Gay marriage

[WMUG]

If anyone can show me an argument against it that isn't based on dogmatic bigotry, I will give you my piano, one of my legs and my wife. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-17249099?psdata=11_3_8_4_9_10__CD11__CK12_14_15_
The government's plans for gay marriage have been criticised by the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain.Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".He said it was wrong to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father.Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal O'Brien said: "Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."Cardinal O'Brien has become the latest of several senior clergy to denounce what he calls the "madness" of the government's backing for marriage to include homosexual couples.He accuses ministers of attempting to "redefine reality", and "dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage".He claimed the change was "at the behest of a small minority of activists".In January the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, also insisted governments did not have the moral authority to redefine marriage.Mr Cameron publicly supported gay marriage at last year's Conservative Party conference, and the Home Office said last week the government believed a loving and committed couple should "have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of their sexual orientation".Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone is to launch a consultation on the plans later this month.The Scottish government has already begun a consultation process north of the border and has received more than 50,000 responses.Many church leaders believe gay marriage would represent a further significant step in marginalising traditional religious values in society.Earlier this week Conservative MP Peter Bone called the gay marriage plan "completely nuts".

[Letters]

I don't want your piano and you don't have a wife.
So no deal.
:sulk:

[Joker]

The only arguments against it are based on tradition and dogmatic ideology.

[GP]

Well, gays aren't really people, so they don't get the same rights.

[Marc Overmars]

Gays. :lol:

Awful abominations.

[Injury Time]

If anyone can show me an argument against it that isn't based on dogmatic bigotry, I will give you my piano, one of my legs and my husband. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-17249099?psdata=11_3_8_4_9_10__CD11__CK12_14_15_
what you do in your spare time is up to you, butt you keep your husband and be proud.

[Niall_Quinn]

If anyone can show you an argument that you approve of and will therefore even consider...

That's the thing about Nazis, especially neo-liberals. They are prepared to accept all forms of liberty that tally with their own views and beliefs, but stray from that and you're morally inferior by default. So it's a given the the rights and beliefs of gays should be accepted by all. No debate,no argument, it's just an assumption of moral superiority. However, anyone who has differing views is a bigot. See how that works? Smell the freedom.

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.

I don't care what some other **** does with his time. Live and let live. But go fuck yourself if you insist on telling me what I should think and believe. Go fuck yourself if you want to pretend the views of some politically correct **** trumps little matters like evolution, biology. How fucking arrogant can you get?

So there's my answer - fuck you!

[Marc Overmars]

Right-wing NQ scares me.

[Syn]

That's the thing about Nazis, especially neo-liberals. They are prepared to accept all forms of liberty that tally with their own views and beliefs, but stray from that and you're morally inferior by default. So it's a given the the rights and beliefs of gays should be accepted by all. No debate,no argument, it's just an assumption of moral superiority. However, anyone who has differing views is a bigot. See how that works? Smell the freedom.

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.


What exactly do you mean when implying that the 'rights and beliefs of gays' should not be accepted? In what sense should they be any more questioned than those of the unbent?

I can even, maybe, get on board - or at least understand - the 'gays are against nature, they are unnatural' part. They are not 'natural' in the sense that they are not common. But it doesn't mean it's wrong. Because ultimately you don't decide your sexual preferences.

The best (and only) argument I have heard against 'gay marriage' is that it's supposed to be a religious act. And if the religion doesn't accept your kind, why do you want it to be acknowledged by it? But there are financial advantages for a partnership being recognised as a 'marriage'. There has been a lot of work that has looked at the effects of being married on job income and other sources of income/benefits. If we are going to deny gay people the right to marry, they should still have access to these advantages.

[WMUG]

If anyone can show you an argument that you approve of and will therefore even consider...

That's the thing about Nazis, especially neo-liberals. They are prepared to accept all forms of liberty that tally with their own views and beliefs, but stray from that and you're morally inferior by default. So it's a given the the rights and beliefs of gays should be accepted by all. No debate,no argument, it's just an assumption of moral superiority. However, anyone who has differing views is a bigot. See how that works? Smell the freedom.

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.

I don't care what some other **** does with his time. Live and let live. But go fuck yourself if you insist on telling me what I should think and believe. Go fuck yourself if you want to pretend the views of some politically correct **** trumps little matters like evolution, biology. How fucking arrogant can you get?

So there's my answer - fuck you!

Not natural, eh? You've flown, have you not? Perhaps you've traveled at a speed above around 20 mph? You might be living in a house, built from synthetic materials. You're almost certainly on a computer made by *gasp* unnatural materials. You think what is natural should determine what humans should and shouldn't do? Give up planes, trains, cars, computers and your house and I may listen to you.

The whole institution of marriage is fucking unnatural, why should loving somebody some people consider unnatural be denied from joining in this whole fucking charade?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Not natural, eh? You've flown, have you not? Perhaps you've traveled at a speed above around 20 mph? You might be living in a house, built from synthetic materials. You're almost certainly on a computer made by *gasp* unnatural materials. You think what is natural should determine what humans should and shouldn't do? Give up planes, trains, cars, computers and your house and I may listen to you.

The whole institution of marriage is fucking unnatural, why should loving somebody some people consider unnatural be denied from joining in this whole fucking charade?

Your face is unnatural. :coffee:

[Joker]

But who's to say "straight" marriage should be afforded the privileges that it currently enjoys, and that gay people shouldn't enjoy the same advantages? This is as much authoritarian as so called "PC" people telling people what to think. In any case, the idea that you "choose" your sexuality isn't a scientific fact by any means.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

can someone define to me what's the difference between a civil union and a registry office marriage?.

Personally there is a freedom of religion thing to consider, the church of England shouldn't have to marry two gay individuals if it doesn't want to, but a non religious wedding ceremony.....if two people make each other happy and want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, i say your absolutely mad but good luck to you!

[Xhaka Can’t]

can someone define to me what's the difference between a civil union and a registry office marriage?.

Personally there is a freedom of religion thing to consider, the church of England shouldn't have to marry two gay individuals if it doesn't want to, but a non religious wedding ceremony.....if two people make each other happy and want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, i say your absolutely mad but good luck to you!

I don't think you've really grasped the concept of marriage.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No i was just trying to put a brave face on the whole affair

[Niall_Quinn]

Not natural, eh? You've flown, have you not? Perhaps you've traveled at a speed above around 20 mph? You might be living in a house, built from synthetic materials. You're almost certainly on a computer made by *gasp* unnatural materials. You think what is natural should determine what humans should and shouldn't do? Give up planes, trains, cars, computers and your house and I may listen to you.

The whole institution of marriage is fucking unnatural, why should loving somebody some people consider unnatural be denied from joining in this whole fucking charade?

Sorry, what?

Yeah I can fly and I don't even have wings. I didn't say it was physically impossible for gays to shag each other, neither did I say I had any problem with them doing it. But they can't procreate (although I'm sure some fucked up Frankenstein is working on that too). Just because the state has hijacked the institution of marriage does not mean the original intent of that institution is null by default. The point is, you have to corrupt the very concept of marriage if you concede gay marriage in the traditional sense. Which, I suppose, is the whole point. People can fuck each other in the ear hole for all I care. But they should have an ear-hole fucking club and stay the fuck out of my club. My club is full of ****s who don't give a second thought to the principles that underpin their membership. I'll grant you that. But I and others do understand, not just the seemingly arbitrary rules but the fact those rules are based on something far more significant than political fashion. Don't destroy something of mine, go build something of your own. This desire for everyone to be equal (a euphemism for disenfranchised by the way), the desire to destroy everything of tradition in favour of a soulless and morally bereft alternative that has been proven time and again to have the opposite effect to the alleged intent, it has to fucking stop. This is my point. Neo-liberals DEMAND conformity in every aspect of life and they do it by perverting liberty. Do it their way (and somehow they know they are always right) or you are inferior, an object to be loathed and ostracised. Your word for this is bigot. Don't you get it? Go back and look at your original question and the implied demand. Where did you ever get the idea you are right about anything, by the way? You sure as hell don't have an inkling of liberty.

If this is about the money, then sure. I don't pay any heed to state involvement in marriage. Fuck the state and the whore it rode in on. If gays want some bit of paper from the state so they can get nannied in an equivalent manner then fuck it, who cares. But don't cross the line and start pretending that means something beyond the handout.

Btw, if you think this whole issue is about love then you're deluded. Love can exist without and official sanction from the state or other third party interfering busybody and the thing neo-liberals hate is they can't do a damn thing about it. Long may that last, at least.

So again, no, I don't believe in gay marriage (in the traditional sense) because it is impossible. Why anybody wants to legislate to give the impossible legal weight is the real question.

Syn, I didn't say the right and beliefs of gays should not be accepted. I said there is this drive to force others to accept those rights and beliefs - or else. I find it interesting (and aggravating) that these self-appointed champions of equality are prepared to toss liberty without a thought in order to enforce their objectives.

