a secular society by 2030

[pauldominic]

Then please explain why you would deny same sex couples the opportunity to get married in your church.
It really is quite a simple question.

Addressed to Sooty as well.

The question is not simple at all.

It has implications for the nature of human identity, the best environment for raising children from birth, the nature of society, government policy on many fronts and many others.

Anyway your techniques are well known now.

Take a person's post, choose one small part, twist it into something they haven't said, post your reply all with the specific intention of ridiculing them for disagreeing with you.

i think you will have to explain why being married in a church would affect any of the above
some giant leaps there

Fair point. This is the Catholic PoV although I suspect other denominations and religions have similar concerns.

The sacrament of matrimony is one of the 7 sacraments of the church and both a civil and spiritual ceremony.

Same sex people already have the option of a civil partnership.

From a purely human point of view, marriage between people of the same sex is fraught with difficulty.

How will they as a couple conceive children?

Will one partner compromise their sexuality by engaging in an artificial union for the sole purpose of conceiving children?
The irony in respect to the Vatican view on contraception is certainly funny to me. However it has the advantage of a child knowing who the surrogate parent is.

Another possibility is a sperm or egg bank, but a child is bound to be confused as soon they work out that it takes a man and a woman. In some children this really is a major identity crisis.

Finally adoption is another possibility, which is already available under the current law.

In the midst of all the opportunities for bashing religious people and religion, where do civil partnerships fail and require a change of the law?

 

[stony]

Your continued usage of the daily mail makes it impossible to understand what he actually said and have a civilised dialogue.

That article is full of intentional inaccuracy, unnecessary and prejudicial imagery with a very dodgy headline.

You've just described the bible.

 

[maineman]

Your continued usage of the daily mail makes it impossible to understand what he actually said and have a civilised dialogue.

That article is full of intentional inaccuracy, unnecessary and prejudicial imagery with a very dodgy headline.

You've just described the bible.

the usual daily fascist no change there then

 

[pauldominic]

Whats a secular society please..i was only educated to gcse level.

Evening fetlock,swp and all regular cellarites

Evening SHB - just trying to get a straight answer from piousdomonic for once.
I may try nailing jelly to the wall or plaiting fog shortly as it may be more rewarding.
A secular society is one that is not governed along the teachings of one religion,and allows equal respect to all faiths mate.

Ya see there you go again NF. You're projecting a completely and utterly inaccurate image onto me and using it to post nonsense on BM about me.

If I think about it, my reply to tonea2003 is the beginning of an answer to your question.

 

[pauldominic]

Your continued usage of the daily mail makes it impossible to understand what he actually said and have a civilised dialogue.

That article is full of intentional inaccuracy, unnecessary and prejudicial imagery with a very dodgy headline.

You've just described the bible.

Far too crude a wind-up.

As a teacher would say in his end of year report "STONY has talent, but must try harder".

 

[Shadz69]

i know but a quirk it still is

It is so prevelant in nature i don't think it is a quirk,for some it is totally natural and for someone to say otherwise is nonsense in my opinion.

of course it feels natural but it is a quirk of nature that it does, it is not the norm,a quirk whatever term you like

you are entitled to your opinion it just happens to be wrong

It's generally accepted that about 1 in 10 men are Gay.If we lived in a more tolerant society where adults were encouraged to explore homosexual tendancies if they had them you could bump that up to about 3 in 10.I think people being gay is a huge part of our society and to dismiss it as wrong or quirky when so many are gay is wrong.It's part of being human and the more barriers that stop consenting adults are broken down the better.

 

[Skashion]

3 in 10 men are gay? Bollocks. Not a chance.

 

[Shadz69]

3 in 10 men are gay? Bollocks. Not a chance.

That's not what I said but how many men live their lives in repession for fear of coming out.

 

[Skashion]

3 in 10 men are gay? Bollocks. Not a chance.

That's not what I said but how many men live their lives in repession for fear of coming out.

