Gay marriage thread

[amateur51]

This is rubbish
there were no dinosaurs
God put the so called "fossils" there to try and trick us into thinking that the earth was old .................
(no where are my golden tablets ? I'm sure I left them round here somewhere ?)

[amateur51]

Well observed, Flossie ... that must have been a really fascinating "watch".

Did you happen to notice many Yanks using a fork to cut up their food into little pieces and then a knife to convey it to their mouth ... ?

Oh dear

[scottycelt]

Well obviously I was responding to you so maybe you should take the request on the chin and justify it ... ?

Justify what ... the official 2011 Civil Partnership statistics... ?

[Mr Pee]

do you only approve of statistics that fit in with your own particular point of view?

Perish the thought!

[amateur51]

I'm not attempting to 'prove' anything. I'm simply querying Ferret's 2011 figures compared to the lot that I've discovered.

Have you queried Ferret, Julien and the 'firing on all cylinders' Ams exactly what they are trying to 'prove' with their posting of statistics, or do you only approve of statistics that fit in with your own particular point of view?

I think that Julien Sorel has shot your fox, scotty

[scottycelt]

I think that Julien Sorel has shot your fox, scotty

Never mind, I've got another one in the garage somewhere, amsey ...

[Julien Sorel]

do you only approve of statistics that fit in with your own particular point of view?

Perish the thought!

It's always a temptation, of course.

You wouldn't disagree that the Office for National Statistics remark - "34% of marriages are expected to end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary" undermines the argument that different sex marriage is an especially secure foundation from which to bring up and care for children, though? Those being the years, of course, when most different sex couples will be caring for children / adolescents?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2011/sty-what-percentage-of-marriages-end-in-divorce.html

[scottycelt]

The statistics on divorce suggest it's a rather flimsy claim that different sex marriage is the only secure basis from which to bring up a child. No?

Here are some more statistics if you want them http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...l-partnerships. Of course, it's far too soon to say whether civil partnerships or same sex marriages will prove more durable, less durable, or about as durable as different sex marriages (hopefully at some stage different sex civil partnerships will be introduced. Though I imagine the Catholic Church and the Church of England would lobby against that?)

Have you heard from Deckerd, yet ... ?

As I only accept that there can be a different-sex marriage in the first place such statistics are (to me) a total irrelevance whatever these 'prove'. In any case, a simple exploration of Google will reveal all sorts of figures 'proving' all sorts of things on the subject.

If my memory serves me well it was you, yourself, who introduced the subject of child-safety in relation to 'same-sex marriage', Julien?

I've carefully avoided (so far!) the trap not-so-cunningly laid by yourself and others by not somewhat naively suggesting there is any particular connection between the two, but you now seem to fallen into that very same trap, yourself. Mr GG, Amsey & Other Tolerants must be "foaming at the mouth" at you even raising the subject.

Mr Cameron believes in "equality" as well and he says there will be no Civil Partnerships for heterosexuals. So the Catholic Church and Church of England can get back to their pews and stop interfering in matters that don't concern them.

Quite right too ... who do these people think they are? ... what right do they have to 'lobby' for or against anything?

'Bigots'!

[MrGongGong]

Scotty
What on earth are you doing ?
You should be in CHURCH
it's Sunday

[scottycelt]

Scotty
What on earth are you doing ?
You should be in CHURCH
it's Sunday

Bit early, Mr GG ... can you lend me your Bible?

[MrGongGong]

Bit early, Mr GG ... can you lend me your Bible?

It's a bit dented
but here you go

[amateur51]

It's a bit dented
but here you go

You should know better by now, scotty

[Julien Sorel]

Have you heard from Deckerd, yet ... ?

As I only accept that there can be a different-sex marriage in the first place such statistics are (to me) a total irrelevance whatever these 'prove'. In any case, a simple exploration of Google will reveal all sorts of figures 'proving' all sorts of things on the subject.

