This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

AdrianTippetts's Profile

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by AdrianTippetts

More Discussions by AdrianTippetts

Latest Comments by AdrianTippetts

Go to: Atheists likely to outnumber Christians in England in 20 years

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by AdrianTippetts

I am totally uninterested in projections about the number of of believers.

It is that the Church of England's well-meaning, secular-spirited, tolerant majority is dwindling. The growth is coming from evangelical Christianity, some of which is extreme in its intolerance. What is important is their disproportionate influence in the media, in government & in law. The current battle over marriage, which has raged for the past two weeks, shows we have an emergency on our hands. It is really important we get organised, form alliances and take this on with passion and perseverance. We aren't doing, and it's a disgrace.

I wrote about this on the national Secular Society website earlier this week. (See: ).

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:55:55 UTC | #925837

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Jump to comment 101 by AdrianTippetts

Comment 84 by RJMoore :


The superiority of marriage to other relationships is not remotely interesting or relevant in this discussion.

Then why did you say it was superior? You brought its supposed benefits into the discussion.

Furthermore, if you believe everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of the kind of relationship he or she is in, why are you so concerned with extending the privilege? What exactly is the point of marriage if it's just the same as every other relationship in the eyes of the law. Are you not guilty of a bit of doublethink here?

I'm stating the law should give not discriminate against same-sex relationships. I am concerned that LGBT people are treated equally, and have the same privileges and protections afforded to straight people under the law. Of course it is good for well-being if people are treated equally under the law, if gay people know they are not institutionally excluded, which the current state of affairs.

I'll go further, the government should be actively driving inclusivity, and social acceptance of people irrespective of sexual orientation. And that needs to start in schools, the earlier the better, with evidence-based sex and relationships ediucation. The good news is that Ofsted is taking homophobia in schools very seriously, and schools that fail to promote an inclusive environment for LGBT pupils will be downgraded in inspection reports.

Oh, and neither did I say whether marriage is 'just the same as every other relationship'. I said that it was not relevant to the discussion. Nothing doublethink about that at all.

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:22:22 UTC | #922032

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by AdrianTippetts

Comment 67 by RJMoore :


And why should the government favour an environment for couples to raise their 'own children'?

Hang about; this is just silly. Youre saying that govt should be involved in making judgements on people's romantic relationships but should not bestow privileges to encourage people to raise their own kids in a traditional family unit? I dont know how to respond to this.

I am indeed saying the government should not be making judgments about who someone falls in love with. That's what marriage equality is all about. So the rest of your argument kind of falls by the wayside.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:56:33 UTC | #921933

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by AdrianTippetts

Comment 60 by RJMoore :


Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about privileging marriage against other unions.

You did. You said it was 'good for society' and 'promoted well-being', and it was therefore the business of govt to ensure it was available to gay couples. If marriage doesnt confer privileges, of what use is it exactly? How is it different to other unions? Just the use of the word 'marriage'? When did the function of government become so overblown that it has become involved in citizens' romantic relationships?

Can you honestly say, their relationships are inferior, less valuable, less meaningful than heterosexual ones? You can't.

I dont judge anyone's relationships on those terms; its none of my business whether someone has a 'meaningful' relationship or not; but whats interesting about your comment is that one could easily take from it that you believe that non-marital relationships are 'inferior, less valuable, and less meaningful' owing to the absence of marriage vows, since you seem to place such a great value on the government's 'blessing' a union.

You can certainly have a say about tax status of marriage but it is a non sequitur to infer that because of such tax privileges, gay people should be denied marriage equality.

If people could decide whom they leave their estate to and who gets to make decisions regarding future medical treatment, and if tax privileges were removed from married couples, would you be concerned about marriage as an institution?

God this is tedious....I stated, the law should treat everyone equally, that gay relationships should have exactly the same legal recognition as straight ones. It promotes well-being to treat people equally, indeed, and yes, laws of the land should do so. The superiority of marriage to other relationships is not remotely interesting or relevant in this discussion.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:44:55 UTC | #921930

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AdrianTippetts's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by AdrianTippetts

Comment 56 by Schrodinger's Cat :

The point about changing the definition of 'marriage' is that you are not just changing it to include gays.......but also changing it for everyone who is already married, a far larger number of people whom I don't recall anyone asking for their opinion on the matter. If this is truly a democracy, and it is people who decide the meaning of things.....then nobody should have any problem with a referendum.

Voting on other people's liberties is not democracy; it is mob rule.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:08:54 UTC | #921854

More Comments by AdrianTippetts