That would you get you your 1 in 10 number. Maximum. 3 in 10 gay is completely unsupported by any poll or survey, including anonymous ones where they surveyed attraction. You can't just make things up because you want to claim homosexuality is normal. This argument is not a hard one to win. You don't need to lie. Tell the bigots to fuck off, that it's none of their fucking business, and that their bigotry certainly has no right to be enshrined in law. There's nothing inherently good about being in a majority anyway.

 

[Shadz69]

3 in 10 men are gay? Bollocks. Not a chance.

That's not what I said but how many men live their lives in repession for fear of coming out.

That would you get you your 1 in 10 number. Maximum. 3 in 10 gay is completely unsupported by any poll or survey, including anonymous ones where they surveyed attraction. You can't just make things up because you want to claim homosexuality is normal. This argument is not a hard one to win. You don't need to lie. Tell the bigots to fuck off, that it's none of their fucking business, and that their bigotry certainly has no right to be enshrined in law. There's nothing inherently good about being in a majority anyway.

I believe 1 in 10 is about right lad.It is my opinion yes but I did'nt claim otherwise and I also believe that if men who were bi acted on their impulses the figure would be higher,not that hard to get is it?

 

[Skashion]

I believe 1 in 10 is about right lad.It is my opinion yes but I did'nt claim otherwise and I also believe that if men who were bi acted on their impulses the figure would be higher,not that hard to get is it?

I don't. The homosexual and bisexual demographic is fairly consistent around the globe at 2-3% in western countries, with around 5-6% tending to report a homosexual experience at some point in life, and 8-9% reporting attraction. I think you've got to go to the lower end. Having feelings of attraction, doesn't make you homosexual. Even having one or two experiences doesn't. I think it's 5% or lower. Not 30%. Nowhere near 30%.

Your defence of your opinion is that you didn't try to base it on fact? I'm supposed to understand that as an argument. Give yourself a bit more credit.

 

[Shadz69]

I believe 1 in 10 is about right lad.It is my opinion yes but I did'nt claim otherwise and I also believe that if men who were bi acted on their impulses the figure would be higher,not that hard to get is it?

I don't. The homosexual and bisexual demographic is fairly consistent around the globe at 2-3% in western countries, with around 5-6% tending to report a homosexual experience at some point in life, and 8-9% reporting attraction. I think you've got to go to the lower end. Having feelings of attraction, doesn't make you homosexual. Even having one or two experiences doesn't. I think it's 5% or lower. Not 30%. Nowhere near 30%.

Your defence of your opinion is that you didn't try to base it on fact? I'm supposed to understand that as an argument. Give yourself a bit more credit.

I was including people who have had some experiences but I believe the society we live in keeps the numbers artificially low.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Whats a secular society please..i was only educated to gcse level.

Evening fetlock,swp and all regular cellarites

Evening SHB - just trying to get a straight answer from piousdomonic for once.
I may try nailing jelly to the wall or plaiting fog shortly as it may be more rewarding.
A secular society is one that is not governed along the teachings of one religion,and allows equal respect to all faiths mate.

Ya see there you go again NF. You're projecting a completely and utterly inaccurate image onto me and using it to post nonsense on BM about me.

If I think about it, my reply to tonea2003 is the beginning of an answer to your question.

'The beginning of an answer'.
And that's about as good as it ever gets from you Paul,isn't it?
Possibly because you and your organ grinder Crossan spend more time reporting others and trying to get their posts removed and the posters banned than actually engaging in serious debate.
You two do more whinging to the moderators than the rest of the 40,580 forumites combined,and have long since lost any credibility you may have had.
I simply don't need to post 'nonsense' about you - you do a perfectly good job yourself without any help from me.
Rational,constructive dialogue with you is impossible - you either wander off in a flurry of bizarre non-sequiturs,move the goalposts so far that you are in a different stadium,or just ignore the question completely.
I asked a simple question a while back - why do you object to same sex couples getting married in your church?
It is a question so simple that the average six year old could understand it.
Yet seemingly after much head-scratching all you can come up with is 'well, how would they be able to have children'?
The bottom line is that you can't really answer it,for the basic reason that it is down to bigotry and discrimination in the name of god - something your church has a long track record of.
Your puppetmaster Crossan claimed that Jesus was the first socialist a week or so ago - clearly a bonkers notion,as ever,but if we humour him and run with that ludicrous concept awhile,do you think that Jesus would want your church to deny the same blessing of a committed,loving and lasting relationship of a same sex couple,whilst allowing heterosexuals the right?
Virtually the only people nowadays who refuse to show gay couples compassion and equality are those of faith.
Doesn't that tell you something?
It tells me that both you and your church are bigoted and homophobic,and you can scream to the contrary until you are blue in the face,but until such time as your backward church treats all people in the same manner it is a fact.
Your sorry attempts to justify the prejudice of the Roman Catholic church are simply laughable.

