Oh - so THAT's what GB stands for.
Printable View
:lol:
I just don't understand why anyone would want to get married be them straight, carpet lickers or poo pipe pirates
:shrug:
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.
Gays are against nature move. All that bloody mincing cant be natural can it
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.
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?
Holy Homosexuality Batman!
I'm all for it, but my Husband's not so sure.
I'm all for same sex relationships as long as both chicks are hot.
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.
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.
N_Q's favourite person, after Chamakh:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL
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.
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.
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.
What is your position on arranged gay weddings?
Garriage?
Quarriage?
And, of course, sexiest of all, Lezzariage.
Ba-da bow bow!
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.
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'.
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?
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.
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.