Why hasn't Gay Marriage been legalised in the UK?

[_Seth]

The Liberal Democrats are partly in charge and the Conservatives said they would, so what the ****?

[ange7]

The Liberal Democrats are partly in charge and the Conservatives said they would, so what the ****?
Conservatives NEVER said they would ... they said they wouldn't. I think they ought to be allowed to marry and have a civil union and even adopt but England isn't the most progressive place.

[arista]

Conservatives NEVER said they would ... they said they wouldn't. I think they ought to be allowed to marry and have a civil union and even adopt but England isn't the most progressive place.


Sure
but at least We Ain't as Bad as Down Under

[ange7]

Sure
but at least We Ain't as Bad as Down Under
good come back.
Your still in tip top form Arista. Who's you fav in the house. Is it Iffy? Her reason for noming steve ie "his handicap makes me feel uncomfortable" reminded me of you and your hatred of the handicapped. I'm talking about your posts about that ceebeebees host with 1 arm and how you thought she should be off the telly. Or as you called her Miss Armless. Ify sounds like your soulmate. :P

[arista]

Let it all out Ange

[Josielover]

Gay people can get married in the uk, or at least the equivalent of being married.

Same-sex marriagesSame-sex couples are now able to enter into a civil partnership by registering a formal commitment to one another. This gives them legal recognition for their relationship, which means they have almost exactly the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

Gay couples are also able to adopt.

[Omen]

Didn't Elton John have a civil wedding, and that guy from Litte bitain?

[Omen]

I also think widows should be entitled to inheritenc just like every other couple.

[BB_Eye]

It would be stupid for the government not to do it. Even the deeply Catholic country Argentina recently legalised it.

Civil partnerships offer the same legal benefits in the UK, but its still an awfully prosaic phrase... it makes the relationship sound platonic. Not calling it marriage is a very backward "seperate-but-equal" mentality.

[iRyan]

I still think it's ridiculous how religion is brought into law and politics. And how people use the bible to justify why gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

[Shasown]

It would be stupid for the government not to do it. Even the deeply Catholic country Argentina recently legalised it.

Civil partnerships offer the same legal benefits in the UK, but its still an awfully prosaic phrase... it makes the relationship sound platonic. Not calling it marriage is a very backward "seperate-but-equal" mentality.

Probably because as opposed to amending the Marriage Act it would have called for a major rewriting the whole thing.

Now we have a situation that is meant to mollify gay people by giving them all the rights of a traditional marriage, while satisfying the sanctimonious religious straight people by not calling it marriage.

You cant please all of the people all of the time, but its not a bad compromise.

[_Seth]

Probably because as opposed to amending the Marriage Act it would have called for a major rewriting the whole thing.

Now we have a situation that is meant to mollify gay people by giving them all the rights of a traditional marriage, while satisfying the sanctimonious religious straight people by not calling it marriage.

You cant please all of the people all of the time, but its not a bad compromise.

Well they should fix the Marriage Act and give us gay people marriage. There's not one single reason in the whole world why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. =/

[Eye_Spy]

it will be soon, its a gradual process, first you make queers legal, then you bombard us with them on TV to make it seem normal, gradually through programming it becomes more acceptable, and bingo mission accomplished.

not that long ago queers were in the same category as paedos, but now hardly anyone even realises this.

[_Seth]

^Are you ****ing mental? What's your beef with gay people?

[Jack_]

it will be soon, its a gradual process, first you make queers legal, then you bombard us with them on TV to make it seem normal, gradually through programming it becomes more acceptable, and bingo mission accomplished.

not that long ago queers were in the same category as paedos, but now hardly anyone even realises this.

Either a religious bigot, a homosexual in denial or just plain stupid and ignorant :joker:

[_Seth]

Either a religious bigot, a homosexual in denial or just plain stupid and ignorant :joker:

Or a retarded OAP.

[30stone]

I really dont see the need when there is civil partnerships for gay couples anyway...?

[_Seth]

I really dont see the need when there is civil partnerships for gay couples anyway...?

