Proud to raise kids in equality

DEAR Mr Plaisted. How sorry I was to read about your disappointment with the bill to “redefine marriage”.

It’s such a shame that these despicable people are allowed to ruin what is a sacred institution “between one man and one woman”. It’s as if they don’t even care about the beliefs of others, or the fact that they are ruining the idea of family life. I am, of course, extracting the Michael. To call it “untold damage” is taking it a step too far, don’t you think? So what? If two people love each other, don’t they have the right to express that love in a formal (and legal) way? As for “the message it is sending to our children”... I, for one, will be proud to raise my child in a world where equal opportunities are not only promoted, but enforced.

Kirsty Benham Park Road, Risca

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:20am Tue 5 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

I wouldn't mind if they weren't so dishonest in the way they oppose the bill. Instead of building an argument for tradition or an argument for why Christianity has the right to refuse homosexuals in it's own house so to speak, they resort to false pleas of victimisation and spin

Once again religion demonstrates that it cannot be trusted on matters of morality, that it has no qualms about lying to get it's way.

Lying by the way is another one of the regularly forsaken laws, it is a sin that never seems to carry any clout amongt even the most pious of belivers.

I would let them off the hook, if it were just the average glassy eyed zealot in the street that was using this dishonest tactic, but it is also considered perfectly OK to be shouted about in serious debate by some of the top apologists and theologians.

In my humble opinion, if you demonstrate an argument to be guilty of fallacy, it should not be admitted over and over again. If a person demonstrates an inability to understand basic concepts in rational debate, then they should not be included in 'any' debate.

We don't accept this level of dishonesty in any important aspects of our lives. Why is this any different? What is the point in debunking claims if certain claimants are immune to being disqualified for wilful lying?

If I could have made a case for tradition and special exception, then so could they. But they didn't, so I won't let them off the hook. Most of them are willing to lie in front of British law and in front of their chosen god.

It seems some sort of sick joke that the Church would so fiercely oppose the validity and natural occurance of 'man love' (god hates lesbians less) while defending the act of 'boy love' with just as much vigor, evidenced by the number of fugitive paedophiles in the protection of the Vatigan.

Many wanted the pope arrested when he last made his (expensive) tax payer funded visit to Britain. It seems that our fellow primates can get away with saying and doing the most horrendous things, if they can just get themselves called by the right title.

The pope is surely qualified to speak on behalf of god, yes? Not so near to the lord that he doesn't need his bullet proof box everywhere he goes mind you. You see where I'm going with this.

I wouldn't trust the word of a priest as much as I could throw him, and if one turned up to my door to babysit, I would call the police.

At the heart of all this is the inconvenient necessity of needing money to keep the Church going. This of course clashes directly with Jesus' teachings to shed all material possessions, hence the need for the occasional rally against moral issues such as abortion or homosexuality. Dishonesty again.

'This isn't MY version of the faith' I hear you say, 'THEY are not true to the teachings'. 'My faith is all about love'.

Well isn't that lovely, all you have to do is convince them that 'you' know better, and make it so.
I wouldn't mind if they weren't so dishonest in the way they oppose the bill. Instead of building an argument for tradition or an argument for why Christianity has the right to refuse homosexuals in it's own house so to speak, they resort to false pleas of victimisation and spin Once again religion demonstrates that it cannot be trusted on matters of morality, that it has no qualms about lying to get it's way. Lying by the way is another one of the regularly forsaken laws, it is a sin that never seems to carry any clout amongt even the most pious of belivers. I would let them off the hook, if it were just the average glassy eyed zealot in the street that was using this dishonest tactic, but it is also considered perfectly OK to be shouted about in serious debate by some of the top apologists and theologians. In my humble opinion, if you demonstrate an argument to be guilty of fallacy, it should not be admitted over and over again. If a person demonstrates an inability to understand basic concepts in rational debate, then they should not be included in 'any' debate. We don't accept this level of dishonesty in any important aspects of our lives. Why is this any different? What is the point in debunking claims if certain claimants are immune to being disqualified for wilful lying? If I could have made a case for tradition and special exception, then so could they. But they didn't, so I won't let them off the hook. Most of them are willing to lie in front of British law and in front of their chosen god. It seems some sort of sick joke that the Church would so fiercely oppose the validity and natural occurance of 'man love' (god hates lesbians less) while defending the act of 'boy love' with just as much vigor, evidenced by the number of fugitive paedophiles in the protection of the Vatigan. Many wanted the pope arrested when he last made his (expensive) tax payer funded visit to Britain. It seems that our fellow primates can get away with saying and doing the most horrendous things, if they can just get themselves called by the right title. The pope is surely qualified to speak on behalf of god, yes? Not so near to the lord that he doesn't need his bullet proof box everywhere he goes mind you. You see where I'm going with this. I wouldn't trust the word of a priest as much as I could throw him, and if one turned up to my door to babysit, I would call the police. At the heart of all this is the inconvenient necessity of needing money to keep the Church going. This of course clashes directly with Jesus' teachings to shed all material possessions, hence the need for the occasional rally against moral issues such as abortion or homosexuality. Dishonesty again. 'This isn't MY version of the faith' I hear you say, 'THEY are not true to the teachings'. 'My faith is all about love'. Well isn't that lovely, all you have to do is convince them that 'you' know better, and make it so. P C Neilson
  • Score: -1

