Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Gay Marriage


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 13 Dec 2012 10:28:13 GMT
athanasius says:
How would you define consumation Sam for our gay rights people?

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 10:32:31 GMT
athanasius says:
How would you define consumation Sam for our gay rights people?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 10:47:11 GMT
That's your argument? "Believe me."? How about actually showing why you think this will be a problem.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 10:48:43 GMT
Dan Fante says:
How many marriages take place in the UK every year? How many are annulled due to not being 'consummated'? I think it's a non-issue to be perfectly honest. But if people want to spend a fortune on their big day only to cancel their vows straight after then I'd consider them foolish but I'd also think 'so what?' But I don't see it happening very often.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 10:53:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 11:54:24 GMT
I don't have to define consummation. That's what case law will do if required. Do you know how often marriages in the UK have been annulled on the basis of non-consummation?

Personally, I think that it's ridiculous that sex is seen as a requirement of marriage. The whole consummation thing should be scrapped.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 10:57:05 GMT
Hi Dan,

To quote Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights organisation Stonewall,
"When we asked [government] officials how often annulment on the grounds of non-consummation was used, they couldn't find any cases." 

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 11:01:20 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Not something we need to worry our pretty little heads about then, eh? ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 11:05:58 GMT
Nah. It's just the latest tactic used by those opposed to same-sex marriage.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 15:28:14 GMT
X_the_Shadow says:
What are you talking about, you madman?!

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 17:53:48 GMT
Spin says:
X; QED. Roma locuta, causa finita, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:11:02 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:15:41 GMT
Ian says:
How about we have a survey of opinion on the matter here CWB? As long as the forum doesn't get hijacked it should be an interesting survey...

Count me in favour; So that's 1:0 in favour of gay marriage

Care to add your vote and keep a running total?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:26:06 GMT
A yay here.
2:0 in favour of same-sex marriage.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:33:14 GMT
Ian says:
Though can I just say now (before GtL butts in) that mob rule is not a basis for democracy. If Cameron passes this law against the wishes of many of his supporters it will be the first good thing this government has done; the role of politicians should be to stand up for what they believe in and attempt to persuade the electorate that they are right. Not attempt to second-guess what the electorate want and say that.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 18:35:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 18:53:15 GMT
Without wishing to be insulting, we both know several active sodomites are contributing to this discussion don't we? Thats the problem modern Liberals have with proportional representation. Although they know it s vastly more democratic than the 'rotten borough' system currently in operation, they also know so-called 'fringe' parties like the BNP would pick up approx 60 Parliamentary seats, UKIP would supposedly have been the second largest party in the House of Commons. As you clearly understand, rigging the system is key to any 'democratic' headcount. Thats why, now they have finally achieved genuine political influence, not one 'Liberal' has uttered a squeak about Proportional Representation; because they know just how out of touch they are with public opinion. It's exactly the same with you.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:36:11 GMT
X_the_Shadow says:
Nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 18:47:45 GMT
Bogus Pomp says:
"Without wishing to be insulting, we both know several active sodomites are contributing to this discussion don't we?"

Though that wouldn't be at all surprising, you've presented precisely ZERO evidence that there are any "active sodomites" (a terrible way to put it, by the way) involved in this discussion. No-one here has claimed to be an "active sodomite", yet you say that you KNOW there are SEVERAL contributing to this topic. Ha! What arrogance.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 19:07:50 GMT
This is one of the few things that Cameron has done/will do that I support. I have been disappointed, though, that they're going to make it illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to perform same-sex marriages. I don't agree with forcing them to perform these marriages, but to forbid them seems to send a mixed message, especially after Cameron's comments with regards to the CofE's decision concerning female bishops.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 19:11:44 GMT
"Without wishing to be insulting, we both know several active sodomites are contributing to this discussion don't we?"

Firstly, if you don't wish to be insulting, you might want to not use deliberately insulting language.
Secondly, "active sodomites" would include some heterosexual couples.
Thirdly, what evidence do you have of individuals' sexual practices?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 19:32:36 GMT
>>> says:
'Roma locuta, causa finita...' a paraphrase of St.Augustine, eh?

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 19:42:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 19:44:10 GMT
Isn't this incredible. First you have a queue of supposed 'liberals' attempting to justify the homosexual gang-rape of Stephen Messham. Then the same 'liberal' shower repeatedly insult Savile's approx 500 victims, suggesting they are mere liars intent on swindling some compensation. They repeatedly defend buggery/sodomy and the act of blasphemy engendered in 'Gay Marriage' by vehenomently insulting/ridiculing all/any critics including myself, BUT then, with a view to profiting from possible libel claims themselves? attempt to extract personal comments/insinuations from me which I most certainly do NOT intend to respond to.

Whilst working in the Middle East numerous Islamic Arabs seriously suggested to me that post-WWII British manhood had become weak, effeminate and even degenerate; both genetic deterioration (due to the selective nature of the casualties) and flouridisation of the water being suggested as contributory factors. At the time I completely disagreed but since returning 'home' to retire, I'm beginning to wonder if they may have had a point?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 20:01:22 GMT
People asked you for your personal comments? On a discussion forum? Surely you jest!

I can see why a person might want to not give their own point of view. There's great comfort in assertions, conspiracy theories, insults, and the like. There's no requirement to support them. Giving a personal opinion opens a person up to being challenged, to having to justify that opinion, to having to think and re-think, to the possibility of having to change one's mind.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 20:04:12 GMT
What a nauseating bigot athanasius is!

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 20:19:07 GMT
athanasius says:
why becuase i think sodomy is a sin? Tolerance and aceptance are NOT the same thing.You want licence I do not

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 20:35:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 20:37:00 GMT
"why becuase [sic] i [sic] think sodomy is a sin?"

Let me think about this one for a minute...

"Tolerance and aceptance are NOT the same thing."

No one is deaf in cyberspace, you half-wit.

To tolerate something means 'you put up with it'. Acceptance implies a slightly more mature response. What you stand for is the yawning absence of both: anything to give you a fresh excuse to point fingers at this group, or that group.

"You want licence I do not"

I want people to treat others as they'd expect to be treated themselves. What you want is a licence to be as intolerant as ever, and pat yourself on the back for acting that way.

Face the facts: your cause is doomed, and there's nothing you can do about it.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  88
Total posts:  2848
Initial post:  11 Dec 2012
Latest post:  30 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions