Gay marriage

[WMUG]

They're not the same.
One is between a man and a woman, the other is between two people of the same gender.

So?

[Niall_Quinn]

Do let me know when this legislation forces you to marry a man

If changing the argument to something else entirely helps you, then go ahead. That's another attribute of the politically correct - deafness to the opposition.

[Letters]

So?

So it's not the same.
In some ways it's the same, in other ways it's different.
Do you have a problem with other words being different when, say, it's a man or woman doing the same role?

Do you have a problem with the words 'gay' and 'straight'? If not, why not? If it's the same why have different words?

[IBK]

Heard a good quote today, political correctness is tyranny with manners. So very true (except the manners vanish quickly enough should you stoop to independent thinking) . But there's one important element missing - the hypocrisy. With the politically correct crowd, if you agree with them you are acceptable, if you don't agree with them they have a label for you. You see how that works? Accept everything or else you won't be acceptable. LOL.

Of course the MPs are horse trading on this issue, that's the sad thing. There are no principles in play here, just political swapsies.

Couldn't agree more.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Still don't see what the fuss is all about.

It's like there's some fear that they'll suddenly start taking over the world, like it'll spread like a disease just because they can call themselves "married". It's going to have so little effect on the vast majority of people.

Still, if Cameron wants to tear the Tory party asunder over it, then he can go right ahead...

[IBK]

Fair enough. You were a kid and as Cripps so rightly pointed out:
Kids



I'm not sure I want to 'reward' anyone.

What annoys me about this is it’s dressed up as a fight for equal rights. It isn’t. That battle has already been fought and won. Rightly so. It might be called something different but civil partnerships, far as I understand it, confer all the same rights as marriages do. This is an issue about semantics, not rights.

The definition of marriage is not a private, minority one. It's been defined like that for millenia.



I don't think gay people should be able to call their unions 'marriage' because that word has a very well defined and understood meaning. For religious people it has an extra significance. I see no reason to change that definition. I have no problem with equal rights and those equal rights already exist.



Do you think men and women should compete together in the Olympics in the name of equality? Men and women are NOT equal. They are of equal worth but that doesn't mean that they're the same. A civil partnership is in some ways the same as my marrige but in some ways it's different. It can't produce children naturally, for example. I'm quite happy to recognise it as of as equal worth - it already is recognised as such in law - but that doesn't mean I think it should be called the same thing. I don't see that affects anyone's rights. There's nothing wrong with recognising there are differences. I wouldn't recognise a man marrying 2 women as a marriage either. I don't care if they want to carry on like that, that's their business, but it's not what I'd understand as marriage.

You argue well, mate. Plus it needs to be recognised that this issue has been manipulated by politicians. Further, I can't help thinking that there is something aggressive about wanting to attack the traditional institution of marriage that is disproportionate to how much this really matters to those concerned. I would far rather the government concentrated on the really important issues...

[Niall_Quinn]

Still don't see what the fuss is all about.

It's like there's some fear that they'll suddenly start taking over the world, like it'll spread like a disease just because they can call themselves "married". It's going to have so little effect on the vast majority of people.

Still, if Cameron wants to tear the Tory party asunder over it, then he can go right ahead...

It's not about gay marriage, it's about attacking the foundations of traditional family - something the establishment has been busy at for decades, at least since that psycho Thatcher was in office (probably longer). The family unit doesn't fit with the new utopian model of homogenised "diversity" - no shit, have you noticed how the advocates of "diversity" want everything to be the same? Everything reduced to the lowest denominator in the interests of "fairness"? You bust up the family and Thatcher's dream of the helplessly isolated individual totally reliant on the state takes a big leap forward. Religion is another target, basically any tribes that exist, atomic or extended, outside nanny's direct grasp.

There are other reasons too but some get offended when they are even mentioned.

The trick is not to look at one issue but at the collection of issues and find the common purpose (no pun intended much).

[IBK]

It's not about gay marriage, it's about attacking the foundations of traditional family - something the establishment has been busy at for decades, at least since that psycho Thatcher was in office (probably longer). The family unit doesn't fit with the new utopian model of homogenised "diversity" - no shit, have you noticed how the advocates of "diversity" want everything to be the same? Everything reduced to the lowest denominator in the interests of "fairness"? You bust up the family and

Thatcher's dream of the helplessly isolated individual totally reliant on the state

takes a big leap forward. Religion is another target, basically any tribes that exist, atomic or extended, outside nanny's direct grasp.

There are other reasons too but some get offended when they are even mentioned.

The trick is not to look at one issue but at the collection of issues and find the common purpose (no pun intended much).

Que?

[Syn]

Still don't see what the fuss is all about.

It's like there's some fear that they'll suddenly start taking over the world, like it'll spread like a disease just because they can call themselves "married". It's going to have so little effect on the vast majority of people.

Still, if Cameron wants to tear the Tory party asunder over it, then he can go right ahead...

Precisely. And if a bender at work gets marr...sorry, a 'civil partnership'. What do you think the 99% are going to say? "Congrats on getting married!" "where did you get married?" etc. or "where was this civil partnership?". The 1% of the Letters' can have the technicality. Nobody's going to pay any attention to any pedant* that points it out.


*token 'label' as I am a normal politically correct nut and therefore do need to label/attack those with differing opinions, of course.

[Niall_Quinn]

Que?

You have to watch what they do, not what they say. Thatcher was a staunch authoritarian. She was 100% in favour of personal liberty provided it was practised in unwavering compliance with her own views on what that meant. She ran her government that way, she ran the nation that way. The confusion arises because the whole state vs liberty debate has descended into a stupid argument about benefits and social services. If the blue team trims it means they are for small (as in massive) government. If the red team invests (our money) they are for large (as in massive) government. But it's shop dressing so the illusion of a two party system can be maintained. The ultimate proof is Europe. Look at that and you'll see nobody has been for liberty or independence for decades. It has always been about centralised power and the self sustenance of that power. Maggie was as red as the rest, she only looked blue within the extremely narrow confines of the British (western) political spectrum.