Jump to content

Recommended Posts

silverfox - "Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female"


well, if you go back to the ancient greeks, fathers of our culture, overseers of the golden age of mankind (if you believe those Victorians) women were for procreation, love (including the physical variety) with a man was considered the purer form.

True, El Pibe and True Loz.


There has never been one universal concept that love is the exclusive preserve of a man and a woman. However, you cannot deny that marriage has generally been understood to be between a man and a woman.


As the government is about to discover during its consultation phase, the proposal to introduce gay marriage by the end of this parliament will be a divisive issue, especially as it has not appeared in any manifesto and nobody has been given the chance to vote on this issue.

I cannot see what your problem is with gay marriage SF.


What does it matter to you whether two people who you don't know get married? Since you don't know who they are, why does it matter what gender they are?


It only matters to you because you're prejudiced.


Second dotage eh?

To paraphrase a popular quote, I wouldn't want to belong to a club that won't have a significant proportion of my friends as members.


And even if - or I should probably say when - it does, I'd opt for a hetero CP instead, were the option to be available.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


"...What does it matter to you whether two people who

> you don't know get married? Since you don't know

> who they are, why does it matter what gender they

> are?..."


It doesn't. I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together. Just don't call it 'marriage'

It only matters to you because you're prejudiced.


Absolutely right H and it's precisely because of people like SF that the government is right force change (do you have any idea how insulting it is to a gay person to be told their relationship is not as valid as that of a heterosexual couple SF?..any idea at all?).


Just to challenge you SF on a few points....


This isn't a straightforward question and my answer is not necessarily.


Yes it is..as it is at the core of prejudice...a prejudice I believe you hold and should be challenged on.


When this happens it will be possible for a gay couple, even if they are atheists and have no religious conviction, to demand to be married in a church as is their right.


Why would this be the case? Are heterosexual atheists marrying in churches? Why would any atheist want to marry in a church? Or are you suggesting atheist gay people are different to atheist heterosexuals? Again another nonsensical argument from you.


This could happen in the same way that small bed and breakfast businesses have been targeted for suspect reasons.


They've hardly been targetted. All business are required to operate under the law and the law outlaws descimination on the grounds of sexuality (along with other things). Businesses that break the law deserve to be prosecuted. Again you seem to be arguing that descrimination is ok so I'll ask you an even more straightforward question....


Do you believe that descrimination against homosexuals is ok?


The reasons for disallowing gay marriage here are based on the traditions and beliefs of that church that the gay couple would be aware of, even if they disagree with those aspects. They are still welcome to worship in that church but they are excluded from some of that church's rites. Is this discrimination? There's nothing stopping the couple going elsewhere if they don't adhere to the rites and practises of that church.


Please do tell me what church institution a gay couple can go to, to be married. The fact is that the rites and practices of many religions are blatently descriminatory.


And imo, any person that calls themself a Christian and descriminates against homosexuals or anyone is not a Christian anyway.


this is just an attempt to insult and make a mockery of our faith


And the resistance to change is a an attempt to insult gay people of faith.


I could go on SF. It is blatently clear you do not want gay people in the church.....and that level of prejudice is exactly why the government is right to interfere, and why thankfully the church has no power over state anymore.

I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together.


So patronising.....


Just don't call it 'marriage'


As has been pointed out, marriage is not the invention of the church. Here's another question then.


Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church.


That shouldn't be a problem if terms are all you are bothered about, rather than descrimination, should it?

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DJKQ - Do you believe that descrimination against

> homosexuals is ok?

>

> NO


So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right?

Being a little slow to respond there SF ;)


I suspect the crux of all this really, is that you don't think gay people should have their relationships blessed before God and that the reason for that is that you believe God dissaproves of homosexuality. You probably also think homosexuality is a choice.....a line that has always baffled me given that no heterosexual ever 'chooses' to be so. In which case you support descrimination against homosexuals.


If however I'm wrong on the above then I can't see why you would object to the church performing 'union' ceremonies for gay couples as an alternate to 'marriage' ceremonies.


Which is it SF?

DJKQ -

So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right?


Absolutely, it's illegal.


DJKQ - Here's another question then.


Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church...Christian gay people being allowed to have an equivalent church ceromony (equal in all ways to marriage) but called something different to marriage.


