02-06-2013, 06:01 PM
I am making a post in this discussion although for the most part I think it is a total waste of time. (So I’ll make it a decent one and then shut up and go away). Most people don’t actually want to discuss the real issues. For the most part,… (with the exception of what Abu and Tectak posted – both of whom I applaud and thank for their ability to at least make objective and rational comments concerning what is under discussion),…so far I have only seen posts containing regurgitated, media generated (funded) suppositions. This is the nub of what is wrong with this discussion and the countless others that are fuelling this so called reform in my opinion. No one is prepared to actually discuss the real issues and the back agendas that are driving this supposed “equality” issue forward.
Once this process (or any other of similar import) is started where does it end? Should it now be Ok for all other, (even smaller) minority groups to have the ability to push sweeping legislation through that ignored the thoughts and opinions of the majority. How about allowing brother and sister to marry. Or what about a father to marry his daughter[s]. (See the bullet point below concerning the definable point on what would constitute consummated)
I need to stop before I go into a full on rant. This whole consultation and setting out of this policy has been a sham and profoundly undemocratic from start to current farce – not that the Uk is widely consider a democratic country as defined of many countries. Perhaps some of you would care to consider and discuss some of the following points in your discussion.
• The question must still be addressed of whether radically redefining a major public social institution is the correct means of overcoming attitudes of prejudice.
• The Civil Partnerships Act in 2004, principle aim was to “mirror as fully as possible the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by those who can marry, and that uses civil marriage as a template for the processes, rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnership.” The Civil Partnerships Act, in other words, has already delivered legal equality for same-sex relationships. That was its purpose.
What does extending marriage to same-sex couples add?
• Why is it not reasonable to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage, given that marriage is a conjugal institution, one designed to encourage and foster the union of a man and a woman who have the possibility of begetting and rearing their natural children? (Our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage. Ie between a man and a woman)
• When these issues were being discussed recently advocates of gay / same sex marriage could not or would not speak of or offer any definition of just what would constitute the act of conjugal joining that would make the marriage “consummated” and thus hold water in any subsequent legal / court action of separation. So this has been pushed through to the next stage without a definition being given. If this is then played out to the ultimate conclusion, these to be newly “married” couples will therefore be above the law, in that they will be unable to be brought under the current charge that can be levied and sanctioned against heterosexual couples, this being adultery…. Of course this is no discriminatory or unjust towards those heterosexual couples that are and will continue to be held to such a charge. so this is in no way reflects the equality and the rights of these individuals, as is the common parlance currently.
Where do you think this is going to lead? What other changes do you think it will be acceptable for the (a) government to force through against the majority consensus on the tail of this act? Where should the line be drawn? (The same advocates of same-sex marriage openly support also changing the law to permit polygamy..is this Ok as well?)
Think it will end here? Well here are some occurrences in other places where this law has been changed.
In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Since then, three-way relationships
have been given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement”
Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage in 2009, and now two-year fixed-term marriages
have been proposed. Instead of divorce the two-year marriage is not renewed.
In Canada, Same-sex marriage legislation in 2005 replaced the term “natural parent” with “legal parent” in Canadian law. In January 2007 an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child
can legally have three parents. In British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise
polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage
• Have a discussion to consider who you think is currently driving and funding this massive international event? What or who is behind and funding of the massive media coverage of this issue? Or do you really think it is just a coincidence that this has become a major discussion in the Uk, France and America because the very small % of the population represented in each of these countries just happen to bring this at the same time and despite their small number they have managed to generate the vast resources needed to get this to this stage?
• Do you all actually believe and swallow the media “facts” as they are presented? Why do people (and in this I particularly refer to the UK) just accept whatever is on the TV or in the papers without ever engaging their brains and looking any deeper that what has been spoon fed (on the new and approved plastic spoon licensed and sponsored by who knows who)….come on people wake up please!
I’ll finish with this:
I make lots of comments to the effect that I’m not very bright….because it is true. My IQ is not that great. My ability to hold and digest new information is phenomenally slow compared to others. Hell I don’t understand half of the jokes and comments made in the threads on this site. I don’t speak Latin or Greek or even a second language. In fact I’m stunningly ignorant about many things. But even I can see, (ignoring and putting to one side my simple and naive faith based beliefs for a moment) that this is a load of horse shit. We are being fed half truths from all angles. The most shallow investigation will show that the numbers are being twisted and misrepresented. Come on all you intelligent people, wake up and ask yourself why? Who will actually gain from all of this? What are the real issues on the table? Where is all this going?
I might not be able to see the whole picture, or hold all the facts to be able to banter back and forth in brisk debate, but if I can understand and see enough to be disturbed, then better those equipped people need to stand up and start thinking and speaking, or they will most likely not be happy with the logical outworking of this and where this will all end.
