Can it get any more pathetic?
24 November 2009, 06:14 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 November 2009, 06:29 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Don't see the problem with everything being equal for everyone anyway. That's the way it should be in my opinion.
Same with the race thing. If the government made everything truly equal for every race/colour/religion, there wouldn't be half the resentment people have for each other. It's as if by being totally pro-equality(whatever the f*ck that means), the government goes too far and ends up doing the opposite.
Same with the race thing. If the government made everything truly equal for every race/colour/religion, there wouldn't be half the resentment people have for each other. It's as if by being totally pro-equality(whatever the f*ck that means), the government goes too far and ends up doing the opposite.
Trending Topics
24 November 2009, 07:13 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
As for the marriage thing, it's for a 'man' and 'woman'. Civil partnerships for others. If gays want to get married, they need to find a woman to marry (or man, depending on what sex you are to start with ...). If you're straight and don't want to get married, then ... don't. It's not rocket science .....
Dave
24 November 2009, 07:21 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pair of odd-***** where on BBC breakfast news about 10 days ago, they seem to have litttle else in their lives to worry about - lucky them.
I was more disturbed that they looked like they could well be brother and sister!
Civil partnership is for those who cannot legally marry - puftas/deviants who love the **** for example and marriage is is the alternative for straights or normal as i like to call them
. Simple enough surely i think brother and sister wanted their 15 mins of fame...
I was more disturbed that they looked like they could well be brother and sister!
Civil partnership is for those who cannot legally marry - puftas/deviants who love the **** for example and marriage is is the alternative for straights or normal as i like to call them
. Simple enough surely i think brother and sister wanted their 15 mins of fame...
Last edited by The Zohan; 26 November 2009 at 07:58 PM.
24 November 2009, 08:09 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, what's the difference between a pufta and a deviant who loves the ****? 
As for the story, they should just get married. If they are simply not getting married because it's unfair to gay people then they are a little queer to say the least Do they really think that the law will be changed to allow different sex civil partnerships just because of them. I don't think so.
Anyway, I think gays should be allowed to get married. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us married lot (I know, plagiarized from somewhere, certainly Mr Chris Rock)
As for the story, they should just get married. If they are simply not getting married because it's unfair to gay people then they are a little queer to say the least
Do they really think that the law will be changed to allow different sex civil partnerships just because of them. I don't think so.Anyway, I think gays should be allowed to get married. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us married lot
(I know, plagiarized from somewhere, certainly Mr Chris Rock)
24 November 2009, 08:16 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under my busted-a$$ scooby ... again :(
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They shouldn't be allowed to get married or have a civil partnership simply on the grounds that they shouldn't be allowed to breed since the pair of them look like something out of the adams family 
Last edited by scoobymad555; 24 November 2009 at 08:18 PM.
26 November 2009, 11:21 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it is a matter of looking at the real reasons for making any kind of an official partnership anyway.
It seems to me that a marriage between heterosexuals is right to be officially recognised because the original basis of getting married was to have children in wedlock and also to help the pair to be able to bring those children up which is all part of furthering our society. it was absolutely right therefore to have tax relief for married couples and help in paying to bring their children up. All the other legal provisions were right as well. It was very mean to cancel the marriage allowance and has served to undermine the marriage situation and also the traditional family which has been very injurious as we see all the time these days. Ther is a responsibility which goes with marriage and that is most important.
When it comes to homosexual pairings, why should there be any necessity for similar official partnerships and all the legal gubbins to go with it? There cannot be any need for special tax breaks or the other legalities since there is no need to provide for any children issuing from the relationship. There is no problem for the pair to live together just as they wish, and to provide for each other during the relationship and afterwards should one member die. Everyone is prepared to accept their right to do that these days and it is unnecessary to create any other special legal arrangements. People always paired off in a similar way in earlier times and they were allowed to get on with it without comment. No one worried about it.
The heterosesexual couple mentoned in the post seem to have strange ideas about a civil partnership when they can have a registry office wedding which effectively comes to the same sort of thing. What are they trying to prove?
