Homosexuals and marriage.

Right but I want who I get married to to be taken care of when I die and how dare anyone say different

 

I basically think marriage is worthless. It doesn't offer anything to society. People have children out of wedlock all the time. People marry, have children, then divorce and drag their children through the mud with them.

I only skimmed this thread so I missed a lot but it seems to me that the OP is trying to make the point that marriage between a man and a woman offers some kind of value to society that homosexual marriage cannot fulfill.

I don't really see the value in marriage, period. its fine if people want to get married. I appreciate that people want to pledge their love for each other and commit to each other, but I don't think it benefits society in any way.

I think its unfair that only married couples receive certain benefits. I agree with everyone else that has said government should stay out of marriage, period. I think its unfair that cohabitating couples don't have access to these benefits and I think its unfair that gay couples aren't able to marry and receive these benefits.

 

It is possible - you just have to let your entire family know about that, and not make any legal arrangements. Because they could be undone (contested). It has to be very well organised - that's all.

 

Thought I would share this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...upport_n_2441380.html?ncid=dynaldusbv00000001

 

Speaking of the OP:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-debate-uncovered-nest-of-bigots

 

No want I meant was, the Catholic Church forebade "remarriage" when it was divorce outside of the accepted grounds. For the last zillion years - Pagan, Christian, Roman, Jewish, Muslim, Red Indians who put their hands over their mouth and go "wah wah", all had the same definition.

"Originally" -what I meant was, the only thing that happened was that the laws on divorce changed and more people got remarried. Because the State said "well there was no fault/blame here".

So I'm saying overwhelmingly that the law HASNT chopped and changed. Its stayed the same for many millenia.

And the claims of safeguards is Cameron talking bullshit. I bet he's another John Redwood/ William Hague (another one the press dont go into details over).

I'm not even saying its a religious issue. Its a definitions issue. Which is a basic part of our legal system which cant be changed. Its like saying "my aunty is my uncle, because if she had bollocks..she would be".
"Father", "mother", "marriage", we all know what words like these mean - so no-one can pass a law and say "I decree that from now on, green will be red and red will be green". Its the sort of thing the Queen from Alice in Wonderland would say.

So if the girl I'm dating gets killed by a falling rock, can I claim some widowers allowance and say "ahhh you see it was a low level marriage sort of a few hours a week, outside your biased definitions". Or maybe Denis Rodman can make a claim? Maybe I can claim to be married to my pet? Its bullshit. We all know what marriage is, we all know what cohabitn is.

Its like how these other words are foisted upon us by a minority, so that they become "compulsory". Why the hell should my girlfriend be called my "partner". I mean its not like she has a dick or something...

 

if there's no such thing as society, then there's no such thing as laws either. Or Parliament. Or churches/ reigstry offices.

Saying no to a complete rewrite of the word marriage isnt denying anyone happiness. Its like saying "allowing homosexuality is denying some people happiness". The vote wasnt about banning homosexuality.It was the common sense that we know what a word means and has always meant.
And why it came about.

Where are these word rewrites gonna go next? "Marriage is an institution between a child and a hamster". "Father is anything with 2 legs"..?

 

Language is alive - it grows and changes to reflect the times.You're basically using semantics to argue something that really affects people's lives.

 

this ^^^^^^^^

 

We are not all Catholics anymore, if we ever were. The Catholic church does not have ownership over marriage. The sooner you accept that the easier all of this will be.

None of the above are being asked to change their definition of marriage, but they can if they so wish. It is actually none of the above business - if they choose to abstain from change. The point is 'legally speaking'. That you have to accept can change. IF any of the above wish to change/accept same sex marriage they can. If they do not want to - they don't have to.

You might have a better case if that was the only thing that changed, and that it was the same in all faiths. Clearly that is not the case.

It clearly has not. If so, prove it.

So we have to wait for doctrine to change before society can? We should not have to wait 200 years.

Oh, but you are.

Spouse.

Spouse.

Why not stick to being a fair interpreter of the law as it is rather than being a hysterical interpreter of your own prejudices. I really like it when your paragraphs make sense.

 

I am all for gay marriage.I have known gay couples who have had longer lasting relationships than some of the hetro people I know.

 

Sorry for the long image, but it fits the subject, and the mention of blow up dolls in the poll made me think of it.

