Marriage figures

A PARAGRAPH in a national newspaper caught my eye about the benefit chaos with the new computer system handling the government’s flagship Universal Credit scheme, and how it is not able to cope with the ‘complicated’ lives led by millions of families. I wonder who helped to create this confusion? We will have further confusion since the redefinition of marriage. It has not come into force yet, and already there are moves to airbrush out traditional marriage from official figures. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is consulting on how to present marriage statistics in the future. ONS is proposing to lump together all traditional marriages with same -sex marriages so only one total is given.

Statistics are important. They are used to make public policy and hold politicians to account.

It is vital that our national statistics do not amalgamate the figures for what the ONS calls ‘opposite-sex’ (i.e. traditional) and same-sex marriage. For one thing, without separate figures, it will be impossible to tell if the redefinition of marriage has the impact we’ve been warning about.

Study after study shows that traditional marriage delivers health benefits for adults and children. But comparisons with decades of existing marriage research will be unworkable if we cannot compare like with like.

Norman Plaisted Vivian Road Newport

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:48pm Fri 13 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

Government IT system implementation rarely works well and has a tendency to com in late, over budget and unfit for purpose, but I have a feeling that this isn't the intended point of this letter.

You state that "traditional marriage delivers health benefits for adults and children". Are you trying to imply by omission that the same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, or bemoaning that in the eyes of government and the law there won't be any distinction made between the two?
Government IT system implementation rarely works well and has a tendency to com in late, over budget and unfit for purpose, but I have a feeling that this isn't the intended point of this letter. You state that "traditional marriage delivers health benefits for adults and children". Are you trying to imply by omission that the same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, or bemoaning that in the eyes of government and the law there won't be any distinction made between the two? _Bryan_

6:46pm Fri 13 Dec 13

On the inside says...

So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.
So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh. On the inside

9:14pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Captain Tripps says...

On the inside wrote:
So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.
What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman .
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.[/p][/quote]What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman . Captain Tripps

1:01pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Mervyn James says...

Captain Tripps wrote:
On the inside wrote:
So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.
What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman .
Quite right. Marriage is an christian/religious concept, anything goes is a PC-driven state concept. And the Christian concept is between a male and a female, OK let the rest arrange whatever equivelant they like, but not redefine someone else's belief. get 'Married' anywhere but not in a church,and niddeed NOT call it a marraige as that definition is not applicable to same sex 'unions'. It's a bloomin' joke in the USA, with men dressed as women and women dressed as men... it's an insult basically.
[quote][p][bold]Captain Tripps[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.[/p][/quote]What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman .[/p][/quote]Quite right. Marriage is an christian/religious concept, anything goes is a PC-driven state concept. And the Christian concept is between a male and a female, OK let the rest arrange whatever equivelant they like, but not redefine someone else's belief. get 'Married' anywhere but not in a church,and niddeed NOT call it a marraige as that definition is not applicable to same sex 'unions'. It's a bloomin' joke in the USA, with men dressed as women and women dressed as men... it's an insult basically. Mervyn James

9:28pm Sat 14 Dec 13

marchog says...

So ONS is consulting on what statistics to produce. Why don't you respond to the consultation and get your view heard by the people making the decision instead of ranting in the Argus?
So ONS is consulting on what statistics to produce. Why don't you respond to the consultation and get your view heard by the people making the decision instead of ranting in the Argus? marchog

7:40pm Sun 15 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Health benefits to being married? Hmmm... really? Having been married myself, I would seriously question the validity of any such claims.

In fact, divorce comes in at number 4 of the top ten most stressful things in life... funnily enough, planning a wedding comes in at number 5.

What Mr. Plaisted doesn't realise but the church obviously does... (by which I mean the CofE... you know, the religion that Henry VIII made up) is that if the church doesn't change with the times, people will stop believing in sky pixies and they'll be screwed.

I wonder how Mr. P felt about women clergy twenty years ago...
Health benefits to being married? Hmmm... really? Having been married myself, I would seriously question the validity of any such claims. In fact, divorce comes in at number 4 of the top ten most stressful things in life... funnily enough, planning a wedding comes in at number 5. What Mr. Plaisted doesn't realise but the church obviously does... (by which I mean the CofE... you know, the religion that Henry VIII made up) is that if the church doesn't change with the times, people will stop believing in sky pixies and they'll be screwed. I wonder how Mr. P felt about women clergy twenty years ago... GardenVarietyMushroom

8:16am Mon 16 Dec 13

Katie Re-Registered says...