[Niall_Quinn]

But who's to say "straight" marriage should be afforded the privileges that it currently enjoys, and that gay people shouldn't enjoy the same advantages? This is as much authoritarian as so called "PC" people telling people what to think. In any case, the idea that you "choose" your sexuality isn't a scientific fact by any means.

You're right. The state should play no role in marriage whatsoever. Indeed, the state should play no role in any aspect of our private lives and yet it does. This is a key reason why the state is abhorrent and a cancer.

[Niall_Quinn]

Right-wing NQ scares me.

I'm not right wing. I'm a libertarian. That's a dangerous lunatic in most peoples' book. Freedom could never work, people must always be controlled because they are not fit to manage themselves. That's the "sane" left or right wing philosophy. My beliefs are very simple. I will do whatever the fuck I want whenever the fuck I want to do it and if I cause you harm in the process then you can kill me.

[Niall_Quinn]

I can even, maybe, get on board - or at least understand - the 'gays are against nature, they are unnatural' part. They are not 'natural' in the sense that they are not common. But it doesn't mean it's wrong. Because ultimately you don't decide your sexual preferences.

Trouble being, if they ever do become common it means the end of our species. Evolution is never going to keep pace with fashion.

[Syn]

Syn, I didn't say the right and beliefs of gays should not be accepted. I said there is this drive to force others to accept those rights and beliefs - or else. I find it interesting (and aggravating) that these self-appointed champions of equality are prepared to toss liberty without a thought in order to enforce their objectives.

Well it's a bit of a non-starter this "you're a nazi for criticising nazis" attitude of yours. People who don't believe that gay people should have equal rights to heterosexuals are wrong. I'm not a Nazi for stating that. And if people didn't challenge pathetic views like that, we'd still have slavery. If people like yourself want to hold on to the technicalities of what a marriage was supposed to signify hundreds of years ago, then I think that's fair enough. Deny them that much. Even though most people getting married in this country probably don't understand any religious aspect that goes with it. And what 'rights and beliefs' are we talking about here? They're not a religion. They don't believe in jihad or burkhas or whatever. They don't think heterosexuality is wrong. They don't want your children to be gay.


If this is about the money, then sure. I don't pay any heed to state involvement in marriage. Fuck the state and the whore it rode in on. If gays want some bit of paper from the state so they can get nannied in an equivalent manner then fuck it, who cares. But don't cross the line and start pretending that means something beyond the handout.

How many couples that get married these days actually follow a religion? I'm sure there must have been a study done somewhere. Whatever 'marriage' means for gay people, I can assure you it means the same for most heterosexual couples.

[Syn]

Trouble being, if they ever do become common it means the end of our species. Evolution is never going to keep pace with fashion.

Common is the wrong word, on my part. It's not a fashion. It's not a choice. We are seeing more benders about than in the 20s because it carries less of a stigma than it used to, not because there have become more. It's an observational bias. I'm sure you're aware of research that shows there has always been homosexual behaviour in animals. It's not time to worry yet. But when it is, don't worry - we can take them in a fight.

[WMUG]

So again, no, I don't believe in gay marriage (in the traditional sense) because it is impossible. Why anybody wants to legislate to give the impossible legal weight is the real question.
Who's to say tradition is right? The fact is the state is interfering in people's lives. You accept that gay people can have a happy life together and that doesn't bother you, though you phrased it in a thoroughly bigoted way, so why not let them enjoy the same supposedly cancerous benefits as straight people?

[Xhaka Can’t]

What benefits is he denying them?

[WMUG]

:lol:

[Coney]

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.

Err no. Not a fact. The fact is at least 10% of the population are gay and not by choice. It occurs not just in humans but other species. And something that happens at least 10% of the time is a normal event.

The fact that the Abramic religions have an anti-gay agenda (Leviticus) and actually have specific instructions to stone gay people to death should be something the Cardinals and Bishops should be ashamed of, not promoting.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well it's a bit of a non-starter this "you're a nazi for criticising nazis" attitude of yours. People who don't believe that gay people should have equal rights to heterosexuals are wrong. I'm not a Nazi for stating that. And if people didn't challenge pathetic views like that, we'd still have slavery. If people like yourself want to hold on to the technicalities of what a marriage was supposed to signify hundreds of years ago, then I think that's fair enough. Deny them that much. Even though most people getting married in this country probably don't understand any religious aspect that goes with it. And what 'rights and beliefs' are we talking about here? They're not a religion. They don't believe in jihad or burkhas or whatever. They don't think heterosexuality is wrong. They don't want your children to be gay.



How many couples that get married these days actually follow a religion? I'm sure there must have been a study done somewhere. Whatever 'marriage' means for gay people, I can assure you it means the same for most heterosexual couples.

Is marriage a right? No, it's a promise with purpose, at least that's what it was before the state decided otherwise. It still is that, though I've already conceded most people don't appear to see it this way though. Majority ignorance does not remove the original principle, however.

I use the Nazis as an example because minus all that bullshit military propaganda and the fairy tales of the victors, their core belief was people should be united under one idealism. If that unification had to occur by force then so be it because they decided they knew best. Our current political system is the same. Conformity is its core objective and the terms of that conformity are decided by the few. Political correctness (a stupid term because these people aren't correct about anything as the evidence shows) is just another form of propaganda. People easily allow themselves to be the equivalent of the Nazis in terms of thinking (or the absence of thinking) based purely on the majority view, and fear of course. Arguments are carefully framed prior to being released into the public domain, the outcome is guaranteed because it draws on the layers and layers of conditioning that has gone before. It's relentless. This is how marriage can easily be transformed into a social contract (contract being the important word). When you change the nature of something, when you pervert it, it becomes possible to introduce a reversal of the original principle and the impossibly insane then becomes normality. How could the supposedly civilized Germans allow Hitler to prevail? In the same way our citizens today are convinced that murder and pillage is the catalyst for freedom.

Well I want no part of that and I want the mentally sick majority to stay well clear of me. Leave me alone, leave my beliefs alone, leave my traditions alone. These perverts (not gays, but the majority of the general public) have the majority of the stage. They can create and condone their fucked up, tyrannical politics and economics and their inverse morality. I don't imagine for a second I can change any of that. ll I ask is why the Nazi bastards won't leave me alone? Why the great desire to be so ingrained in my life?

I answered the question correctly. I said fuck off and I mean it. Can gays be married. Of course not. Can they make some contract with the state and pretend to be married despite the fact their condition is mutually exclusive to the real intention of marriage. Yes. They can do that. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. So I suppose a barren coupling can be marriage in that respect. But in the real world? Of course no.

Slavery is alive and well, by the way. How could a nation such as Britain exist in its current form without it?

[Niall_Quinn]

Who's to say tradition is right? The fact is the state is interfering in people's lives. You accept that gay people can have a happy life together and that doesn't bother you, though you phrased it in a thoroughly bigoted way, so why not let them enjoy the same supposedly cancerous benefits as straight people?

You don't read. I already said let them have whatever contract they want with the sate. It has nothing to do with me, I don't condone it or reject it. I couldn't care less. As for tradition being "right", why are you even asking the question? If people want to remain connected with their past then why must this be judged by those who do not hold such desires? Go and do your own thing, don't be worried about what I'm doing.

[Niall_Quinn]

Err no. Not a fact. The fact is at least 10% of the population are gay and not by choice. It occurs not just in humans but other species. And something that happens at least 10% of the time is a normal event.

The fact that the Abramic religions have an anti-gay agenda (Leviticus) and actually have specific instructions to stone gay people to death should be something the Cardinals and Bishops should be ashamed of, not promoting.

Anyone ever witnessed this 10% in their own environment? List out all the people you know. Do you get to 10% or is that just some bullshit figure created by a lobby?

All I know, if the majority was homosexual then the species would die out. You could even argue that's a form of natural selection I suppose. But it's an extinction event too and why does extinction exist in nature?

[Coney]

Anyone ever witnessed this 10% in their own environment? List out all the people you know. Do you get to 10% or is that just some bullshit figure created by a lobby?

All I know, if the majority was homosexual then the species would die out. You could even argue that's a form of natural selection I suppose. But it's an extinction event too and why does extinction exist in nature?

Many species have large proportions of their populations not propagating the species - an extreme example is bees. Practically none of them indulge in reproduction - just a fraction of a percent - and they have been around for ages.

[Injury Time]

Many species have large proportions of their populations not propagating the species - an extreme example is bees. Practically none of them indulge in reproduction - just a fraction of a percent - and they have been around for ages.
so it's gay bees that mean they are dying out, curse them and their camp buzzing :sulk:

[Niall_Quinn]

Many species have large proportions of their populations not propagating the species - an extreme example is bees. Practically none of them indulge in reproduction - just a fraction of a percent - and they have been around for ages.