Because I might wanna be counted as "married" like everyone else. It's not fair that I don't have the same rights.

[30stone]

But isnt a wedding/ marrige religious?
What is the need, when its like trying to change religions

[_Seth]

But isnt a wedding/ marrige religious?
What is the need, when its like trying to change religions

Hey, I'm a Christian. God's not retarded. He wouldn't give people the possibility to love people of the same sex so much so that they'd wanna get married.

[Jack_]

I wouldn't have a problem with it if the fact that it's a religious ceremony was enforced upon straight couples. Plenty of non-religious straight people marry, so why shouldn't they be forced to have a civil partnership? Fact of the matter is, I doubt this'll ever happen. And I don't want it to either, because although I may not be relgious, I still want to marry.

The point I'm trying to make is you can't have one rule for straight people and another rule for gay people. Either it becomes a religious ceremony strictly for religious people only, or it becomes a religious ceremony that anyone of any sexuality can have.

[Shasown]

I wouldn't have a problem with it if the fact that it's a religious ceremony was enforced upon straight couples. Plenty of non-religious straight people marry, so why shouldn't they be forced to have a civil partnership? Fact of the matter is, I doubt this'll ever happen. And I don't want it to either, because although I may not be relgious, I still want to marry.

The point I'm trying to make is you can't have one rule for straight people and another rule for gay people. Either it becomes a religious ceremony strictly for religious people only, or it becomes a religious ceremony that anyone of any sexuality can have.

Thats the way it should be however you are preaching to the wrong people, I suggest you take it up with the heads of the various religions.

[Eye_Spy]

^Are you ****ing mental? What's your beef with gay people?

the same as it would be if paedos were suddenly legalised, wouldant make it any better would it sonny.

[Jords]

I did actually think a civil partnership was the name given for a gay marriage.

[Livia]

Civil partnership is the same as getting married in a registry office. I would imagine that doing the whole big white wedding thing in a church/temple/synagogue would mean you were a member of that church and a follower of that religion. Or is it just that you want the whole fancy dress and flowers in church thing? I think it's kind of shallow when hetero couples do the white wedding thing when it means nothing to them spiritually, I'd feel the same about gay "marriages".

I've been to a couple of civil partnership ceremonies and they were both lovely with the couples totally committed to each other. They didn't think that because someone doesn't call it a "marriage" it was any less binding.

[AfroMullet]

Free Dudus.

As far as gays marrying? If straight people are allowed to **** up there lives, gays should be welcome to it to.

[ILoveTRW]

Because it is wrong

[_Seth]

Because it is wrong

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

[ILoveTRW]

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

dirty

[_Seth]

You're not making any sense. :confused:

[ILoveTRW]

I'm just ****ing with you :hugesmile: if anything I was the first person to hate dave for his homophobic comments.

[_Seth]

It wasn't funny.

I was gonna ask how old are you? Because I just can't wait for the upper generation to die out along with their retarded views.

[Abhorsen]

The government should be all for gay marriage afterall they have their own with Clegg and Cameron.

[_Seth]

Dave is not homophobic! In line with his religious views - he doesn't support gay marriage! That doesn't make him homophobic! He is as entitled to his views as those that support gay marriage! :sleep:

Discluding someone from something on the grounds of them being gay is discrimination to gay people which = homophobia.

[lostalex]

Gay people can get married in the uk, or at least the equivalent of being married.

Same-sex marriagesSame-sex couples are now able to enter into a civil partnership by registering a formal commitment to one another. This gives them legal recognition for their relationship, which means they have almost exactly the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

Gay couples are also able to adopt.

Separate is NOT equal. That's been proven.

By your logic we could also give gays their own drinking fountains, after all, the water is just as good from the gay drinking fountain as the str8 fountain, right? Let's also put them in their own special section on the back of the bus, because the seats on the back of the bus are just as comfortable as the seats on the front of the bus, right?

