Gay marriage - gay or nay?

[Toxic]

Do you support gay marriage?

[spitfire]

No.

[Toxic]

No.

Why?

[rinkydinkpanther]

I just dont care...lets talk about important things , like the way old people are treated and the way their carers are treated and disabled rights which have fallen off the radar and the gap between rich and poor and massive youth unemployment, nhs problems and the failing police services, etc etc

[Toxic]

I just dont care...lets talk about important things , like the way old people are treated and the way their carers are treated and disabled rights which have fallen off the radar and the gap between rich and poor and massive youth unemployment, nhs problems and the failing police services, etc etc

So the social repression of millions isn't important? The suicide of thousands around the world because of gay bullying isn't important? This is an important issue, gay people need the same rights so the views of bigoted people can one day be changed.

[BBfanUSA]

Before we continue I'm sure there's probably a thread for this

and yes it should. In Fact it's legal in my state go iowa

[Toxic]

I love how the abusive/offensive messages got deleted as if they never happened...

[Black Dagger]

It doesn't really bother me, it would be nice if people woke up and realised that it was 2012 and not the ****ing dark-ages, but they won't. So I've come to terms that it won't be made legal everywhere. Even if it was I doubt I'd get married.

[spitfire]

Why?

Why would I want to waste my time supporting it? I could not give a monkies if someone is married or not.

[Redway]

I voted 'yes' on the poll. As long as somebody's beliefs, sexuality, lifestyle, etc, doesn't harm me in any way I fail to see any problem - it's their life, not mine. I really don't see why anybody would say otherwise.

[Redway]

So the social repression of millions isn't important? The suicide of thousands around the world because of gay bullying isn't important? This is an important issue, gay people need the same rights so the views of bigoted people can one day be changed.

Nobody's bigoted for having an opinion, Toxic.

However, if you act on those views and discriminate against someone else based on any feature of them you dislike, then the said person would indeed fall into the 'bigoted' category.

Don't throw names at someone just because you dislike their views.

[joeysteele]

I am not bothered at all as to anyones sexual orientation,no matter the make up of the relationship.
If 2 people ,2 men, 2 women or a man and women want to make a commitment to each other for life and want to call it marriage then I don't think there should be any barriers to that taking place.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

deleting my posts :suspect:

[lily.]

It's just marriage... I don't consider myself to be in a 'straight marriage'... so all this 'gay marriage' is just nonsense.

We're not going to start deciding that people can't marry because they're short or ugly.. so why should we get to decide based on their sexuality..

It's all bull**** in my opinion. I don't give a flying **** whether someone is into guys or girls or both .. I don't get why people care so much about what others are doing.

[lostalex]

what a stupid poll. The poll should be do you believe in equal rights or not. yes or no?

[lostalex]

I just dont care...lets talk about important things , like the way old people are treated and the way their carers are treated and disabled rights which have fallen off the radar and the gap between rich and poor and massive youth unemployment, nhs problems and the failing police services, etc etc

and gay rights arn't important? so old people, young people, disabled people are important but gay people arn't?? wtf is wrong with you bigot??

[lostalex]

Nobody's bigoted for having an opinion, Toxic.

However, if you act on those views and discriminate against someone else based on any feature of them you dislike, then the said person would indeed fall into the 'bigoted' category.

Don't throw names at someone just because you dislike their views.

he wasn't throwing "names around" bigot and bigoted are real words with real definitions, maybe you should look them up because you don't seem to have the greatest grasp on the english language.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

[Shaun]

Why would I want to waste my time supporting it? I could not give a monkies if someone is married or not.

I'd be interested to see what people who argue that it "doesn't affect them" would have done during the civil rights movement and whether they'd have supported Martin Luther King Jr. in his heyday. You're really inspiring.

[Redway]

he wasn't throwing "names around" bigot and bigoted are real words with real definitions, maybe you should look them up because you don't seem to have the greatest grasp on the english language.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Are you serious? If I'm taking A-level Engish, having attained the highest possible grade at GCSE English, then I clearly do have a grasp of the English language, thank you, so maybe you should get your facts right there.

Not everyone who believes that being gay is wrong necessarily hates the idea. In case you didn't realise, I'm on about the people who simply don't like the idea of being gay or gay marriage but doesn't mind the people. It does happen, you know.

It would also be appreciated if you would desist from saying I have no grasp of the English language whe I clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand my posts now, would you?

[lostalex]

Are you serious? If I'm taking A-level Engish, having attained the highest possible grade at GCSE English, then I clearly do have a grasp of the English language, thank you, so maybe you should get your facts right there.

Not everyone who believes that being gay is wrong necessarily hates the idea. In case you didn't realise, I'm on about the people who simply don't like the idea of being gay or gay marriage but doesn't mind the people. It does happen, you know.

It would also be appreciated if you would desist from saying I have no grasp of the English language whe I clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand my posts now, would you?


Well then don't say that using the word "bigot" is "throwing names around". as if it's just a schoolyard taunt. it's not, it's an accurate description.

It's not "throwing names around", it's using the appropriate word to describe people who fit the definition.

and your argument that you can hate homosexuality but not hate homosexuals is ridiculous, it's like saying, "i don't hate black people, i just hate the black people that act black"

"I don't mind asian people, as long as they don't do anything asian."

WTF.

[Redway]

Well then don't say that using the word "bigot" is "throwing names around". as if it's just a schoolyard taunt. it's not, it's an accurate description. It's not "throwing names around", it's using the appropriate word to describe people who fit the definition. Fair enough but, as mentioned before, I was actually talking about people who aren't keen on the idea but don't dismiss gays as a whole, which is fine. You can't just brush off the opinions you don't wish to hear and whether or not you like it people will have opinions on any group of people and they're entitled them even if they offend you.

In response to your actual post, though, I refer you to my first sentence before you go round the houses and take what I actually said out of context.

[lostalex]

Fair enough but, as mentioned before, I was actually talking about people who aren't keen on the idea but don't dismiss gays as a whole, which is fine. You can't just brush off the opinions you don't wish to hear and whether or not you like it people will have opinions on any group of people and they're entitled them even if they offend you.

In response to your actual post, though, I refer you to my first sentence before you go round the houses and take what I actually said out of context.

does it sound like i'm "brushing it off"??? if i was brushing it off, i wouldn't be responding to you, obviously i'm not brushing anything off. I combat bigoted ideas with everything i have.

CIVIL RIGHTS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.

[lily.]

I agree with the above post. It's like taking a dislike to someone or think they shouldn't be given certain rights just because they like cucumber and you don't.

Edit - just realised how bad an example that is. :joker: But you all get the gist...

I quite liked the analogy to be honest.. ;)

[InOne]

It's not something I really think about.

[Marsh.]

Well then don't say that using the word "bigot" is "throwing names around". as if it's just a schoolyard taunt. it's not, it's an accurate description.

It's not "throwing names around", it's using the appropriate word to describe people who fit the definition.

and your argument that you can hate homosexuality but not hate homosexuals is ridiculous, it's like saying, "i don't hate black people, i just hate the black people that act black"

"I don't mind asian people, as long as they don't do anything asian."

WTF.

Those aren't the best examples. My next door neighbour doesn't think homosexuality is natural and in a way finds it "weird" still. She's in her 60's so obviously stuck in her ways. But she doesn't have anything against gay people and wouldn't treat them any differently, she just doesn't understand it.

[Redway]

In response to your post about not saying you can't be friends with a gay person because you don't agree with their views: just no.

So I have to agree with everything someone does to like the person? Is that what you're saying?

For exaple, I have Muslim friends. I don't agree with what they do but that has no correlation between their friendship with me. As I said, I don't agree with what they do but I'm still friends with them.

The same logic can be applied to other examples. If a friend I know watches something I don't like, what makes you think I'll be sad enough to dismiss the person as a whole because I don't watch a show they watch?

[lostalex]

Those aren't the best examples. My next door neighbour doesn't think homosexuality is natural and in a way finds it "weird" still. She's in her 60's so obviously stuck in her ways. But she doesn't have anything against gay people and wouldn't treat them any differently, she just doesn't understand it.

there's nothing to understand. Thinking gay people are any different from anyone else is the problem.

does your next door neighbor also think that inter-racial relationships are unnatural?

It's the same bigotry.

[Tom4784]

There's no reason not to really, more people getting married means more money's being pumped into the economy. If the gays want to be unhappily married as well then I say let them.

[lostalex]

In response to your post about not saying you can't be friends with a gay person because you don't agree with their views: just no.

So I have to agree with everything someone does to like the person? Is that what you're saying?

For exaple, I have Muslim friends. I don't agree with what they do but that has no correlation between their friendship with me. As I said, I don't agree with what they do but I'm still friends with them.

The same logic can be applied to other examples. If a friend I know watches something I don't like, what makes you think I'll be sad enough to dismiss the person as a whole because I don't watch a show they watch.


do you have white christian friends that have done things that you disagree with?

[Marsh.]

there's nothing to understand. Thinking gay people are any different from anyone else is the problem.

does your next door neighbor also think that inter-racial relationships are unnatural?

It's the same bigotry.

Of course there is. I could argue that you have the same attitude by not listening to or understanding other's views on the matter.

Inter-racial relationships are not comparable.

[lostalex]

Of course there is. I could argue that you have the same attitude by not listening to or understanding other's views on the matter.

Inter-racial relationships are not comparable.


of course it's comparable, the same exact arguments you are making against gays are EXACTLY the same arguments used against inter-racial marriages.

Anyone who is against gay marriage is just as evil as the KKK arguments against inter-racial marriages.

[lostalex]

There's no reason not to really, more people getting married means more money's being pumped into the economy. If the gays want to be unhappily married as well then I say let them.

LOL, what a lovely sentiment, you don't support gay marriage because it's the right thing, you just support it cause it's good for the economy LMAO.

[Redway]

of course it's comparable, the same exact arguments you are making against gays are EXACTLY the same arguments used against inter-racial marriages.