Is there any reason you have to focus on bees rather than human beings to make your point? Asexual organisms might be a better way to go, then we could eliminate male and female, even more political equality and at the acceptable price of human biology and the survival of the species.

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/10996457/gay_bee_by_basalt.jpg

[GP]

Look, it's simple. If you want to get married, don't choose to be gay.

[Niall_Quinn]

Disgusting the way gay bees are treated on here.

[Coney]

Look, it's simple. If you want to get married, don't choose to be gay.

Nothing a bit of electric shock therapy and waterboarding can't sort out. :good:

[KSE Comedy Club]

Err no. Not a fact. The fact is at least 10% of the population are gay and not by choice. It occurs not just in humans but other species. And something that happens at least 10% of the time is a normal event.

The fact that the Abramic religions have an anti-gay agenda (Leviticus) and actually have specific instructions to stone gay people to death should be something the Cardinals and Bishops should be ashamed of, not promoting.I'm sure you will find that a majority percentage is considered to be what normally happens and a small percentage like your 10% of gays, would be an anomaly.

Scientifically speaking.

[Coney]

I'm sure you will find that a majority percentage is considered to be what normally happens and a small percentage like your 10% of gays, would be an anomaly.

Scientifically speaking.

About 10% of white people in Britain have black hair. Does that make them an anomaly?

[Cripps_orig]

If anyone can show you an argument that you approve of and will therefore even consider...

That's the thing about Nazis, especially neo-liberals. They are prepared to accept all forms of liberty that tally with their own views and beliefs, but stray from that and you're morally inferior by default. So it's a given the the rights and beliefs of gays should be accepted by all. No debate,no argument, it's just an assumption of moral superiority. However, anyone who has differing views is a bigot. See how that works? Smell the freedom.

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.

I don't care what some other **** does with his time. Live and let live. But go fuck yourself if you insist on telling me what I should think and believe. Go fuck yourself if you want to pretend the views of some politically correct **** trumps little matters like evolution, biology. How fucking arrogant can you get?

So there's my answer - fuck you!

Just read the last line and i agree with this.

[KSE Comedy Club]

About 10% of white people in Britain have black hair. Does that make them an anomaly?No, that makes them a minority.

[KSE Comedy Club]

Just read the last line and i agree with this.Me too!

In a completely non gay way of course.

[Coney]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/10996457/gay_bee_by_basalt.jpg

Oh - so THAT's what GB stands for.

[Xhaka Can’t]

:lol:

[Flavs]

I just don't understand why anyone would want to get married be them straight, carpet lickers or poo pipe pirates

:shrug:

[Flavs]

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural.

Like your face

[MissHandbag]

If anyone can show you an argument that you approve of and will therefore even consider...

That's the thing about Nazis, especially neo-liberals. They are prepared to accept all forms of liberty that tally with their own views and beliefs, but stray from that and you're morally inferior by default. So it's a given the the rights and beliefs of gays should be accepted by all. No debate,no argument, it's just an assumption of moral superiority. However, anyone who has differing views is a bigot. See how that works? Smell the freedom.

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural. This is simply fact. We all know how nature works for our species. why try to deny the obvious.

I don't care what some other **** does with his time. Live and let live. But go fuck yourself if you insist on telling me what I should think and believe. Go fuck yourself if you want to pretend the views of some politically correct **** trumps little matters like evolution, biology. How fucking arrogant can you get?

So there's my answer - fuck you!

Bloody hell!

I was actually thinking what a sound argument you had to begin with when talking about how those with beliefs don't tally are condemned.

Then you threw in the 'gays are against nature comment' and I thought: How can gays be against nature when they exist - in human form amongst many other species. Then I thought - how sad that there are so many more ignorant people than there are gay people.

[Flavs]

Gays are against nature move. All that bloody mincing cant be natural can it

[Coney]

FACT: Gays are against nature, they are not natural.


Like your face

Best argument yet. :good:

[Coney]

Gays are against nature move. All that bloody mincing cant be natural can it

You've got to crack a walnut somehow.

[KSE Comedy Club]

Bloody hell!

I was actually thinking what a sound argument you had to begin with when talking about how those with beliefs don't tally are condemned.

Then you threw in the 'gays are against nature comment' and I thought: How can gays be against nature when they exist - in human form amongst many other species. Then I thought - how sad that there are so many more ignorant people than there are gay people.Because not everything that exists in the world is always natural.

[MissHandbag]

Because not everything that exists in the world is always natural.

Maybe not everything that's created in the world is natural but the basis, what exists is probably natural or existing in nature.

Do you think monkeys, dogs, snails and I don't know how many other species outside of human sit around debating gay behaviour? I reckon they just get on with it - follow their natural instincts, gay or not.

[Letters]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/catholics-urged-to-oppose-gay-divorce-201203044968/

[Niall_Quinn]

Bloody hell!

I was actually thinking what a sound argument you had to begin with when talking about how those with beliefs don't tally are condemned.

Then you threw in the 'gays are against nature comment' and I thought: How can gays be against nature when they exist - in human form amongst many other species. Then I thought - how sad that there are so many more ignorant people than there are gay people.

Sorry, but all I'm doing is stating what is self-evident. Do I say I hate them or want to infringe on their rights or well being? No. Do I say their lifestyle choice runs contrary to nature itself, yes of course because procreation is one of the fundamentals of nature. Do I say they should get on with their own lives and keep their noses out of the affairs of other groups who have traditional beliefs and practices? Absolutely. It appears some (and only some) who demand what they perceive as a right (when in fact it is no such thing at all) include in those demands the perversion or destruction of the traditional choices of others. I have no issues with whatever the state proclaims in terms of their contractual regulation of private matters because the state has no business being involved at all. So Cameron can do one, his role as puppet in chief gives him no jurisdiction over reality and he is entirely limited to the theatre stage on which he prances and pretends. Quite obviously is is impossible for gays to be married in the traditional and natural sense because they cannot fulfil the terms of marriage. It is a bit like me demanding the right to be female when I am male. Even if the state introduced such a ludicrous right, what would be the point? Would their legislation change reality?

Cameron will have his self-serving law I suppose and then you'll see the other shoe drop. Then it will be time to ban those awful institutions like the church and their wicked rules in favour of holy homosexuality. The homosexual lobby is pernicious, it seeks to harm society as a whole rather than benefit a minority that has been discriminated against. This is about politics, not sexuality or love. This lobby does as much harm to homosexuals as to the rest of us. Any minority fanatic is counter-productive to the stated cause, animal rights groups who use violence on sentient animals to prevent violence on dumb animals, anti-abortion activists who kill the born to protect the unborn and homosexual activists who seek equality by destroying the rights of others. What do any of these lunatics have in common with the minorities they claim to represent?

[Flavs]

Holy Homosexuality Batman!

[PGFC]

I'm all for it, but my Husband's not so sure.

[GP]

I'm all for same sex relationships as long as both chicks are hot.

[Letters]

If the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that women should stick to women's sports like Foxy Boxing and Hot Oil Wrestling and such and such.

[Hump]

No. Do I say their lifestyle choice runs contrary to nature itself, yes of course because procreation is one of the fundamentals of nature.


care to explain? The "mutant" gene that manifests itself in same sex bonding is the same sort of mutant gene that gave hominids opposable thumbs, which ain't to shabby. Nature is pretty fucking anarchic tbh. There are lots of bummer species, benobos and penguins spring to mind, and I am pretty sure I read somewhere that a lonely naturalist was forced to marry a silverback after he was caught do practical fieldwork by the tribal elders.

[Master Splinter]

N_Q's favourite person, after Chamakh:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL

[Coney]

If the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't,.......

It took me a while to work out the logical meaning of that - mind, I am a bit pissed at the moment.

[Niall_Quinn]

care to explain? The "mutant" gene that manifests itself in same sex bonding is the same sort of mutant gene that gave hominids opposable thumbs, which ain't to shabby. Nature is pretty fucking anarchic tbh. There are lots of bummer species, benobos and penguins spring to mind, and I am pretty sure I read somewhere that a lonely naturalist was forced to marry a silverback after he was caught do practical fieldwork by the tribal elders.

You mean homosexuality has been mistaken as an aberration but in reality is a step along our long term evolutionary path as a species?

Opposable thumbs aren't exactly the most efficient form of contraception. They are inferior in every respect to homosexuality in terms of preventing conception, with the latter having been 100% effective in all cases throughout human existence.

[Niall_Quinn]

N_Q's favourite person, after Chamakh:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL

Rick Sanitation is just another methane saturated authoritarian bureaucratic floater who thinks freedom is a useful brand name for tyranny. He's a disposable jerk off that has been manufactured to appeal to a mass of manufactured jerk offs. He'll get a lot of votes because America is mostly unconscious. Whether it's Uncle Tom, Fat Fuck, The Banker's Condom or Rick, it doesn't matter. The only guy running who understand the concept of liberty (and therefore the only American running) is Ron Paul. In America, if Jesus Christ ran for office he'd lose his deposit. Those church goers would see to it.

