Thank you for your kind words. You're great too. Ill-educated opinions are not worth adopting*, but you sometimes have to consider them if only to see how to refute them. * Unless of course you're a politician looking for votes. [/QUOTE]
Marriage.... Hmmm well many of us are divorced obviously it didn't work for us and perhaps marriage isn't what we thought it was, it seems to have gone out of fashion so why not let same sex couples use it instead
I like to keep things simple. Religious issues aside, and social issues aside... Throughout the animal kingdom, including gazillion years before homosapiens, amongst monkeys/baboons/fish/crocodiles/etc... reproduction is a pretty basic and well accepted result of 'marriage' or the coming together of two. The fact is: Penis + Vagina = perfect Penis + shitty arsehole = messy
of course its easy when someone doesnt agree to label them as something.. ..in my case labelled a bigot and racial abuser etc as you dont like my view or standpoint, because it does not conform to yours which also as it just so happens to be the current standpoint in law and with many faiths. and if alot of people werent in fear of speaking out loud and saying what they feel they are also labelled as this or that as a means of shutting them up. this is just like the gordon brown election trail when he offensively labelled the elderly woman as a bigot as she felt strongly about a particular issue that mr brown couldnt defend without retorting to language such as bigot under his breath which ulimately revealed him for what he was just as this reveals you for what you are.. to me marraige is a symbol of a man and a woman making a commitment that cannot be confused with any other sexual persuasion. a commitment that may bear children and create life or may not. but the options there since time began that is the case and I feel it should always be the case between a man and a woman. when I say im married I want it to mean what it has always meant, because thats my opinion and I am entitled to that. throughout this thread I have always maintained that gays have every right to be happy and do as they wish...with the one caveat that it can never be called a marriage or confused with a man or a womans pledged lifelong commitment to one another. now you knkw nothing about me. what my job is. who I may help or whatever else about my family. you know nothing of my ethnicity or religious beliefs or colour of my skin. you seem hell bent on including all in your argument by referring to replacing gay with muslim etc..you dont know if I am native english or a pakistani working on secondment for a large global company.. you dont know if I attend a church mosque or synagogue. you are full of presumptions and keen to include race yourself which incidentally has no place in this discussion. but I dont hide behind a smokescreen of a username and I have the strength of conviction to state my views. I do not expect to be branded anything because of that but in your case..I do not conform with your standpoint so you fallback on the easy option, just label as a bigot or racial abuser etc. and then laughably pick fault with spelling. that says to me you are out of argument and struggling to put your point. I find being labelled a bigot incredibly verbally offensive... just as you would find being labelled a faggot as incredibly offensive... ..and quite wrong because of your lifes choices and how you choose to live it. and you have chose the easy option by retorting to such labelling
You indeed are, and you're opinion is as valid as all others. So it is all down to definition of a word, great. Let's instead find out, what the new word should be for a relationship between to persons of same sex, and have exact same rights as when being referred to as "marriage". Take the word "lover". To many of you, it probably mean, you've got a shag friend, of opposite sex, and you might indeed be in deep love as well :c) Well, according to Oxfords dictionary, there is no views of sexuality in that word, as it describes: "a partner in a sexual or romantic relationship outside marriage." What is it so wrong in allowing a new definition of a word?
but is it just a word many discussions I have heard is that they want it to take place in a church a word is not enough and this is at odd with most religions
Oh, if you think about it, it could actually mean, that if you are catholic, you call marriage for one thing, if protestant another, muslim third, jew fourth... narh... its not dependant on religion, so you should be able to get married, no matter who you are, where ever you are, with whom ever you want to marry, as long as the love is there. So we better not start involving religion as well, then it will really get messed up, no matter what any one argues for
well as I said earlier I dont think religion matters. I cannot think of one where a marraige is anything other than man woman. it is quite unambiguous by definition until now lol unless you can enlighten.
Your self righteous attempts to return to the moral high ground would be more credible if you hadn't been the one to resort to threats of violence and abuse, that is what suggests your arguments have become exhausted. You also make assumptions with no basis in fact, for example you suggest I would find being labelled "faggot" incredibly offensive. It's an offensive term, in the same way that "Paki" is but as I'm neither gay nor Pakistani using either as a pejorative term against me would appear to be fairly ineffective. You may be suggesting that I would find it offensive to be thought to be gay, to be honest it makes no difference to me either way. People that need to know are fully aware of my sexuality, people that don't need to know can make their own minds up. All that being said.... You want (and I'm paraphrasing here for simplicity's sake) to be able to say "I'm married" and for that to mean the same as it has traditionally always meant. What I really don't understand is why two men or two women being married to each other will have any bearing on the status of your marriage, or for that matter mine? Surely marriage as an institution is far more open to undermining by the likes of one of my former colleagues, last seen separating from wife number 4 to carry on with another younger impressionable woman or the examples from sports men like John Terry or Ryan Giggs. You come out with incredibly offensive statements like "that gays have every right to be happy and do as they wish...with the one caveat that it can never be called a marriage or confused with a man or a womans pledged lifelong commitment to one another." and yet refuse to accept this could be seen as anything other than bigotry, it may be your opinion but there have been many offensive and bigoted opinions held by others in the past most of which are now seen as unacceptable. My position on this, just to be clear, is that my marriage and my relationship is my business, other people's don't have an impact on how I see my own and if there's a group of people that are being discriminated against on what ever basis and it's within our power to relieve that discrimination it is entirely right we should do that particularly when as in this case it makes no practical difference to anyone else.
I know a couple of gays, get on with em and they are ok, although what they do disgusts me. No, sorry, no amount of convincing or reasoned debate will change my mind. Place a hundred gay boys on an island and come back in 70yrs and see how many are left, then tell me it's a natural act of nature.
what are you actually arguing there? Homosexuality exists, there's no denying it. Are you saying because you object to the sexual acts of male homosexuals they don't deserve to be happy? How about Lesbians?
I know it's very childish of me but does anyone else have a little "fnarr fnarr" moment when they see the list of threads and "gay marriage thing" is followed by "tooling up for Dirtquake" ? No? Just me then.
because the churches dont want it I dont like the idea and its not law and its my rigjt to object but the minority piss and moan because they want whats not theres foe the taking. ooooh the bigot line again.....tiresome