More equal marriage laws are a good thing, but unfortunately they don't go far enough. Places of worship still have the right to refuse to conduct equal marriage and this soft, politically correct, religious fundamentalist appeasing government stupidly allows them to do so. Instead, they should have compelled those places of worship that wish to opt out of British law to pay a special tax for the 'privilege' of doing so. It would have been a great way to raise revenue, too.

Also, transgender people still do not have equal marriage rights. As always, Stonewall felt selling trans and gender non-conformist rights down the river was a 'fair' price to pay for LGB (without the T) rights. Ironic here that the Stonewall Riots after which they name themselves were begun by trans peopele.

Nor is there a law in Britain protecting the right to freedom of gender expression - unlike more enlightened countries such as Argentina.
More equal marriage laws are a good thing, but unfortunately they don't go far enough. Places of worship still have the right to refuse to conduct equal marriage and this soft, politically correct, religious fundamentalist appeasing government stupidly allows them to do so. Instead, they should have compelled those places of worship that wish to opt out of British law to pay a special tax for the 'privilege' of doing so. It would have been a great way to raise revenue, too. Also, transgender people still do not have equal marriage rights. As always, Stonewall felt selling trans and gender non-conformist rights down the river was a 'fair' price to pay for LGB (without the T) rights. Ironic here that the Stonewall Riots after which they name themselves were begun by trans peopele. Nor is there a law in Britain protecting the right to freedom of gender expression - unlike more enlightened countries such as Argentina. Katie Re-Registered

9:12am Mon 16 Dec 13

Mervyn James says...

Having your cake and eating it springs to mind, you cannot criticise a church then expect to utilise their services based on a different belief, plenty of registry offices you can use and other places. You can use a manger if you really want to prove some point !
Having your cake and eating it springs to mind, you cannot criticise a church then expect to utilise their services based on a different belief, plenty of registry offices you can use and other places. You can use a manger if you really want to prove some point ! Mervyn James

10:01am Mon 16 Dec 13

whatintheworld says...

is your marriage in trouble norman?

im trying to figure out how two people happily sharing thier lives together affects you so much!
is your marriage in trouble norman? im trying to figure out how two people happily sharing thier lives together affects you so much! whatintheworld

10:11am Mon 16 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

whatintheworld wrote:
is your marriage in trouble norman?

im trying to figure out how two people happily sharing thier lives together affects you so much!
Yes, you do wonder why this guy bangs on about the same issue time and again. It's one of the few pieces of legislation that hasn't cost anybody anything, and doesn't affect people who are heterosexually married or intend to be so and can't harm anyone so Mr Plaisted and Mr James can safely ignore it's existence without fear. I can think of better things to get lathered up about.
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: is your marriage in trouble norman? im trying to figure out how two people happily sharing thier lives together affects you so much![/p][/quote]Yes, you do wonder why this guy bangs on about the same issue time and again. It's one of the few pieces of legislation that hasn't cost anybody anything, and doesn't affect people who are heterosexually married or intend to be so and can't harm anyone so Mr Plaisted and Mr James can safely ignore it's existence without fear. I can think of better things to get lathered up about. Llanmartinangel

10:31am Mon 16 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Captain Tripps wrote:
On the inside wrote: So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.
What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman .
Quite right. Marriage is an christian/religious concept, anything goes is a PC-driven state concept. And the Christian concept is between a male and a female, OK let the rest arrange whatever equivelant they like, but not redefine someone else's belief. get 'Married' anywhere but not in a church,and niddeed NOT call it a marraige as that definition is not applicable to same sex 'unions'. It's a bloomin' joke in the USA, with men dressed as women and women dressed as men... it's an insult basically.
Here your basic premise is incorrect.