 

[tonea2003]

<Giant snip>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251728/Pope-Benedict-XVI-denounces-gay-marriage-Christmas-message.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ssage.html</a>

Ah the daily mail, the paragon of truth and accuracy.

Here is what he actually said: -

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... ia_en.html</a>

Personally I do not have any disagreement with him at all on this particular subject.

Perhaps cellarites would enjoy his real Christmas address.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/urbi/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121225_urbi_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... bi_en.html</a>

so who said this then

"a false understanding of freedom" and a repudiation of life-long commitment in heterosexual marriage.

"When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child - essential elements of the experience of being human are lost,"

people could not "dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being".

The "pre-ordained duality of man and woman" had to be respected, he said, if families and children were not to lose their place and dignity.

People could not become what he called "abstract human beings" choosing for themselves what their nature would be

and you still haven't answered my last section of quotes which you have sidestepped

Your continued usage of the daily mail makes it impossible to understand what he actually said and have a civilised dialogue.

That article is full of intentional inaccuracy, unnecessary and prejudicial imagery with a very dodgy headline.

If you want a civilised dialogue, avoid newspapers in general and certainly the daily mail.

Go away and reference him directly.

A question to finish this post: How do you know I have sidestepped your quotes?

I know the answer but I want to hear it from you.

i haven't quoted from the daily mail, l specifically avoided it and used one of the most respected news agencies to quote from

now can we start again
forget the tit for tat
now tell me they didn't say what was quoted

 

[SWP's back]

Here you go Paul:

When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... ia_en.html</a>

Everything Tonea2003 quoted is from the Vatican website. Not the daily mail but direct from the very link you said he should try.

Now answer his question.

 

[pauldominic]

Another thread on religion draws to the same unhappy conclusion.

I have better things to do than respond especially when I know how people like NF and Sooty will respond back.

You 2 can think what you like about me, but pretty much all of the personal stuff is prejudicial nonsense.

Tonea2003: You'll have to form your own opinions.

 

[SWP's back]

Another thread on religion draws to the same unhappy conclusion.

I have better things to do than respond especially when I know how people like NF and Sooty will respond back.

You 2 can think what you like about me, but pretty much all of the personal stuff is prejudicial nonsense.

Tonea2003: You'll have to form your own opinions.

As expected.

Question dodged. Again. As per usual.

You're a fraud.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Another thread on religion draws to the same unhappy conclusion.

I have better things to do than respond especially when I know how people like NF and Sooty will respond back.

You 2 can think what you like about me, but pretty much all of the personal stuff is prejudicial nonsense.

Tonea2003: You'll have to form your own opinions.

You mean you have been caught out yet again,and have no answers.
Well what a surprising denouement that is.
And exactly why has the thread drawn to it's 'unhappy conclusion?'
Have you tried your usual party trick of getting it pulled again?
My New Year's Resolution will be simply to reply 'Nil By Mouth' to any future post of yours.

 

[Skashion]

My New Year's Resolution will be simply to reply 'Nil By Mouth' to any future post of yours.

I thought it was to not get banned?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

My New Year's Resolution will be simply to reply 'Nil By Mouth' to any future post of yours.

I thought it was to not get banned?

I thought I'd be more pragmatic and set myself an achievable goal.