Les
It seems to me that a marriage between heterosexuals is right to be officially recognised because the original basis of getting married was to have children in wedlock and also to help the pair to be able to bring those children up which is all part of furthering our society. it was absolutely right therefore to have tax relief for married couples and help in paying to bring their children up. All the other legal provisions were right as well. It was very mean to cancel the marriage allowance and has served to undermine the marriage situation and also the traditional family which has been very injurious as we see all the time these days. Ther is a responsibility which goes with marriage and that is most important.
When it comes to homosexual pairings, why should there be any necessity for similar official partnerships and all the legal gubbins to go with it? There cannot be any need for special tax breaks or the other legalities since there is no need to provide for any children issuing from the relationship. There is no problem for the pair to live together just as they wish, and to provide for each other during the relationship and afterwards should one member die. Everyone is prepared to accept their right to do that these days and it is unnecessary to create any other special legal arrangements. People always paired off in a similar way in earlier times and they were allowed to get on with it without comment. No one worried about it.
The heterosesexual couple mentoned in the post seem to have strange ideas about a civil partnership when they can have a registry office wedding which effectively comes to the same sort of thing. What are they trying to prove?
Les
26 November 2009, 11:36 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
GET
A
F*CKING
LIFE
(OR A JOB)
Should have been the judges response.
Personally I don't agree with giving gay people the same rights as everyone else. Don't give a monkeys whether thats PC or not, its not natural. Thats my belief and I'll stick to it.
A
F*CKING
LIFE
(OR A JOB)
Should have been the judges response.
Personally I don't agree with giving gay people the same rights as everyone else. Don't give a monkeys whether thats PC or not, its not natural. Thats my belief and I'll stick to it.
Last edited by EddScott; 26 November 2009 at 11:38 AM.
26 November 2009, 11:45 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 November 2009, 03:39 PM
#18
Someone else that thinks the same as me and IS prepared to say so
Its not natural or right - far ******* from too.
Remember the stories from the Garden of Eden
It was Adam & Eve that God put there
Not ******* John & Peter or whatever.
26 November 2009, 07:41 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to homosexual pairings, why should there be any necessity for similar official partnerships and all the legal gubbins to go with it? There cannot be any need for special tax breaks or the other legalities since there is no need to provide for any children issuing from the relationship. .
Les
Gay Adoption Group UK. Lesbian Mums & Gay Dads. Support. LGB Adopters & Families
An extract from the website:
David here – me and my partner Stuart were matched with a girl and she has been with us 3 months. We knew when we were matched that normally male couples get boys and girls get girls – but for us we never had a preference but when a girl came up we thought this was ideal in that it may be easier for a girl to have 2 dads than for a boy.
Feckin weirdos!!
Chip
Last edited by Chip; 26 November 2009 at 07:53 PM.
26 November 2009, 07:43 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 November 2009, 08:00 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 November 2009, 03:33 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless of course they adopt.
Gay Adoption Group UK. Lesbian Mums & Gay Dads. Support. LGB Adopters & Families
An extract from the website:
Feckin weirdos!!
Chip
Gay Adoption Group UK. Lesbian Mums & Gay Dads. Support. LGB Adopters & Families
An extract from the website:
Feckin weirdos!!
Chip
Les
27 November 2009, 05:08 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Its just not right. I don't actually dislike gay people whether male or female but I don't believe they should be treated the same. I'm sorry if gay people think its perfectly natural but I don't. I'm also sorry if gay people think that my attitude is offensive - it quite simply isn't meant in that way.
Its not malicious, or some act of hatred on my part, its pure flaming common sense. Gayness is a f*cking evolutionary dead end.
Sick and tired of having this carp shoved in my face and I'm supposed to accept it. No, shant, not having any of it.
PLUS, I hear you can catch it from toilet seats!
27 November 2009, 09:37 PM
#28
27 November 2009, 10:34 PM
#30
R.I.P.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't understand poofterism tbh, you either end up with a sore **** like you've just shat a rather large cactus or you end up with sh!te on your ****! Bizarre, but each to their own I suppose.