 

i don't think the dog one is entirely accurate. they're just not very smart is all.

but as for gender combinations in marriage, its really none of government's damd bussiness, and as for beliefs, their say is limited to those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

 

A homosexual can lead a church, but can't get married.

Rediculous

 

plus it uses "it's" instead of "its."

 

Could you possibly back up many of her accusations?

'despised leader is the most rightwing prime minister of modern times'

'Daily Telegraph columns claim to fear that fathers and sons might marry to avoid inheritance tax'

'Cameron wrongly thought this a clause IV moment to parade a modernised party. Instead, he has revealed them as a nest of bigots. Disunity is electoral poison, and so is a leader losing control of his party'

I used to watch Polly have debates, on TV, with her 'rivals'. She came across as fairly fair and reasonable. Seemingly getting her facts straight, and acknowledging another position. These days she comes across as just as much of a bigot as she proclaims others are. Perhaps she was always this way and I was just politically naive. But she definitely is a staunch Labourcentric partisan mouthpeice, and far too sympathetic to the left.
Perhaps it's time for her to retire.

Do you not think Cameron knew a vast majority of his party would appose 'gay marriage'? Has it caused a 'rift'? I doubt it.

There will be Conservatives who are bigoted, but not the majority who apposed 'gay marriage'.
There are a few who are like Nadine Dorries - but they just have bad arguments rather than being fundamentally bigoted.
It's not despicable and wrong headed to not want 'gay marriage'.
It's just not particularly popular. As they say - 'the ayes have it, the ayes have it'.
As she says: 'but this arcane marriage dispute is beyond the ordinary comprehension of anyone not guided by the Bible.'
So is she bigoted against those guided by the bible?

 

Besides the fact that marriage is an outdated joke, I think that any two or more people should be able to marry if they wish so.

 

Isn't it amazing. A small proportion of the population choose to call a large section of the population "bigots". They choose to attack ALL religions as "bigots". And every society from the day dot, right up until now/ the last few years.

Is this your tactic for everything? If someone doesn't agree with you, they're automatically "bigots"?

What was it you said earlier in the thread? "Its the straight people are to blame for the loss of sanctity of marriage". What a load of BIGOTED crap!

A bigot is someone who PRE_JUDGES without looking at the information.
I've actually looked at the law, the definitions, the culture, the public policy, the basis for Judeo-Christian insitutions, the whole lot.

What have you looked at? NOTHING! Just stamped your feet and and yelled "I want marriage to be gay marriage, everying else is different.. I want.. I want!".

The Ancient Greeks? Tell me, were they "bigots" because they didn't have "gay marriage"? NOPE. They realised that marriage was an agreement between the State and a man and a woman. Don't want the State "interfering" in gay marriage as you call it? Well then the State wont! Because you can call your activities whatever you want, in private. You could crown yourself a King .. or a Queen. BUT you cant demand the State gives you something AND say the State cant get involved. BECUAE YOU'RE ASKING IT TO GET INVOLVED BY THE VERY NOTION OF MARRIAGE!

So were the Ancient Greeks "bigots" by not bowing down to your request? NOPE, their society was full of homosexuality. They even had gay temples, gay Gods, and a special purpose for their only world landmark. (And a lot of other stuff).HOWEVER, they chose not to have gay marriage, for basically the reasons I described earlier in the thread.

No legal system has the power to rewrite words in complete opposite to what their defintion really is. Its like the film The Dictator, when "yes and no" were replaced by "aladeen and aladeen".

This thread was never actually about homosexuality. It was about marriage, and what its definition is, the public policy of it, and the implications of what a slippery opportunist is trying to do in the British Parliament, to deflect attention from what he's really up to.

Whats the next stage in some people's "war against bigots"? Incestuos marriage, Justin Bieber "marries" 10000 fans, spiritualist "marries" ghost? Maybe a half eaten pizza could become a new religion? Maybe a man can marry a chimp -after all chimps are quite intelligent.. compared to *some* people? Are you gonna demand that adults can marru children- after all some kids are pretty smart! Maybe homosexuality can be made "compulsory" - just to show that us straight people aren't "bigots"?

Every tyranny in the World started off with some nut talking about new laws for "freedom" and the like..