Gay marriage

[Coney]

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?

Just buy back Nasri.

[GP]

LOL queers

[Niall_Quinn]

Just buy back Nasri.

You had to spoil it. But fair point, Arsenal does not discriminate against women (or gays) after all.





But we could make a start now that Nasri has gone. Who's with me?

[Master Splinter]

Who's with me?

Jim Davidson?

[Niall_Quinn]

Jim Davidson?

He's a fucking liberal maggot.

[MissHandbag]

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?

You were wrong in the first sentence. The term marriage doesn't originate from the religious union of a man and a woman.

So there

[Niall_Quinn]

You were wrong in the first sentence. The term marriage doesn't originate from the religious union of a man and a woman.

So there

Great, if that's what you think then I applaud you for having an opinion. Most don't. They are so busy carrying third party opinions they don't have time for their own.

[IBK]

You were wrong in the first sentence. The term marriage doesn't originate from the religious union of a man and a woman.

So there

Its funny - if you look at the 'history' of marriage - you'll find that originally it was neither consensual nor anything to do with love (it was for diplomatic reasons or convenience). Bringing history into religious debate is a dangerous thing, because things change throughout history.

I've thought a lot about NQ's views on this, and I think I agree with him. If the church of whatever persuasion teaches that homosexuals can't get married, and the 'marriage' that is in question is a religious, rather than a civil ceremony - as it is here, then I don't think the state's role is to force the church to marry homosexuals. And I don't think that failing to do so is denying homosexuals a 'right'. I think that the people lobbying for this are hypocritical, because while on the one had they are claiming a 'right', they are denying others the 'right' to live their lives according to what they believe in.

The state, quite rightly, allows gay marriage. That's where the issue should remain, IMO.

[MissHandbag]

Its funny - if you look at the 'history' of marriage - you'll find that originally it was neither consensual nor anything to do with love (it was for diplomatic reasons or convenience). Bringing history into religious debate is a dangerous thing, because things change throughout history.

I've thought a lot about NQ's views on this, and I think I agree with him. If the church of whatever persuasion teaches that homosexuals can't get married, and the 'marriage' that is in question is a religious, rather than a civil ceremony - as it is here, then I don't think the state's role is to force the church to marry homosexuals. And I don't think that failing to do so is denying homosexuals a 'right'. I think that the people lobbying for this are hypocritical, because while on the one had they are claiming a 'right', they are denying others the 'right' to live their lives according to what they believe in.

The state, quite rightly, allows gay marriage. That's where the issue should remain, IMO.

I would never argue that a religious group should change their teachings to move with the times so in that respect I agree with you (one of the reasons I'm not religious is because I don't agree with the prejudices that exist).

But we're not debating that. As I understand it - The debate is about gay people wanting their civil partnership termed a marriage and the fact that certain members of the catholic church are outraged by this.

[Flavs]

Bumlove, bloody disgraceful if you ask me.