[Letters]

I personally think that the definition of marriage, being a partnership between a man and a woman, should remain.
If the gays want to have a partnership with the same rights as marriage then fine but I personally don't think it should be called marriage. Not sure I can justify that really but it's how I feel. I'm not sure why the gays would be bothered what it's called so long as it has the same legal status.

[Xhaka Can’t]

What is your position on arranged gay weddings?

[Letters]

What is your position on arranged gay weddings?

See you tomorrow

:hug:

[KSE Comedy Club]

You mean homosexuality has been mistaken as an aberration but in reality is a step along our long term evolutionary path as a species?

Opposable thumbs aren't exactly the most efficient form of contraception. They are inferior in every respect to homosexuality in terms of preventing conception, with the latter having been 100% effective in all cases throughout human existence.:haha:

:bow:

[KSE Comedy Club]

I personally think that the definition of marriage, being a partnership between a man and a woman, should remain.
If the gays want to have a partnership with the same rights as marriage then fine but I personally don't think it should be called marriage. Not sure I can justify that really but it's how I feel. I'm not sure why the gays would be bothered what it's called so long as it has the same legal status.I agree with letters and NQ. Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman and should remain that way IMO.

I do laugh every time you address them as 'the gays' though letters :lol:

[IBK]

Sorry, but all I'm doing is stating what is self-evident. Do I say I hate them or want to infringe on their rights or well being? No. Do I say their lifestyle choice runs contrary to nature itself, yes of course because procreation is one of the fundamentals of nature. Do I say they should get on with their own lives and keep their noses out of the affairs of other groups who have traditional beliefs and practices? Absolutely. It appears some (and only some) who demand what they perceive as a right (when in fact it is no such thing at all) include in those demands the perversion or destruction of the traditional choices of others. I have no issues with whatever the state proclaims in terms of their contractual regulation of private matters because the state has no business being involved at all. So Cameron can do one, his role as puppet in chief gives him no jurisdiction over reality and he is entirely limited to the theatre stage on which he prances and pretends. Quite obviously is is impossible for gays to be married in the traditional and natural sense because they cannot fulfil the terms of marriage. It is a bit like me demanding the right to be female when I am male. Even if the state introduced such a ludicrous right, what would be the point? Would their legislation change reality?

Cameron will have his self-serving law I suppose and then you'll see the other shoe drop. Then it will be time to ban those awful institutions like the church and their wicked rules in favour of holy homosexuality. The homosexual lobby is pernicious, it seeks to harm society as a whole rather than benefit a minority that has been discriminated against. This is about politics, not sexuality or love. This lobby does as much harm to homosexuals as to the rest of us. Any minority fanatic is counter-productive to the stated cause, animal rights groups who use violence on sentient animals to prevent violence on dumb animals, anti-abortion activists who kill the born to protect the unborn and homosexual activists who seek equality by destroying the rights of others. What do any of these lunatics have in common with the minorities they claim to represent?

Very interesting take.

[LDG]

I personally think that the definition of marriage, being a partnership between a man and a woman, should remain.
If the gays want to have a partnership with the same rights as marriage then fine but I personally don't think it should be called marriage. Not sure I can justify that really but it's how I feel. I'm not sure why the gays would be bothered what it's called so long as it has the same legal status.

They should call it Homo-Marriage.

[Letters]

Garriage?
Quarriage?

[LDG]

Garriage?
Quarriage?

Bumsexiage :good:

[Letters]

And, of course, sexiest of all, Lezzariage.

Ba-da bow bow!

[LDG]

And, of course, sexiest of all, Lezzariage.

Ba-da bow bow!

http://ourlighterside.com/stuff/lesbians/Lesbian.jpg

[GP]

Remember that episode of the simpsons where (and I'm sure Letters will correct me) Marge was bored so she 'married' Snowball II and Santa's little helper?

That's what gay marriage is, tbh.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm sick of people undermining the sanctity of marriage with sham inter-species marriages.

If you want to get with an aardvark, that's your business, but don't call it 'marriage'.

[MissHandbag]

I personally think that the definition of marriage, being a partnership between a man and a woman, should remain.
If the gays want to have a partnership with the same rights as marriage then fine but I personally don't think it should be called marriage. Not sure I can justify that really but it's how I feel. I'm not sure why the gays would be bothered what it's called so long as it has the same legal status.

I think you'll find it's called a 'civil partnership' not a marriage

[Letters]

It is at the moment. I thought this thread was about it being marriage.

[LDG]

I'm sick of people undermining the sanctity of marriage with sham inter-species marriages.

If you want to get with an aardvark, that's your business, but don't call it 'marriage'.

Bet they give good blowies though.

#justsayinolliesgay

[MissHandbag]

It is at the moment. I thought this thread was about it being marriage.

You're objecting to the word marriage but apparently not the concept - The word marriage originates 'apparently' from many cultures and religions and dates back for thousands of years - No one religious or cultural group has a monopoly on or patent for the term so why shouldn't anybody be entitled to use the term marriage?

[MissHandbag]

Sorry, but all I'm doing is stating what is self-evident. Do I say I hate them or want to infringe on their rights or well being? No. Do I say their lifestyle choice runs contrary to nature itself, yes of course because procreation is one of the fundamentals of nature. Do I say they should get on with their own lives and keep their noses out of the affairs of other groups who have traditional beliefs and practices? Absolutely. It appears some (and only some) who demand what they perceive as a right (when in fact it is no such thing at all) include in those demands the perversion or destruction of the traditional choices of others. I have no issues with whatever the state proclaims in terms of their contractual regulation of private matters because the state has no business being involved at all. So Cameron can do one, his role as puppet in chief gives him no jurisdiction over reality and he is entirely limited to the theatre stage on which he prances and pretends. Quite obviously is is impossible for gays to be married in the traditional and natural sense because they cannot fulfil the terms of marriage. It is a bit like me demanding the right to be female when I am male. Even if the state introduced such a ludicrous right, what would be the point? Would their legislation change reality?

Cameron will have his self-serving law I suppose and then you'll see the other shoe drop. Then it will be time to ban those awful institutions like the church and their wicked rules in favour of holy homosexuality. The homosexual lobby is pernicious, it seeks to harm society as a whole rather than benefit a minority that has been discriminated against. This is about politics, not sexuality or love. This lobby does as much harm to homosexuals as to the rest of us. Any minority fanatic is counter-productive to the stated cause, animal rights groups who use violence on sentient animals to prevent violence on dumb animals, anti-abortion activists who kill the born to protect the unborn and homosexual activists who seek equality by destroying the rights of others. What do any of these lunatics have in common with the minorities they claim to represent?

Did I say you say you hate them? No

Did I disagree with you about the politics - No (but thanks for the rant anyway - I agree with quite a lot of it)

One point I disagreed on and you haven't swayed me - Homesexuality is not against nature.

Furthermore - it's not usually a lifestyle choice to be homosexual as most homosexual will tell you.

[Letters]

Why would the gays mind what it's called anyway so long as they have the same rights? Isn't that the issue?
The word marriage has a well defined and understood meaning in the West. I see no reason to change that.
It's not the biggest issue ever but it's how I feel.

[Letters]

Homosexuality is not against nature.

You say that...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXUOM4wtT8

[MissHandbag]

Why would the gays mind what it's called anyway so long as they have the same rights? Isn't that the issue?
The word marriage has a well defined and understood meaning in the West. I see no reason to change that.
It's not the biggest issue ever but it's how I feel.

Who are 'the gays'? No - apparently, the issue for some people is the word marriage! Not the gays kicking up a big fuss about keeping the title 'civil partnership' - it's the church.

I looked up marriage and the term seems to originate from Culture rather than religion. Whilst religion may not change, cultural changes certainly do happen thankfully.

[Letters]

Cultural changes have happened and have allowed the gays to have civil partnerships which give them the same status as marriage.
I see no reason for re-defining the word marriage.

[MissHandbag]

Cultural changes have happened and have allowed the gays to have civil partnerships which give them the same status as marriage.
I see no reason for re-defining the word marriage.

Alrighty then

[MissHandbag]

Alrighty then

What next - women will have a fucking vote or something ridiculous like that

[Letters]

What next - women will have a fucking vote or something ridiculous like that

This is nothing to do with rights.

If women's votes were called votettes would you be outraged that they had a different name?
That would be ridiculous, you'd have the same rights, the words used and semantics of them are irrelevant.
Equality doesn't mean calling everything the same thing. We have actors and actresses, for example. I've never heard anyone say it should all be actor and the best actor Oscar should be for either gender.