Anyone who is against gay marriage is just as evil as the KKK arguments against inter-racial marriages.
What complete and utter nonsense. I think you'll find that the KKK goes out of their way to stop what they disagree with from happening and are sad enough to join cults, wheareas the people I'm referring to (i.e. don't like the idea of being gay, etc, but have no issue with the people) simply don't like the idea but aren't sad and pathetic enough to stop it from happening.

I find it flabbergasting that you think you can even compare the two.
do you have white christian friends that have done things that you disagree with?

I do, actually.

[lostalex]

What complete and utter nonsense. I think you'll find that the KKK goes out of their way to stop what they disagree with from happening and are sad enough to join cults, wheareas the people I'm referring to (i.e. don't like the idea of being gay, etc, but have no issue with the people) simply don't like the idea but aren't sad and pathetic enough to stop it from happening.

I find it flabbergasting that you think you can even compare the two.


I do, actually.

sorry, but you'll find that most racist people back then didn't really hate blacks eigther, they just didn't speak up.
the fact that you think racism is worse than homophobia means that you ARE homophobic.

you are a BIGOT.

the fact that you think black people deserve more rights than homosexuals means you are a hateful bigot. this is now a fact.

We ALL desrrve EQUAL rights, what don't you understand about that???

please tell me what's so HARD to understand about the term EQUAL rights???

[Marsh.]

of course it's comparable, the same exact arguments you are making against gays are EXACTLY the same arguments used against inter-racial marriages.

Anyone who is against gay marriage is just as evil as the KKK arguments against inter-racial marriages.

From my example, my neighbour isn't evil and wanting gays killed. As I said above, she doesn't understand it.

Considering the argument that can be made for nature versus nurture, it isn't the same as inter-racial marriages. People can't choose their DNA, skin colour and who they're born to. But there is an argument that homosexuality isn't there from birth.

[Redway]

of course it's comparable, the same exact arguments you are making against gays are EXACTLY the same arguments used against inter-racial marriages. Anyone who is against gay marriage is just as evil as the KKK arguments against inter-racial marriages. do you have white christian friends that have done things that you disagree with? sorry, but you'll find that most racist people back then didn't really hate blacks eigther, they just didn't speak up. the fact that you think racism is worse than homophobia means that you ARE homophobic. you are a BIGOT. the fact that you think black people deserve more rights than homosexuals means you are a hateful bigot. this is now a fact.

Are you being serious? Don't you ever accuse me of being a homophobic bigot and actually read my posts properly before forming ridiculous conclusions so that I have proof that you do know a thing or two about the English language. I never said that ethnic minorities deserve more rights than homosexuals. You're comparing two totally different scenarios - the KKK and the belief that homosexuality is wrong but having nothing against the people.

I said that the KKK people go out of their way and join cults because of their beliefs; on the other hand, the people I'm talking about simply have a belief that you don't like but they won't harm you or discriminate against you. You take a pick out of which is worse.

I find it sad that you think you can call me homophobic because I'm simply pointing out the truth - seeing as you've layed out pleothas upon pleothas of incredibly weak arguments - as well as the rest of your abortive traits that everyone argues - not in your favour - about.

[joeysteele]

I am just amazed that still in this modern age that someones sexuality even matters. I only look at people as to how they are as people,nothing else matters as far as I am concerned.

I may have misread this debate on here but I cannot see where Redway for instance has said he thinks any other grouping of society should be treated different to the gay groupings. I think everyone should have equal rights,even more so especially to things too that they will have to pay for to do anyway.

[Tom4784]

LOL, what a lovely sentiment, you don't support gay marriage because it's the right thing, you just support it cause it's good for the economy LMAO.

The opposition won't suddenly support it because it's the right thing to do. You have to make them realise that gay marriages has it's benefits thus my economy point.

[Redway]

I am just amazed that still in this modern age that someones sexuality even matters. I only look at people as to how they are as people,nothing else matters as far as I am concerned. I may have misread this debate on here but I cannot see where Redway for instance has said he thinks any other grouping of society should be treated different to the gay groupings. I think everyone should have equal rights,even more so especially to things too that they will have to pay for to do anyway. Thank you. It seems there are some on here who labour to understand the context of a debate and to not throw their dollies out of the pram because somebody points out the truth to them.

[Redway]

By the way, Alex, why should it matter if I have white Christian friends who do things I disagree with? Why should the amount of pigment in their skin have anything to do with anything?

[Toxic]

Are you serious? If I'm taking A-level Engish, having attained the highest possible grade at GCSE English, then I clearly do have a grasp of the English language, thank you, so maybe you should get your facts right there.

Not everyone who believes that being gay is wrong necessarily hates the idea. In case you didn't realise, I'm on about the people who simply don't like the idea of being gay or gay marriage but doesn't mind the people. It does happen, you know.

It would also be appreciated if you would desist from saying I have no grasp of the English language whe I clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand my posts now, would you?

People don't get to believe that being gay is wrong though, how can something natural be wrong? It's like saying "I believe that a person being born with blonde hair is wrong"

[Toxic]

sorry, but you'll find that most racist people back then didn't really hate blacks eigther, they just didn't speak up.
the fact that you think racism is worse than homophobia means that you ARE homophobic.

you are a BIGOT.

the fact that you think black people deserve more rights than homosexuals means you are a hateful bigot. this is now a fact.

We ALL desrrve EQUAL rights, what don't you understand about that???

please tell me what's so HARD to understand about the term EQUAL rights???

You're totally right, people agaisnt gay people/gay marriage think that it's somehow acceptable to think that. They believe that it's ok to think and say it because it's 'their opinion', but the second someone says anything agaisnt blacks, asians etc. there is an uproar

[Redway]

People don't get to believe that being gay is wrong though, how can something natural be wrong? It's like saying "I believe that a person being born with blonde hair is wrong"

I never for a second said being gay is natural. All I said is that some people still disagree with it, which is true. Whatever circumstances these things fall under, they are still opinions, whether you like them or not.

[Redway]

You're totally right, people agaisnt gay people/gay marriage think that it's somehow acceptable to think that. They believe that it's ok to think and say it because it's 'their opinion', but the second someone says anything agaisnt blacks, asians etc. there is an uproar

I'm not the one who said gay marriage is wrong. I support it. However, others don't and they are allowed their views.

[Toxic]

I never for a second said being gay is natural. All I said is that some people still disagree with it, which is true. Whatever circumstances these things fall under, they are still opinions, whether you like them or not.

Yes but people can't 'disagree' with something which is FACT of life, some people are born straight, some people are born gay - that's the end of it. It's the same as a person saying they 'disagree' with someone being born black.

And people who don't agree with what I posed above are totally wrong and bigoted.

[Redway]

Yes but people can't 'disagree' with something which is FACT of life, some people are born straight, some people are born gay - that's the end of it. It's the same as a person saying they 'disagree' with someone being born black.

And people who don't agree with what I posed above are totally wrong and bigoted.

No, they disagree with what gays do.

[Toxic]

No, they disagree with what gays do.

But you can't disagree with it, they were born that way. Would you disagree with a black man for being black? No, and yes it is the same.

Bigot.

[lostalex]

By the way, Alex, why should it matter if I have white Christian friends who do things I disagree with? Why should the amount of pigment in their skin have anything to do with anything?

it matters because i havn't heard you defending people's "opinions" agaist yur white str8 christian friends that do wrong things.

If i was a muslim that said "i have a right to disagree with white christians" and therefore we should take rights away from str8 white christians, would you be defending that??? i don't think so. you'd be outraged, and you wouldn't be defending their right to bigotry.

WHy arn't you defending the muslims that want sharia law then? it's just their opinions right??

would you defend a law that said all women should wear a burqa just cause some epople have an "opinion" that women should be covered up??

[Saph]

In 10 years everyones gonna look back on this whole 'gays cant get married' thing and laugh about how silly it all was.

Its like black people being made to sit at the back of the bus, we look back now and think how stange and pathetic it was. If people want to get married, then why not let them? Personally I think marriage is outdated nowadays anyway... but still, its not fair how a benefit fraud druggie couple with 15 kids can get married or how Kim K got married for 70 days and yet happy couples who may have their whole lives ahead of them cannot.. Its all very bizarre.

[Saph]

although saying that, isnt Elton John married? :conf:

[lostalex]

although saying that, isnt Elton John married? :conf:

In the eyes of God? yes. In the eyes of the Crown? no.

Just civil partners.

[Niamh.]

Out of curiosity, what rights do married couples have that civil partnershipped (?) couples don't?

[Ammi]

Out of curiosity, what rights do married couples have that civil partnershipped (?) couples don't?

..so far as I know civil partnerships have all of the same rights which is why it seems stupid that gay couples are not allowed to get married..it's can't be the same to say..'this is my civil partner..'

[lostalex]

Out of curiosity, what rights do married couples have that civil partnershipped (?) couples don't?


why does it matter?

Is it okay to have a separate drinking fountain for blacks as long as the water is just as clean?? of course not. separate is not equal.


http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3331/3278358749_3b43bd0098_z.jpg

[Marsh.]

why does it matter?

Is it fine to have a separate drinking fountain for blacks as long as the water is just as clean??


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j6pUq0MB2QU/T2XLlhNetsI/AAAAAAAAANg/gwqqQOFjjfQ/s1600/segregation_drinking_fountain.30973805.JPG

Get over yourself fgs. That's exactly what Niamh is saying. What difference is there between marriage and civil partnership? None. So, the only difference is the word "married".

[Niamh.]

It doesn't matter Alex, don't be so touchy, I was just wondering

[lostalex]

..so far as I know civil partnerships have all of the same rights which is why it seems stupid that gay couples are not allowed to get married..it's can't be the same to say..'this is my civil partner..'

so do you also think it was stupid for black people to want to drink from the same fountains as white people?

[lostalex]

Get over yourself fgs. That's exactly what Niamh is saying. What difference is there between marriage and civil partnership? None. So, the only difference is the word "married".


so then you also see no problem with black people drinking from separate water fountains, aslong as it's clean water it doesn't matter right??

are you actually saying you don't see the problem?? REALLY?

