Today I'm angry about.....

[Bruce Rioja]

can you give a reasoned argument why marriage should not be for gay people?


Because marriage should be be a lifelong commitment of love between two people who love each other, (ok so far on the gayometer); but who can procreate to bring new life into the world. (Buying a kid doesn't count).

Can you point out to me where it states that couples getting married need to be able to be able to "procreate to bring new life into the world"?

Are you now saying that heterosexual couples in which one or both are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married as well then?

Could you also explain the difference?

I honestly didn't expect to have to add you to the imbecilic 4uckwittery list,

Hey, you learn something every day.

Is he above or below you

Surprisingly, somewhere by you.

Oh right, so I got look over my shoulder then or keep an eye in the mirrors, thanks

I'll pretend that that's in English if it humours you.

[Gravedigger]

In my long, virtually uneventful life I've seen similar concerns expressed. Black and white marriage, protestant and catholic marriage, Islam, probably Shinto and Gypsy objections to 'outsider' marriage and now same sex marriage, in fact one girl's mother stopped her seeing me cos I was a protestant and she was RC, so her loss, I think.. It's just a ceremony and brings some measure of legality and equality to two people. If they are over the moon about it, who am I to even comment about their own business? I'm not overly religious, my social skills aren't affronted and it really isn't my business. If I had any objection I really should have put my foot down decades ago. Once this disappears from the news it'll be normal service for everyone, except the bigots.

You know GD I think you post a lot of sense from time to time then you wreck it by calling folk bigots for holding the non pc view. I mean I don't refer to you as a complete total utter moron who secretly fancies one up the jacksie do I?

Ha ha. You smooth talking fecker. I've been called worse young, Hoboh and it's water off a duck's back. It wasn't my intention to label you a bigot, I was referring to those who keep quiet while harbouring something not quite nice. When I was in my teens it was a crime, at least we've moved on from those medieval times. I always say if I was drowning would I be worried if a gay person pulled me out. I'm okay with my sexuality. Wouldn't kiss you but a hug is on the cards.

[Hoboh]

In my long, virtually uneventful life I've seen similar concerns expressed. Black and white marriage, protestant and catholic marriage, Islam, probably Shinto and Gypsy objections to 'outsider' marriage and now same sex marriage, in fact one girl's mother stopped her seeing me cos I was a protestant and she was RC, so her loss, I think.. It's just a ceremony and brings some measure of legality and equality to two people. If they are over the moon about it, who am I to even comment about their own business? I'm not overly religious, my social skills aren't affronted and it really isn't my business. If I had any objection I really should have put my foot down decades ago. Once this disappears from the news it'll be normal service for everyone, except the bigots.

You know GD I think you post a lot of sense from time to time then you wreck it by calling folk bigots for holding the non pc view. I mean I don't refer to you as a complete total utter moron who secretly fancies one up the jacksie do I?

Ha ha. You smooth talking fecker. I've been called worse young, Hoboh and it's water off a duck's back. It wasn't my intention to label you a bigot, I was referring to those who keep quiet while harbouring something not quite nice. When I was in my teens it was a crime, at least we've moved on from those medieval times. I always say if I was drowning would I be worried if a gay person pulled me out. I'm okay with my sexuality. Wouldn't kiss you but a hug is on the cards.

One of the people in my close circle of friends and one I trust, is camper than Larry Grayson or John Inmam ever were.
TBH due to his line of work (entertainment) the wife and I don't see him half as much as we'd like and trust me he puts a capital G in gay.
I don't dislike gays at all, its the puruit of rights for eveything that some want (and we are not just talking gays here) my arguement is just how far we are prepared to go.

[Hoboh]

I'll pretend that that's in English if it humours you.

Thanks I'll sleep tonight.
Chemicals do strange things to the mind.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'll pretend that that's in English if it humours you.

Thanks I'll sleep tonight.
Chemicals do strange things to the mind.

Indeed. That must be why you take them. Sleep well.

[Prufrock]

In my long, virtually uneventful life I've seen similar concerns expressed. Black and white marriage, protestant and catholic marriage, Islam, probably Shinto and Gypsy objections to 'outsider' marriage and now same sex marriage, in fact one girl's mother stopped her seeing me cos I was a protestant and she was RC, so her loss, I think.. It's just a ceremony and brings some measure of legality and equality to two people. If they are over the moon about it, who am I to even comment about their own business? I'm not overly religious, my social skills aren't affronted and it really isn't my business. If I had any objection I really should have put my foot down decades ago. Once this disappears from the news it'll be normal service for everyone, except the bigots.

You know GD I think you post a lot of sense from time to time then you wreck it by calling folk bigots for holding the non pc view. I mean I don't refer to you as a complete total utter moron who secretly fancies one up the jacksie do I?