Separate is NOT equal.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

how can some men be gay when there are so many beautiful women in the world? :shocked:



:elephant:

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

i have one of those moral dilemma type questions

a) for all straight men and lesbian women - you meet a stunning woman in a bar, she is the sexiest women you ever seen and she is horny as hell, she says she will let you sleep with her IF you first perform oral sex on her male friend

b) for all straight women and gay men - you meet a hot hunk in a bar, he is the sexiest man you ever seen and he is horny as hell, he says he will let you sleep with him IF you first perform oral sex on his female friend

what would you do?

:elephant:

[lostalex]

how can some men be gay when there are so many beautiful women in the world? :shocked:



:elephant:

How can some men be str8 when there are so many beautiful men in the world???

:elephant:

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

How can some men be str8 when there are so many beautiful men in the world???

:elephant:


woman's body is more beautiful as there is more variety and choice

man only has 3 things to play with (1 is hairy and dirty and the other I have one of my own anyway)

woman has 1,2,3,4, 5 things to play with

:elephant:

[MassiveTruck]

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

LOL

Love isn't always hollywood and high contrast colour.

Love can be ugly, blind, immoral and vicious.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Personally my view is, Gays are *******ing stupid man! Do you know much weddings cost? They're expensive and a huge fashion rather than real life necessity.

If you want wedded rights, cool, you've got a civil partnership. I know some people who aren't gay, and are straight, who got a civil partnership for the rights it entails and then later packed it in...

Another angle is... people still see it as a lifestyle choice too and not natural and that's understandable because in a lot of cases it is a lifestyle choice. There are natural facets to it especially in a world of choice that your genetic inheritance makes you inclined to want to have anal sex with men but then that doesn't mean you can't have sex with women either - it's a sexuality choice.

Just because, you say, erm... I don't like having sex with women, you can can't you? A lot of gay man and a lot of ex-gays do it and enjoy it with the right person. This whole "I don't enjoy it with women" smacks of self righteousness especially in a world of gay bars, promiscuity, adultery and a life of multiple partners.

Can you have intercourse? Yes... well fine... the emotions, just like in any situation are varied, multiple and to cut a long story short and get to the point - subjective. You choose the emotion and what it means...

Same situation here.

So... if gays want to get married... erm... hmm... they can but they are walking into something that is wholly sacred to a lot of people and this goes back to the points above about promiscuity, gay hot spots, gay bars and generally gay culture as it has been since the turn of the century and more dominant since the legal changes we say almost half a century ago.

That sacred nature of wedding is globally a man and a woman and as I stated above, Love isn't simple.

[MassiveTruck]

It wasn't funny.

I was gonna ask how old are you? Because I just can't wait for the upper generation to die out along with their retarded views.

A lot of young people have similar views to homosexuality. If you think this is an age thing, I think you're in for a big surprise in 10 or 20 years time when the green economy kicks off.

[BB_Eye]

LOL

Love isn't always hollywood and high contrast colour.

Love can be ugly, blind, immoral and vicious.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Personally my view is, Gays are *******ing stupid man! Do you know much weddings cost? They're expensive and a huge fashion rather than real life necessity.

If you want wedded rights, cool, you've got a civil partnership. I know some people who aren't gay, and are straight, who got a civil partnership for the rights it entails and then later packed it in...

Another angle is... people still see it as a lifestyle choice too and not natural and that's understandable because in a lot of cases it is a lifestyle choice. There are natural facets to it especially in a world of choice that your genetic inheritance makes you inclined to want to have anal sex with men but then that doesn't mean you can't have sex with women either - it's a sexuality choice.

Just because, you say, erm... I don't like having sex with women, you can can't you? A lot of gay man and a lot of ex-gays do it and enjoy it with the right person. This whole "I don't enjoy it with women" smacks of self righteousness especially in a world of gay bars, promiscuity, adultery and a life of multiple partners.

Can you have intercourse? Yes... well fine... the emotions, just like in any situation are varied, multiple and to cut a long story short and get to the point - subjective. You choose the emotion and what it means...

Same situation here.

