ozleicester Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 This IS an important debate/discussion, as it goes to the basic rights that should be accorded to all people, and that is that they/we should all be treated equally. As it stands, preventing people from marrying is unfair and wrong. Congratulations to the british PM and in fact Britain...for being among the leaders in this.
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Anyone hear their parents making sweet love when they were a kid? I flipping did, and it's an awkward experience I can tell you. Put me off cowboy films for years. I can't imagine the horror if it was Trevor and Mike I'd had to listen to. Soundproofing could be the solution, I'm not sure.
The Doctor Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Im against the idea of this being legal, at the end of the day if the world was gay then there wouldn't be a world? so why encourage it.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 You see that is homophobia, it is not disgusting, no more so than a man and woman kissing or 2 women kissing. Really？ I find it diagusting. It physically makes me feel sick. Sure you're now gonna call me a right wing knuckle dragger, its every persons first point of attack. I dont dislike gay people but then apart from tv programs ive never had to watch a close up of them snogging. to me its just unnatural
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 This IS an important debate/discussion, as it goes to the basic rights that should be accorded to all people, and that is that they/we should all be treated equally. As it stands, preventing people from marrying is unfair and wrong. Congratulations to the british PM and in fact Britain...for being among the leaders in this. Very noble now answer my question on the matter if you can.
Ford Super Sunday Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Really？ I find it diagusting. It physically makes me feel sick. Sure you're now gonna call me a right wing knuckle dragger, its every persons first point of attack. I dont dislike gay people but then apart from tv programs ive never had to watch a close up of them snogging. to me its just unnatural I bet you beat your whack to lesbian porn though. I'm sure that's absolutely fine to you. Honestly you really are what you say people will call you. Right wing, racist, homophobic, backward. An absolute neanderthal of the highest proportions. How about when you come into the 21st century, stop dragging those knuckles of yours then people may start to listen to your opinions. Until the you are an irrelevance. Physically sick? Makes me think someone is harbouring secret feelings. He doth protesteth too much. How about if you saw two male asian immigrants living on benefits who can't speak English? Bet if you saw them kissing each other you'd probably throw yourself off a cliff while chucking your intestines up.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I bet you beat your whack to lesbian porn though. I'm sure that's absolutely fine to you. Honestly you really are what you say people will call you. Right wing, racist, homophobic, backward. An absolute neanderthal of the highest proportions. How about when you come into the 21st century, stop dragging those knuckles of yours then people may start to listen to your opinions. Until the you are an irrelevance. Physically sick? Makes me think someone is harbouring secret feelings. He doth protesteth too much. How about if you saw two male asian immigrants living on benefits who can't speak English? Bet if you saw them kissing each other you'd probably throw yourself off a cliff while chucking your intestines up. Haha. So long as you feel noble and superior in your little thoughts then that's great. And if being 'right wing' is supposed to be a bad thing regardless of reasons why, then more fool you! I really couldn't give a stuff about being listened to on a forum which has the reputation of being populated by divs like you!
Monk Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Those daily mail comments make depressing reading. Always find it hilarious when they interview people on the TV and they say 'I'm not bigoted, but....' and then proceed to state their extremely bigoted views.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Those daily mail comments make depressing reading. Always find it hilarious when they interview people on the TV and they say 'I'm not bigoted, but....' and then proceed to state their extremely bigoted views. I found no argument with any of the mail readers comments as you obviously did. but then again people like you have been programmed to spout the left wing liberal mantra without ever coming up with a reasoned arguement. I find your patronising hilarious. So anyone with a view that does not meet your approval is a bigot and a racist the same old catch all cards that your sort resort to every time. Give it a rest and have some thoughts of your own.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I bet you beat your whack to lesbian porn though. I'm sure that's absolutely fine to you. Honestly you really are what you say people will call you. Right wing, racist, homophobic, backward. An absolute neanderthal of the highest proportions. How about when you come into the 21st century, stop dragging those knuckles of yours then people may start to listen to your opinions. Until the you are an irrelevance. Physically sick? Makes me think someone is harbouring secret feelings. He doth protesteth too much. How about if you saw two male asian immigrants living on benefits who can't speak English? Bet if you saw them kissing each other you'd probably throw yourself off a cliff while chucking your intestines up. What is your problem ? A lot of people find the thought of homosexual sex acts sickening and unatural probably more than you think, they just do not say anything about their feelings on the matter because brainwashed chumps like you will resort to the usual crap saying " it takes one to know one " or I bet you are a secret gay yourself. You come out with the same old words spouted by left wing Ben Elton wanna bees, anyone who disagrees with you become a knuckle dragging , right wing racist homophobe , just how many tired old cliche's can you trot out before you come up with something yourself ?