Ha ha. You smooth talking fecker. I've been called worse young, Hoboh and it's water off a duck's back. It wasn't my intention to label you a bigot, I was referring to those who keep quiet while harbouring something not quite nice. When I was in my teens it was a crime, at least we've moved on from those medieval times. I always say if I was drowning would I be worried if a gay person pulled me out. I'm okay with my sexuality. Wouldn't kiss you but a hug is on the cards.

One of the people in my close circle of friends and one I trust, is camper than Larry Grayson or John Inmam ever were.
TBH due to his line of work (entertainment) the wife and I don't see him half as much as we'd like and trust me he puts a capital G in gay.
I don't dislike gays at all, its the puruit of rights for eveything that some want (and we are not just talking gays here) my arguement is just how far we are prepared to go.

As far as treating them the same as everyone else. How far do you think we're preparing to go?

I'm still yet to a reason anyone can come up with beyond a made up definition about having kids which has been pretty comprehensively batted into touch.

I'm baffled that those who peddle it can't see the circularity of the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' argument. That's the question, not the answer. I think black rights is a good parallel so I'll go there again: When black people were counted as 3/5s of white people in the US, and it came to getting rid of that, it wasn't an argument against getting rid of it to say 'but black people are defined as 3/5s of a white person'. Well yes, that's the point. That's currently the position, and that should be changed. Equally, it's not an argument to say 'marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman', well yes, that's the point. That's irrational, and should be changed.

[thebish]

can you give a reasoned argument why marriage should not be for gay people? just one? why can't the marriage "cap" fit gay couples?

Because it was a religious ceremony not designed or invented for them

no hobes... marriage is a civil ceremony. it's a civil ceremony for heterosexuals and it is a civil ceremony for gay people.

[William the White]

Well I'm angry now. I'm married without children. I've just had to tell the wife she's a lesbian!

Oh, that old fantasy. We've all done that one.

[bobo the clown]

Well I'm angry now. I'm married without children. I've just had to tell the wife she's a lesbian!

Oh, that old fantasy. We've all done that one.

Haaa.

That's up there with "explaining" to female friends that you wonder if you might be gay.

Nothing more certain to get you laid !!

[Hoboh]

can you give a reasoned argument why marriage should not be for gay people? just one? why can't the marriage "cap" fit gay couples?

Because it was a religious ceremony not designed or invented for them

no hobes... marriage is a civil ceremony. it's a civil ceremony for heterosexuals and it is a civil ceremony for gay people.

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

In Catholicism, it is still believed that the Sacrament of Matrimony is between God, the man and the woman, while the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century CE re-valued marriage as a merely life-long and monogamous covenant between a man and a woman.

Okay, I conceede that one, I'd be foolish to argue with someone of greater knowledge of the subject and I should have done some research.

[Hoboh]

In my long, virtually uneventful life I've seen similar concerns expressed. Black and white marriage, protestant and catholic marriage, Islam, probably Shinto and Gypsy objections to 'outsider' marriage and now same sex marriage, in fact one girl's mother stopped her seeing me cos I was a protestant and she was RC, so her loss, I think.. It's just a ceremony and brings some measure of legality and equality to two people. If they are over the moon about it, who am I to even comment about their own business? I'm not overly religious, my social skills aren't affronted and it really isn't my business. If I had any objection I really should have put my foot down decades ago. Once this disappears from the news it'll be normal service for everyone, except the bigots.

You know GD I think you post a lot of sense from time to time then you wreck it by calling folk bigots for holding the non pc view. I mean I don't refer to you as a complete total utter moron who secretly fancies one up the jacksie do I?

Ha ha. You smooth talking fecker. I've been called worse young, Hoboh and it's water off a duck's back. It wasn't my intention to label you a bigot, I was referring to those who keep quiet while harbouring something not quite nice. When I was in my teens it was a crime, at least we've moved on from those medieval times. I always say if I was drowning would I be worried if a gay person pulled me out. I'm okay with my sexuality. Wouldn't kiss you but a hug is on the cards.

One of the people in my close circle of friends and one I trust, is camper than Larry Grayson or John Inmam ever were.
TBH due to his line of work (entertainment) the wife and I don't see him half as much as we'd like and trust me he puts a capital G in gay.
I don't dislike gays at all, its the puruit of rights for eveything that some want (and we are not just talking gays here) my arguement is just how far we are prepared to go.

As far as treating them the same as everyone else. How far do you think we're preparing to go?
I'm still yet to a reason anyone can come up with beyond a made up definition about having kids which has been pretty comprehensively batted into touch.