GET OVER MYSELF?? I DON'T SAY WHAT I SAY FOR MYSELF, I SAY WHAT I SAY FOR EVERY GAY KID THAT ISN'T HERE TO SAY IT FOR THEMSELF.

[lostalex]

It doesn't matter Alex, don't be so touchy, I was just wondering

it matters to me. if it doesn't matter to you then why do you care?

[Niamh.]

it matters to me. if it doesn't matter to you then why do you care?

Don't be so rude Alex, I just wanted to know if there was a difference between the two things. Please don't try to make out that I had some ulterior motive for asking the question........I didn't.

[lostalex]

Don't be so rude Alex, I just wanted to know if there was a difference between the two things. Please don't try to make out that I had some ulterior motive for asking the question........I didn't.


excuse me, don't talk to me about being rude when i'm dealing with people here who think that i don't deserve the same rights as anyone else.

people that tell me i should be happy with separate but equal.


Don't talk to me about RUDE when i don't have equal rights, okay, because civility goes out the window when i'm treated like a second class citizen.

don't expect me to be civil when i'm dealing with people that say i'm not entitled to MY CIVIL RIGHTS. comprende?

you expect me to be civil to people who think it's okay to say that i should just be grateful for "tolerance" sorry, but no, i don't accept that.

[Shaun]

The difference really is religious equality. Loads of people make the point that gay people shouldn't want to get married if the church is so against the idea, and even though I'm an atheist, there's really no reason why the church should still be allowed to discriminate. Especially when it (the Church of England) was formed so some obese womaniser could have a divorce. If gay Christians want to marry there's no real reason not to (unless you draw up Biblical quotes, in which case I could spend all day countering those with similarly daft and outright wicked quotes that should be adhered to in the realms of working on the sabbath, making cloth from separate fabrics and women's rights).

[Niamh.]

excuse me, don't talk to me about being rude when i'm dealing with people here who think that i don't deserve the same rights as anyone else.

people that tell me i should be happy with separate but equal.


Don't talk to me about RUDE when i don't have equal rights, okay, because civility goes out the window when i'm treated like a second class citizen.

don't expect me to be ciovil when i'm dealing with people that say i'm not entitled to MY CIVIL rights. comprende?

You were rude to me for no reason. I asked a simple question, do married people have different rights to people in civil partnerships?. I asked it because I didn't know the answer, not because I was trying to imply that gay people should be happy about it.

[lostalex]

The difference really is religious equality. Loads of people make the point that gay people shouldn't want to get married if the church is so against the idea, and even though I'm an atheist, there's really no reason why the church should still be allowed to discriminate. Especially when it (the Church of England) was formed so some obese womaniser could have a divorce. If gay Christians want to marry there's no real reason not to (unless you draw up Biblical quotes, in which case I could spend all day countering those with similarly daft and outright wicked quotes that should be adhered to in the realms of working on the sabbath, making cloth from separate fabrics and women's rights).


Millions of gay people are already married in the church. this isn't a religious issue. MIllions of gay people already get married in their churches, no problem. The government doesn't seem to have a problem with that.


In the eyes of God, millions of gay people are already married, we are talking about the the eyes of the government though, not God.

[Tom4784]

Constantly going to extremes does nothing for your argument Alex. Segregation and Civil partnerships are two different things and comparing them seems a little desperate on your part.

Civil Partnerships and marriage offer the same benefits, a gay couple can choose to use the same venue as a straight couple, they can use the same caterers ETC and they have the same rights as straight couples. The only difference is the name which is a pointless thing to get upset about. Civil partnerships and Segregation share nothing in common.

[lostalex]

You were rude to me for no reason. I asked a simple question, do married people have different rights to people in civil partnerships?. I asked it because I didn't know the answer, not because I was trying to imply that gay people should be happy about it.

i wasn't rude to you, i explained it to you. I made no personal attack on you niamh, and you know i like you, but when you ask a question that sounds like it's out of the 1960's i'll respond to you appropriately.

separate is not equal, that's what i said to you, it wasn't rude and i didn't attack you personally, so i'd like to know why you got offended by what i said.

[Vanessa]

I support gay marriage. Gay people should be able to get married everywhere. It's a shame that some countries still don't allow it. :(

[Marsh.]

so then you also see no problem with black people drinking from separate water fountains, aslong as it's clean water it doesn't matter right??

are you actually saying you don't see the problem?? REALLY?

GET OVER MYSELF?? I DON'T SAY WHAT I SAY FOR MYSELF, I SAY WHAT I SAY FOR EVERY GAY KID THAT ISN'T HERE TO SAY IT FOR THEMSELF.

Considering the only thing that differentiates the two is the word "MARRIAGE" and plenty gay people continue to use that terminology regardless NO, I don't think it matters. There are far more important things in the world than PC fricking terminology.

[lostalex]

Constantly going to extremes does nothing for your argument Alex. Segregation and Civil partnerships are two different things and comparing them seems a little desperate on your part.

Civil Partnerships and marriage offer the same benefits, a gay couple can choose to use the same venue as a straight couple, they can use the same caterers ETC and they have the same rights as straight couples. The only difference is the name which is a pointless thing to get upset about. Civil partnerships and Segregation share nothing in common.

going to extremes?

you just proved what i just said. so why do black people need to driunk from the same fountains as whites? it's the same clean water right? so why are they trying to drink from OUR fountains???

tell me why. IF you don't know why it's offensive to have separate drinking fountains, well, jesus, you don't know much.

Having a different set of rules, no matter how equivelent, doesn't change the fact that it's separate, it's no different then having separate drinking fountains.

[lostalex]

considering the only thing that differentiates the two is the word "marriage" and plenty gay people continue to use that terminology regardless no, i don't think it matters. There are far more important things in the world than pc fricking terminology.

if it doesn't matter then why is it separate????

you are wrong. there is nothing more important in the world than equal rights. You are a disgusting bigot to say to me that there are more important things in the world than MY equal rights. how dare you.

[Niamh.]

i wasn't rude to you, i explained it to you. I made no personal attack on you niamh, and you know i like you, but when you ask a question that sounds like it's out of the 1960's i'll respond to you appropriately.

separate is not equal, that's what i said to you, it wasn't rude and i didn't attack you personally, so i'd like to know why you got offended by what i said.

A question that sounds like it's from the 1960's? Why would you expect everyone to know what rights couples who are in civil partnerships have, if they're not in one themselves? Why would I know that?

[Shaun]

Constantly going to extremes does nothing for your argument Alex. Segregation and Civil partnerships are two different things and comparing them seems a little desperate on your part.

Civil Partnerships and marriage offer the same benefits, a gay couple can choose to use the same venue as a straight couple, they can use the same caterers ETC and they have the same rights as straight couples. The only difference is the name which is a pointless thing to get upset about. Civil partnerships and Segregation share nothing in common.

The word 'segregation' means to separate two groups of people. Calling straight people married and homosexuals civil partners is an, admittedly small, but still an unfair, distinction.

[Tom4784]

going to extremes?

you just proved what i just said. so why do black people need to driunk from the same fountains as whites? it's the same clean water right? so why are they trying to drink from OUR fountains???

tell me why. IF you don't know why it's offensive to have separate drinking fountains, well, jesus, you don't know much.

Having a different set of rules, no matter how equivelent, doesn't change the fact that it's separate, it's no different then having separate drinking fountains.

It's not different at all though, Gay people aren't forced to get married at 'gays only' locations or places seperate from straight couples and they get access to the same things as straight couples do. Everything's the same apart from the name. It's not segregation at all and you're just using hyperbole and bad examples to force your argument across.

[Marsh.]

if it doesn't matter then why is it separate????

you are wrong. there is nothing more important in the world than equal rights. You are a disgusting bigot to say to me that there are more important things in the world than MY equal rights. how dare you.

:joker: Why the feck are you asking me? Do I make the damn law?

I'm sick of being made out to be some kind of King Herod to your Jesus. All that I'm saying is, is it worth getting into such a state over TERMINOLOGY.

I agree with the other poster, comparing it to these other things is very desperate. If gays weren't allowed any kind of partnership full stop I'd see where you're coming from. Otherwise, I think you're overreacting.

The difference in terminology for gay people DOES NOT equate to the segregation of black people in past societies.

DO NOT call me a disgusting bigot. I NEVER said your rights aren't important. I stressed that you are getting irate over TERMINOLOGY.

Gay people can get married and HAVE THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS. It's just given a different title. Of course there's more important issues to address in the world than a title.

Again, if you can refrain from using personal insults when debating I'd happily answer your questions. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make them a bigot. Stop victimising yourself and engage in a discussion without using insults.

[Ammi]

so do you also think it was stupid for black people to want to drink from the same fountains as white people?

..I'm not sure how you come to that from my post...as far as I'm aware civil partnerships have the same legal rights as marriages therefore gay marriages should be made legal as saying you have a civil partner is not quite the same as saying you have a spouse..it seems stupid to not make it legal to have a marriage rather than a civil partnership

[Shaun]

He's making good points, just in a really rude and confrontational way, and it's this kind of attitude that's really setting the whole LGBT movement back. There seems to be this belief that gays/bis/transgenders are being really vehement and angry, but it all boils down to wanting equality. I do wish more people would remember that instead of dismissing these issues as "irrelevant to me" or whatever.

[Marsh.]

My point about being TOO passionate about a title. When that's all it is, a title, isn't the most important thing in the world suddenly equates to me thinking his rights don't matter? lol

My entire point was that gay people (in places that allow the civil partnerships) DO HAVE THE SAME BLOODY RIGHTS. It's the furore over the title I find a huge overreaction.

The anger coming from lostalex, I'm not associating with LGBT. It's the same thing he always does in every discussion he takes part in on the forum. Throws insults around instead of calming down and discussing. Making assumptions about people using the most extreme examples that have sweet FA to do with anything.

This stance I have makes me as 'evil as KKK', 'a disgusting bigot', and want black people to drink different water to white people.
HE is the most offensive, ill-mannered person I've ever come across and I've never met him. lol

I've said my peace, I'm done.

