Gay marriage

[Joker]

An Arsenal fan being an arsehole? Imagine my surprise. If they were properly enlightened they would of course realise that the true way is that of Tottenham Hotspur.

LOL rather than focus on the post in question, a Spud decides to engage in a bit of "oneupmanship"

[Joker]

I think on some occasions it is right to promote certain values, even if it "offends" certain groups. There is no reason why gay marriage should be given a different name. By compromising on this, you're pandering to people who effectively wish to discriminate against another group. Sure, you can say that homosexuals' will have all the economic, legal benefits that you get from marriage, therefore the name doesn't matter. However, the name DOES matter, because it is a matter of principle. What reason does anyone have, apart from "tradition" and religious sensibilities for why gays shouldn't be allowed be to have their union described as marriage? Tradition justified many morally abhorrent things in the past, we shouldn't use that as an argument by itself. Religious sensibilities can be respected, but in this case it appears some religious folk want to impose their views on others, which is unacceptable.

If someone can come up with a rational reason why calling homosexuals' union a "marriage" then that would help, but I don't think anyone can.

[Letters]

There's no reason it should be given the same name either. As I said above, it's not 'sexist' that actor and actress mean different things because of the gender of the person. I have sometimes heard a female referred to as an actor but I don't think there's a great clamour from females on this point in the name of 'equality'. It's not discriminating against anyone to leave it as it is. Discriminating would be to deny gay couples equal rights. That used to be the case but it isn't any longer. I agree that the name matters because it's a principle but that is exactly the argument of the people who want it left as it is. Why are their opinions less valid than the people who want it changed? As WMUG said, the argument works both ways as does your argument about imposing views. I guess if it could be shown that the majority of people actively want a change then in a (supposedly) democratic society that's what should happen. It shouldn't happen because of the strong views of a minority (or not happen for the same reason). My feeling is the majority of people just don't care that much about this. I don't even think many gay or religious people care that much.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I think on some occasions it is right to promote certain values, even if it "offends" certain groups. There is no reason why gay marriage should be given a different name. By compromising on this, you're pandering to people who effectively wish to discriminate against another group. Sure, you can say that homosexuals' will have all the economic, legal benefits that you get from marriage, therefore the name doesn't matter. However, the name DOES matter, because it is a matter of principle. What reason does anyone have, apart from "tradition" and religious sensibilities for why gays shouldn't be allowed be to have their union described as marriage? Tradition justified many morally abhorrent things in the past, we shouldn't use that as an argument by itself. Religious sensibilities can be respected, but in this case it appears some religious folk want to impose their views on others, which is unacceptable.

If someone can come up with a rational reason why calling homosexuals' union a "marriage" then that would help, but I don't think anyone can.

They already stole the words 'gay' and 'queer'. Enough is enough I say.

[Niall_Quinn]

They already stole the words 'gay' and 'queer'. Enough is enough I say.

That's just two words. Let's look at the facts shall we?

Did they steal arse bandit, fudge packer, carpet muncher, stick slurper, fag stag? No, they didn't. Okay, they pinched faggot but in the main it looks like your argument just had a hamster rammed up its arse.

[MissHandbag]

I think on some occasions it is right to promote certain values, even if it "offends" certain groups. There is no reason why gay marriage should be given a different name. By compromising on this, you're pandering to people who effectively wish to discriminate against another group. Sure, you can say that homosexuals' will have all the economic, legal benefits that you get from marriage, therefore the name doesn't matter. However, the name DOES matter, because it is a matter of principle. What reason does anyone have, apart from "tradition" and religious sensibilities for why gays shouldn't be allowed be to have their union described as marriage? Tradition justified many morally abhorrent things in the past, we shouldn't use that as an argument by itself. Religious sensibilities can be respected, but in this case it appears some religious folk want to impose their views on others, which is unacceptable.

If someone can come up with a rational reason why calling homosexuals' union a "marriage" then that would help, but I don't think anyone can.

Exactly my points and well put

My other point being that the word marriage has it's roots culturally rather than religiously and therefore why should any group be excluded from using the term marriage. Infact, why should it be offensive to religious people at all!

[Letters]

Your face is offensive to religious people





sorry

[Hump]

Your face is offensive to religious people sorry

Happy are those whose face are forgivenPsalm 32

[Niall_Quinn]

I think on some occasions it is right to promote certain values, even if it "offends" certain groups. There is no reason why gay marriage should be given a different name. By compromising on this, you're pandering to people who effectively wish to discriminate against another group. Sure, you can say that homosexuals' will have all the economic, legal benefits that you get from marriage, therefore the name doesn't matter. However, the name DOES matter, because it is a matter of principle. What reason does anyone have, apart from "tradition" and religious sensibilities for why gays shouldn't be allowed be to have their union described as marriage? Tradition justified many morally abhorrent things in the past, we shouldn't use that as an argument by itself. Religious sensibilities can be respected, but in this case it appears some religious folk want to impose their views on others, which is unacceptable.

If someone can come up with a rational reason why calling homosexuals' union a "marriage" then that would help, but I don't think anyone can.

Honestly, what a load of bollocks!

Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman. Okay, with me so far? (No, of course you aren't because YOU have decided this all needs to change and of course you are right by default because... well, because somebody else told you so).

So now think about two men or two women who want to enter into a union... Which aspect of this relationship do you think is going to prohibit this union being termed as a marriage? Please refer to the definition above of you need a huge clue.

That's without even going into the specific responsibilities of marriage, part of which is the intention to procreate.

If the state wants to come along and hijack the word marriage and use it as a means to organize and tag people then fine. Fuck them, let them do that. And if they want to apply their tag to any form of relationship, fine. Fuck them, let them do that too. Nobody has any problem with that.

Which is how it's easy to spot the real agenda. The homosexual lobby isn't content with civil "marriage", they want the traditions of marriage to be undermined and destroyed. It's not enough for them to do their own thing, have their own civil arrangements. They need to impose their views and lifestyle choices on others.

Well they can fuck themselves (and indeed they do). I'll decide what marriage means to me and all the politically correct whimpering or bureaucratic meddling doesn't mean a damn.

I know what marriage actually means.
I know what it entails.

Pretend what you want to, I have no problem with that. But fuck right off if you think I'll for one second even contemplate bowing to your will. That will never, ever, ever fucking happen. If I'm the last **** on the planet who professes to the true meaning of marriage then I'll still be right and every other **** will be wrong. I can point back through the centuries as demonstration. You will not discard that history simply because you are enthralled by the latest fashion. That history still exists even if you don't want it to. You can belittle it, ridicule the people who hold it valuable, indeed discriminate against and attempt to infringe the rights of people to have your way. You can legislate against people, coerce them and even resort to the usual methods of violence often favoured by the "enlightened" when mere intimidation is insufficient. You can kill me, burn my corpse and scatter the ashes across the oceans. But at the moment of death I still won't have changed my mind.

And what the fuck are you going to do about it? Eh?

[Niall_Quinn]

Incidentally, Arsenal Football Club discriminates against women. Not a single woman in the first team. Can you BELIEVE that? It's a disgrace.

What can we do about this? Could a politically correct, mind wiped muppet please advise how we should go about correcting this intolerable injustice?