A "Wedding Ceremony" is a religious construction and should be preserved as such according to the individual tenets of whichever religion it is conducted by. However, the institution of marriage itself is a secular construct, completely separate from any religious considerations.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a marrriage can take place between a man and a woman, two men or two women in our modern society, although it is also perfectly reasonable for this marriage to go uncelebrated by a religious organisation if that is what the religion dictates.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Captain Tripps[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: So the govt won't help you pursue your hate filled agenda, Life's a **** eh.[/p][/quote]What is so hate filled about trying to preserve our rapidly depleting British traditions ? Marriage should be between man and woman .[/p][/quote]Quite right. Marriage is an christian/religious concept, anything goes is a PC-driven state concept. And the Christian concept is between a male and a female, OK let the rest arrange whatever equivelant they like, but not redefine someone else's belief. get 'Married' anywhere but not in a church,and niddeed NOT call it a marraige as that definition is not applicable to same sex 'unions'. It's a bloomin' joke in the USA, with men dressed as women and women dressed as men... it's an insult basically.[/p][/quote]Here your basic premise is incorrect. A "Wedding Ceremony" is a religious construction and should be preserved as such according to the individual tenets of whichever religion it is conducted by. However, the institution of marriage itself is a secular construct, completely separate from any religious considerations. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a marrriage can take place between a man and a woman, two men or two women in our modern society, although it is also perfectly reasonable for this marriage to go uncelebrated by a religious organisation if that is what the religion dictates. _Bryan_

6:48pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Mervyn James says...

Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead. Mervyn James

7:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

endthelies says...

Personally, I wouldn't get married in church whether I be straight or gay (Ive been married 28 years). I'm not religious and therefore, I think anyone that gets married in a church when they have no real religious beliefs, and are non church goers, are hypocritical and just want the pomp of a church wedding. If gay people want to get married in church then let them. Its no more hypocritical than pretending you're an avid church goer just for one day so that you can have nice wedding pictures.
Personally, I wouldn't get married in church whether I be straight or gay (Ive been married 28 years). I'm not religious and therefore, I think anyone that gets married in a church when they have no real religious beliefs, and are non church goers, are hypocritical and just want the pomp of a church wedding. If gay people want to get married in church then let them. Its no more hypocritical than pretending you're an avid church goer just for one day so that you can have nice wedding pictures. endthelies

2:22pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's'

But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't? Llanmartinangel

6:59pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Mervyn James says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's'

But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio
n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable.

The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?[/p][/quote]It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy. Mervyn James

11:02pm Tue 17 Dec 13

varteg1 says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
They did set up their own places , mainly in public toilets all. around the nation.

As I traveled quite a lot all over Britain following my job, being on my own having left family at home,often of an evening I would go out for a drink and a meal, and would need to use a public facility on my way back to my hotel. It was quite common to be approached by some queer, offering various sexual favours, for a fee,
Not all such approaches were, shall we say, polite, often they were quite aggressive. So much so, I had no option but to place a well aimed boot at a spot that invariably left them unable to perform for a few hours, or days even. An occurrence that happened on more than a few occasions.

Now I am not averse to two of the same sex enjoying mutual pleasures, but I object to those pleasures being shoved into my face whenever I read a magazine, a newspaper ,or whilst watching TV programmes.
These weird folk my have gained some sort of 'victory' in their demands and promotion of whatever it is they have opted for, but I hope and believe that the wheel will turn full circle and we may one day., soon I prefer it to be, get back onto a more straight and narrowly defined path when it comes to sexual behaviour . I am neither a Christian ,a very rabid atheist in fact, nor a totally intolerant person, but when it comes to equating the perverse sexual relationships between queers, to that of marriage proper, between a man and a woman, and having been myself married for over fifty six years between two wives, I find the whole case for same sex marriage to be distasteful at the least, and wholly insulting to myself and millions who were brought up, religiously or not,, left or right politically, to think of MARRIAGE to be a contract between those persons of opposite sexuality in partnership.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]They did set up their own places , mainly in public toilets all. around the nation. As I traveled quite a lot all over Britain following my job, being on my own having left family at home,often of an evening I would go out for a drink and a meal, and would need to use a public facility on my way back to my hotel. It was quite common to be approached by some queer, offering various sexual favours, for a fee, Not all such approaches were, shall we say, polite, often they were quite aggressive. So much so, I had no option but to place a well aimed boot at a spot that invariably left them unable to perform for a few hours, or days even. An occurrence that happened on more than a few occasions. Now I am not averse to two of the same sex enjoying mutual pleasures, but I object to those pleasures being shoved into my face whenever I read a magazine, a newspaper ,or whilst watching TV programmes. These weird folk my have gained some sort of 'victory' in their demands and promotion of whatever it is they have opted for, but I hope and believe that the wheel will turn full circle and we may one day., soon I prefer it to be, get back onto a more straight and narrowly defined path when it comes to sexual behaviour . I am neither a Christian ,a very rabid atheist in fact, nor a totally intolerant person, but when it comes to equating the perverse sexual relationships between queers, to that of marriage proper, between a man and a woman, and having been myself married for over fifty six years between two wives, I find the whole case for same sex marriage to be distasteful at the least, and wholly insulting to myself and millions who were brought up, religiously or not,, left or right politically, to think of MARRIAGE to be a contract between those persons of opposite sexuality in partnership. varteg1

8:28am Wed 18 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's'

But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio

n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable.

