egafd.com

Kids will be kids. Exactly. And since when did we decide our laws based on what kids will and won't tease their peers with at infants?

Conservatives that will accept and defend liberalism when they get something out of it personally.

So here we go again anyone who dares protest at seeing a tradition of centuries, destroyed at a stroke, just to appease a minority, who probably don't really care that much anyway, is branded a "homophobic" or presumably a , "Daily Mail reader". The "Right On Gestapo" goose stepping around the BGAFD yet again, crushing anything or anyone who dares to tug against the yoke of Political Correctness.

A form of sickness, that has got to the point that they even question the arrest and conviction of a certain group of paedophiles, for no other reason than their ethnicity. I'm surprised they haven't formed a protest group called, "FREE THE ROCHDALE 6!".........."I'm sure they didn't mean it!"

Left to the "Right on Gestapo", every facet of British society from architecture, education to simple ancient traditions would be destroyed and brought to the level of complete and total police enforced blandness.........a Soviet style state. If you want a taste of the society they crave, see the film, "The Lives of Others". They are truly dangerous and a threat to the few freedoms we have left. Sadly, they themselves do not realise how they have been brainwashed.

Once again, I publish this article on the secret cult of Marxist totalitarianism, through Political Correctness, which is alive and kicking even on this forum!

Read it, in fact devour it, because then you will recognise when and how and by whom you are being controlled and told what to think! Read it and stand up to these people!



What is frighteneing is even people like David Cameron are now in the clutches of this rancid philosophy!

Just one thing before I am attacked and labelled, perhaps the PC brigade would inform us all as to how the Mullahs and Imans in UK Mosques would react to a request for a similar acceptance of gay marriage or even recognition of gay rights?

By the way as far as gay marriages in churches are concerned, my view is why not just leave things as they have been for centuries, for no other reason than its "traditional". If you don't like it, sod off! There you go AB of C put that in your next sermon!lol

It's almost as if you posted your original post because you knew the answer and attitude of some, giving you the perfect opportunity for this rant.

A few gays want the same rights as everyone else and it makes me part of the Gestapo to be in agreement with them? You've gone totally OTT.

And no, we should never keep things just on the account of 'tradition'. Do you go to work on a horse? Do you still shoot your stuff on VHS and sell it under the counter in some dingy side-street hole in the name of tradition?

Give me one good, unarguable point in discriminating against gays when it comes to marriage.

Here we go again, we're all evil because we're not 100% PC. We're all terrible people because we actually want to hold on to some things from the world that we grew up in.
It all boils down to political correctness taking over. You all probably know my views on that, so I won't even bother to repeat them. I've had practically the same discussion on this site and many others. And I'm constantly confronted with with it in most other forms of media these days, too. If you want to jettison any and all of the old traditions, institutions and virtues purely because they're not new, and replace them with things completely untested, then go ahead. I can't stop you, and anyway, I'm tired of this same old debate....

Yeah. I suppose you think we should still send kids down the mines, make it acceptable to beat our wives now and again and wash our clothes down by the local river.

Still waiting for a good reason to deny gay couples the right to marry like everyone else. How does it harm you?

I don't want to be drawn out and have another Old World vs. Brave New PC World argument with you, Sam. And your suggesting that I want to beat women, mistreat and exploit children and reject advances in household technology is not worthy of an answer and actually beneath you.

I will say this though: We replace cars, phones, TVs, etc, because the old ones eventually wear out and/or newer ones are often better. Don't confuse technological advancements with social ones. An idea, or truth, isn't wrong purely because it's old. Don't be in such a hurry to replace or modify things that are so central to our society.

You're waiting for a good reason against same sex marriage? Open your eyes. I mean, there's so much to choose from: It's the state dictating to religion and the public morality, or people needlessly altering (drastically altering) an institution that's gone unchanged since before human history (How else could it be altered? And where would those aterations end?), or what about the effect that this will have on the sexual indentities of future generations? Or, maybe people just feel that a married couple actually being two men is just perverse and creepy? Or how about this one: Many people believe in marriage and greatly value it. Perhaps they see this as lessening, cheapening or even debasing the institution of marriage? I'm sure there are many, many other reasons that people have that haven't occurred to a modest intellect such as mine. Don't assume that you always know best, I'm sure people have their reasons for their objection.

I'm not though, going to engage in another pointless back and forth with you on this one - It's a waste of time. And besides, that's it - I've said my piece, someone else have a go.

Personally speaking though, I've seen this coming ever since Blair first gave old homosexuals legal access to 16 year olds....

Blimey! What a silly rant. Hormonal imbalance? Where to start?

Nah, can't be bothered.

Just one point though, Jim. Your use of the term " Gestapo" to describe the views of Mr. Slater and myself is perhaps not the most appropriate use of the description in this thread.

Even someone with a very limited understanding of history, would know that the "Gestapo" carted many, many thousands of homosexuals off to the concentration camps where they were identified by pink triangles.

The Buffoon of the BGAFD strikes again!

Sam Slater wrote:


> Firstly, I do not think we should force churches to marry
> same-sex couples. If they're private places of worship they
> should be able to have their own rules within those
> establishments. For a start if we force vicars to marry gay
> couples we should force imams and rabbis too. The tricky bit is
> we have an official, established church in the C of E. Our
> taxes go to this establishment and we have unelected
> representatives in the House of Lords. This means they should
> fall under the same rules as schools, hospitals, the police,
> military and other public services. They cannot discriminate on
> ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc.
>
> I say if any religious order wants to remain part of the
> establishment it must be forced to comply with law. If it wants
> it's own discriminatory rules then it should stop taking tax
> payers money and find it's own money like other smaller
> churches and religions do.
>
> So by that account I'd rather have the church decide if it
> wants to marry gay couples, stop our taxes going to it, make IT
> pay taxes on what it earns, kick all religious schooling in the
> head and throw the unelected Bishops out of places of power
> that rule on how we live our lives.
>
> Like the change with marrying divorcees, my guess is that
> without public financial support they'll soon change their mind
> on marrying same-sex couples if only for the money it will
> bring in.

Whilst the Church of England is the "Established Church", and Bishops do sit in the House of Lords, that does not mean that any taxpayers' money goes to the church, so your premise is at fault there.

I agree with Ken Shabby.

- Eric