[MTVN]

Most of the arguments against it seem pretty flimsy to me, they talk about "the sanctity of marriage" but the ways in which marriage is viewed have constantly evolved throughout history, people used to often just marry for status, for money, for power, it would have to be someone from the same class, girls would be forced to marry from a young age etc. etc. a lot of social limitations that were imposed on marriage have been removed and there's no reason why allowing gays to marry can't be the next step in that evolution. It seems pretty ridiculous that Church leaders would consider it more socially acceptable for Kim Kardashian to marry and divorced within a couple of months than than for two men/women who are actually in a proper, stable relationship to marry

[Marsh.]

That's where it gets more complicated though. It isn't "the church" it's a specific religion. They all differ on their rules and rights.

Not all of them would be accepting of someone like Kim Kardashian.

[MTVN]

By the Church I meant the CoE

[Redway]

But you can't disagree with it, they were born that way. Would you disagree with a black man for being black? No, and yes it is the same.

Bigot.
As I said, it's what gay people do . I don't care but others clearly do and they deserve a view and you can't decide to hate on people just because you don't like their views.
it matters because i havn't heard you defending people's "opinions" agaist yur white str8 christian friends that do wrong things.

If i was a muslim that said "i have a right to disagree with white christians" and therefore we should take rights away from str8 white christians, would you be defending that??? i don't think so. you'd be outraged, and you wouldn't be defending their right to bigotry.

WHy arn't you defending the muslims that want sharia law then? it's just their opinions right??

would you defend a law that said all women should wear a burqa just cause some epople have an "opinion" that women should be covered up??



First of all, don't you talk to me in text speak. It's incredibly irritating and difficult to read and I'm sure there are rules on this sort of thing.

Secondly, you're missing my point. I said that if people disagree with something but still back it up with rights then where's the problem? For example, if somebody believes that being gay is wrong but also believes that they should have rights what's the problem?

See? This is what we have to put up with on this forum. You can't even have the decency to be nice. You have to be rude and confrontational. That's what we don't like about you.

The colour of someone's skin is totally unrelated in terms of correlation to this argument. You accuse me of being a hateful homophobic bigot one more time and I will make sure you'll never want to see my username again.

Finally, I'd like to know how I can be homophobic when I said
I voted 'yes' on the poll. As long as somebody's beliefs, sexuality, lifestyle, etc, doesn't harm me in any way I fail to see any problem - it's their life, not mine. I really don't see why anybody would say otherwise.

[Redway]

Just checked my private messages. He's sent me a PM calling me a bigot once more.

[Vanessa]

Just checked my private messages. He's sent me a PM calling me a bigot once more.

Omg! Toxic is living up to his name! :shocked::tongue:

[spitfire]

First of all, don't you talk to me in text speak. It's incredibly irritating and difficult to read

This.

[Redway]

Omg! Toxic is living up to his name! :shocked::tongue:

I'm on about lostalex here, Vanessa.

[Vanessa]

I'm on about lostalex here, Vanessa.

Oh sorry! :bawling:

[Redway]

Oh sorry! :bawling:

It's all right lol. :laugh:

[HoneyPot]

Yes I do.

Not only do I think each and every couple should have equal rights - most people are under the false impression that if a couple lives together for so long, they automatically become a "common law" married couple.

This just isn't the case - it's a myth, there is no such thing as common law marriage.

Which means, if there was a couple and one of them died - the other would not legally be entitled to a thing. So if they shared a house together that was just in one name, they'd lose their home if family stepped in.


Or if one broke off the relationship - and had the home in their name, the other would be left with nothing.

It gives all couples a chance to be legally committed, and it also gives legal security!

[Mystic Mock]

Well I believe that if two homosexuals loved each other so much that they wanted to marry each other then I don't see the problem with them getting married.

[Vanessa]

Yes I do.

Not only do I think each and every couple should have equal rights - most people are under the false impression that if a couple lives together for so long, they automatically become a "common law" married couple.

This just isn't the case - it's a myth, there is no such thing as common law marriage.

Which means, if there was a couple and one of them died - the other would not legally be entitled to a thing. So if they shared a house together that was just in one name, they'd lose their home if family stepped in.


Or if one broke off the relationship - and had the home in their name, the other would be left with nothing.

It gives all couples a chance to be legally committed, and it also gives legal security!

Yes, that's sadly true. :(

[Toxic]

The whole "In the eyes of God marriage is between a man and a woman" argument has absolutely NO substance.

First of all, the bible says a man should not lie with another man - does that mean two straight men couldn't share a bed, or a tent? You can interpret that how ever you want, people who are anti gay purposely interpret that as meaning gay people are immoral.

Also, if we are going to follow the bible literally then people are not allowed to eat shellfish or they will be put to death and people can't wear an outfit with more than one fabric - so better get searching for some cotton shirt, trousers, socks and shoes to wear!

I find it hilarious how religious people bring up the bible to defend their bigotry/ignorance, and choose to ignore other aspects of the bible because it's an inconvenience to their lives.

[Mystic Mock]

I've got to say why open up a thread if people can't have different opinions? Lostalex is completely overreacting and comparing it to the KKK?

[Marsh.]

Bow down to the perfection that is Toxic.

Don't open a thread asking for opinions if you think people can't disagree with it. And yet you say other people have ignorance.

[Toxic]

I've got to say why open up a thread if people can't have different opinions? Lostalex is completely overreacting and comparing it to the KKK?

Top be fair, Lostalex is getting so worked up because of the complete ignorance of some members.

I agree that it isn't the same as the KKK, although there are groups in the world who actively seek to abuse gay people.

The ideologies behind some people in regards to gay people are similar to those of the KKK.

[Mystic Mock]

The whole "In the eyes of God marriage is between a man and a woman" argument has absolutely NO substance.

First of all, the bible says a man should not lie with another man - does that mean two straight men couldn't share a bed, or a tent? You can interpret that how ever you want, people who are anti gay purposely interpret that as meaning gay people are immoral.

Also, if we are going to follow the bible literally then people are not allowed to eat shellfish or they will be put to death and people can't wear an outfit with more than one fabric - so better get searching for some cotton shirt, trousers, socks and shoes to wear!

I find it hilarious how religious people bring up the bible to defend their bigotry/ignorance, and choose to ignore other aspects of the bible because it's an inconvenience to their lives.

The Bible does have it's inaccuracies, but I don't get why some people are homophobic just for thinking that the KKK are worse than homophobics that don't go out of there way to harm gay people which was what Lostalex was implying.

[Redway]

Toxic, if you don't want our opinions then don't make this sort of thread because that's what we're here to do.

Also, don't try and defend the indefensible. lostalex's behaviour was completely unacceptable and childish.

[Toxic]

Bow down to the perfection that is Toxic.

Don't open a thread asking for opinions if you think people can't disagree with it. And yet you say other people have ignorance.

I opened up a thread for debate, and if I disagree with what people say...I'm going to argue my view point.

This whole forum section is appropriately named 'Serious DEBATES & News Stories' - a debate is when people discuss a subject and give their own views/opinions which are bound to conflict.

What your saying is people should post their views and then have zero discussion about it afterwards, what's the point in that?

[Redway]

I opened up a thread for debate, and if I disagree with what people say...I'm going to argue my view point.

This whole forum section is appropriately named 'Serious DEBATES & News Stories' - a debate is when people discuss a subject and give their own views/opinions which are bound to conflict.

What your saying is people should post their views and then have zero discussion about it afterwards, what's the point in that?

Isn't that what you're doing?

[Marsh.]

I opened up a thread for debate, and if I disagree with what people say...I'm going to argue my view point.

This whole forum section is appropriately named 'Serious DEBATES & News Stories' - a debate is when people discuss a subject and give their own views/opinions which are bound to conflict.

What your saying is people should post their views and then have zero discussion about it afterwards, what's the point in that?

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I'm asking YOU, who said to Redway "You can't disagree". He, and everyone else, has every right to disagree. That's my point.

You have opened a thread welcoming all opinions, so don't tell people they can't disagree.

[Toxic]

Yep.

Some members have been using the argument that it's alright to disagree with homosexuality - which it isn't because being gay is something people are born with, it's the same as being born with brown/blonde/ginger hair.

Other members have posted down right offensive stuff, such as saying "gay marriage is for fags" and "I think gay people are cute with their little pugs because they can't reproduce.....don't blame me, blame god".

[Toxic]

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I'm asking YOU, who said to Redway "You can't disagree". He, and everyone else, has every right to disagree. That's my point.

You have opened a thread welcoming all opinions, so don't tell people they can't disagree.

But you can't disagree with gay people, it's an impossibility, gay people are a fact of life.

[Toxic]

Isn't that what you're doing?

Not at all.

I posted my views, you posted yours, then I told you I disagree, you told me you disagree, and it continues.....because it's a DEBATE.

[Mystic Mock]

Toxic, if you don't want our opinions then don't make this sort of thread because that's what we're here to do.

Also, don't try and defend the indefensible. lostalex's behaviour was completely unacceptable and childish.

I 100% agree with you.

And Toxic, I haven't seen one member on here being ignorant about gay people, and I know that there are groups out there hurting gay people just because they are gay, and I agree that they are just as bad as the KKK but that wasn't the point given to Lostalex, the point given to Lostalex was that some people like gay people but don't understand homosexuality which Redway was fairly pointing out.

Then we move onto Lostalex's rudeness to Niamh for only pointing out what's the difference between Marriage and Civil Partnership, tbf not everybody knows the in's and out's of Civil Partnership yet Lostalex went on a weird rampage saying it's marriage in God's eyes but not in the Governments.

[Toxic]

I'm happy to see that the majority of people on the forum agree with gay marriage, 93.18% :D

[Redway]

But you can't disagree with gay people, it's an impossibility, gay people are a fact of life.

Rubbish.

I have friends who disagree with what gay people do but have no issues with the people and I have immense respect for them. As long as they're not hating on someone because they disagree with what they do I don't see the problem.

