Well, as far as I can tell, the OP has launched his/her petition on a public forum and then made absolutely no effort to explain or respond to any of the sensible questions on the subject. Here seems a good place to start, from McLaren Field on p1 So, in all seriousness...

1. How will "traditional marriage" be sidelined by allowing same sex couples to participate in a procedure defined as "marriage" rather than "civil ceremony", will fewer mixed sex partners perform the marriage ceremony because same sex couples do ?

2. Which people's careers will be harmed, specifically, give one example and I'll give a counter example.

3. Why would couples seeking to foster be excluded, excluded for what, for being married to a same sex partner, or for being in a mixed sex marriage, does this happen at the moment and why will mixed sex marriages make it happen ?

4. What has polygamy got to do with the subject, why introduce it at all, why not suggest that same sex marriage will cause the sky to fall on our heads - its just as relevant and likely.


There's four serious questions to be going on with, I do hope you're prepared to debate your issues.'"

I knew it!

How about a trade? A complete ban on gay marriage in return for a complete ban on the Bible!
Also a couple of years ago i dated a bisexual girl for 2 months, does this mean i'm doomed in the afterlife for fraternising with the enemy???

Fella.

You know what we all want to know.

I do know........but unfortunately the answer is no

You're not the first person to ask this question.

Far be it for me to compare myself to the risen Lord, but Jesus himself was asked this very question!

You can read his reply here.

rlhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search

Needless to say, I agree.

You quoted it from the Bible... remember what you typed? Need a reminder? [i"I asked Kirkstaller this on his thread over in the Sinbin pointing out that it says in the bible Love Thy Neighbour".[/i
So you read it in the bible then?

So my original point stands, simply put, don't post about the wrongs of selective quoting from the bible just after selectively quoting from the bible (and then backtrack with some nonesense about a 1970's sitcom title).

Only just seen this post after it was quoted by another member.

1. It will be sidelined in the respect that the unique lifelong union between one man and one woman will be given legal parity with something which is blatantly wrong. By opening up this opportunity to people who proudly practise what is considered by many to be something sinful, the holy union of marriage is besmirched.

2. Civil registrars whose conscience would not allow them to 'marry' gay couples. You might argue that they currently administer civil partnerships and secular, civil weddings, but this is not the same as 'marrying' two people of the same sex. The former is simply a legal procedure with no history or tradition behind it. You don't hear about the sanctity of civil partnerships for example. And, as I have stated elsewhere, the latter is a case of people doing the right thing the wrong way, biblically speaking. It is unfortunate that so many people want to exclude God from their commitments, but at least they are fulfilling the Lord's plan for us. Many Christian registrars consider gay marriage to be a case of doing the wrong thing the wrong way (no pun intended!) It would be wholly unreasonable to expect them to conduct such ceremonies.

3. You are no doubt aware that successive governments have implemented a culture whereby people's opinions and thoughts are anxiously scrutinised, monitored and, if needs be, reprimanded. One example of this is the way prospective Christian foster parents are currently treated. You will have heard of the Pentecostal couple who said that they did not approve of gay lifestyles. They were denied the opportunity to foster because of this. Therefore, if gay marriage is allowed to happen, such relations will be further normalised. This will be just the next stage of the subversive campaign to crush Christian dissent and forbid Christians to live by their convictions. Fostering WILL become a lot harder for couples like those in the example above if gay marriage is implemented.

4. Do you think the powerful LDS sects wont lobby for 'equality'? Who is to say that their love is not worthy of the same respect as same-sex couples?

Nope. This version I like even more.

I'm assuming that it was the OP who responded to my original questions so I'll respond to him/her...

1. You don't really need to go any further than the phrase "blatantly wrong", its impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion or debate with anyone who's starting and ending point is based on dogma, superstition and a blinkered acceptance of what they believe to be facts.

2. If a Registrar wishes to refuse to conduct their obligations then so be it, they are civil servants and work for the Crown and not the church, their job commitments involve conducting marriages between whatever the government of the day considers to be a legal union and its not up to them to refuse to carry out those commitments without facing reprimand or disciplinary action in the same way that anyone would if they refused to carry out their contractual work commitments.

3. So you are basically fearful that couples who wish to adopt but who verbally express a homophobic viewpoint, may be refused permission to adopt by the state ? I would probably agree with the state in this case, there is no room for homophobia in society and the state should not be sanctioning it by rehoming the children in its care to homophobics.

4. You are clutching at very thin straws.

You are much more the [iprimate[/i I would follow [ireligiously[/i ......somebody absolutely capable of articulating erudite and fair reasoning that cannot be contested by anybody else that is equally fair and reasonable.

Some of DHM's points were expressed similarly. A lot of fine individuals on here that are well worth listening to.

I love this forum

Blind, indoctrinated faith is unshakable. It's like arguing with the TV - you can shout at Eastenders all you like but it'll still be sh[sizei[/sizet.

I dislike religeous zealots of any kind and, as someone has already suggested, considering what is going on in the world, you would think that people would have more important issues to worry about.

On the day that we have solved the economic crisis, found a cure for cancer, fairly distrubuted the world's wealth and found one person out of 65 million to do a half decent job of running the gaff, I'll still be largely disinterested in what people choose to do with their private lives, providing that it has little of no bearing on me.

Oh, and for the record, bygamy doesn't sound so bad to me!

There is nothing wrong about gay relationships. Your particular brand of religious doctrine may well say they with but the majority of people do not give a F*** about what consenting adults get up to. if you believe that your own marriage (if you are married) is somehow of less worth because two people of the same sex can get married then that says more about your own marriage than it does about the concept of same sex marriage.



Well bully for them. If they are "incapable" of conducting gay marriages then they can find another line of work which does not invlove them having to deal with things conflict with their own bigoted beliefs. If they like their work so much then they can put aside their silly religious dogma and simply do the job they are paid to do and if they are unwilling to do that then tough.

We don't for instance prevent mixed race couples from marrying because it does not allow racist registrars from going along with their "conscience" so I see absolutely no reason why we should stop gay people from getting married for the reason that homophobic registrars would be forced to do likewise. We also wouldn't accept a person using religious belief in defence of such racism so I see no reason to accept homophobic bigotry on the basis that the homophobe holds such beliefs because of their religion.



Yet in the UK we have 20 unelected bishops currently sitting in the house of lords, we have state funded faith schools which are allowed to discriminate against non christians and we have vague laws prohibiting "incitement of religious hatred" It's hardly the case that christians are being persecuted in the UK but rather are merely enjoying fewer privileges than in the past which is a good thing in my opinion.

I'm not 100% familiar with the case of the foster couple however I am aware of many of these so called instances of persecution and it usually turns out that there is more to the the story than is reported by the likes of the Daily Mail. As more information is revealed it usually turns out that such individuals have fallen foul of discrimination laws or are demanding special treatment because of their beliefs. One such case is that of the BA worker who was not allowed to wear a cross on the outside of her uniform as it violated the companies policy on wearing jewellery the woman was however allowed to wear the cross underneath her uniform.

Having now just had a quick read of the story regarding the foster couple it appears they did more than merely disapprove of "gay lifestyles" and the reason they were prevented from fostering was that they said than they would tell foster children that such relationships are wrong if the situation arose. The situation is a little bit different than the couple merely being discriminated against for their beliefs as you infer in your post.