Problem here DJKQ is it would just be playing with words - it wouldn't be a marriage ceremony so nobody would be happy. It's either full marital rites or not. Half-way compromises, including say a blessing, could still be seen to be discriminatory against gays.


I'm trying to steer clear of doctrinal issues which could potentially go off on a very involved tangent. However, don't forget, some churches do not allow divorcees to marry nor 'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples. Is this a discrimination issue?

You are steering clear of doctrinal issues because you know those doctrinal issues are unnacceptable. But those doctrinal issues are at the real core of the opposition those have to gay marriages. You don't think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones do you? I don't think anyone would mind what a ceremony is called as long as it was held in the same esteem as marriage and that's what you can't bring yourself to agree with.


I'll ask you another straight question.... Do you think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones?


I did also ask if you thought it acceptable for a gay couple to be blessed before God in a church. Do you think that would be ok? Your answer to that will indicate what kind of Christian you really are.


Answer this too...do you accept that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore as natural as anything that exists by accident of nature? It may not be the norm but it is naturally occuring and always has done (and if God created the Universe, God created homosexuals too).


The argument regarding the destruction of anything is just a red herring when really at the root of it all is a misguided belief that homosexuality is a sin and lifestyle choice and that a gay relationship is not as valid as a heterosexual one (because that is the church position). You haven't denied that so I can only assume that's what you believe.


You are now also arguing from a standpoint of hypocrasy too. You admit that laws against descrimination in business/ schools etc should be upheld but then think that religion should be somehow exempt from that. Can you not see how offensive that is, how hypocritical?


I didn't really pay much attention to this issue before, but now I am firmly in the ground of making sure the government enforce this change on the Church, society will be better off without institutionalised prejudice wherever it occurs.

[some churches ban] "'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples"


Not to sideline the debate.

Genuine point of curiosity if there are any examples of this?


Other than that, as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey. In other news Pope catholic apparently.

Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will only apply to Civil marriages.


Interesting times ahead.

Would you care to answer the questions in my previous post SF? I have far more interest in your questionable views than those of Teresa May.


as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey


LOL yes the luncay of those trying to rationalise their own prejudice never ceases to amaze me......Just because a group of people all believe the same thing (primarily SF's defence of the Church to not be interferred with) doesn't make their beliefs ok. We can point to many an example of that.

As a point of interest, I understand that discrimination laws only apply to paid for good or services, not those donated freely.


For example, one can offer services of friendship without being accused of discrimination against non-friends.


If the church were to give up charitable tax status (ie subsidised by the taxpayer) they would probably be free to deny services to whomever they choose.


Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult?

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already

> contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will

> only apply to Civil marriages.

>

> Interesting times ahead.


What Cooper actually said: "Religious marriages are a matter for each church and denomination, not for the government. But equally, the government should go further than they currently plan. Churches who want to celebrate gay marriage [should have] the chance to do so."


So, she is saying that if churches want to marry same-sex couples, they should be allowed to. Seems reasonable? Strangely, the proposed bill says religious same-sex marriages are specifically prohibited. So she has a point.

It would appear you have already made up your mind as to my questionable views DJKQ. Nothing I say will stop you from supporting the government to 'enforce' the proposal on churches


That's because you refuse to say what you really think (hard to tell a gay person to their face you think they are not equal isn't it?) and clearly being in favour of descrimatory views towards gays, then of course I won't agree with you, and nor would any right thinking person. Indeed those who descriminate need to be forced to not do so....that includes the Church and that is why we have laws to facilitate that.


"...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..."

Presumably this applies to gays as well?


What on earth do you allude to here? The belief that gay people should not face descrimination? Are you now trying to suggest fighting descrimination should not be considered an ok pursuit by gays? Keep digging that hole......


I know you think you are being clever in avoiding my questions but you are only showing yourself for what you are. I thought Christians were proud of their beliefs, why are you so afraid to air them? Because deep down you know they are going to receive the disdain they deserve and in the end, as with all hypocrites, you are a coward too. No wonder the Church is dying in this country.


Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult?


lol...good point H. I just think they are afraid homosexuals will turn them all gay tbh and then take over the world ;)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...