Marriage has a clear and well understood meaning. There is no reason to change it.

[Syn]

Who are 'the gays'? No - apparently, the issue for some people is the word marriage! Not the gays kicking up a big fuss about keeping the title 'civil partnership' - it's the church.

I'm with you. But who cares. If, after legal equality, they want to cling on to a single word, fine. When 2 gay people get a civil partnership what do you think everyone's going to call it? "When are you getting married?" or "When's the civil partnership?" Everyone knows the score, really. There are many meaningless technicalities around and this will be another one.

[KSE Comedy Club]

This is nothing to do with rights.

If women's votes were called votettes would you be outraged that they had a different name?
That would be ridiculous, you'd have the same rights, the words used and semantics of them are irrelevant.
Equality doesn't mean calling everything the same thing. We have actors and actresses, for example. I've never heard anyone say it should all be actor and the best actor Oscar should be for either gender.

Marriage has a clear and well understood meaning. There is no reason to change it.:gp: I agree IMO.

[Coney]

From the Oxford dictionary.

marriage - Pronunciation: /ˈmarɪdʒ/
noun

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage
[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage
(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.

2 a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

So I guess it depends on the jurisdiction. And the jury's out(ed).

[Letters]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

tbh

[Coney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

tbh

So we can agree that they have the right to be married, even if they have nowhere for the foetus to gestate? :good:

[Letters]

Oh alright then :sulk:

[Coney]

Oh alright then :sulk:

:good: Olly will be pleased.

[MissHandbag]

This is nothing to do with rights.

If women's votes were called votettes would you be outraged that they had a different name?
That would be ridiculous, you'd have the same rights, the words used and semantics of them are irrelevant.
Equality doesn't mean calling everything the same thing. We have actors and actresses, for example. I've never heard anyone say it should all be actor and the best actor Oscar should be for either gender.

Marriage has a clear and well understood meaning. There is no reason to change it.

I'm not outraged by the name. I'm not gay and I'm not religious, I'm looking at it from the outside. The majority of gay people aren't complaining either. The fact is - some members of the church are complaining because maybe some gay people want the right to call their civil partnership a marriage.

My points are/were: - No one group or person has the monopoly of the term 'marriage'. The other point is that - even if 'old fashioned' folk prefer things to stay the same (personally, next time one of those gets ill I think we should treat them with leeches not antibiotics) our culture denotes that we progress. You clearly believe the word 'marriage' is purely related to a man and a woman being married/living in matrimony - However, history doesn't uphold that view exclusively. Until the term is patented by somebody, why should somebody elses view or right to call themselves married be less important than your own?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Everybody should mind their own goddamned business.

In fact, I'm going to make it my business to make everyone mind their own business.

[GP]

You're not the boss of me :angry:

[MissHandbag]

You're not the boss of me :angry:

I'd like to be though

[GP]

:faint:

[Letters]

GP :rose:

[GP]

We all gotta go sometime...


##

[Fats]

All I'll say is this: God does not exist. Marriage in his name or in the view of the church is pointless.

This guy who is against gay marrige/civil partnership is a moron as he belives in a superior being that does not exist.

Also in the bible is states:If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Religeon is an evil thing if it demands death on an individual because of what they are.

[Letters]

All I'll say is this: God does not exist.

Well that's thousands of years of theological debate resolved. Thanks for that.

[Master Splinter]

Well that's thousands of years of theological debate resolved. Thanks for that.

Godette exists though.

[Letters]

That's who I'm waiting for...

[Master Splinter]

:ilt:

[WMUG]

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86364

NQ :bow:

Also Letters, your argument works both ways. If it's just a difference in the words used, then surely there's no harm in changing what civil partnerships are called on gender grounds? If it makes no legal difference but some people feel strongly about it, surely just throw them a bone and be done with it?

(I actually think it's more significant that that, but yeah).

[Cripps_orig]

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86364

NQ :bow:

Also Letters, your argument works both ways. If it's just a difference in the words used, then surely there's no harm in changing what civil partnerships are called on gender grounds? If it makes no legal difference but some people feel strongly about it, surely just throw them a bone and be done with it?

(I actually think it's more significant that that, but yeah).I dont get it

Whos goonerboy? Is he a fag?

[Cripps_orig]

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86364

NQ :bow:

Also Letters, your argument works both ways. If it's just a difference in the words used, then surely there's no harm in changing what civil partnerships are called on gender grounds? If it makes no legal difference but some people feel strongly about it, surely just throw them a bone and be done with it?

(I actually think it's more significant that that, but yeah).I dont get it

Whos goonerboy? Is he a fag?

[Niall_Quinn]

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86364

NQ :bow:

Also Letters, your argument works both ways. If it's just a difference in the words used, then surely there's no harm in changing what civil partnerships are called on gender grounds? If it makes no legal difference but some people feel strongly about it, surely just throw them a bone and be done with it?

(I actually think it's more significant that that, but yeah).

What's that place? Some sort of a fag hangout?

[Letters]

Also Letters, your argument works both ways. If it's just a difference in the words used, then surely there's no harm in changing what civil partnerships are called on gender grounds? If it makes no legal difference but some people feel strongly about it, surely just throw them a bone and be done with it?

Well fine but other people feel strongly the other way. Why not throw them a bone, leave it as it is and everyone has the same rights, the semantics of marriage remains the same and no-one of religious persuasion gets offended. I know you don't care whether they get offended or not but as you said the argument works both ways. Just don't pretend that this debate is about equality because it isn't. Gay couples already (in law at least) have equality.

[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" :lol:

[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 :sulk:





sorry :hug:

[Hump]

Your face is offensive to religious people :sulk:sorry :hug: 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?

[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. :good:

[GP]

LOL queers :lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

Just buy back Nasri. :good:

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.

[Coney]

Bumlove, bloody disgraceful if you ask me.

With this ring..

[Flavs]

It is though, joking aside, an abomination.

[GP]

Bumlove, bloody disgraceful if you ask me.

Giving or taking?

[Master Splinter]

It is though, joking aside, an abomination.

Much like your face.

And your mum.

[Flavs]

You see what happens? You try and have a serious conversation and the mention of the word "bum" brings the fools out. This isn't a fucking jester convention you know some of us are trying to have a serious debate.

[Flavs]

Giving or taking?

That's totally inappropriate

[Marc Overmars]

The office gay hit on me at our last work night out.

He told me it would be our little secret. :(

[PGFC]

The office gay hit on me at our last work night out.

He told me it would be our little secret. :(

:haha: Bless him

[Cripps_orig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17474967

:lol:

I assume this is the gay thread created by our resident gaydo. Didnt want to create another thread for it

[swe_gooner]

To be perfectly honest, gay marriage is perfectly normal. Whoever says its an abomination should be ashamed of themselves. We're all humans and that's all that matters... 2 people are happy together, have a loving and passionate relationship, who the hell are we to meddle with that?

[Letters]

Normal?

[swe_gooner]

Normal?

Yes normal. Say we flip the coin around, say, gay relationships was the norm, then straight people would be the ones who look weird (not that this would work in any way scientifically, but I hope you get my drift).

[Marc Overmars]

Nothing normal about gays in my honest opinion.

[The Wengerbabies]

Nothing normal about gays in my honest opinion.

Never a truer word spoken.

[Cripps_orig]

Disgusting how fags are treated on here

[The Wengerbabies]

Disgusting how fags are treated on here
Yep they're shown far too much respect.

[swe_gooner]

Honestly, you lot don't know what it's like to be in the receiving end of gay/lesbian bullying... Happened to me all the time at school, made me feel completely worthless-like I wasn't normal. It is perfectly normal and in today's day and age, in this developed society, people shouldn't be acting like neanderthals. Gay/lesbian relationships are perfectly normal, believe me.

[Cripps_orig]

Honestly, you lot don't know what it's like to be in the receiving end of gay/lesbian bullying... Happened to me all the time at school, made me feel completely worthless-like I wasn't normal. It is perfectly normal and in today's day and age, in this developed society, people shouldn't be acting like neanderthals. Gay/lesbian relationships are perfectly normal, believe me.Are you gay/lesbian?

[swe_gooner]

Bi actually.

[GP]

Nothing normal about gays in my honest opinion.

Queers :lol:

Awful sub-human filth

[Marc Overmars]

I accept gays are part of society and I wouldn't bully someone over it, but I would never class homosexuality as normal tbh.

[The Wengerbabies]

I accept gays are part of society and I wouldn't bully someone over it, but I would never class homosexuality as normal tbh.

I agree with this. Except for the first part.

[Cripps_orig]

Nothing wrong with bi/les females tbh

[swe_gooner]

There are loads of sportsmen who are gay, and they're afraid to come out, and I can see why, cause this is how they get treated in the football world. Coming out was the best thing I ever did, cause I finally felt like I could be me. I can understand people's concerns cause they're in the locker room, all men changing together, but honestly, everyone has something called self control and most people are probably not that attracted to the people they work with...