2:07pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Mervyn James says...

equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it.

Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.
equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it. Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted. Mervyn James
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Tue 5 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

Mervyn James wrote:
equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it.

Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.
Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it. Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.[/p][/quote]Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it? P C Neilson
  • Score: -1

5:28pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Bobevans says...

Kistys post and I asume she is Gay is the usuall misleading guff

A mariage is between a man and awoman and has both a legal meaning and a cultural and moral meaning

Two same sex partners cannot have a Marriage simply because they are the same sex.

A civil partynership already exists which has the same as close as can be the same legal status as a marriage

There are sum legal difference simple because a same sex partnership is different to a marriage. THey cannot for instance legally consumater the marriage
Kistys post and I asume she is Gay is the usuall misleading guff A mariage is between a man and awoman and has both a legal meaning and a cultural and moral meaning Two same sex partners cannot have a Marriage simply because they are the same sex. A civil partynership already exists which has the same as close as can be the same legal status as a marriage There are sum legal difference simple because a same sex partnership is different to a marriage. THey cannot for instance legally consumater the marriage Bobevans
  • Score: 1

5:30pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Bobevans says...

P C Neilson wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it.

Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.
Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?
Gays are already treated Equally. It does not though mean they are the same as they are not
[quote][p][bold]P C Neilson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it. Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.[/p][/quote]Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?[/p][/quote]Gays are already treated Equally. It does not though mean they are the same as they are not Bobevans
  • Score: 1

8:08pm Tue 5 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

Bobevans wrote:
Kistys post and I asume she is Gay is the usuall misleading guff

A mariage is between a man and awoman and has both a legal meaning and a cultural and moral meaning

Two same sex partners cannot have a Marriage simply because they are the same sex.

A civil partynership already exists which has the same as close as can be the same legal status as a marriage

There are sum legal difference simple because a same sex partnership is different to a marriage. THey cannot for instance legally consumater the marriage
Well that's a bummer.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: Kistys post and I asume she is Gay is the usuall misleading guff A mariage is between a man and awoman and has both a legal meaning and a cultural and moral meaning Two same sex partners cannot have a Marriage simply because they are the same sex. A civil partynership already exists which has the same as close as can be the same legal status as a marriage There are sum legal difference simple because a same sex partnership is different to a marriage. THey cannot for instance legally consumater the marriage[/p][/quote]Well that's a bummer. P C Neilson
  • Score: -1

8:19pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Mervyn James says...

P C Neilson wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it.

Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.
Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?
we are ALL on the 'other side' geddit ? One man's right is another man's discrimination, as we all don't think the same, so you override via majority ? that is democratic ? Cameron took no consensus he went for an absolute equality view, when it isn't designed that way. Certainly not fair or equal. They are all bullies until you can get a compromise, but the equality law doesn't allow for compromise, gays have been given one, they insist on more, THAT is the problem we gave them civil marriage they still won't accept it is all we can do. If you have no belief then anything goes, but for those that do, it is an choice too far. Gays should be happy with what they have.
[quote][p][bold]P C Neilson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it. Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.[/p][/quote]Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?[/p][/quote]we are ALL on the 'other side' geddit ? One man's right is another man's discrimination, as we all don't think the same, so you override via majority ? that is democratic ? Cameron took no consensus he went for an absolute equality view, when it isn't designed that way. Certainly not fair or equal. They are all bullies until you can get a compromise, but the equality law doesn't allow for compromise, gays have been given one, they insist on more, THAT is the problem we gave them civil marriage they still won't accept it is all we can do. If you have no belief then anything goes, but for those that do, it is an choice too far. Gays should be happy with what they have. Mervyn James
  • Score: 1

10:51pm Tue 5 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

Mervyn James wrote:
P C Neilson wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it.

Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.
Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?
we are ALL on the 'other side' geddit ? One man's right is another man's discrimination, as we all don't think the same, so you override via majority ? that is democratic ? Cameron took no consensus he went for an absolute equality view, when it isn't designed that way. Certainly not fair or equal. They are all bullies until you can get a compromise, but the equality law doesn't allow for compromise, gays have been given one, they insist on more, THAT is the problem we gave them civil marriage they still won't accept it is all we can do. If you have no belief then anything goes, but for those that do, it is an choice too far. Gays should be happy with what they have.
I agree that Cameron is probably nibbling our ear as a distraction in all this. There are more important issues at hand.

I don't know how you can say we are ALL on the other side. Being, male, white and having something of a voice is hardly bottom (sic) of the social pile now is it?

From what I watched earlier, not one politician that was against the bill could describe 'how' they would be discriminated against. Now why is that? You don't get 'straight pride' marches because no one is discriminating against us. It's not because we all think differently, there is a un unjustified denial of a minority group here, where no loss would be suffered. They all agreed. So that isn't a analogy I would use here.

If you say that gays already have civil marriage, that they are not capable or deserving of marriage, and that they should be happy for what they get given, then that's discrimination Mervyn. It actually sounds slightly worse.

I hope you don't think that me not having inherited or chosen a god means that I think 'anything goes'? Also there are plenty of things worthy of my belief, only I do it with open eyes.

You and I stand on opposite sides of the fence on this topic. We won't convince each other. Time will tell if any of the terrible prophecies come true. If they do we'll just deal with them then. Other countries suggest it will be uneventful and forgettable.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P C Neilson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: equality is a joke get over it, all we have is one set of people trying to use the equality law to override someone else's rights. Ya Boo loudest voice wins, which isn't equality in my book but a travesty of it. Let them set up a gay church if they want, sorted.[/p][/quote]Equality isn't a joke if you are on the other side of the law though is it?[/p][/quote]we are ALL on the 'other side' geddit ? One man's right is another man's discrimination, as we all don't think the same, so you override via majority ? that is democratic ? Cameron took no consensus he went for an absolute equality view, when it isn't designed that way. Certainly not fair or equal. They are all bullies until you can get a compromise, but the equality law doesn't allow for compromise, gays have been given one, they insist on more, THAT is the problem we gave them civil marriage they still won't accept it is all we can do. If you have no belief then anything goes, but for those that do, it is an choice too far. Gays should be happy with what they have.[/p][/quote]I agree that Cameron is probably nibbling our ear as a distraction in all this. There are more important issues at hand. I don't know how you can say we are ALL on the other side. Being, male, white and having something of a voice is hardly bottom (sic) of the social pile now is it? From what I watched earlier, not one politician that was against the bill could describe 'how' they would be discriminated against. Now why is that? You don't get 'straight pride' marches because no one is discriminating against us. It's not because we all think differently, there is a un unjustified denial of a minority group here, where no loss would be suffered. They all agreed. So that isn't a analogy I would use here. If you say that gays already have civil marriage, that they are not capable or deserving of marriage, and that they should be happy for what they get given, then that's discrimination Mervyn. It actually sounds slightly worse. I hope you don't think that me not having inherited or chosen a god means that I think 'anything goes'? Also there are plenty of things worthy of my belief, only I do it with open eyes. You and I stand on opposite sides of the fence on this topic. We won't convince each other. Time will tell if any of the terrible prophecies come true. If they do we'll just deal with them then. Other countries suggest it will be uneventful and forgettable. P C Neilson
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree