Marriage is not a Christian union performed in Church. Unless you are suggesting that before Christianity, Marrige did not exist?

These days, more poeple get married in a civilc service than a religious one; the Church has nothing to do with it.

Using the quotations was ridiculous. Not the quotations themselves. But as you point out, the Bible is full of contradiction, so using it as any sort of argument is a bit, well, silly.

 

Hang on, first you say that they want the definition to be changed to include them, then you say they don't want to get married in a Church.

And this is your best quote yet:
'It's different intpretations of the Bible, and that happens left right and centre.'

Why should the definition of marriage change then if this happens all the time?

 

And gay vicars are not?

Like I have said all along, I am not a homophobic or racist as you accused me of being. (Now that was silly)

I just like to point out the many contradictions of this whole argument and why I see it as a complete waste of government resourses.

That's me done as you can't reason with idiots.

 

The definition of marriage doesn't t mention a Church at all you numpty.

They...Just...Want...To...Be...Able.. To...Get..Married.

Are you getting it yet?
What are you on about you maniac?

 

If you can just point me to where I made that accusation. Thanks.

 

Try post 116.

 

Eh?

In response to your claim that political correctness disgusts you I asked:

That is asking a question. The question mark is a bit of a bloody giveaway

An accusation would be a statement.

 

Don't try and cover your comment with semantics.

I and everyone else on here know how you feel and what you were insinuating. If anyone disagrees with the notion that every person should be entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of whether it conflicts with any current law/definition/public opinion, you are quick to brand them with a name.
Odd, because that is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

Should prisoners be allowed a vote? I am not for one minute comparing gay people to criminals, I am genuinely interested in your stance on this. It may help understand you a little better.

 

The difference between a question and a statement is not semantics. Not only that, but I asked you the same question twice, since you did not answer the first time
What are you blathering on about?

Its simple it really is, and you have shown that you didn't understand the issue in the first place by going on about religion and church when it has nothing to do with it.

Gay people just want to be able to get married. In a civil service.

If you are against that, as I have said, then you are one of two things:

1. A Bigot
2. Ignorant of the facts (as in your case as proven above, when going on about Gay marriage in churches) or too stupid to know the facts.

(then someone else added religious, to which I pointed out, yes, maybe, unless you were a Gay christian or clergyman)

And what happens? You get people throwing up straw man arguments, like "there's more important things to do" or "Civil partnerships do the job just fine" or "Its changing the definition of marriage"...You know, like you are. Start a new thread then. I'm not derailing this one any further.

 

Is all I can say to that!

 

Indeed, more than twice as many people get married nowadays in a registry office than they do in churches, mosques, synagogues and all other religious buildings combined. Strangely though, when I pointed this out to GH not that many posts ago in this very thread (even going to the trouble of providing a link to the official statistics documenting the fact), he appeared to completely overlook my comment

 

I have no idea when the institution of marriage began, but i think it's fair to say that for some considerable time it was mostly conducted by a priest in a church, ergo a religious ceremony, the point i was commenting on was with regard to the comment about gay clergy and christians, whom presumably would want to be "married" in a church of some description, otherwise whats all the fuss about since they already have a civil partnership that gives them the same rights as married couple.

I have to agree with GH it's a total waste of government time and money, i would also add that there is obviously an ulterior motive with regards wanting it to be called a marriage, which is quite plain to see that gay christians want to get married in a church.

Just for the record, i don't care about gay people being married or not, but i do think it's a non issue and a complete waste of time.

Oh and as stated previously my best man at my wedding is gay, and i'm half black, so lets not go there.

 

Of course there were religious overones to varying degrees. But it predates Christianity by some margain. You asserion was that:

and marriage is essentially a christian union performed in a church (at least in it's original guise).


Gay people want to be married. They don't want to be seperated out as having a "civil partnership". Why should they when the majority of the population just wants a civil service anyway, and does not think of it as a religious service at all.
What time and money has been wasted? And if you make 1-2 million plus people happy and reduce inequality in society, by what measure do you think money has been wasted?
It could be that. Or it could be that Gay people don't want to be discriminated against.

The C of E has been expressly forbidden from carrying out Gay marriges. Other religions are under no pressure at all. (can you see Muslim or Catholic Gay marriages any time soon?)

But then thats for the religions to sort out. The Church will one day have to reconcile the fact that there are Gay Christians, Gay clergymen, Gay vicars & Gay Bishops. I guess at some point they will sort themselves out.

Well if you don't care, then you have no objection to it happenening, presumably?
Your skin colour has nothing to do with this as far as I am aware, so not sure why that's being brought up.

And the "some of my best friend are gay/black/vegitarian" argument is as old as the hills. Its pretty much meaningless. It certainly doesn't give you carte blanche to hold whatever opinion you like and not be challenged.

 

[QUOTE]Sorted, that's the point i was making, pleased you agree.




So it's ok for the rest of us to have a civil ceremony but gay people want more.

Since when did any government care about inequality and making a very small percentage of the population happy unless there was political milage to be gained?

I believe the financial costings were pointed out in an earlier post.

Discrimination IS a fact of life, as a minority they should get used to the idea.

No, and i can't see any gay christians either, as they are an abomination to christianity, so by default not recognised by their religion of choice.

I doubt it very much, unless the plan on re-wrighting the rule book(Bible), King James stylee.


Nope none what so ever, religion is a load of bolax, so what do i care if a bunch of deluded christian gay people want to get married in a church or anywhere else,


Well it seems you have a bit of a penchant for suggesting people that don't agree with you are racist or homophobic.

Last time i checked there was freedom of speech in the UK so i'm entitled to express my opinion and not agree with yours.

As for the gay friend thing, it was merely to inform you that i'm not homophobic, as i doubt there are many homophobes that had a gay best man.

The point i and others are trying to make, all be it some what unsuccessfully as far as you are concerned, is it's a NON ISSUE, waste of time and money, when for all campers and dolphins they ARE already equal in the eyes of the law, so the discrimination argument is null and void.

So back to the ulterior motive theory.

 

well im gay and i like it....................

 

Nope, his twattishness trancends race and sexuality boundaries, things like getting his car insured from my parent house to keep the cost down and not telling them, rehoming his dog as he had not realised how much work it was, then regretting it and stealing it back !

Its funny, he is pretty camp yet used to be married with kids, now he minces, sashays and lisps his way round like Louis Spence, I understand gay but not sure where the lispy, mincing, screamingly camp thing comes in, not all gay men do that, wonder why some do it ?

 

Doing EM's up the back passage because you have a little un and she can't feel it in the witches sleeve doesn't count as being gay.

 

she looks like a bloke so does that make me a little bit of a poofter??

 

No, but her hairy ar$e does.

 

ive always liked the krankies, if you see emma you will know what i mean

 

Sounds like a top bloke

 

What are you on about? A Gay people want the same - A civil ceremony. Before this law comes in, they can only hav e acivil partnership. You are aware of the difference I take it?

Of course Governments care about inequality and discrimination. Hence we have laws to prevent them.

Yeah, by me. After some other douche came up with the "oooh its costs so much money" angle. Turns out, it doesn't cost much at all. In fact there will be a net gain when you take into account all the revenue from Gay weddings.


Absolute bollox. Just because you are minority does not mean you should sit back an accept it. What a load of ****.

I can just see Martin Luther King now saying "I have a drea,..... Actually, no, I think I'll just sit back and accept it"
Are you mental? Do you have any idea what you ar etalking about? There are Gay bishops. Of course they are recongised you numpty.



No. What I saids is the third time I have explained this, is that to object to Gay marriage mean you are either a Bigot, or ignorant, or stupid.

As for calling people racist, show me where. Put up or shut up.

I didn't say you weren't. I just said the "my best friend is Gay" defence is no defence at all.
I don;t actually beleive you are that stupid? I mean seriously? You do understand the concept of discrimination, right? You do understand that to be treated differently on the basis of sexuality is discrimination. If you are saying that one group of people can get married, and this other group cannot, but have the same legal right, then that is still discrimination.

 

So why can't I marry my cousin, or my cat, or my fridge? Surely they all have rights too?
In fact, why can't I be married to 3 women at the same time?

In my mind, if you allow two men or two women to marry, you effectively have to remove all bounderies that currently exist with marriage.

If you really feel that we are homophobic because we do not think that it is correct for same sex marriages to take place, are you saying that a very, very large percentage of the worlds population is to?

 

You can marry your cousin. Henry VIII made it legal. You really should start looking into becoming a bit more informed before posting.

Bigamy is illegal. There are no plans to make it legal


What **** is this? That's like saying that if you raise the motorway speed limit to 80, then automaticlly you raise the 30mph limit to 50. Its totally nonsensical. Do you even think before you post this rubbish?

Why on earth does allowing same sex marrige mean you "effectively have to remove allboundaries?

I have no idea of what thought (hahaha) proccess you have applied to drive you down this path



Sorry, chum, the majority in this country support same sex marriage as shown by lots of polls.

 

Comedy is lost on you isn't it? Can't be bothered anymore as you obviously take life waaay to seriously. Like most do-gooders!

 

If a person has to resort to insults because others don't agree with their point of view, who's the idiot?

 

Dont quote the bible for anything!!

Approx 80 crimes are punishable by death, as quoted by the bible.

Wearing cotton is a sin in the bible......

Be gay, be happy and equal rights to everyone!

 

This thread popped up randomly when I was looking at something else.
I think homosexuality is acceptable to those who practice it, maybe not so much to those who don't.

Live and let live I say, although personally, sticking it up another blokes Gary Glitter doesn't really appeal.

 

Do you mean appealing as opposed to acceptable? It should be acceptable, regardless of your sexuality.

 

I love lesbians.