[GP]

Bi actually.

'course you are.

[The Wengerbabies]

There are loads of sportsmen who are gay, and they're afraid to come out, and I can see why, cause this is how they get treated in the football world. Coming out was the best thing I ever did, cause I finally felt like I could be me. I can understand people's concerns cause they're in the locker room, all men changing together, but honestly, everyone has something called self control and most people are probably not that attracted to the people they work with...

You raise a good point actually.

If gays are allowed in mens changing rooms why aren't straight men allowed in womans?

Thats hetrophobia tbh. Disgusting discrimination.

[Cripps_orig]

There are loads of sportsmen who are gay, and they're afraid to come out, and I can see why, cause this is how they get treated in the football world. Coming out was the best thing I ever did, cause I finally felt like I could be me. I can understand people's concerns cause they're in the locker room, all men changing together, but honestly, everyone has something called self control and most people are probably not that attracted to the people they work with...Dont think anyone really cares tbh.

Why do gays have to come out? I dont give a fuck if someone is gay or not so they dont need to come out at all.

Lesbians though :bow:

[swe_gooner]

Nothing wrong with bi/les females tbh

Yeah cause you can fantasise about them doing it together, but as soon as its male on male, you think it's unnatural... Honestly, people are people, no matter what their orientation is. If I told you I study 12-15 hours a day, you'd think I was weird, but it's pretty much the same thing...

[Olivier's xmas twist]

'course you are.

:lol: Its funny though since this poster has logged on another has not.

[swe_gooner]

:lol: Its funny though since this poster has logged on another has not.

What???

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

:lol: Its funny though since this poster has logged on another has not.
Ollie?

I agree.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Nothing wrong with bi/les females tbh

Tell that to nick Griffin.

[Cripps_orig]

Tell that to nick Griffin.I would but i have him on ignore on here

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Ollie?

I agree.

thinking more of Nine tbh

[Olivier's xmas twist]

I accept gays are part of society and I wouldn't bully someone over it, but I would never class homosexuality as normal tbh.

What is Normal though. Id say its not natural for 2 men to get married in catholic church though.

[The Wengerbabies]

What is Normal though. Id say its not natural for 2 men to get married in catholic church though.

Its not natural for anyone to get married in a catholic church tbf.

[Coney]

What is Normal though. Id say its not natural for 2 men to get married in catholic church though.

I think you mean not normal.

It is normal for 2 priests in a catholic church to get it on though. :good:

[Coney]

Its not natural for anyone to get married in a catholic church tbf.

It is not natural for anyone to get married full stop. It is an artificial concept.

[swe_gooner]

Anyway, what I'm gonna say now might hurt, but the fact of the matter is that its true: the only people who really really really want to keep marriage between a man and a woman is the church, why is this? The clergymen are all getting off with each other anyway cause they're not allowed to have sex. And it's not just each other either... Point is, they're so against gay marriage because they don't want the truth about themselves to come out
Although, I did hear of a gay guy who wanted to become a preist to try it change it from the inside... And before any of you accuse me of being against Christianity or whatever else you may accuse me of, I am a Swedish Lutheran, I follow my religion, maybe not strictly but well enough...

[Olivier's xmas twist]

I think you mean not normal.

It is normal for 2 priests in a catholic church to get it on though. :good:

True lol.

[The Wengerbabies]

It is not natural for anyone to get married full stop. It is an artificial concept.

Thats what I was getting at.

But anyway from a goydos point of view, why would you want to get married in a church and be part of a community that thinks your lifestyle is a sin?

Doesn't make sense but then fags rarely do, do they?

[The Wengerbabies]

Anyway, what I'm gonna say now might hurt, but the fact of the matter is that its true: the only people who really really really want to keep marriage between a man and a woman is the church, why is this?

Because religion invented marriage and they think gayness is wrong.

[swe_gooner]

It is not natural for anyone to get married full stop. It is an artificial concept.

Sure it is, but it's also a spiritual bond between 2 people no matter their sexual orientation, a sign of their love for each other and it can strengthen a relationship... I'm not saying I'm the most rational of people all the time, but I like the idea of marriage, and I believe in it, and the way I see it it has the potentiality to work for same sex and mixed sex couples too, it doesn't work for everyone, but it works for those it works for...

[Coney]

Sure it is, but it's also a spiritual bond between 2 people no matter their sexual orientation, a sign of their love for each other and it can strengthen a relationship... I'm not saying I'm the most rational of people all the time, but I like the idea of marriage, and I believe in it, and the way I see it it has the potentiality to work for same sex and mixed sex couples too, it doesn't work for everyone, but it works for those it works for...

But if you are a christian, which you say you are, and presumably want to follow the teaching of the bible, don't you want to obey it and have gays stoned to death?

[swe_gooner]

Because religion invented marriage and they think gayness is wrong.

Oh cheers, taking me out of context... Not saying I agree with religion either, to quote marx, religion is an opium for the people... But I still think same sex couples are normal, and natural

[Coney]

Thats what I was getting at.

But anyway from a goydos point of view, why would you want to get married in a church and be part of a community that thinks your lifestyle is a sin?

Doesn't make sense but then fags rarely do, do they?

Shame about the last sentence. However the previous point - why do you want to get married in a church which thinks being gay is an abomination punishable by death. Exactly. Effectively, they are demanding the right for gays to join a homophobic organisation.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

thinking more of Nine tbh
Who says he ever logged off? :ninja:

[swe_gooner]

But if you are a christian, which you say you are, and presumably want to follow the teaching of the bible, don't you want to obey it and have gays stoned to death?

Sure I am a Christian, but I do not accept the logic you got there. I have never believed in the bible. I have only once attempted to read it, and damn it's boring... I don't agree with most counts in the new testament. And no, gays should not be stoned to death, that would be a death wish for myself. And for the record, I'm usually the first person to criticise religion... I am very blasphemous, and I can own up to that...

[The Wengerbabies]

Sure I am a Christian, but I do not accept the logic you got there. I have never believed in the bible. I have only once attempted to read it, and damn it's boring... I don't agree with most counts in the new testament. And no, gays should not be stoned to death, that would be a death wish for myself. And for the record, I'm usually the first person to criticise religion... I am very blasphemous, and I can own up to that...

How can you claim to be Christian if you don't believe in the bible :blink:

[Coney]

Sure I am a Christian, but I do not accept the logic you got there. I have never believed in the bible. I have only once attempted to read it, and damn it's boring... I don't agree with most counts in the new testament. And no, gays should not be stoned to death, that would be a death wish for myself. And for the record, I'm usually the first person to criticise religion... I am very blasphemous, and I can own up to that...

The stoning to death stuff is from the old testament. If you are going to claim to be a Christian, it might be an idea to read at least some of the bible. :lol:

[Olivier's xmas twist]

How can you claim to be Christian if you don't believe in the bible :blink:

Some people do, i Know Muslims who say they preach it, but then they go and Drink do drugs etc.

[swe_gooner]

How can you claim to be Christian if you don't believe in the bible :blink:

I follow it lifestyle wise, I try to be kind, helpful, try love my neighbour, and so on, but I don't go to church or any of that... But I am a confirmed Christian, and have been for about 4 years now

[Coney]

Just checked swe-gooner's profile to make sure the joining date wasn't April 1st.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

The stoning to death stuff is from the old testament. If you are going to claim to be a Christian, it might be an idea to read at least some of the bible. :lol:

:pal:

We have a troll on the forums lol.

[The Wengerbabies]

I follow it lifestyle wise, I try to be kind, helpful, try love my neighbour, and so on, but I don't go to church or any of that... But I am a confirmed Christian, and have been for about 4 years now

Thats just common decency nothing to do with Christianity.

[swe_gooner]

The stoning to death stuff is from the old testament. If you are going to claim to be a Christian, it might be an idea to read at least some of the bible. :lol:

Like I said, I have attempted to read it. Got about half way through genesis, and then fell asleep, not tried since and tbh I cba. I have better things to do than to read that rubbish... And yeah call me blasphemous, but the main reason I believe there is a god (coming after 4 years study of philosophy of religion) is because I need there to be a god. It's simply a comforter-belief, and its better in pascals wager, but I usually do condemn god, I usually argue against god and religion... After all, Marx put it pretty well, religion is an opium for the people

[The Wengerbabies]

Like I said, I have attempted to read it. Got about half way through genesis, and then fell asleep, not tried since and tbh I cba. I have better things to do than to read that rubbish... And yeah call me blasphemous, but the main reason I believe there is a god (coming after 4 years study of philosophy of religion) is because I need there to be a god. It's simply a comforter-belief, and its better in pascals wager, but I usually do condemn god, I usually argue against god and religion... After all, Marx put it pretty well, religion is an opium for the people

If you condemn the Christian god but need there to be a god for 'comfort' why not believe in a nicer god?