So... if gays want to get married... erm... hmm... they can but they are walking into something that is wholly sacred to a lot of people and this goes back to the points above about promiscuity, gay hot spots, gay bars and generally gay culture as it has been since the turn of the century and more dominant since the legal changes we say almost half a century ago.

That sacred nature of wedding is globally a man and a woman and as I stated above, Love isn't simple.

That didn't make any sense.

[setanta]

That didn't make any sense.

I agree, except for the love is simple part. That's the only point I took from the whole thing.

[Shasown]

Any of you brokeback mountain brigade ever think that total pandering to your wishes is actually impossible?

To legislate in your favour would mean that they order ALL religions to accept gay marriages in churches mosques and synagogues, regardless of the religious beliefs of the organisation involved.

The Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, in fact every religion just about would be up in arms, at the interference of state in religion.

Thats a lot of votes and international relations up the Swannee. Aint going to happen as long as you have holes in your a***s

[MassiveTruck]

That didn't make any sense.

Which part doesn't make sense?

It's simple.

[MassiveTruck]

I agree, except for the love is simple part. That's the only point I took from the whole thing.

Yeah well, unless it's obvious and been on TV most things fly over your head don't they setanta.

[setanta]

Yeah well, unless it's obvious and been on TV most things fly over your head don't they setanta.

Hmm, drawing huge assumptions there from one line I typed there Massive. Very unlike you.

[MassiveTruck]

Hmm, drawing huge assumptions there from one line I typed there Massive. Very unlike you.

Sorry.

[BB_Eye]

Any of you brokeback mountain brigade ever think that total pandering to your wishes is actually impossible?

To legislate in your favour would mean that they order ALL religions to accept gay marriages in churches mosques and synagogues, regardless of the religious beliefs of the organisation involved.

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.

he Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, in fact every religion just about would be up in arms, at the interference of state in religion.

Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?

Thats a lot of votes and international relations up the Swannee. Aint going to happen as long as you have holes in your a***s

It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

[MassiveTruck]

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.



Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?



It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

But all that is for the pink pound and gay tourism isn't it.

Economies come and go.

This all stems from the 19th C.

Sooner or later... nobody is going to give 2 s**ts.

Religion will evolve.

Most of what is happening is because Oil is the most lucrative commodity and when that disappears so will gay as a vote.

[Shasown]

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.

Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?

It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.


In order to give the right to marriage, the Government would have had to repeal the Marriage Act, then repeal all subsidary laws based on it, thats about 15 at a rough guess for England and Wales and about 5 for Scotland. Thats just dealing with the acts that directly use the marriage act as a base. Without the few hundred that refer to to it dealing with all kinds of subjects, each in turn would need amending.

All the government had to do was replace it with a new all encompassing act and get that act and the repeals through both houses. Remembering the house of lords also has the Lords Bishops sitting for all that, every part of the new act would have been questioned, debated and amendments made in both houses causing further delays.

Governments nowadays are populist thats the problem and you may think you can just ignore any fuss kicked up by the Church of England and the Muslim Council for Britain, dont kid yourself they have enormous lobbying power. Thats without the backup of all the other churches and religions sticking in their two penneth.

The Church of England is part of the Establishment it still has considerable power. Regardless of how liberal you think this country is, there is still a homophobic undercurrent to it.

As for the argument that it wont affect religions, of course it will. First in the minds of the leaders of those religions, its another step towards them being forced to do something against the current tenets of that religion.

But if you make exemptions to a law those exemptions can be challenged up to and including in Europe. This happened with the Forces exemptions for sexual discrimination ref women being pregnant etc, then under the equality acts with homosexuals challenging the policy of not allowing them to serve.

Its okay quoting other countries that have allowed same sex marriages, there are a few more, Sweden Iceland Norway, even some US states allow it, but peoples and cultures are totally different. Just remember it may look good for Portugal to allow same sex marriages but they dont allow same sex couples to adopt.

Now you have a compromise whereby same sex couple have almost the same rights as straight couples, but it is what the government at the time knew they would be able to bring into statute. Its by no means ideal but its the best that will be allowed for a good few years yet.

[MassiveTruck]

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.



Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?



