If by 'desperate Liberals like you' you mean THE MAINSTREAM then I'm guilty as charged.

Why are you so bothered by what freely consenting adults decide to do? Is it infringing upon your life, are they forcing to you think harder about issues than you appear capable of?

 

Like I give a **** what they think.

 

i'm just amazed anyone cares either way

 

I really don't understand why this has been made into such a big issue.

For me, the important part in the definition of marriage is that it between two people and nobody else, I doubt that part would change as it is the whole point regardless of the gender of both. The point in getting married (although I'm not and have no intention of) is to declare that commitment and love to one another in a ceremony, and I only found out tonight that one of the issues about civil partnerships, is that the couple can't make vows, which is quite an important part, I would think.

I would also think that a lot of the people opposing the change in the definition of marriage, would also oppose CPs, if they didn't already exist, if they didn't, I don't fully understand why. As it stands, homosexual couples in CPs have the same rights, so can have children if they like etc. so I genuinely fail to grasp why a change would make any difference to how things are, it just allows homosexuals to be in the same bracket as anyone else that has 'tied the knot'. All that is required is a small change in the wording to 'two people' rather than 'one man, one woman'.

On the wider point about normal, what is normal and why does that necessarily mean that it is 'good'? Normal is to conform to the ordinary, the usual, the common....Do we still look at the disabled as abnormal because they don't, for example? Whether people are religious in their views or not, we are all made differently and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have rules regarding right and wrong and that is in the hope of minimising harm being done to one another, but right and wrong are very different to views about 'normal'. Homosexuality, by definition as it stands, may not be normal, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are really far more things to be concerned about within society than if two people of the same sex can get married, in my opinion.

 

That's scoobynet and particular posters on this thread for you

And fanny - quite the pathetic jibes, its just makes you look silly

 

I presume you mean quit ... well it's not like you don't try yourself in that department... it's just you are not very good at it... no surprise there.

Your atttiude towards homosexuals is borderline nasty IMO (the infamous Manny Pacquiao thread for example) and you never resist a dig at them in any thread where the subject comes up. I wouldn't mind, but you have never presented any argument (logical or otherwise) as to why your stance is thus... at least Sambob does try on that front.

I posted this yesterday in the hope you and one or two others may care to answer.... so far no one has... rather than trying to be flippant and clever (and failing becuase in my opinion you're not) maybe you'd like to now.

I look forward to your response.

 

Lets not stoop to picking at spelling errors please

 

Let's just answer the question shall we or is it too taxing for you you poor love?

 

I don't need to answer any questions - go and do some research for yourself.

Its wrong fullstop

 

What a well reasoned and logical argument. I had no idea the depth of sentience I was dealing with here, you should take up philosophy with that extent of thought

So you feel quite happy dictating to others how they should live their lives when what they choose to do harms no one and doesn't affect you.... that's a very arrogant attitude.

What a lovely chap you are...... karma will do its thing I trust

 

I don't hate homosexuals.
For me at least, to hate something requires me to have some personal investment in the object hated.
What I dislike/am irritated by/am tired of is the constant gay propaganda we get rammed down our throats day in day out, often by those who are not gay and whose motivation is therefore somewhat questionable.
At this time gays make up a small percentage (I've seen some stats that claim 20%, but only someone who buys into the propaganda is ever going to be stupid enough to believe that) of the population but the airtime they get is way out of kilter with that percentage.
Do I have a problem with Elton John? Not particularly.
Do I have a problem with George Michael? Not particularly, his attitude to drugs/driving amuses occasionally. Or exposing himself in public toilets.
Do I have a problem with Graham Norton? Yes.
Do I have a problem with Dale Winton? Yes.

I would hope the difference is obvious between Elton John and Dale Winton. One tries to keep himself to himself (whilst being honest about who he is), the other is an effeminate pr*t desperate for attention who actually thinks it's a badge of honour to be a black belt 5th Dan in uphill gardening.

I'm not sure if the behaviour of SOME poofs or the behaviour of those (mostly heterosexual) constantly fighting for their rights irritates me more. It is a close call.

 

I don't agree with homosexuality f1, I'm entitled to question anything which I believe is not right, but that's a different debate and not the subject of this thread per se.

Changing the law(thread topic) to allow gays to get married is wrong, its supposed to be between man & wife.
Gays have their own version of marriage - why do they always want more?

 

[QUOTE=urban;10980493]I don't agree with homosexuality f1, I'm entitled to question anything which I believe is not right, but that's a different debate and not the subject of this thread per se.[/QUESTION]

But you are not questioning it, you are just stating it is wrong and backing it up with no arguments whatsoever.

There you go again with more opinion cast as fact.Who says it's wrong? You!

I think it's only logical they should be able to get married and I ask again what harm will it do to you? You say they want more, doesn't seem that way to me... they just want the same as anyone else. Currently they have less if you like!

 

They're on a roll. Once upon a time they couldn't tell anyone what they were, it had to be a secret. If others found out the results could be anything from p*ss-taking, through disownment by family and friends, to a dose of GBH.
But now gay is good. Gays are proud of who they are. Society says 'Shout it from the rooftops, you don't have to hide anymore, we embrace your differences'.

 

[QUOTE=c_maguire;10980486]I don't hate homosexuals.[/QUOTE}

 

Yes how we miss the good old days of gay bashing. Pathetic!

 

I am questioning whether I think it is acceptable and correct

I arrived at the conclusion that it is not, there are alternative's for gay marriage
This gives them the same rights (that what they wanted after all) as normal man/woman marriage
Marriage between man and wife has always been promoted, we used to even get tax relief as encouragement.

 

I think you'll find that a 'normal' (your word not mine) marriage is between a husband and a wife, or a man and a woman, not between a 'man and a wife'

 

Seems to me that a few on here accept that a man bumming a man is ok, in my opinion, that is wrong. As I say, that's my opinion.

 

Yes, let not pick hairs here.
You know exactly what it meant

 

What happens at a gay ceremony when the registrar would normally say 'You may kiss the bride'

What term is used in place of this?
Perhaps this term will also be changed by law also.

 

At the risk of 'nit picking' again...

It's was not a legal statement in the first place, so no laws would need changing

 

Minister/Priest always has said this at the end of every wedding I've been to, and then the photographer takes his pictures of the kiss.

 

Is it a legal requirement to have a photographer there too?

I think you are getting tradition, ceremony and the law confused

 

I don't know nor do I care.... why does it bother you so?

Why will you not answer this one question. What is it about homosexuality you find so bad seeing as it does not affect you? They're not going to make it compulsory you know

 

Nope, it is not
Everyone generally does though


Possibly yes, however what words will be used.
For example will Pete (or whatever he is called) be referred to as the Bride, while John is the Groom?

 

I bet Dale and Graham are gutted

Is this a bad thing?

 

Who gives a ****?

I suspect heterosexual marriage will continue with "you may now kiss the bride" as will marrige between two women. Marriages between two men might say " you may now kiss your man".

Seriously does it matter a flying fig?

 

Doesn't bother me - just curious.

I seen two gay men kissing once (snogging if you like) in London Victoria station.
Everyone that I could see was disgusted - actually what happened in the end was an official person chucked them out.

 

Everyone? What was it? A day out on the railways for the National Association of Bigots