As has been mentioned to you over and over again, no one's disagreeing with gay people being gay. What some people disagree with is what they do, not who they are. Do I have to spell it out for you?

And DO you actually read people's posts or just decide to totally ignore them and keep spouting the same nonsense?

[Toxic]

I 100% agree with you.

And Toxic, I haven't seen one member on here being ignorant about gay people, and I know that there are groups out there hurting gay people just because they are gay, and I agree that they are just as bad as the KKK but that wasn't the point given to Lostalex, the point given to Lostalex was that some people like gay people but don't understand homosexuality which Redway was fairly pointing out.

Then we move onto Lostalex's rudeness to Niamh for only pointing out what's the difference between Marriage and Civil Partnership, tbf not everybody knows the in's and out's of Civil Partnership yet Lostalex went on a weird rampage saying it's marriage in God's eyes but not in the Governments.

I just read what he said to Niamh, and I agree it was wrong, because he/she was simply asking an innocent question.

But people have been ignorant, but you can't see the comments because they got deleted.

[Stu]

So much stupid. Everywhere.

[Mystic Mock]

Yep.

Some members have been using the argument that it's alright to disagree with homosexuality - which it isn't because being gay is something people are born with, it's the same as being born with brown/blonde/ginger hair.

Other members have posted down right offensive stuff, such as saying "gay marriage is for fags" and "I think gay people are cute with their little pugs because they can't reproduce.....don't blame me, blame god".

I haven't once seen any posts like that on this thread so don't make up stuff.

And i've known loads of people that hate gingers as they get called by some of my friends.

[Redway]

Not at all.

I posted my views, you posted yours, then I told you I disagree, you told me you disagree, and it continues.....because it's a DEBATE.

No, you told me that I cannot disagree with what gay people do.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION BUT A STATEMENT OF FACT, TELLING ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BELIEVE.

First of all, I have no issue with what gays do - but others do, which, again, is fine.

You're telling people that their views are wrong and you're wrong, mate. Get it?

[Toxic]

Rubbish.

I have friends who disagree with what gay people do but have no issues with the people and I have immense respect for them. As long as they're not hating on someone because they disagree with what they do I don't see the problem.

As has been mentioned to you over and over again, no one's disagreeing with gay people being gay. What some people disagree with is what they do, not who they are. Do I have to spell it out for you?

And DO you actually read people's posts or just decide to totally ignore them and keep spouting the same nonsense?

So it's OK to be gay, but acting on it is something which is allowed to be disagreed with -that is 'rubbish'.

"Oh hi black man, I accept that you are black, but if you walk around in public showing your black skin I will have to disagree with that" - that scenario is as ridiculous as what you pointed out.

[Toxic]

I haven't once seen any posts like that on this thread so don't make up stuff.

And i've known loads of people that hate gingers as they get called by some of my friends.

Ermmmm those comments were not made up at all, they were deleted last night when I first made the thread.

[Toxic]

No, you told me that I cannot disagree with what gay people do.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION BUT A STATEMENT OF FACT, TELLING ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BELIEVE.

First of all, I have no issue with what gays do - but others do, which, again, is fine.

You're telling people that their views are wrong and you're wrong, mate. Get it?

It's fine to bigots yes, but to people who believe in equal rights for all it's totally disgusting.

[bbfan1991]

Yes if two people are in love regardless of being the same sex they should be allowed to get married because everyone is supposed to be equal.

I can understand that some religions and their families will obviously disagree.

[Redway]

So it's OK to be gay, but acting on it is something which is allowed to be disagreed with -that is 'rubbish'.

"Oh hi black man, I accept that you are black, but if you walk around in public showing your black skin I will have to disagree with that" - that scenario is as ridiculous as what you pointed out.

That's not what I'm saying. I said that there are people who disagree with homosexuality but have no problem with the people. How many more times do I have to explain this to you? It's there for you in black and white - now piss off and use your head before you start talking more nonsense.

[Toxic]

And I accept that there will always be people who disagree, but their personal views shouldn't stop it from being made legal.

[Mystic Mock]

No, you told me that I cannot disagree with what gay people do.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION BUT A STATEMENT OF FACT, TELLING ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BELIEVE.

First of all, I have no issue with what gays do - but others do, which, again, is fine.

You're telling people that their views are wrong and you're wrong, mate. Get it?

The thing is, is that gay people don't like being told that being gay is wrong (which I can understand as imo it isn't wrong) but yet won't let people have there opinions on gay being wrong despite Toxic opening up the topic themself.

I don't get how that makes any of us ignorant or homophobic.

[Stu]

So it's OK to be gay, but acting on it is something which is allowed to be disagreed with -that is 'rubbish'.

"Oh hi black man, I accept that you are black, but if you walk around in public showing your black skin I will have to disagree with that" - that scenario is as ridiculous as what you pointed out.
BUT ... BLACK PEOPLE!

Homosexuals don't have to engage in homosexual acts though. Black people sort of do have to engage with the act of being black.

I'm not saying they should abstain ... I enjoy a bit of cock sucking myself ... but **** a duck. The race comparisons have well and truly jumped the shark. Can we make them a bannable offense?

[Toxic]

That's not what I'm saying. I said that there are people who disagree with homosexuality but have no problem with the people. How many more times do I have to explain this to you?

I totally get what your saying, but surely you must see how wrong that is?

You can't like a person but then not like their sexuality, it's part of who they are.

[Mystic Mock]

And I accept that there will always be people who disagree, but their personal views shouldn't stop it from being made legal.

I agree but I don't get how it can compare to the KKK beating and killing black people, afterall it's not like black people can change skin colour is it.

[Stu]

I agree but I don't get how it can compare to the KKK beating and killing black people, afterall it's not like black people can change skin colour is it.
http://cdn.rickey.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/michaeljackson-finger.jpg

[Mystic Mock]

I totally get what your saying, but surely you must see how wrong that is?

You can't like a person but then not like their sexuality, it's part of who they are.

That statement is wrong as it's only one aspect of there personality.

[Toxic]

Homosexuals don't have to engage in homosexual acts though. Black people sort of do have to engage with the act of being black.

I'm not saying they should abstain ... I enjoy a bit of cock sucking myself ... but **** a duck. The race comparisons have well and truly jumped the shark. Can we make them a bannable offense?

Being gay is not a choice, and you just implied it is which is ridiculous. You have as much say over what your sexuality is as someone does over their skin colour, so the comparisons are appropriate. Also, racial groups experience the same social bigotry as the LGBT community so again, the comparisons are appropriate.

Homosexuals do have to act on it because they are HOMOSEXUAL, that's what they are so why would they not act on it? Would a straight person not have sex with a woman or a man? No.

Being gay is not a choice, if it were, there would be no gay people. Who would choose such a hard life?

[Marsh.]

Yep.

Some members have been using the argument that it's alright to disagree with homosexuality - which it isn't because being gay is something people are born with, it's the same as being born with brown/blonde/ginger hair.

Other members have posted down right offensive stuff, such as saying "gay marriage is for fags" and "I think gay people are cute with their little pugs because they can't reproduce.....don't blame me, blame god".

No. You asked for an opinion on gay marriage.
As for being born gay, that's a different debate altogether. One which I disagree with you on.


But you can't disagree with gay people, it's an impossibility, gay people are a fact of life.

What? Just like people can't like black people? Homophobia and racism is also a fact of life. Horrible, but true.


Not at all.

I posted my views, you posted yours, then I told you I disagree, you told me you disagree, and it continues.....because it's a DEBATE.

No. You told Redway he wasn't allowed to disagree.

But, either way, that kind of attitude is wasted on Redway. He's said several times he himself has no problems with gay people or gay marriage. He's discussing people that do.

[Redway]

I totally get what your saying, but surely you must see how wrong that is?

You can't like a person but then not like their sexuality, it's part of who they are.

No, it ain't. You can disagree with what someone does and still like the person. I don't agree that my 12-year-old brother has a girlfriend already but I still love him and if you can't understand that then there really is no point in me wasting MY time explaining something to someone who's either taking the piss or really needs to pick up a book or two.

[Mystic Mock]

http://cdn.rickey.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/michaeljackson-finger.jpg

Alright you've found one case.:joker:

[Niall]

I support it wholeheartedly. Its pretty disgusting that I can't get married to someone I love just because they're the same gender as me. I know I could get a civil partnership but everyone knows its not the same. For it to be equal (well for me at least), then I'd want marriage to ba something available to anyone irrespective of their sexual orientation. Having civil partnerships in lieu of actual marriage isn't in the slightest bit equal to me.

[Toxic]

That statement is wrong as it's only one aspect of there personality.

Yes, which is why I used the words 'PART OF'

[Stu]

Being gay is not a choice, and you just implied it is which is ridiculous. You have as much say over what your sexuality is as someone does over their skin colour, so the comparisons are appropriate. Also, racial groups experience the same social bigotry as the LGBT community so again, the comparisons are appropriate.

Homosexuals do have to act on it because they are HOMOSEXUAL, that's what they are so why would they not act on it? Would a straight person not have sex with a woman or a man? No.

Being gay is not a choice, if it were, there would be no gay people. Who would choose such a hard life?
No, I didn't imply it wasn't a choice you hysterical skirt.

You still don't have to act on it. Fact. End. It's tough ... it's natural to have sex. Yeah but fact. End. Nobody has to have sex.

These aren't my views ... I just felt like showing up your hackneyed ~race comparison.

[Mystic Mock]

No, it ain't. You can disagree with what someone does and still like the person. I don't agree that my 12-year-old brother has a girlfriend already but I still love him and if you can't understand that then there really is no point in me wasting MY time explaining something to someone who's either taking the piss or really needs to pick up a book or two.

No way?:shocked: im 4 years older and I haven't had one girlfriend yet.:joker:

But a good example Redway, I agree with you 100%.

[Marsh.]

Being gay is not a choice, and you just implied it is which is ridiculous. You have as much say over what your sexuality is as someone does over their skin colour, so the comparisons are appropriate. Also, racial groups experience the same social bigotry as the LGBT community so again, the comparisons are appropriate.