I'm baffled that those who peddle it can't see the circularity of the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' argument. That's the question, not the answer. I think black rights is a good parallel so I'll go there again: When black people were counted as 3/5s of white people in the US, and it came to getting rid of that, it wasn't an argument against getting rid of it to say 'but black people are defined as 3/5s of a white person'. Well yes, that's the point. That's currently the position, and that should be changed. Equally, it's not an argument to say 'marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman', well yes, that's the point. That's irrational, and should be changed.

You should stop being so hung up on the gay thing.
TBH I wish I'd not picked this as an example to highlight the amount of rights that vocal minority groups seem to be winning by using underhand tactics.

[Hoboh]

I'll pretend that that's in English if it humours you.

Thanks I'll sleep tonight.
Chemicals do strange things to the mind.

Indeed. That must be why you take them. Sleep well.

Beer?

[Prufrock]

You should stop being so hung up on the gay thing.
TBH I wish I'd not picked this as an example to highlight the amount of rights that vocal minority groups seem to be winning by using underhand tactics.

You brought it up . Keeping talking bollocks about it, I'm happy to tell you so !

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

[Hoboh]

You should stop being so hung up on the gay thing.
TBH I wish I'd not picked this as an example to highlight the amount of rights that vocal minority groups seem to be winning by using underhand tactics.

You brought it up . Keeping talking bollocks about it, I'm happy to tell you so !

I'd much rather talk gash thank you.

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

look for the forrest. Grasshopper

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But the bolded bit suggests you think that a system that leads to 85 people being richer than half the world is a good and fair one. So what is the justification for it, in your eyes?

Given the current state of 'global' governance, does it make sense to talk of a 'system'? Isn't this a bit like discussing whether it's a good thing that 70% of the Earth's surface is water when so many live in cramped conditions.

And isn't talk of people being 'richer' another potential category error? Yes, there are plenty of people in the world caused great suffering because of material poverty and disease, but are there not lots of people living simple but contented lives, who would barely register on any $ measurement of their life?

Can we meaningfully compare a depressed wage slave in Slough to somebody happily subsistence farming in Bongo-Bongo Land?

"Stop adding up the wealth of the poor" Felix Salmon nails the stupidity. http://t.co/JMWe3p6i13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrazyHorse]

If any two people want to get wed fair play to them.
It is amusing a gay couple trying to shoehorn their celebration into what is traditionally a man/woman setup though.
Two best man's speeches? No father of the bride? No pissed up uncle trying it on with the bride? That's not a wedding.
Or a lesbian do. No drunken pack of the groom's mates doing the full monty and the DJ playing nothing but K.D. Lang all night? No thanks.

[Hoboh]

If any two people want to get wed fair play to them.
It is amusing a gay couple trying to shoehorn their celebration into what is traditionally a man/woman setup though.
Two best man's speeches? No father of the bride? No pissed up uncle trying it on with the bride? That's not a wedding.
Or a lesbian do. No drunken pack of the groom's mates doing the full monty and the DJ playing nothing but K.D. Lang all night? No thanks.

Dead funny this is,
As I was reading this post the village people came on radio 2 singing go west, just pissed myself

[Hoboh]

But the bolded bit suggests you think that a system that leads to 85 people being richer than half the world is a good and fair one. So what is the justification for it, in your eyes?

Given the current state of 'global' governance, does it make sense to talk of a 'system'? Isn't this a bit like discussing whether it's a good thing that 70% of the Earth's surface is water when so many live in cramped conditions.

And isn't talk of people being 'richer' another potential category error? Yes, there are plenty of people in the world caused great suffering because of material poverty and disease, but are there not lots of people living simple but contented lives, who would barely register on any $ measurement of their life?

Can we meaningfully compare a depressed wage slave in Slough to somebody happily subsistence farming in Bongo-Bongo Land?

"Stop adding up the wealth of the poor" Felix Salmon nails the stupidity. http://t.co/JMWe3p6i13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bongo-Bongo Land? You'll get worse than I do for that mummy.
Still its nice to know which political mast you've nailed your colours on

[Bruce Rioja]

If any two people want to get wed fair play to them.
It is amusing a gay couple trying to shoehorn their celebration into what is traditionally a man/woman setup though.
Two best man's speeches? No father of the bride? No pissed up uncle trying it on with the bride? That's not a wedding.
Or a lesbian do. No drunken pack of the groom's mates doing the full monty and the DJ playing nothing but K.D. Lang all night? No thanks.

I was at a gay wedding in NY last month. I'll tell you what - they know how to put on one hell of a fecking good do.

[Worthy4England]

Okay, I conceede that one, I'd be foolish to argue with someone of greater knowledge of the subject and I should have done some research.

I've not spotted this bothering you previously. Do you have a soft spot for gay marriage?