dpb

[QUOTE=Sambob;10977857]This is exactly the type of ignoramus attitude which is destroying civilization.

Changing the definition of Marriage will have HUGE repercussions for EVERYONE. Perhaps the effects won't be felt immediately, but know that there could be negative ramifications and repercussions if our current definition of Marriage is redefined to what they are proposing.

If you actually have an iota of intelligence, why don't you read into the facts yourselves and make a decision based upon the truth of the matter, instead of posting moronic, ignorant statements containing absolute non-sense.

http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/


[/I take it you're a bible basher your self?]

Sambob

Homosexuals already have the same rights via Civil Partnerships as Married Couples. This issue is not about giving homosexuals rights, it's about changing the current definition of marriage for everyone else, which is out of order.

If you really want to know more on the topic, C4M have a very strong case on keeping the current definition of marriage.

See http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/

c_maguire

Given the opportunity, I would vote against gay marriage.

And to clarify my position, I would have voted for civil partnerships.
I also strongly object to homosexual couples being parents.

Is that clear enough?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Oh your opnion is pretty obvious, but to reiterate, what I find peculiar is that you haven't voted after berating others for abstaining .... you aren't exactly making a case for your argument are you?

urban

iTrader: (1)

Seems pretty clear to me

Sambob

So when your Child (assuming you have them or will have them, or can perhaps entertain the idea of having children for a moment) is in first school, and is read a book containing "Why does daddy sleep in bed with another man" and this is to ALL students, indoctrinating and convincing them that practicing homosexual **** sex is perfectly normal and perfectly fine, (perhaps it wont be as graphic as this, but kids aren't stupid and will find out) you wouldn't even flinch at that?

I'll tell you something now buddy, people can call me what the heck they like, but they are NOT going to teach my kids that Ben Dover and Phil McAvity are good role models of the future.

Sambob

[QUOTE=dpb;10977866]Would you be so kind as to please explain to us all, your definition of "a bible basher" ?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Sambob

facepalm away, they already have the books printed and published, ready to go into schools up and down the country.

Sambob

I see, so you are willing to close your eyes because........?

dpb

That's all well and good, you'll only need take em home and teach them yourself, pretend it just doesn't exist

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Assuming you are not on a wind up (and the jury is still out on that) would you like to prove that claim? Oh and who are 'they'?

Sambob

I work 40 hours a week and also run a small business, where do I get the time to re-educate my children? I pay a lot of taxes so that this is done for me by the system.....

No. There is no need to re-define marriage, it is totally unnecessary, and it would appear that one of the reasons this is being pushed through is to change the landscape of our society for dubious & totally unfounded reasons.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

a) I'll be damned if I am going to be lectured on morals by politcians of all people

b) religion is a nonsense that, in my opinion, indoctinates people against rational thought and is reponsible for more bad than good in the world.

Hope that clears things up for you

Sambob

No, I am not winding you up. I got this information from a reliable source and I will publish ASAP. "They" are those who are for the re-definition of marriage and are active perpetrators behind the changes they are trying to make to marriage. C4M can give you more info on this if you really want to know.

Sambob

a) ok

b) you are entitled to your opinion, but remember, it is not a religion which indoctrinates people, it is people who allow themselves to become indoctrinated by a religion. I am guessing that your current indoctrination is the religion of Atheism?

Sambob

I will have to phone a mate of mine to get the info regarding the books ready to be shipped up and down the country, but I googled "school books gay marriage" and there were quite a few interesting results....

dpb

Twenty posts kind says it all imo

Indoctrinated into believing nothing at all ,marvellous.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Atheism isnt a religion, it is common sense.

People dont get indoctrinated into homosexuality, it isnt "choosing", that is just how that individual feels, usually if anyone is indoctrinating youngsters into anything sexual, then that person is a paedophile first and foremost, it isnt like abusing underage girls is any more acceptable than boys, teaching is different, all kids need to know is that same sex couples exist, they dont need to know about the physical aspects.

I think a lot of people use kids and protecting them from "knowing about the dirty gays" as a front for their own prejudice, kids are adaptable and accepting, they seem to cope better than a lot of adults.

I think male pride, ego and fear of being considered gay are at the root of a lot of this, I think it is time to move on, still cant understand where the whole desire to wed in church comes from that is a different issue and I cant see ether side backing down, ever.

Sambob

More info on the books!

"Daddy's roommate"
"King & King"
"King & King & Family"
"Mom & Mum are geting married!
"The sissy duckling"
"Hello, Sailor"
"Dad David, Baba Chris and me"
"Josh and Jaz have three mums"
"And Tango makes three"
"Daddy, Papa and me"
"etc etc etc" - please go see for yourself.

http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/schools.pdf

Sambob

That has to be the most nonsensical statement in the history of mankind.

Sambob

I agree, so why, with our currect system, will they be taught the physical aspects before the age of consent?

Sambob

You think wrong. This is not a personal issue, at least not on my part. This is a much greater issue. Homosexuals are trying to redefine our current definition of marriage which has been around for thousands of years. The current definition is "the voluntary union for life, of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all other"

If this is re-defind it opens the door for polygamy and much more.

If you really want to know, watch these minute long video clips, which explain it very well. That is to say if you are actually interested in the topic and are not just trolling.

http://c4m.org.uk/marriage-minutes/

dpb

I don't think Mrs Ples would agree

urban

iTrader: (1)

In the King & King - page 7

Is the person in blue preparing themselves for entry?

dpb

I don't think you should get hung up on what this lot are babbling about, if you are I'd be more concerned with the Islamic influx, they'll be across the border sometime. In the next thousand years maybe even 600, then you'll be forced to wear a kaftan even in -10 we have here.

Lots of places have polygamy, of course it would frowned upon in good ole blighty

Sambob

Please don't get me started on the influx of Islam in our country! I have burned out 1 keyboard already on the issue at hand!

Dr Hu

I was quite proud of that hactualyy

c_maguire

And how predictable is it that one of the 'Dads' in 'Dad David, Baba Chris and Me' just had to be coloured? Yet another example of the naive interpretation of society expressed by well-meaning liberals desperate to allow all others to achieve their level of heightened enlightenment.
Homosexuality is not something your average Pakistani or African would be making public in a hurry. No need to let that get in the way of a good story though.

dpb

What incase they get birched for it, back Home its illegal because of hundreds years religious indoctrination alongside a very slightly more pertinent reason, that population numbers are at risk due to want