Homosexuals do have to act on it because they are HOMOSEXUAL, that's what they are so why would they not act on it? Would a straight person not have sex with a woman or a man? No.

Being gay is not a choice, if it were, there would be no gay people. Who would choose such a hard life?

Well, I am someone who doesn't believe people are born gay. But I also don't believe people choose their sexuality either. It's all to do with nurture and your sexuality is formed within the early years of your life until you sexually mature in your teens. My opinion of course.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes, which is why I used the words 'PART OF'

Ok calm down.:joker:

Anyway yes you did use part of, but the way you posted it did still sound like people can't like gay people if they are homophobic, which isn't true as it is only one aspect of someones personality.

[Redway]

No way?:shocked: im 4 years older and I haven't had one girlfriend yet.:joker:

But a good example Redway, I agree with you 100%.

Try not having one until 17. :laugh:

At least you're genuine, though. He doesn't have a clue about what love is and he's just dived into the closest one for a snog. :laugh:

[Marsh.]

I support it wholeheartedly. Its pretty disgusting that I can't get married to someone I love just because they're the same gender as me. I know I could get a civil partnership but everyone knows its not the same. For it to be equal (well for me at least), then I'd want marriage to ba something available to anyone irrespective of their sexual orientation. Having civil partnerships in lieu of actual marriage isn't in the slightest bit equal to me.

What is it about heterosexual marriage you want?

Everything there is to have bar the actual name is there for you to have. And even then a lot of gay couples still use the words "marriage", "married", "wedding" etc so I don't see the problem.

[Mystic Mock]

Try not having one until 17. :laugh:

At least you're genuine, though. He doesn't have a clue about what love is and he's just dived into the closest one for a snog. :laugh:

:joker: Thanks for the compliment, and I can't blame your Brother tbh, but even i've got to say it took me until I was 14 to want to have a relationship with a girl.:joker:

[Niall]

What is it about heterosexual marriage you want?

Everything there is to have bar the actual name is there for you to have. And even then a lot of gay couples still use the words "marriage", "married", "wedding" etc so I don't see the problem.

For me its the pure fact that as much as gays can say that they're married, in the eyes of the law, its not actual marriage. Its something different. Its just not completely equal imo. I just want that final legal alteration that will would define marriage as a union of two people in love, rather than a man and a woman.

Idk I hope that makes sense. :joker:

[Mystic Mock]

I understand what you mean Niall, and I agree with you that it should be done and I think it will someday, like how most countries are multicultural now when like 30 years ago, black people in this country was treated like **** so it all changes.

[Doogle]

Love is love just let people marry and do what the **** they want to do

[Livia]

I don't understand why civil partnerships, which are already legal and give gay people the same rights as a married couple, can't just be called a marriage. It's exactly the same as being married in a register office. If a couple love each other and want to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

However... I don't agree with forcing the church to marry gay couples which seems to be uppermost in people's demands. If you're going to force the Christian church to marry gay couples against their belief, you're going to have to force the Catholics, the Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims and every other organised religion to do the same. It seems that people accept that, for instance, the Muslim religion would not allow it, but see no problem with forcing the Christian church to do it. If a gay couple are religious, want to marry in a register office and have a church blessing, then would that not be enough? Many divorced heterosexual couples do this.

[Marsh.]

For me its the pure fact that as much as gays can say that they're married, in the eyes of the law, its not actual marriage. Its something different. Its just not completely equal imo. I just want that final legal alteration that will would define marriage as a union of two people in love, rather than a man and a woman.

Idk I hope that makes sense. :joker:

Given it's roots in history, and of course religious origins that won't change overnight but I do see where you're coming from.

I just think, at least the law accepts gay couples now and recognises them similarly if you know what I mean. A lot of countries, especially America, are having huge troubles just accepting gay people let alone giving them civil partnerships or marriage.

Obviously removing any difference whatsoever and having a one for all is the ultimate ideal. But, I just think, given how much attitudes towards it have changed over the years that gay people should revel in the fact that it's moving in the right direction. And civil partnership, by all accounts, is a massive step.

[Kizzy]

BUT ... BLACK PEOPLE!

Homosexuals don't have to engage in homosexual acts though. Black people sort of do have to engage with the act of being black.

I'm not saying they should abstain ... I enjoy a bit of cock sucking myself ... but **** a duck. The race comparisons have well and truly jumped the shark. Can we make them a bannable offense?

What is this...Reading through a good debate and then...Why are you swearing?

[Marsh.]

Where has my post gone?

[Tom4784]

I deleted some posts so that people can focus on the topic at hand.

[Mystic Mock]

Lostalex has been banned so any posts we've quoted of his will be deleted most likely, even if you personally haven't done anything wrong, but I think it's to not start back up the arguments so they make sure just incase by deleting any quotes of his posts.

[Mystic Mock]

Omg I sounded like a Mod then lol, or the closest to it i've ever came.

[Vanessa]

I deleted some posts so that people can focus on the topic at hand.


Oh that's ok! I was wondering where my post went! It just vanished! :hugesmile:

[HoneyPot]

I think it's a shame that society conditions us to put people into groups to be honest.

Gay person

Straight person

With children

Childless

Asian

Black

White

Native American

Fat

Thin

Catholic

Muslim

Jewish

Rich

Poor

I could go on, but there are too many groupings :sad:

Does it really matter? We're all human beings - and no matter what walk of life, culture, religion, gender, social standing etc we're from, do we not all deserve the same rights? :blush:

[HoneyPot]

Omg I sounded like a Mod then lol, or the closest to it i've ever came.

Lmaooooo!!!! :hugesmile:

[Mystic Mock]

I think it's a shame that society conditions us to put people into groups to be honest.

Gay person

Straight person

With children

Childless

Asian

Black

White

Native American

Fat

Thin

Catholic

Muslim

Jewish

Rich

Poor

I could go on, but there are too many groupings :sad:

Does it really matter? We're all human beings - and no matter what walk of life, culture, religion, gender, social standing etc we're from, do we not all deserve the same rights? :blush:

Tbf it doesn't matter to most people, it's just names given out to describe a group of people, it also helps The Police out on investigations aswell when they ask for a description of what the person looks like.

[Kizzy]

Tbf it doesn't matter to most people, it's just names given out to describe a group of people, it also helps The Police out on investigations aswell when they ask for a description of what the person looks like.

What doesen't matter to most people?
It matters to the the people within those groups....
Are you mocking mockinator....Or are you serious?

[Shaun]

However... I don't agree with forcing the church to marry gay couples which seems to be uppermost in people's demands. If you're going to force the Christian church to marry gay couples against their belief, you're going to have to force the Catholics, the Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims and every other organised religion to do the same. It seems that people accept that, for instance, the Muslim religion would not allow it, but see no problem with forcing the Christian church to do it. If a gay couple are religious, want to marry in a register office and have a church blessing, then would that not be enough? Many divorced heterosexual couples do this.

A good point, but it has to start somewhere. I'll get them bloody muslims http://www.emotty.com/images/emoticons/773.png

Probably a poor choice of emoticon, really...

[iRyan]

BUT ... BLACK PEOPLE!

Homosexuals don't have to engage in homosexual acts though. Black people sort of do have to engage with the act of being black.

I'm not saying they should abstain ... I enjoy a bit of cock sucking myself ... but **** a duck. The race comparisons have well and truly jumped the shark. Can we make them a bannable offense?

How can you expect them not to? It'd be the same as telling a straight person they shouldn't engage in any sexual acts and they shouldn't be allowed to love someone else. (By the way, not speaking to you directly, but in general).

I don't understand people that say they accept gay people but not their "acts".

[King Gizzard]

I don't understand why civil partnerships, which are already legal and give gay people the same rights as a married couple, can't just be called a marriage. It's exactly the same as being married in a register office. If a couple love each other and want to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

However... I don't agree with forcing the church to marry gay couples which seems to be uppermost in people's demands. If you're going to force the Christian church to marry gay couples against their belief, you're going to have to force the Catholics, the Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims and every other organised religion to do the same. It seems that people accept that, for instance, the Muslim religion would not allow it, but see no problem with forcing the Christian church to do it. If a gay couple are religious, want to marry in a register office and have a church blessing, then would that not be enough? Many divorced heterosexual couples do this.

Exactly my view point, every word of it

Christianity seems to be a bit of an easy target at times.

and having a wedding at a church who oppose it in the first place - why would you want that? You would constantly be thinking of it..

[Liberty4eva]

I voted no as a protest against frivolous issues like gay marriage. I long for a world where this is the most important issue but there are so many more important things. I could think of 20 issues in the world that are more important than this off the top of my head.

If you still have the freedom to have a relationship with the person you love, how is your happiness being impaired by society? It's as if gay people think they have a right to be thought of as normal. You don't have the right to be thought of as normal. No one does. And by the way, you are not normal. If your type of relationship was normal, we'd die as a species.

I wish that we'd just outlaw marriage and go back to when marriage was just a product of religion and not of government.

[MTVN]

I don't think people really want to force the C of E to carry out gay marriage, Cameron specifically said no religious organisation would be. The only people who really seem to be making a fuss about that are the Church themselves because they think they own the legal definition to marriage and because they are considered to carry out marriages on behalf of the State, and fear this would threaten that. If we fully separated Church and State I don't think it'd be a problem

[Niall]

and having a wedding at a church who oppose it in the first place - why would you want that? You would constantly be thinking of it..

Well believe it or not, some gay people are actually Christian.

[Niamh.]

Well believe it or not, some gay people are actually Christian.

Why would you want to be part of a religion that think that being gay is a sin though? I'm not saying that to be nasty btw, I'm saying it because I don't agree with a whole lot of what they believe and I want nothing to do with Catholicism because of it, I don't want to change their views, I just don't want to be part of it. I mean, they don't let divorced people re marry in the church either.

[fruit_cake]

If gay people want to get married let them get married, it's a no brainer imo..plus if god doesn't like it, I'm sure he'll deal with it in the afterlife anyway.

