Googling.

It came out of nowhere for the Tories.
Many Tory voters are cross about that.
It was in no manifesto, the Coalition Agreement or the Queen's Speech. Why not.
Was there a single reason for it not to be?

All the other issues you mention WERE given a proper hearing.
Why not this one?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM

BBC.
Some Conservative MPs grumbled during Mrs Miller's statement that promises to "preserve" marriage had been broken.

They said that when civil partnerships became law, they had been reassured that same sex marriages would not follow.

A look back at the Commons Hansard, from the second reading of the Civil Partnership Bill, on 12 October 2004, provides some evidence for their claims.

Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 07:34 AM

Well then, Keith, you can hardly complain that the matter isn't getting an airing. I suppose some of us don't listen enough to the stuffshirts when they start spouting about "morals", etc. The fact remains that there is hardly a massive public outrage going on, though there is plenty of airing. As for the haste which you pejoratively refer to, well I don't know about you but in matters of human rights I don't much care for slow-grinding and long delays perpetrated by the men of marble. We should be getting on with it, post haste. Only people who like the idea of discrimination would want all that delay that you're calling for.

And I can't be the only person around here who doesn't give a stuff what churches do or don't do. Weddings to them are largely money-making affairs (they tend not to press prospective couples too much, after all, as to whether they actually ever go to church! Some principle...)The legal bit is the couple of minutes of the marriage process. The rest is ceremony, and you can do what you like with that for all I care. I wouldn't license any church to conduct marriages at all if they said they intended to discriminate against gay people. They're getting away with blue murder otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM

Are you standing in the next election for your mates then?

You need to brush up a bit on not answering questions first. The trick is to not just claim to have answered them but give an answer as well.

Of course you don't agree with the outrageous examples I gave. Unfortunately you don't seem to see the connection with stigmatising gay people. It's all the fucking same my deluded old chap, all the fucking same.

Oh and if you can't see the hate and bigotry in Akenaton and his diatribe your credibility in these matters is, if I may say so is blinkered.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 07:45 AM

Steven....you say that there is no evidence of a "groundswell" of opinion against homosexual "marriage", but the latest and largest question on the issue was posed by the Scottish govt only a few months ago in their consultation document.

The result was 32% for HM.....and 67% against.

Mr Salmond being the wily politician that he is, ignored the voice of the Scottish people and announced that he would go ahead with the legislation.
Why would any politician go against the clearly stated views of his electorate?
Because Mr Salmond undestands only to clearly the power of the media, which would adopt the same tactics as the majority of posters on this thread......to reduce what is clearly a complicated issue to the simplistic ethereal myth of "equality" and attempt to browbeat all opposition with the tag of "homophobia".....another meaningless term in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 08:07 AM

The apparent public opinion against gay marriage in Scotland is a bloody myth. The reason for the apparent high numbers opposing is that organised mass-postcarding and petitions from pressure groups were included in the count. If those "votes" are excluded, 65% of respondents were in favour of gay marriage, very much in line with opinion polls the UK as a whole. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

I don't mind your saying my name like my mum does, but it's Stephen with a "ph".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 08:21 AM

Ian (musket)......verbally abusing other posters does not constitute a reasoned argument

In place of reason, you depend on an ethereal myth of "equality" within a social and economic system built on inequality and which could not survive without inequality.
You support this system unreservedly.

Many people read this forum....from many countries and your aggresive mindless abuse does little to help your cause here, rather it gives the distinct impression, I have been informed......that the thought locker is empty....and shut tight.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 08:22 AM

You clearly have no idea what the objectors' views are.
You just know they are wrong.
A perfect definition of prejudice.

I am just asking why the usual procedures are not being followed.
That is why people feel that their views are being ignored.

This has not just come out of the blue, it actually goes against what Parliament had previously been assured.

I will answer any question clearly put to me.
Any chance of answers to some of miine?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 08:26 AM

hate and bigotry in Akenaton and his diatribe

Just challenge what he states if you can.
Name calling is not an alternative.
I have seen not one expression of hate nor one example of bigotry.
Perhaps I missed it.
Remind me of the very worst thing he has said.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 08:34 AM

Steve.....dont be so touchy, I thought you were older. your spelling is excellent....much better than mine.

Anyway of course there were pressure groups.....this is a very divisive issue......but most people of faith would have voted no anyway?
Most social conservatives in this area did not even know how to respond to the consultation document.....whereas all the rights groups were represented.

So funnily enough with real equality, the no's would have won by an even bigger majority.
But as you know equality is only desirable if it represent your point of view?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM

That's an amazing interpretation of a survey. :-)

I wasn't being touchy about the spelling. Just thought I'd mention it, that's all. Have a nice mahogany.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 12:32 PM

""Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.""

So, because your hidebound mind is locked into your idee fixe (that's "obsession"), you deny others the right to change their minds.

Another example of your tight shut mind and its hard wired bias.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 12:44 PM

Good new year to you too Steve.......wishing you all the best A.

I'll have one small whiskey at the bells to a man with a wee sense of humour. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 01:20 PM

you deny others the right to change their minds.
There you go again Don!
I never even suggested such a ludicrous thing, and nor did the BBC journalist who wrote it, so why did you?

It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone.
That is no way to deal with a highly sensitive issue, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:39 PM

""It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone.
That is no way to deal with a highly sensitive issue, is it?""

A surprise that takes three years (two of them spent in consultation with everybody apparently but you) to assimilate is somewhat unsurprising to most people.

Of course if your mental responses are that slow, I suppose you could be surprised by it, but I can't help feeling that you are not actually one of the interested parties who deserved to be consulted.

They didn't consult me either, but I'm neither miffed nor bothered. I'm quite willing to accept that the process was fairly discussed and settled, without the benefit of your wise counsel.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:44 PM

And if you really belive those people have the right to change their minds, what was the point of posting their out of date previous comment?

Transparent Keith, just like a sheet of plate glass. Pity your poorly concealed real agenda keeps showing through.

Don T.