Guest BlueBrett Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 This IS an important debate/discussion, as it goes to the basic rights that should be accorded to all people, and that is that they/we should all be treated equally. As it stands, preventing people from marrying is unfair and wrong. Congratulations to the british PM and in fact Britain...for being among the leaders in this. But they already had equal legal rights? I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what was actually up for debate here.
whoareyaaa Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I think the fact they are allowed to adopt kids is the bigger issue.
Rincewind Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 They seem to be one sided comments from Mail readers. No surprise there. But I agree that there are more important things like job losses, businesses closing down the poor getting poorer etc. As usual religious leaders are sticking their hypercritical noses into peoples rights and assume that they are in agreement. I could not care whether a couple gay or straight are married in a church or register office. Whether they do or not is not the issue but their right to do so. It is the 21st century after all.
indierich06 Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 That's because there are lots of homosexual priests. I was referring to all religions bibles and commandments. They make no bones about what they think of homosexuality , to them it is a sin punishable by God. Now why on earth would any self respecting homosexual want to be part of that ridiculous backward medievil set up? again I ask what is the point ? They have had to put up with mindless prejudice all their lives so isn't this like sticking your head in the lions mouth ? There are many homosexual people who are also religious. I don't why they would want to be, when you consider the stance of almost all mainstream faiths on homsexuality, but there are. Also, I'm sure there are many of them who aren't religious who would like a church wedding - the same as any normal couple are allowed, whether they're religious or not. It's about equality - if a straight couple can get married in one building and a gay couple can't, that's inequality yet again.
Zingari Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Gays have got away with it for far too long . They should get married and fookin suffer like the rest of us .
indierich06 Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Really？ I find it diagusting. It physically makes me feel sick. Sure you're now gonna call me a right wing knuckle dragger, its every persons first point of attack. I dont dislike gay people but then apart from tv programs ive never had to watch a close up of them snogging. to me its just unnatural I don't like watching close-ups of any people snogging, I think it's gross. It pisses me off no end when couples sit around in public sticking their tongues down eachothers throats, regardless of what gender they are. There's a time and a place. Having said that, I have no problem with gay people whatsoever, they should have the exact same rights as any other couple. If they want to get married, that's their business - and good luck to them. What goes on between two consenting adults is no-one's business apart from theirs and they certainly shouldn't have their human rights denied to them on some the basis of archaic notion on what is 'normal' and 'abnormal'. About thirty or forty years ago we'd have been having the same debate about mixed race marriages, now no-one would bat an eyelid. Hopefully in about twenty or thirty years we'll be able to say the same about gay marriage.
Monk Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I found no argument with any of the mail readers comments as you obviously did. but then again people like you have been programmed to spout the left wing liberal mantra without ever coming up with a reasoned arguement. I find your patronising hilarious. So anyone with a view that does not meet your approval is a bigot and a racist the same old catch all cards that your sort resort to every time. Give it a rest and have some thoughts of your own. First off, I didn't mention anything to do with racism, that is off topic. Re the mail readers - many are misinformed or factually wrong. Examples: the guys who say the majority are against it - which is false http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q6rxg0empy/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-01-030213.pdf The guy who says that politicians don't have the right to redefine marriage (they do) Also - people saying that we shouldn't be talking about gay marriage while the economy is in turmoil (as if that means human rights are less important when the economy's not great). Nothing wrong with people having an opinion, but you can't deny that the comments on the mail article are pretty deluded at best. Comments from Tory MPs for example here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/06/gay-marriage-debate-in-quotes are not necessarily bigoted, but the negative ones for me miss the point. I'm not saying everyone who is anti gay marriage is bigoted - there are however a great number of people who won't accept that their views are socially out dated in today's world. Not sure what makes you think I don't have opinions of my own, and that you think I've been programmed to spout a left wing mantra (whatever that is)? From one post you sure seem to think to know a lot about me. The vote was put forward by a right wing party. it's not a left wing mantra - it's a widely socially accepted viewpoint rejected by a loud, screaming minority. I have several gay friends, and to be honest just want them to be able to live their lives as they see fit.
indierich06 Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I think the fact they are allowed to adopt kids is the bigger issue. Why is it? If they pass all the tests and are deemed to be suitable parents, what's the problem. More archaic views about it not being 'normal'?
Rincewind Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 There are many non-religious straight couples that marry in a church. There are thousands of children baptised because of 'tradition' where many of those attending the ceremony are not church goers. It is the rules that govern the church that are backward not the vicars, priests etc. They are afraid to decide for themse;lves and make a decision rather than just go along with what they are told. I don't see how two people being in love who you do not know and want to confirm it in a ceremony can be upsetting or sickening.