[swe_gooner]

If you condemn the Christian god but need there to be a god for 'comfort' why not believe in a nicer god?

I honestly don't know... I can't justify my beliefs to myself, let alone anyone else... Like I said, I don't claim to be the most rational person in the world, but my beliefs are a bit of a mish mash of everything. That's sorta why I started studying philosophy, to make some sort of sense of the world, but the best thing I've managed to find so far is an ancient Greek philosopher who believed that the most basic substance in the world was fire... It's a journey, at some point I may abandon religion completely... But it's a journey and I'm just seeing where it takes me atm

[The Wengerbabies]

I honestly don't know... I can't justify my beliefs to myself, let alone anyone else... Like I said, I don't claim to be the most rational person in the world, but my beliefs are a bit of a mish mash of everything. That's sorta why I started studying philosophy, to make some sort of sense of the world, but the best thing I've managed to find so far is an ancient Greek philosopher who believed that the most basic substance in the world was fire... It's a journey, at some point I may abandon religion completely... But it's a journey and I'm just seeing where it takes me atm

If you want to make sense of the world, study science.

[swe_gooner]

If you want to make sense of the world, study science.

I do. I study English, mathematics, Japanese, biology, philosophy and theatre. I also studied theory of knowledge, and I have written an extended essay (4000 words)

[Niall_Quinn]

I do. I study English, mathematics, Japanese, biology, philosophy and theatre. I also studied theory of knowledge, and I have written an extended essay (4000 words)

You don't know shit about shit.

[Cripps_orig]

Welcome to GW anyway Swe Gooner

[swe_gooner]

You don't know shit about shit.

Well, that's for you to decide isn't it, and I would say that at the age I am now, ignorance is still bliss...

[Letters]

And before any of you accuse me of being against Christianity or whatever else you may accuse me of, I am a Swedish Lutheran, I follow my religion, maybe not strictly but well enough...

You and WMUG must get on great.

And the rest of your post is a load of nonsense, frankly.

[Letters]

why do you want to get married in a church which thinks being gay is an abomination punishable by death.

It doesn't.

It always amuses me how little you understand about a faith you've rejected so definitely. Very Dawkins-like.

[Letters]

But I am a confirmed Christian
You're not. Not having a go but if you've not read much of the Bible and don't believe in it then you are not a Christian. You clearly have some faith in something but it's not Christian.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't try and read the Bible cover to cover. Try a Gospel first. John is quite short and easy to read and get a good, modern translation (Good News or NIV).

[swe_gooner]

You're not. Not having a go but if you've not read much of the Bible and don't believe in it then you are not a Christian. You clearly have some faith in something but it's not Christian.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't try and read the Bible cover to cover. Try a Gospel first. John is quite short and easy to read and get a good, modern translation (Good News or NIV).

Quite frankly, I was referring to a Christian event I took part in about 4 years ago. Idk how it's done here, but we were given a bracelet and were taught about the Christian faith through that, and it corresponded to different parts of the Christian year, I can still recite most prayers in Swedish.

As for reading the bible cover to cover, this might get me disowned by almost everyone I know. And to be fair, I just don't have the time at the moment. I might give it another attempt over the summer, but not before my exams.

[Letters]

As for reading the bible cover to cover, this might get me disowned by almost everyone I know. And to be fair, I just don't have the time at the moment. I might give it another attempt over the summer, but not before my exams.

What I'm trying to say is that starting at the beginning and reading from cover to cover probably isn't the best approach. Start with the Gospel of John in a modern translation and if you want to explore more then get some reading notes or something. If you do want to read cover to cover then I'd suggest an ultra-modern translation like The Message.

[MissHandbag]

Because religion invented marriage and they think gayness is wrong.

I could ignore most of your ignorant, homophobic comments you silly little boy but at least get your facts straight.

Religion did not invent 'marriage'.

[Joker]

IMO none of the views against gay marriage are based on sound arguments (and bleating about tradition isn't one of them) We can talk about respecting religious beliefs, but while I think religious practise should be respected, we shouldn't simply allow all religious beliefs to be tolerated. For example, we constantly hear about how the less savoury elements of Islam is incompatible with modern secular democracies, and the same should apply to the Christian opposition to gay marriage.

[Letters]

IMO none of the views against gay marriage are based on sound arguments (and bleating about tradition isn't one of them) We can talk about respecting religious beliefs, but while I think religious practise should be respected, we shouldn't simply allow all religious beliefs to be tolerated. For example, we constantly hear about how the less savoury elements of Islam is incompatible with modern secular democracies, and the same should apply to the Christian opposition to gay marriage.

I'm not sure that follows. Gay couples aren't being oppressed by the church (or they shouldn't be, don't get me started about some of the fundamentalist loonies in the Deep South in the US). Gay couples already have equality. They have civil ceremonies which give them the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Let's not pretend this is about equality because it isn't. It's about semantics.

[Niall_Quinn]

IMO none of the views against gay marriage are based on sound arguments (and bleating about tradition isn't one of them) We can talk about respecting religious beliefs, but while I think religious practise should be respected, we shouldn't simply allow all religious beliefs to be tolerated. For example, we constantly hear about how the less savoury elements of Islam is incompatible with modern secular democracies, and the same should apply to the Christian opposition to gay marriage.

Stop going on about gay marriage already! If you want to get married just get married, stop looking for approval here. Anyway, if you need the okay from GW you can't really love the bloke much can you? Marriage is a serious business, not some joke, you need to grow up really.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Stop going on about gay marriage already! If you want to get married just get married, stop looking for approval here. Anyway, if you need the okay from GW you can't really love the bloke much can you? Marriage is a serious business, not some joke, you need to grow up really.

Ironic that with his username and all.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not sure that follows. Gay couples aren't being oppressed by the church (or they shouldn't be, don't get me started about some of the fundamentalist loonies in the Deep South in the US). Gay couples already have equality. They have civil ceremonies which give them the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Let's not pretend this is about equality because it isn't. It's about semantics.

It's quite simple Mr Letters. All connections with the past need to be destroyed so we can move on to the great utopia promised by the thought reformists. If you look around you can clearly see the world they are creating is superior in every way to what went before. And if in doubt, just look at a few extreme examples condensed into a poster campaign (which is how all history should be viewed especially when you are trying to rewrite it). It's a dangerous thing to allow people to believe what they want. It needs to be stamped out and if equating the religious beliefs and practices of millennia to stereotypical and hyped Islamic fundamentalism can frighten enough people into thought submission then I'm all for it. Nobody said freedom came without a price and even if the price of freedom is freedom itself we need to be man enough to accept it. So bend over please, your betters have spoken.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I can't see how a libertarian can be particularly in favour of maintaining religious tradition, religion is as much part of statism as the rest of western society that you disapprove of with it's thought policing etc, in fact religion is the earliest form of population control (ten commandments etc).

[Flavs]

Gays :lol:

awful people

[LDG]

Bumsex is gay as fuck.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Bumsex is gay as fuck.

If you say that again....you won't s**t right for a month!

[LDG]

If you say that again....you won't s**t right for a month!

You're gonna make me eat lentils and pulses :unsure:

[Letters]

gay men suck cock, tbh.

[GP]

gay men suck cock, tbh.

you'd know haha lol jk

[arsenallovefc]

You guys really love talking about gay men...

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4&feature=related

[WMUG]

I'm not sure that follows. Gay couples aren't being oppressed by the church (or they shouldn't be, don't get me started about some of the fundamentalist loonies in the Deep South in the US). Gay couples already have equality. They have civil ceremonies which give them the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Let's not pretend this is about equality because it isn't. It's about semantics.So you support the gay marriage movements in the US then?

I'll agree that this isn't as big an issue here as it is in the US, but really, what's the problem with changing the name? Some religious institutions may get offended, but marriage isn't a religious institution, or at least it doesn't have to be. The Church has no right to bleat about how gay marriage offends there beliefs as it has nothing to do with them. You don't support gay marriage? Fine, don't let gay people get married in your churches.

The church has no right to interfere with the law in this country as its views have no legal standing. This question is just about appeasing an institution that has no legal say, and if the people it actually affects, regardless of how small the affect is, want the situation to change, it should.

[Xhaka Can’t]

So you support the gay marriage movements in the US then?

I'll agree that this isn't as big an issue here as it is in the US, but really, what's the problem with changing the name? Some religious institutions may get offended, but marriage isn't a religious institution, or at least it doesn't have to be. The Church has no right to bleat about how gay marriage offends there beliefs as it has nothing to do with them. You don't support gay marriage? Fine, don't let gay people get married in your churches.

The church has no right to interfere with the law in this country as its views have no legal standing. This question is just about appeasing an institution that has no legal say, and if the people it actually affects, regardless of how small the affect is, want the situation to change, it should.

