[Shasown]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain.

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

sex

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

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

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

No...

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

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

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

We make choices.

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

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

[_Seth]

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

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by MassiveTruck

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

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

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

As I said in the post that you said "made no sense", the only reason gay marriage is wanted or required is due to the money involved. It's odd to want gay marriage considering the state of gay culture with promiscuity, adultery and the general culture being built on wanting to have sex and sexual relations with another man.

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

It's not like they cannot have sex... they can... it's just emotionally they feel, believe (subjectively, culturally subjectively) that they prefer men... but is this with multiple partners, that it must be male? Can't they have sex with a women?

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

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

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

Let me explain.

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

sex

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

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

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

No...

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

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

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

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

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

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

We make choices.

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

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

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

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by Phlip

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

It's quite straight forward.

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

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

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

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by MassiveTruck

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

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

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

[_Seth]

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

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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

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

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

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by Phlip

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

Why?

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

[Tom]

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

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by MassiveTruck

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

What does this even mean? I hope you are not implying you write too eloquently for people to understand you. The classic defense of a pseudo intellect.

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

I answered your statements calmly and never said anything that could even be remotely construed or paraphrased as "who do you think you are?". I'm no stranger to gay-bashing on this site so I am sorry to tell you I am not easily offended. If truth be told, I am still trying to work out what it is exactly that you are trying to say.

[Grimnir]

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

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

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

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

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

but a better solution would be compromise of some kind

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

some churches would vote yes and some would vote no

this way there is a compromise

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

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

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

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

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

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

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

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

[abbey97]

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

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by abbey97

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

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

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

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

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