The Doctor Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I found no argument with any of the mail readers comments as you obviously did. but then again people like you have been programmed to spout the left wing liberal mantra without ever coming up with a reasoned arguement. I find your patronising hilarious. So anyone with a view that does not meet your approval is a bigot and a racist the same old catch all cards that your sort resort to every time. Give it a rest and have some thoughts of your own. You really are a tool aren't you? There's no arguments in the heil readers comments, plenty of arguments against them though, so let's take it from the top: Majority don't want it - 60% of voters do actually. "not in the manifesto" - who gives a shit? You think parties should only do what was in their manifesto over a ****ing 5 year spell in government? Either manifestos would be the length of the encyclopaedia Britannica, or very little would get done. Not to mention that leaves no scope to actually deal with problems that arise between manifesto submission and the end of parliament. "not a priority" - and? Yes, some things are more important than others, but is anyone stupid enough to think the government can only work on one think at a time? "government wants to force churches to marry them" - no it doesn't. All this says is if you want to get married, you can. Doesn't do anything to churches - they can opt in to performing same sex marriages, but they aren't forced to do anything. "government doesn't have a right to change the definition of marriage" - great, lets go back to proper biblical marriages - between a rapist and his victim, one man and 700 women, male soldiers with prisoners of war, man + woman & woman's slaves, one man, a wife and a couple of concubines, a man and his brothers widow, male and female slaves... Wait, what? We've already changed that? Damn, looks like the government does have the right to change a definition (back to what it originally was I might add).
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 There are many homosexual people who are also religious. I don't why they would want to be, when you consider the stance of almost all mainstream faiths on homsexuality, but there are. Also, I'm sure there are many of them who aren't religious who would like a church wedding - the same as any normal couple are allowed, whether they're religious or not. It's about equality - if a straight couple can get married in one building and a gay couple can't, that's inequality yet again. But this is not about wether you can get married in one building and not another. This is about peoples faith and their right to practice their beliefs without the law interfering in those beliefs. As it stands at the moment the belief of most religions is that homosexuality is wrong and against gods will. Now I don't subscribe to that view but I do believe those people have the absolute right to define the rules for that particular faith. If this law is passed can you imagine two gay Muslim people being allowed to marry in a Mosque ? or a synagogue allowing gay jews to marry ? You know that is not going to happen and why should it just because a government has decreed that it is now the law and we don't give a damn about what your religion preaches you WILL allow marrages in your churches.
The Doctor Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 But this is not about wether you can get married in one building and not another. This is about peoples faith and their right to practice their beliefs without the law interfering in those beliefs. As it stands at the moment the belief of most religions is that homosexuality is wrong and against gods will. Now I don't subscribe to that view but I do believe those people have the absolute right to define the rules for that particular faith. If this law is passed can you imagine two gay Muslim people being allowed to marry in a Mosque ? or a synagogue allowing gay jews to marry ? You know that is not going to happen and why should it just because a government has decreed that it is now the law and we don't give a damn about what your religion preaches you WILL allow marrages in your churches. Except the government hasn't decreed that. They've legalised same-sex marriage, they've said nothing on the subject of religious buildings performing them. Religions can still refuse to do so if they want.
MooseBreath Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Why is it? If they pass all the tests and are deemed to be suitable parents, what's the problem. More archaic views about it not being 'normal'? You consider two people of the same sex having children 'normal', do you? What definition of normal are you using? It certainly isn't common, and neither is it even biologically possible. It is not normal and has never been normal. You're being typically left wing in that you think you're striving towards some higher goal than the rest of us when in fact you're missing the simple point that the child is the priority. All this fanciful crap about how we should all be tolerant is wonderful, really generates that warm fuzzy feeling, but the fact is that some people are not, and therefore the child will be placed at a disadvantage.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 You really are a tool aren't you? There's no arguments in the heil readers comments, plenty of arguments against them though, so let's take it from the top: Majority don't want it - 60% of voters do actually. "not in the manifesto" - who gives a shit? You think parties should only do what was in their manifesto over a ****ing 5 year spell in government? Either manifestos would be the length of the encyclopaedia Britannica, or very little would get done. Not to mention that leaves no scope to actually deal with problems that arise between manifesto submission and the end of parliament. "not a priority" - and? Yes, some things are more important than others, but is anyone stupid enough to think the government can only work on one think at a time? "government wants to force churches to marry them" - no it doesn't. All this says is if you want to get married, you can. Doesn't do anything to churches - they can opt in to performing same sex marriages, but they aren't forced to do anything. "government doesn't have a right to change the definition of marriage" - great, lets go back to proper biblical marriages - between a rapist and his victim, one man and 700 women, male soldiers with prisoners of war, man + woman & woman's slaves, one man, a wife and a couple of concubines, a man and his brothers widow, male and female slaves... Wait, what? We've already changed that? Damn, looks like the government does have the right to change a definition (back to what it originally was I might add). You begin your tirade with abuse and then expect me to take anything you said there after seriously. If as you said churches can opt out of marrying homosexuals what is the point of passing a law in the first place ? No government has the right to challenge peoples thoughts on faith or how they feel about homosexuality that is not what they are in power for that is up to peoples personal consience and not a matter of law.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.