[Mystic Mock]

What doesen't matter to most people?
It matters to the the people within those groups....
Are you mocking mockinator....Or are you serious?

Im just saying that giving out names to people is only to describe a person, like saying his black skined with brown hair as an example.

You have to describe what someone looks like otherwise how would you explain to someone if they wanted to meet someone what they looked like or what they are like as people?

[Livia]

Well believe it or not, some gay people are actually Christian.

If they really are Christian then they will accept the doctrine and understand that they cannot marry in church.

I've been to a wedding in the last couple of years where both of the (heterosexual) people being married were divorced and the church would not marry them. They had a register office wedding and were then blessed in the church. They didn't kick up a fuss and want the rules changed, because they are Christians and they accepted it.

[Niall]

Why would you want to be part of a religion that think that being gay is a sin though? I'm not saying that to be nasty btw, I'm saying it because I don't agree with a whole lot of what they believe and I want nothing to do with Catholicism because of it, I don't want to change their views, I just don't want to be part of it. I mean, they don't let divorced people re marry in the church either.

Okay this might be long and slightly convoluted, but I'm going to try my best to explain myself.

Firstly, the Christian God is the God that I believe in. Its a belief thats deeply entrenched in me. I don't consider myself Catholic really even though I was raised as one because of their attitude to not only homosexuality, but a whole host of other issues (which I won't get into because if I did I'll be here all week :laugh:). But I do consider myself a Christian. I don't think at an omni-benevolent entity would create a group of people for the express purpose of their discrimination. Its just not logical.

I mean if you take the passage of the Bible which labels homosexuality a sin, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt as that was written over 2000 years ago. Its simply not relavent to todays society. Back then maybe, what with the high amounts of disease killing people (reproduction was a necessity, and homosexuality infringed upon that I guess). But now thats no longer the case. The same part of the Bible from where that passage is lifted, also contains a verse which says that wearing wool and cotton blended clothing is also an abomination. It also says its okay to sell your daughter into slavery, stone her if she's adulterous (I think). The list goes on. I just think its absurd to actively defend the passage pertaining to homosexuality, when the other things I mentioned are also written in the same part of the book.

So I do consider my self a Christian, but with a slightly reformed (I think thats the right word?) view on the Bible and the religion in general. I don't take the Bible literally, so I don't think that my interpretation of Christianity would see homosexuality is immoral or sinful. There are several newer denominations of the religion that believe that too. It makes sense not to take the Bible literally.

[Livia]

Okay this might be long and slightly convoluted, but I'm going to try my best to explain myself..... etc. etc.



Niall, can I cut in and say something? The parts of the Bible that Christians follow is the New Testament, which is about two thousand years old. Jesus never says outright anywhere in that Testament that he is against homosexuality. Jesus was a Jew, as you know, and what he did say is that he endorses the Law of Moses - from the Old Testament which is more than 5000 years old. The parts you mention from Leviticus - I agree with you totally that they are archaic and ridiculous. I hope that there does come a time when all religions realise that if you love someone and want to marry them, it can never be wrong. Unfortunately, it's taken five thousand years to get to this point, and unfortunately I feel there's a long road still to tread.

I am not a Christian, but I do know that what Jesus did say in the New Testament, many times, is 'love each other'. Maybe if the church concentrated on that rather than a 5000 year old piece of text, everyone would be happier.

[Niall]

Niall, can I cut in and say something? The parts of the Bible that Christians follow is the New Testament, which is about two thousand years old. Jesus never says outright anywhere in that Testament that he is against homosexuality. Jesus was a Jew, as you know, and what he did say is that he endorses the Law of Moses - from the Old Testament which is more than 5000 years old. The parts you mention from Leviticus - I agree with you totally that they are archaic and ridiculous. I hope that there does come a time when all religions realise that if you love someone and want to marry them, it can never be wrong. Unfortunately, it's taken five thousand years to get to this point, and unfortunately I feel there's a long road still to tread.

I am not a Christian, but I do know that what Jesus did say in the New Testament, many times, is 'love each other'. Maybe if the church concentrated on that rather than a 5000 year old piece of text, everyone would be happier.


Yeah thats what I hope for. It would be wonderful if the various Christian Churches saw the light and changed their tune. I just wish it would happen soon. :(

I mean its painful for me to see how the Church's views on homoseuxality have caused so many to become intolerant. They could help change things so much. Its sad.

[Livia]

Yeah thats what I hope for. It would be wonderful if the various Christian Churches saw the light and changed their tune. I just wish it would happen soon. :(

I mean its painful for me to see how the Church's views on homoseuxality have caused so many to become intolerant. They could help change things so much. Its sad.

On a positive note, things are changing and every generation becomes a little more tolerant, even within the church. Only a few decades ago it was against the law to commit a homosexual act, as you know, and gay people had to live their lives pretty much in secret. Now, gay people are accepted throughout society to the point where there are openly gay MPs sitting in the House of Commons, something that would have been unthinkable just a couple of generations ago. Sadly there are still plenty of bigots about but it is now the bigots themselves who are the minority. I'm sure that in years to come people will be accepted for who they are. Who knows, perhaps the Christian church will lead the way for other religions to become more tolerant? After all, fifty years ago, the thought of women being priests was unthinkable. Now they hold some pretty high offices in Christianity.

[Niall]

On a positive note, things are changing and every generation becomes a little more tolerant, even within the church. Only a few decades ago it was against the law to commit a homosexual act, as you know, and gay people had to live their lives pretty much in secret. Now, gay people are accepted throughout society to the point where there are openly gay MPs sitting in the House of Commons, something that would have been unthinkable just a couple of generations ago. Sadly there are still plenty of bigots about but it is now the bigots themselves who are the minority. I'm sure that in years to come people will be accepted for who they are. Who knows, perhaps the Christian church will lead the way for other religions to become more tolerant? After all, fifty years ago, the thought of women being priests was unthinkable. Now they hold some pretty high offices in Christianity.

I guess so. I forget how much has changed in the past few decades sometimes. If Christianity did lead the way for religious tolerance to homosexuality then that would be phenomenal.

[Redway]

I guess so. I forget how much has changed in the past few decades sometimes. If Christianity did lead the way for religious tolerance to homosexuality then that would be phenomenal.
It would indeed be nice but that's sadly never going to happen. Christianity has been running for ages and believe that homosexuality is an abomination so they're obviously stuck in their ways.

[Jords]

Yes

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

BUT ... BLACK PEOPLE!

Homosexuals don't have to engage in homosexual acts though. Black people sort of do have to engage with the act of being black.

I'm not saying they should abstain ... I enjoy a bit of cock sucking myself ... but **** a duck. The race comparisons have well and truly jumped the shark. Can we make them a bannable offense?

omfg :joker::joker::joker:

[billy123]

Well **** me backwards this thread is an absolute trainwreck from start to finish from both sides of the fence.

---rest of post deleted to protect the guilty---
Are people really so simple to view it as an AvB issue?

My one and only post on the thread its not worth getting involved in.

[iRyan]

I voted no as a protest against frivolous issues like gay marriage. I long for a world where this is the most important issue but there are so many more important things. I could think of 20 issues in the world that are more important than this off the top of my head.

It's THE civil rights issue of this era though, as the issue of black equality was in the 60s/70s. Obviously there are other more important things, but in terms of social issues - it is pretty big.

If you still have the freedom to have a relationship with the person you love, how is your happiness being impaired by society? It's as if gay people think they have a right to be thought of as normal. You don't have the right to be thought of as normal. No one does. And by the way, you are not normal. If your type of relationship was normal, we'd die as a species.

This comment is so ignorant I don't even know where to begin. Homosexuality IS a normal thing, it exists not only in humans, but in virtually every living species on the planet. It's something that stops populations from being over-populated. Think of how much bigger the population would be if there WASN'T gay people, and everybody was reproducing. Our planet isn't getting any bigger. It can only sustain a certain amont of people, and gay people who cannot reproduce help regulate that.

[Niamh.]

Okay this might be long and slightly convoluted, but I'm going to try my best to explain myself.

Firstly, the Christian God is the God that I believe in. Its a belief thats deeply entrenched in me. I don't consider myself Catholic really even though I was raised as one because of their attitude to not only homosexuality, but a whole host of other issues (which I won't get into because if I did I'll be here all week :laugh:). But I do consider myself a Christian. I don't think at an omni-benevolent entity would create a group of people for the express purpose of their discrimination. Its just not logical.

I mean if you take the passage of the Bible which labels homosexuality a sin, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt as that was written over 2000 years ago. Its simply not relavent to todays society. Back then maybe, what with the high amounts of disease killing people (reproduction was a necessity, and homosexuality infringed upon that I guess). But now thats no longer the case. The same part of the Bible from where that passage is lifted, also contains a verse which says that wearing wool and cotton blended clothing is also an abomination. It also says its okay to sell your daughter into slavery, stone her if she's adulterous (I think). The list goes on. I just think its absurd to actively defend the passage pertaining to homosexuality, when the other things I mentioned are also written in the same part of the book.

So I do consider my self a Christian, but with a slightly reformed (I think thats the right word?) view on the Bible and the religion in general. I don't take the Bible literally, so I don't thing that my interpretation of Christianity would see homosexuality is immoral or sinful. There are several newer denominations of the religion that believe that too. It makes sense not to take the Bible literally.

Yeah, see that's the problem I have with organised religions in general, they're out dated and also man made. Religions have had a huge amount of power over people and I think they abused that power to make people do what they want and keep them in line. Personally I don't believe in a God but if there is one I don't see why you need a religion to believe in him properly. Anyway, I guess I'm going a bit off topic with this!

[Liberty4eva]

This comment is so ignorant I don't even know where to begin. Homosexuality IS a normal thing, it exists not only in humans, but in virtually every living species on the planet. It's something that stops populations from being over-populated. Think of how much bigger the population would be if there WASN'T gay people, and everybody was reproducing. Our planet isn't getting any bigger. It can only sustain a certain amont of people, and gay people who cannot reproduce help regulate that.