AJ.
(I'm off ot to work...today i'm mucking out the horse pens and filtering the dead yeast crap out of the cider....normally i'm reluctant to leave the site...but today real horse shit is looking good)
Once this process (or any other of similar import) is started where does it end? Should it now be Ok for all other, (even smaller) minority groups to have the ability to push sweeping legislation through that ignored the thoughts and opinions of the majority. How about allowing brother and sister to marry. Or what about a father to marry his daughter[s]. (See the bullet point below concerning the definable point on what would constitute consummated)
I need to stop before I go into a full on rant. This whole consultation and setting out of this policy has been a sham and profoundly undemocratic from start to current farce – not that the Uk is widely consider a democratic country as defined of many countries. Perhaps some of you would care to consider and discuss some of the following points in your discussion.
• The question must still be addressed of whether radically redefining a major public social institution is the correct means of overcoming attitudes of prejudice.
• The Civil Partnerships Act in 2004, principle aim was to “mirror as fully as possible the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by those who can marry, and that uses civil marriage as a template for the processes, rights and responsibilities that go with civil partnership.” The Civil Partnerships Act, in other words, has already delivered legal equality for same-sex relationships. That was its purpose.
What does extending marriage to same-sex couples add?
• Why is it not reasonable to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage, given that marriage is a conjugal institution, one designed to encourage and foster the union of a man and a woman who have the possibility of begetting and rearing their natural children? (Our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage. Ie between a man and a woman)
• When these issues were being discussed recently advocates of gay / same sex marriage could not or would not speak of or offer any definition of just what would constitute the act of conjugal joining that would make the marriage “consummated” and thus hold water in any subsequent legal / court action of separation. So this has been pushed through to the next stage without a definition being given. If this is then played out to the ultimate conclusion, these to be newly “married” couples will therefore be above the law, in that they will be unable to be brought under the current charge that can be levied and sanctioned against heterosexual couples, this being adultery…. Of course this is no discriminatory or unjust towards those heterosexual couples that are and will continue to be held to such a charge. so this is in no way reflects the equality and the rights of these individuals, as is the common parlance currently.
Where do you think this is going to lead? What other changes do you think it will be acceptable for the (a) government to force through against the majority consensus on the tail of this act? Where should the line be drawn? (The same advocates of same-sex marriage openly support also changing the law to permit polygamy..is this Ok as well?)
Think it will end here? Well here are some occurrences in other places where this law has been changed.
In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Since then, three-way relationships
have been given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement”
Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage in 2009, and now two-year fixed-term marriages
have been proposed. Instead of divorce the two-year marriage is not renewed.
In Canada, Same-sex marriage legislation in 2005 replaced the term “natural parent” with “legal parent” in Canadian law. In January 2007 an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child
can legally have three parents. In British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise
polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage
• Have a discussion to consider who you think is currently driving and funding this massive international event? What or who is behind and funding of the massive media coverage of this issue? Or do you really think it is just a coincidence that this has become a major discussion in the Uk, France and America because the very small % of the population represented in each of these countries just happen to bring this at the same time and despite their small number they have managed to generate the vast resources needed to get this to this stage?
• Do you all actually believe and swallow the media “facts” as they are presented? Why do people (and in this I particularly refer to the UK) just accept whatever is on the TV or in the papers without ever engaging their brains and looking any deeper that what has been spoon fed (on the new and approved plastic spoon licensed and sponsored by who knows who)….come on people wake up please!
I’ll finish with this:
I make lots of comments to the effect that I’m not very bright….because it is true. My IQ is not that great. My ability to hold and digest new information is phenomenally slow compared to others. Hell I don’t understand half of the jokes and comments made in the threads on this site. I don’t speak Latin or Greek or even a second language. In fact I’m stunningly ignorant about many things. But even I can see, (ignoring and putting to one side my simple and naive faith based beliefs for a moment) that this is a load of horse shit. We are being fed half truths from all angles. The most shallow investigation will show that the numbers are being twisted and misrepresented. Come on all you intelligent people, wake up and ask yourself why? Who will actually gain from all of this? What are the real issues on the table? Where is all this going?
I might not be able to see the whole picture, or hold all the facts to be able to banter back and forth in brisk debate, but if I can understand and see enough to be disturbed, then better those equipped people need to stand up and start thinking and speaking, or they will most likely not be happy with the logical outworking of this and where this will all end.
AJ.
(I'm off ot to work...today i'm mucking out the horse pens and filtering the dead yeast crap out of the cider....normally i'm reluctant to leave the site...but today real horse shit is looking good)