The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.
'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,'

Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?[/p][/quote]It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.[/p][/quote]'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,' Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite. Llanmartinangel

1:18pm Wed 18 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.
Peter Tatchell tended to attack the church regarding the hypocrisy of its leaders. And surely it IS hypocrisy to denounce as a sin a practice which a significant proportion of the religion's own heirarchy indulge in?.

My view is that it should be up to the individual religion to decide whether they should permit gay wedding ceremonies. If your particular church disagrees with your opinion you then have a choice of either changing your opinion, or your church to one that better suits your views (Westboro baptist perhaps?).

Surely it isn't that much of a stretch to go from believing in a Jewish zombie wizard who is somehow his own father who hates gay marriage to believing in a Jewish zombie wizard who is somehow his own father who is in favour of or ambivalent about gay marriage?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?[/p][/quote]It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.[/p][/quote]Peter Tatchell tended to attack the church regarding the hypocrisy of its leaders. And surely it IS hypocrisy to denounce as a sin a practice which a significant proportion of the religion's own heirarchy indulge in?. My view is that it should be up to the individual religion to decide whether they should permit gay wedding ceremonies. If your particular church disagrees with your opinion you then have a choice of either changing your opinion, or your church to one that better suits your views (Westboro baptist perhaps?). Surely it isn't that much of a stretch to go from believing in a Jewish zombie wizard who is somehow his own father who hates gay marriage to believing in a Jewish zombie wizard who is somehow his own father who is in favour of or ambivalent about gay marriage? _Bryan_

7:12pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Mervyn James says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's'

But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio


n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable.

The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.
'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,'

Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite.
This is a just welsh bashing and nothing to do with religious freedom of belief. Stick to the topic, and beware you aren't actually promoting hate messages..... and racism.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?[/p][/quote]It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.[/p][/quote]'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,' Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]This is a just welsh bashing and nothing to do with religious freedom of belief. Stick to the topic, and beware you aren't actually promoting hate messages..... and racism. Mervyn James

7:59am Thu 19 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.
'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's'

But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?
It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio



n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable.

The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.
'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,'

Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite.
This is a just welsh bashing and nothing to do with religious freedom of belief. Stick to the topic, and beware you aren't actually promoting hate messages..... and racism.
You can't even see the irony in your own argument. Priceless.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Only in your mind......... Why don't Gays set up their own 'church' and do what they want there.... It doesn't sound reasonable to me, sounds more like bullying to be honest, not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's. Or where would we all be ? There are alternatives the Gays should quit while they are ahead.[/p][/quote]'not every one has a right to do what they want if it impinges on someone else's' But that's just the point. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or even send the happy couple a card. You can carry on in blissful ignorance (no special skill required in your case). And they aren't ahead. Quote me a right they have that everyone else doesn't?[/p][/quote]It's a direct challenge to someone's inherent belief, you cannot split hairs that way, that's a fundamental right. The gay issues and the chuirch were always based on confrontation and making a mockery of religion, tachel the rebel-rouser always tried to attack the church.... OC supporters found plenty of non believers here obviously ready and willing to join these rights vultures. I disagree strongly anyone's right is above anothers, and when it comes to issues like sex/children/religio n/age of consent/ e.g. then rights take second place to protecting the vulnerable. The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it, rights and yes equality, does NOT mean you can do as you like, there are laws that say different too. Otherwise anarchy.[/p][/quote]'The rights of the many will always outweigh the rights/preferences of the few. Get over it,' Ok. English speakers outnumber Welsh speakers. Let's ban Welsh. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]This is a just welsh bashing and nothing to do with religious freedom of belief. Stick to the topic, and beware you aren't actually promoting hate messages..... and racism.[/p][/quote]You can't even see the irony in your own argument. Priceless. Llanmartinangel

8:08pm Thu 19 Dec 13

welshmen says...

How does the Islamic culture in our Country democratically solve the Homosexual Marriage and Transgender Marriage....
How does the Islamic culture in our Country democratically solve the Homosexual Marriage and Transgender Marriage.... welshmen

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