If my memory serves me well it was you, yourself, who introduced the subject of child-safety in relation to 'same-sex marriage', Julien?

I've carefully avoided (so far!) the trap not-so-cunningly laid by yourself and others by not somewhat naively suggesting there is any particular connection between the two, but you now seem to fallen into that very same trap, yourself. Mr GG, Amsey & Other Tolerants must be "foaming at the mouth" at you even raising the subject.

Mr Cameron believes in "equality" as well and he says there will be no Civil Partnerships for heterosexuals. So the Catholic Church and Church of England can get back to their pews and stop interfering in matters that don't concern them.

Quite right too ... who do these people think they are? ... what right do they have to 'lobby' for or against anything?

'Bigots'!

You introduced a set of statistics showing the number of civil partnerships dissolved in 2011. I provided two links: one to flesh out the statistics you had provided (in other words, I wasn't attempting anything by linking to them. They give a more detailed account of the statistics you introduced. They don't disprove them). The second set of statistics - from the Office of National Statistics (December 2012) - estimates that 42% of different sex marriages will end in divorce (or marriages, since as of now there are no same sex marriages only civil partnerships: so your remark that you only accept a woman and a man marrying as marriage is beside the point. The first set of figures - which you introduced - concern civil partnerships, the second - which I introduced - concern marriage as it currently exists), 34% of marriages will end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary.

Again, I wasn't attempting to prove anything. I was suggesting that the claim that different sex marriage is a uniquely secure basis from which to bring up children looks dubious in light of the fact that over 30% of marriages end in divorce during the years when you'd expect the children of those marriages to be ... well, children or adolescents.

You seem obsessed by the idea that people are trying to trap you or catch you out. I can't answer for other people, but I have no interest in trapping you whatsoever. I would like to know why you are - specifically - against same sex couples adopting children. Or, I'd like to know if you have any objection beyond the argument that it doesn't mirror the situation in reproductive biology so it isn't natural. Do you have any objection beyond that argument?

I'm also interested in Mr Pee's reasons for apparently objecting to same sex adoption.

In other words, I want to understand. Not to trap. What I wonder is, with all the talk of entrapment, whether you have reasons other than reference to what is natural for objecting to same sex couples adopting children. Specifically whether you think same sex relationships are unnatural and whether you think same sex couples constitute a potential risk to children (I didn't by that mean child abuse: I wondered whether you thought they might influence a child to herself / himself be lesbian / gay in later life. Though as you know the Church you belong to has attempted to categorise paedophilia as a consequence of what it calls homosexuality http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8618878.stm)

I ask these questions because I can see no reason why same sex couples should not adopt - I have no interest in the matter, since (a) I don't wish to adopt a child (b) I'm heterosexual. But I think these are important questions because I think the welfare of children is important.

At a tangent; I understand your refusal to accept same sex marriage as marriage is based on your religious beliefs. I find it odd that so much energy is expended by religious groups in trying to stop people doing things which harm no one (other than, given the ONS divorce stats possibly themselves), but there it is ... however: do you regard civil partnerships as presently constituted as acceptable? How would you feel about extending civil partnerships to different sex couples? (Or would you think of them as undermining the institution of marriage?) That's a question I'm interested in in several ways. Would you regard that as an attack on marriage? (My hunch - and it's only a hunch - is that there would be a surprisingly significant uptake of different sex civil partnerships.) You raised the subject: simple question - do you support same sex civil partnerships? [edit: and would you support extending civil partnerships to different sex couples?]

[Julien Sorel]

double post for some reason

[Mr Pee]

I'm also interested in Mr Pee's reasons for apparently objecting to same sex adoption.

Well, it's very simple. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

I just happen to think that, in the long-term, the most beneficial environment for a child to grow up in is a stable, heterosesexual family, which is the- here comes that word- natural state of affairs. That way the child matures with both male and female influences/role models during their formative years. This can only be beneficial for the emotional and psychological development of that child. Which is the most important thing. I assume we can at least agree on that...