It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

Have you ever thought these legal changes are just to sell things to a gay market?

That the UK doesn't have to change laws because the strength of our economy and the global reliance on the UK means we don't need to?

As I said in the post that you said "made no sense", the only reason gay marriage is wanted or required is due to the money involved. It's odd to want gay marriage considering the state of gay culture with promiscuity, adultery and the general culture being built on wanting to have sex and sexual relations with another man. It's not like they cannot have sex... they can... it's just emotionally they feel, believe (subjectively, culturally subjectively) that they prefer men... but is this with multiple partners, that it must be male? Can't they have sex with a women?

Are they being stopped or what is stopping them? What exactly?

Let me explain.

My point is, it's over elaborating the sex act. On the one hand gays say they only are attracted to men - a sex thing... then we are told that they don't like women... a sex thing... but then they want gay marriage with a man (obviously) in order to have sex with a man... as though that same act, that same sexual act doesn't work with a woman. It does work. The Penis does work and many gay men can get aroused by

sex

Sex being the arousal... they have had kids...

It works... but it's just a subjective thing. An... elaboration.

To be blunt... does the penis stop working?

No...

I have asked numerous gay men this - do you get an erection from a woman? Yes. I asked a BB housemate this too... Yes.

For instance, people use history as an example but even in the most popularised example, Athens, it was little boys that were kept as sex workers for wealthy men. It wasn't Greece but Athens. It's trying to create reasoning when in fact it's something that culturally robotic that every stuck by.

So I am saying there is categorising of sexual behaviour, out of choice and this is why the need for a marriage is a bit odd considering the only reasoning (in a world of promiscuity and the ease with which one can have sex with anything that moves) is to have sexual relations with somebody. As somebody says Love is wrong... in some cases... yes, it is very very wrong and can be extremely damaging.

We make choices.

It's only as genetic as our pre-dispositions to do things. We just fall into a culture of that sort.

So in essence... considering the nature of humans and the behaviours and choices of behaviour we have, it is an industrial, economic decision by government and parliament. Anybody who thinks it is like some socialist liberal leftist :D fight for equality really doesn't know how the world works or how people work.

[_Seth]

^That's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. Congratulations.

[BB_Eye]

Have you ever thought these legal changes are just to sell things to a gay market?

Newsflash, every party has their own target audience and support base. That's what lobbying organisations do. Ever figured that the voices of opposition to gay marriage are a lucrative financial opportunity for right wing parties? Ever heard of Focus on the Family and the AFA?

That the UK doesn't have to change laws because the strength of our economy and the global reliance on the UK means we don't need to?

As I said in the post that you said "made no sense", the only reason gay marriage is wanted or required is due to the money involved. It's odd to want gay marriage considering the state of gay culture with promiscuity, adultery and the general culture being built on wanting to have sex and sexual relations with another man.Making blanket statements like that doesn't help your argument. It's like banning interracial marriage, because most people end up marrying somebody of their own skin colour.

It's not like they cannot have sex... they can... it's just emotionally they feel, believe (subjectively, culturally subjectively) that they prefer men... but is this with multiple partners, that it must be male? Can't they have sex with a women?Again, this is a sweeping generalisation. You are essentially saying people who prefer monogamy have to take collective responsibility for other people in their minority group and shouldn't be allowed to marry. Does that go for most straight men between the ages of 16 and 25? Should we ban marriage in a registry office, because promiscuity is so common among non-religious circles?

Are they being stopped or what is stopping them? What exactly?Because we have no sexual or romantic interest in women and why should we have to?

Let me explain.

My point is, it's over elaborating the sex act. On the one hand gays say they only are attracted to men - a sex thing... then we are told that they don't like women... a sex thing... but then they want gay marriage with a man (obviously) in order to have sex with a man... as though that same act, that same sexual act doesn't work with a woman. It does work. The Penis does work and many gay men can get aroused by

sex

Sex being the arousal... they have had kids...

It works... but it's just a subjective thing. An... elaboration.

To be blunt... does the penis stop working?

No...

