Welcome to a gay new world

WHY should we fight same- sex marriage? Is there really that much at stake? After all, only a very small proportion of the population would be customers for such. Can we learn from other countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised? Canada is a good example once the legalisation was passed, “if the large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics”.

Human rights tribunals have prosecuted those who indulged in free speech, by publicly dissenting from same-sex marriage. This includes individuals writing to local newspapers. Basically, in Canada even expressing disagreement with same-sex marriage has become illegal discrimination that will not be tolerated. Redefining marriage will be a state creation, generated by the state’s power to invent or redefine everything. I agree with the comments stated by Malcolm Richards (Argus, Feb 22,) that current legislation is sufficient for gay couples and same-sex marriage is not needed. Canada now allows only certain brands of diverse thought. Christian family virtues aren’t among them. Nor will our British values of free speech and fair play long survive in the gay new world being planned for us all.

Norman Plaisted Vivian Road Newport

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:49pm Wed 27 Feb 13

smokintheweed says...

Cue a predictable anti-gay marriage comment by Mervyn James in 3... 2... 1...
Cue a predictable anti-gay marriage comment by Mervyn James in 3... 2... 1... smokintheweed
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Wed 27 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

Not before I get in a predictable anti authoritarian rant first. Lol!

Tut, tut, this is exactly why the opposition to gay rights falls flat on its face. Unlike aggressively anti gay Christians, like Plaisted et al, the rest of us actually care if what we say is true. Doesn't lying make Jesus cry or something like that?

None of the anti gay politicians gave other coutries as an example of gay marriage hurting others, because there aren't any, and to draw attention to it would hurt their side of the argument.

In typical old evangelical style Plaisted ducky, shoots his argument in the face, by starting with the observation that, when something is 'permitted' it doesn't translate to an epidemic of said 'thing' that was permitted. You're OK ducky, it won't make you gay, nor will you have to let them touch you if don't want them to.

Then he chooses the worst instance for his side of the argument from ages ago, as is often the case with the tradition loving crew. I've had a creationist argue about evolution, citing 150 year old, pre germ theory Darwin. Joker.

In canada, an old, ex male prostitute, junkie, and born again, has joined forces, his little fag hating group with another evangelical group, and is fighting to get definitions on hate speech changed to allow his type of 'free speech'.

He says he has lost everything, friends, family, his job, because of his life long crusade. No axe to grind then.

He was prosecuted and fined in 2002 by the human rights commission for his campaign against Homosexuality, and abortion clinics, abusing doctors, calling them "baby killers". Not just gay marriage then. He ran a door to door pamphlet campagn to thousands of houses, and busted up gay pride meetings.

Free speech is one thing, but what this guy was doing in Canada is as a result of mental health problems caused by the self hate that his "Christian values" command that he hold. He is behaving like a fascist, just like all good little religious authoritarians do.
Not before I get in a predictable anti authoritarian rant first. Lol! Tut, tut, this is exactly why the opposition to gay rights falls flat on its face. Unlike aggressively anti gay Christians, like Plaisted et al, the rest of us actually care if what we say is true. Doesn't lying make Jesus cry or something like that? None of the anti gay politicians gave other coutries as an example of gay marriage hurting others, because there aren't any, and to draw attention to it would hurt their side of the argument. In typical old evangelical style Plaisted ducky, shoots his argument in the face, by starting with the observation that, when something is 'permitted' it doesn't translate to an epidemic of said 'thing' that was permitted. You're OK ducky, it won't make you gay, nor will you have to let them touch you if don't want them to. Then he chooses the worst instance for his side of the argument from ages ago, as is often the case with the tradition loving crew. I've had a creationist argue about evolution, citing 150 year old, pre germ theory Darwin. Joker. In canada, an old, ex male prostitute, junkie, and born again, has joined forces, his little fag hating group with another evangelical group, and is fighting to get definitions on hate speech changed to allow his type of 'free speech'. He says he has lost everything, friends, family, his job, because of his life long crusade. No axe to grind then. He was prosecuted and fined in 2002 by the human rights commission for his campaign against Homosexuality, and abortion clinics, abusing doctors, calling them "baby killers". Not just gay marriage then. He ran a door to door pamphlet campagn to thousands of houses, and busted up gay pride meetings. Free speech is one thing, but what this guy was doing in Canada is as a result of mental health problems caused by the self hate that his "Christian values" command that he hold. He is behaving like a fascist, just like all good little religious authoritarians do. P C Neilson
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Mervyn James says...

smokintheweed wrote:
Cue a predictable anti-gay marriage comment by Mervyn James in 3... 2... 1...
The debate was not about about gay equal rights at all, but the way those 'rights' were being implemented, in disregard for other people's. Once the state set up a pecking order and started punishing people for disagreeing,with it, the whole thing failed and became anti-rights. You cannot have one area with more rights than any other.

Undermining someone's religious belief SHOULD be illegal. Thw whole gay thing ignored democracy,there was a lot of bullying going on and, unfair support from the unelected 'state' which never asked the voter what they thought. Canada's approach is stupid. All that snow has addled their brains.
[quote][p][bold]smokintheweed[/bold] wrote: Cue a predictable anti-gay marriage comment by Mervyn James in 3... 2... 1...[/p][/quote]The debate was not about about gay equal rights at all, but the way those 'rights' were being implemented, in disregard for other people's. Once the state set up a pecking order and started punishing people for disagreeing,with it, the whole thing failed and became anti-rights. You cannot have one area with more rights than any other. Undermining someone's religious belief SHOULD be illegal. Thw whole gay thing ignored democracy,there was a lot of bullying going on and, unfair support from the unelected 'state' which never asked the voter what they thought. Canada's approach is stupid. All that snow has addled their brains. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Thu 28 Feb 13

P C Neilson says...

I suppose team 'child rape' and team 'death cult' need even more protection of their activities? Support the team, you take the shame.
I suppose team 'child rape' and team 'death cult' need even more protection of their activities? Support the team, you take the shame. 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