Okay, if you approach this as something that helps populations then Africa needs a lot more gays (lots of people there) and Europe needs less gays because their populations are not reproducing. Like for every 2 people in Europe they produce something like 1.4 kids (something like that) and this is killing the population.

[Ninastar]

I'm all for it but I think there are far more important things in the world, especially as marriage rates are declining rapidly and divorce rates are higher than ever.

[Redway]

I'm not a religious person at all but I do know a lot about different religions and if any of you people wish to base your arguments against gay marriage on the Bible then read this:


Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but *****mongers and adulterers God will judge.

The rest of my argument has been said by Niall.

[joeysteele]

Okay this might be long and slightly convoluted, but I'm going to try my best to explain myself.

Firstly, the Christian God is the God that I believe in. Its a belief thats deeply entrenched in me. I don't consider myself Catholic really even though I was raised as one because of their attitude to not only homosexuality, but a whole host of other issues (which I won't get into because if I did I'll be here all week :laugh:). But I do consider myself a Christian. I don't think at an omni-benevolent entity would create a group of people for the express purpose of their discrimination. Its just not logical.

I mean if you take the passage of the Bible which labels homosexuality a sin, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt as that was written over 2000 years ago. Its simply not relavent to todays society. Back then maybe, what with the high amounts of disease killing people (reproduction was a necessity, and homosexuality infringed upon that I guess). But now thats no longer the case. The same part of the Bible from where that passage is lifted, also contains a verse which says that wearing wool and cotton blended clothing is also an abomination. It also says its okay to sell your daughter into slavery, stone her if she's adulterous (I think). The list goes on. I just think its absurd to actively defend the passage pertaining to homosexuality, when the other things I mentioned are also written in the same part of the book.

So I do consider my self a Christian, but with a slightly reformed (I think thats the right word?) view on the Bible and the religion in general. I don't take the Bible literally, so I don't thing that my interpretation of Christianity would see homosexuality is immoral or sinful. There are several newer denominations of the religion that believe that too. It makes sense not to take the Bible literally.

Niall,I have to say what brilliant post, it is one of the most thought provoking posts I have read in the 2+years I have been on here.

One of my thoughts as to organised religion is that particularly Christianity,so called because Christians claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Taking the New Testament which is presented as devoted to his life and teachings, also removing from the New Testament the rather volatile opinions of Paul,who one day tells us to love one another and another is ranting against all sorts of things, I am sure his writings depended on what mood he got up in a morning.What we then find is one simple fact.

In all of the Gospels which are supposedly attributed solely to the life, words and teachings of Jesus, he himself in all those Gospels speaks about many things both new and from the Old Testament too but nowhere,anywhere, does he mention or condemn homosexuality.Not a single word.
It always amazes me that something he himself seems to have not deemed to give any instruction on or condemn whatsoever should be a basis for so much controversy in Christianity by the hierarchy of Christianity too.

Your post Niall is excellent, really well laid out and said.

[Redway]

Niall,I have to say what brilliant post, it is one of the most thought provoking posts I have read in the 2+years I have been on here.

One of my thoughts as to organised religion is that pariculary Christianity,so called because Christians claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Taking the New Testament which is presented as devoted to his life and teachings, also removing from the New Testament the rather volatile opinions of Paul,who one day tells us to love one another and another is ranting against all sorts of things, I am sure his writings depended on what mood he got up in a morning.What we then find is one simple fact.

In all of the Gospels which are supposedly attributed solely to the life, words and teachings of Jesus, he himself in all those Gospels speaks about many things both new and from the Old Testament too but nowhere,anywhere, does he mention or condemn homosexuality.Not a single word.
It always amazes me that something he himself seems to have not deemed to give any instruction on or condemn whatsoever should be a basis for so much controversy in Christianity by the hierarchy of Christianity too.

Your post Niall is excellent, really well laid out and said.

Exactly. You see, this is why I don't do religion, particularly not Christianity. A load of cack with rules and regulations that basically stops me from having a life.

I just find it funny that the Church is supposed to be a welcoming place, yet it said that homosexuality is a criminal offense and the person found in a relationship should be stoned to death, which totally contradicts one of its ten commandments, 'do not murder'.

[Niall]

Yeah, see that's the problem I have with organised religions in general, they're out dated and also man made. Religions have had a huge amount of power over people and I think they abused that power to make people do what they want and keep them in line. Personally I don't believe in a God but if there is one I don't see why you need a religion to believe in him properly. Anyway, I guess I'm going a bit off topic with this!

Oh I certainly agree with that. Organised religion has brought copious amounts of what it professes to stop: pain, corruption, greed etc. I think that religion just becomes evil and (ironically) sinful when its an institutionalised thing.

I also hate the self promoting nature of it. The people that irk me the most arre the ones that will try and mention their religion in every conversation. I just can't stand it.

I don't know I just think it should be a private and personal thing kinda.

Niall,I have to say what brilliant post, it is one of the most thought provoking posts I have read in the 2+years I have been on here.

One of my thoughts as to organised religion is that particularly Christianity,so called because Christians claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Taking the New Testament which is presented as devoted to his life and teachings, also removing from the New Testament the rather volatile opinions of Paul,who one day tells us to love one another and another is ranting against all sorts of things, I am sure his writings depended on what mood he got up in a morning.What we then find is one simple fact.

In all of the Gospels which are supposedly attributed solely to the life, words and teachings of Jesus, he himself in all those Gospels speaks about many things both new and from the Old Testament too but nowhere,anywhere, does he mention or condemn homosexuality.Not a single word.
It always amazes me that something he himself seems to have not deemed to give any instruction on or condemn whatsoever should be a basis for so much controversy in Christianity by the hierarchy of Christianity too.

Your post Niall is excellent, really well laid out and said.

Thanks Joey. Thats so sweet of you to say. :hug:

But yeah, I totally agree with you. The latter half of your post in particular. I find it incredible that the Christian churches try and hold up that archaic rule, especially when you consider that all other rules from that region of the Bible were discarded for being backward and outdated long, long ago. Its insane.

Like Livia said though, things have changed an awful lot in the past century with regards to homosexuality (and sexuality in general), and the number of new denominations of the faith seing it as a natural and moral thing is encouraging. Change doesn't happen overnight I guess (no matter how much I'd like it to :laugh:).

[Shaun]

Okay, if you approach this as something that helps populations then Africa needs a lot more gays (lots of people there) and Europe needs less gays because their populations are not reproducing. Like for every 2 people in Europe they produce something like 1.4 kids (something like that) and this is killing the population.

I can't see how this is relevant. What's your solution? Make them straight? You appear to be playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. If there're so many more important issues (which I agree with, obviously) then that's cool, but they're not exactly relevant to this discussion. Especially when the solution to this problem is so simple ¬_¬

[Mystic Mock]

Exactly. You see, this is why I don't do religion, particularly not Christianity. A load of cack with rules and regulations that basically stops me from having a life.

I just find it funny that the Church is supposed to be a welcoming place, yet it said that homosexuality is a criminal offense and the person found in a relationship should be stoned to death, which totally contradicts one of its ten commandments, 'do not murder'.

That's why im not religious to the point of what you've just mentioned here, I just believe in a God and that's it, I do think religion has gone way to out of control as the leaders are very prejudicial towards anyone that's different to them, even though God says to love all living things (although I disagree with that as there's some right nutjobs out there) but that is another reason why I could never fanatically follow Christianity and any religion tbh.

Im sorry if the post is to long but I had alot to get off my chest.:hugesmile:

[Redway]

I voted no as a protest against frivolous issues like gay marriage. I long for a world where this is the most important issue but there are so many more important things. I could think of 20 issues in the world that are more important than this off the top of my head.

If you still have the freedom to have a relationship with the person you love, how is your happiness being impaired by society? It's as if gay people think they have a right to be thought of as normal. You don't have the right to be thought of as normal. No one does. And by the way, you are not normal. If your type of relationship was normal, we'd die as a species.

I wish that we'd just outlaw marriage and go back to when marriage was just a product of religion and not of government.

I wondered how long it would be before you people turned up.

Whilst what you're saying is correct, what can you do about it? Make them straight at the wave of a magic hand? I thought not.

[Mystic Mock]

I wondered how long it would be before you people turned up.

Whilst what you're saying is correct, what can you do about it? Make them straight at the wave of a magic hand? I thought not.

Actually the Americans have those straight camps where they try and turn gay people straight.

It's quite ridiculous but it's true as I remember a Family Guy episode doing a social commentary on it.

[Redway]

It is usually never successful, though. Besides, if someone likes being gay then I fail to see why they should change their ways because of a vocal minority of people.

The people who keep banging on about homosexuality being evil and all that nonsense need to realise they are in the minority - not the majority.

Just going by Liberty4eva's argument, following logic, (s)he wants all gays to turn straight at the click of a finger so that they can engage in sexual acts with the result being reproduction should they choose to do so.

Whichever way you look at it, gays aren't going to reproduce with or without sex, so if some gays don't want a sexual relationship (which they don't have to have), if they were made straight they wouldn't reproduce anyway because they wouldn't want to, not because they are able to.

[Mystic Mock]

I agree Redway but it still doesn't stop them from trying this sick and crazy idea.

[Marsh.]

It's something that stops populations from being over-populated.

:laugh2:

I'm all for it but I think there are far more important things in the world, especially as marriage rates are declining rapidly and divorce rates are higher than ever.

Agree 100%.

[iRyan]

Okay, if you approach this as something that helps populations then Africa needs a lot more gays (lots of people there) and Europe needs less gays because their populations are not reproducing. Like for every 2 people in Europe they produce something like 1.4 kids (something like that) and this is killing the population.

There are probably thousands to millions of gays in Africa, but it's illegal in basically every country there. And, um, Europe is definitely not underpopulated. Maybe in some areas, but that's because of climate. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Homosexuality does help limit overpopulation on some levels, that's a fact. Because it's a significant portion of the population not reproducing, which IS a good thing.

[iRyan]

:laugh2:

What is so funny about it?

[Redway]

Anyway, yeah, there are far more important things in the world than the wording of a title - it's not that bleeding special.