I have asked numerous gay men this - do you get an erection from a woman? Yes. I asked a BB housemate this too... Yes.I'm sorry, have you written some sort of report on this? How can I take that statement seriously? What research have you carried out? A few anecdotes? lol

For instance, people use history as an example but even in the most popularised example, Athens, it was little boys that were kept as sex workers for wealthy men. It wasn't Greece but Athens. It's trying to create reasoning when in fact it's something that culturally robotic that every stuck by.Please take some time to correct your grammatical mistakes. I am actually having difficulty reading this now. But going on what I took from this, I gather you are saying homosexuality in the ancient world was exclusive to Athens. That couldn't be further from the truth. There was the Hellenic model of a same sex relationship with the dominant older partner and the younger submissive partner. Homosexuality was also permitted in the early days of the Roman empire. To say nothing of the polytheistic cultures of pre-colonial Africa, the Americas and Asia.

So I am saying there is categorising of sexual behaviour, out of choice and this is why the need for a marriage is a bit odd considering the only reasoning (in a world of promiscuity and the ease with which one can have sex with anything that moves) is to have sexual relations with somebody. As somebody says Love is wrong... in some cases... yes, it is very very wrong and can be extremely damaging.Love and marriage is complex and can even ruin people's lives as much as it can bring people happiness. There again, the same is true of having children.

We make choices.

It's only as genetic as our pre-dispositions to do things. We just fall into a culture of that sort.

So in essence... considering the nature of humans and the behaviours and choices of behaviour we have, it is an industrial, economic decision by government and parliament. Anybody who thinks it is like some socialist liberal leftist :D fight for equality really doesn't know how the world works or how people work.Everybody in politics is catering to one support base or the other. Labour's unwillingness to put gay civil partner ships into the law until their third term (despite promising to do so as yearly as 1996) proves that. But do you are naive if you think the people responsible for drafting Proposition 8 did so out of a genuine moral convinction.

[MassiveTruck]

Newsflash, every party has their own target audience and support base. That's what lobbying organisations do. Ever figured that the voices of opposition to gay marriage are a lucrative financial opportunity for right wing parties? Ever heard of Focus on the Family and the AFA?

Making blanket statements like that doesn't help your argument. It's like banning interracial marriage, because most people end up marrying somebody of their own skin colour.

Again, this is a sweeping generalisation. You are essentially saying people who prefer monogamy have to take collective responsibility for other people in their minority group and shouldn't be allowed to marry. Does that go for most straight men between the ages of 16 and 25? Should we ban marriage in a registry office, because promiscuity is so common among non-religious circles?

Because we have no sexual or romantic interest in women and why should we have to?

I'm sorry, have you written some sort of report on this? How can I take that statement seriously? What research have you carried out? A few anecdotes? lol

Please take some time to correct your grammatical mistakes. I am actually having difficulty reading this now. But going on what I took from this, I gather you are saying homosexuality in the ancient world was exclusive to Athens. That couldn't be further from the truth. There was the Hellenic model of a same sex relationship with the dominant older partner and the younger submissive partner. Homosexuality was also permitted in the early days of the Roman empire. To say nothing of the polytheistic cultures of pre-colonial Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Love and marriage is complex and can even ruin people's lives as much as it can bring people happiness. There again, the same is true of having children.

Everybody in politics is catering to one support base or the other. Labour's unwillingness to put gay civil partner ships into the law until their third term (despite promising to do so as yearly as 1996) proves that. But do you are naive if you think the people responsible for drafting Proposition 8 did so out of a genuine moral convinction.


I've read this three times but all I see is you've replied just for the sake of replying to give the impression you were responding.

I don't think you even touched upon what I said.

[MassiveTruck]

^That's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. Congratulations.

It's quite straight forward.

Take away the commercial benefits of homosexuality and all you have is a sub-culture pining to associate themselves with something that is nothing more than sexually different.

I'm fairly blunt, even in real life and I will leave you dumb founded just like every other homosexual I have. I know this area very very well.

What I wrote above is just a tip of the iceberg.