Please stop interfering with the laws of this country.

Your views have no legal standing.

[Coney]

Please stop interfering with the laws of this country......

.....said the Irish Canadian.

[GP]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303496_439604026064276_915150940_n.jpg

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303496_439604026064276_915150940_n.jpg

Look at the pasta packaging. It appears to be unopened.

I don't think it is making pasta.

What could he be making?

[Xhaka Can’t]

.....said the Irish Canadian.

yep.

[WMUG]

Please stop interfering with the laws of this country.

Your views have no legal standing....What? The fact that I get offended by gay people not being allowed to marry is not why it should be legal, but because it's denying some of the citizens of the country the right to call their union marriage, and not be "separate but equal". My view, your view, NQ's view and the Church's view are, or at least should be, of equal value; zero.

That's because it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect NQ and it doesn't affect the Church whether gay people are allowed to call their unions 'marriage' or not. What it does do is make gay relationships equal to straight ones. Nobody but bigots can oppose that.

[Letters]

The fact that I get offended by gay people.
Homophobe :sulk:

[Letters]

I'll agree that this isn't as big an issue here as it is in the US, but really, what's the problem with changing the name?
What's the problem with leaving it as it is?

If this were about people's rights then there's cause for complaint and a reason for change. But it isn't. Anything else I say would be just repeating my posts earlier in the thread (even this is really).

[Niall_Quinn]

...What? The fact that I get offended by gay people not being allowed to marry is not why it should be legal, but because it's denying some of the citizens of the country the right to call their union marriage, and not be "separate but equal". My view, your view, NQ's view and the Church's view are, or at least should be, of equal value; zero.

That's because it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect NQ and it doesn't affect the Church whether gay people are allowed to call their unions 'marriage' or not. What it does do is make gay relationships equal to straight ones. Nobody but bigots can oppose that.

Why are you dragging me into this? I have no idea what the bird is fucking making and never claimed I did!

[GP]

Look at the pasta packaging. It appears to be unopened.

I don't think it is making pasta.

What could he be making?

Oatmeal?

[Xhaka Can’t]

...What? The fact that I get offended by gay people not being allowed to marry is not why it should be legal, but because it's denying some of the citizens of the country the right to call their union marriage, and not be "separate but equal". My view, your view, NQ's view and the Church's view are, or at least should be, of equal value; zero.

That's because it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect NQ and it doesn't affect the Church whether gay people are allowed to call their unions 'marriage' or not. What it does do is make gay relationships equal to straight ones. Nobody but bigots can oppose that.

Please desist from posting views that have no legal standing.

[The Wengerbabies]

This thread still alive?


Should have been killed ages ago.

Like fags tbf.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Oatmeal?

Wtf?

Why would a bird be preparing oatmeal?

He has a pack of pasta out, so it has to be sauce for his Carbonara.

That said, if it were me, I'd be making spaghetti alla carbonara.

Fucking stupid gay bird is using penne.

Penne Carbonara just does not make sense.

[GP]

Wtf?

Why would a bird be preparing oatmeal?

He has a pack of pasta out, so it has to be sauce for his Carbonara.

That said, if it were me, I'd be making spaghetti alla carbonara.

Fucking stupid gay bird is using penne.

Penne Carbonara just does not make sense.

I ALWAYS use Penne when I'm making Carbonara.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I ALWAYS use Penne when I'm making Carbonara.

You're an idiot.

Watch and learn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UerBCXHKJ5s

[Japan Shaking All Over]

I ALWAYS use Penne when I'm making Carbonara.


Then you are a wannabe dyke

[Niall_Quinn]

I ALWAYS use Penne when I'm making Carbonara.

Because you are gay.

[Coney]

...What? The fact that I get offended by gay people not being allowed to marry is not why it should be legal, but because it's denying some of the citizens of the country the right to call their union marriage, and not be "separate but equal". My view, your view, NQ's view and the Church's view are, or at least should be, of equal value; zero.

That's because it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect NQ and it doesn't affect the Church whether gay people are allowed to call their unions 'marriage' or not. What it does do is make gay relationships equal to straight ones. Nobody but bigots can oppose that.

You might be right but your views have no legal standing.

[Coney]

Look at the pasta packaging. It appears to be unopened.

I don't think it is making pasta.

What could he be making?

I suspect fowl play.

[WMUG]

You might be right but your views have no legal standing.Ugh, you know full well what I meant by that <_<

[Marc Overmars]

Gay Marriage bill gets approved by MP's.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Will still have to go through the Lords (who will undoubtedly kick up a fuss) and 3rd reading.

I wish the same MPs kicked the same fuss over things like the NHS, instead of a very small thing like this. Especially something so few people even care about. Or know about.

[GP]

lol thats gay

[WMUG]

Bigots :pal:

[Injury Time]

Will still have to go through the Lords (who will undoubtedly kick up a fuss) and 3rd reading.

I wish the same MPs kicked the same fuss over things like the NHS, instead of a very small thing like this. Especially something so few people even care about. Or know about.
I can see the sun headline "Gay Lords!"
MPs do care about NHS, how much they can advise the Private Sector on taking it over.

[Cripps_orig]

Gay Marriage bill gets approved by MP's.

MPs :lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

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.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I agree with that, particularly the point about the hypocracy of labelling those who don't toe the line. That said, I agree with the legislation allowing gay marriage.

[Injury Time]

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 reach arounds.

Yes, and Efa.

[Letters]

Bigots :pal:
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Yeah, that pretty much sums up your attitude towards religious people...

This campaign is nothing to do with equal rights. It's just about semantics. But we've had this debate.

[WMUG]

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Yeah, that pretty much sums up your attitude towards religious people...

This campaign is nothing to do with equal rights. It's just about semantics. But we've had this debate.That's how I used to behave on here towards religious people. I freely admit I was a massive moron several years ago in that regard.

And yes, this legislation is not as significant as similar legislation would be in the States, for example, but look at it this way. Who do you want to reward? People who want their own private marriage to be called something else for their own private feelings of equality and love, or people who want to impose their own private definition of marriage on others because of their own religious beliefs that said others may not even hold?

That second argument is born of bigotry. It has nothing to do with what I think of religious people or their beliefs. If you don't think gay people should be able to call their unions 'marriage' because they're gay, and you think gay people are icky, that's a bigoted position. If you think gay people should be able to call their unions 'marriage' because their unions are the same as yours, Letters, then that's a position based on equality.

Which position is more worthy of legislation in its favour, in your opinion?

[WMUG]

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.

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

[GP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4

[Letters]

That's how I used to behave on here towards religious people. I freely admit I was a massive moron several years ago in that regard.

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


And yes, this legislation is not as significant as similar legislation would be in the States, for example, but look at it this way. Who do you want to reward? People who want their own private marriage to be called something else for their own private feelings of equality and love, or people who want to impose their own private definition of marriage on others because of their own religious beliefs that said others may not even hold?

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.


If you don't think gay people should be able to call their unions 'marriage' because they're gay, and you think gay people are icky, that's a bigoted position.

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.


If you think gay people should be able to call their unions 'marriage' because their unions are the same as yours, Letters, then that's a position based on equality.

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.

[WMUG]

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.

Common misconception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI (I'm aware that later in this video, he goes on to say that benefits are denied to gay couples that are extended to straight ones, which is true of the US but not here, but that's not the part of the video I'm making relevant to this discussion).

But why should your religious perspective on what marriage should be affect what two people in a private relationship think their union should be? Many religious people my gay cousins' devout Catholic mum included, think the word 'marriage' should be extended to her son and daughter's respective unions with their partners. Why should people with her view have their opinion count for any less than people of yours? As we said before, it doesn't really make much of a different either way.

Which brings me to the point which I was trying to articulate earlier. Fair enough, it's not a massive deal, fighting for equal benefits. But to call somebody's marriage as defined in the video above something other than marriage leads to an acceptance that those relationships are not the same as any other relationship – words are powerful things. Why should that be the case? Because it's less common? Because religious institutions to which many of those people aren't members don't approve? Because it's 'unnatural'?

To me, it's like calling the God that Muslims worship 'Allah' and the God that Christians worship 'God'. It's the same being, it's just that one is used to make Islam seem different, and therefore, ultimately, to be feared. Same goes for Civil Partnerships vs Marriage. Calling what one person has one name while calling the same thing that another person has a different name strives only to make them seem other, and weird.

Which they're not.

[Letters]

But to call somebody's marriage as defined in the video above something other than marriage leads to an acceptance that those relationships are not the same as any other relationship.
They're not the same.
One is between a man and a woman, the other is between two people of the same gender.
What's the problem with different words or terms? If they meant different rights then there's an argument, but they don't.
There are plenty of examples in language where people of different genders or ages are called different things when they're in the same role. I don't see how this is much different.