[BB_Eye]

I've read this three times but all I see is you've replied just for the sake of replying to give the impression you were responding.

I don't think you even touched upon what I said.
Your post wasn't exactly clear and thought out. It wasn't even coherent; logically or grammatically. I think I did pretty well with my walls of argument in response, all things considered.

[_Seth]

I still don't understand what the idiot's saying.

[MassiveTruck]

Your post wasn't exactly clear and thought out. It wasn't even coherent; logically or grammatically. I think I did pretty well with my walls of argument in response, all things considered.

Yeah I don't speak in fairy tale children book language so I definitely don't write at that level either.

Seriously... If I see an appropriate response I will say yes you have considered what was said but you really just responded in rant style with no real response other than something along the lines of "who do you think you are?"

[MassiveTruck]

I still don't understand what the idiot's saying.

Why?

It's not in light with the political situation you're controlled by?

[Tom]

Its the same thing with a different name. The only reason its a 'civil partnership' and not 'gay marriage' is because marriage is a religious term and in effect it would contradict itself, whilst prefixing it with 'gay' just makes it seem abnormal.

[BB_Eye]

Yeah I don't speak in fairy tale children book language so I definitely don't write at that level either.
What does this even mean? I hope you are not implying you write too eloquently for people to understand you. The classic defense of a pseudo intellect.

Seriously... If I see an appropriate response I will say yes you have considered what was said but you really just responded in rant style with no real response other than something along the lines of "who do you think you are?"
I answered your statements calmly and never said anything that could even be remotely construed or paraphrased as "who do you think you are?". I'm no stranger to gay-bashing on this site so I am sorry to tell you I am not easily offended. If truth be told, I am still trying to work out what it is exactly that you are trying to say.

[Grimnir]

Many religious people are offended at the idea of gay marriage, whether they are Catholic, Muslim or whatever else

their belief is that gay marriage is wrong, that is their belief

many other people think that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, that is their belief

so its a clash of 2 beliefs, how can any devil's advocate take sides?

if someone was forced to make a decision they would have to side with the religious institution as the church or mosque where the wedding was to take place is part of that religious faith

but a better solution would be compromise of some kind

eg each church the members of the congregation had a vote to decide whether to allow gay marriages in their parish

some churches would vote yes and some would vote no

this way there is a compromise

in a parish where the majority voted yes to allow gay marriages, the out voted minority may be offended but they do have opportuniy to either accept it of find another parish that voted no

and in a parish where the majority voted no gay marriages, the gay community could find a nearby church that voted yes

a government law either way will only offend people of either side, there should be no law either way only that it is upto each individual religious institution

If I was a gay person I would not want to be married by a priest in a church as they would believe I am a sinner, confuses me why someone would want to :conf:

[Shasown]

so its a clash of 2 beliefs, how can any devil's advocate take sides?



Good post however a devil's advocate is someone who takes one side in an argument, not necessarily the side in which they believe, in order to engage others in argumentative debate. It can be a position used to test the validity and evidence of other peoples beliefs.

The term originally comes from a member of the church assigned to argue against the beatification and canonisation of individuals. As opposed to the person promoting the individual who would be Gods Advocate - advocatus Dei

[abbey97]

Marriage is a bit of paper that anyone of any gender should be allowed, whats the fuss?

[Shasown]

Marriage is a bit of paper that anyone of any gender should be allowed, whats the fuss?

The fuss is that while a lot of the youth of today accept same sex relationships the same as straight relationships, lots of the older generations dont, it takes time for them to adapt to new ideas.

Homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967, gay men and lesbians have been allowed to serve in the Armed Forces since 2000. The age of consent between gay men was only lowered to the same as heterosexuals in 2001.

Funnily enough the UK had pretty much been ordered to have an equal age of consent in the mid 90's, but each bill proposing this change was defeated until the government was able to push the bill through circumventing normal parliamentary procedure.

Society takes time to adapt. Change takes time. Ask women about true equal rights or people from a different ethnic background, while its true society in the UK has come a long way over the last 50 years it still has a long way to go.