What you think of state sancationed gay marriages? Personally I think it's a great idea. Why should goverments deprive gay people the same slice of happiness that hetrosexuals have? I can't think of one single rational reason.

There's also the legal security.

A person should be able to marry another person.

Its probably one of those things where people will look back in about 30 years time and think god we were uptight about that ,what was all the fuss about?

we had a discussion about like this before. if churches want to ban it, fair enough, but there should be the same civil ceremony or contract for same-sex couples

It's not fun if everyone agrees. Wait I have a reason, if gay people got married, there would be no one left to become Catholic priests! :bomb:

naw, cause then you open floodgates for a guy that wants to marry a child, or animal, let 'em get a sex change if they really are in true love.
in the words of dead Merican Prez Ronald Reagan: "He who lives in sin, dies in sin".

I think there's a huge difference between marrying another adult and marrying a child or an animal. Why should you have to change sex to make your marriage legal in the eyes of the law. And isn't marriage more of a sign to other people? I think if you're deeply in love it's an understanding between you and the other person and a piece of paper doesn't affect that.

bubbavirus spouted:
naw, cause then you open floodgates for a guy that wants to marry a child, or animal, let 'em get a sex change if they really are in true love.
in the words of dead Merican Prez Ronald Reagan: "He who lives in sin, dies in sin".

There are already laws that prohibit chid marriage. As far as animals or family members are concerned they can make stipulations in the law that would prevent that from happening.

And just so you know Ronald Reagen isn't dead. He also never said "He who lives in sin, dies in sin". I see you get your facts from fictionalized defunct TV mini series.

I think gay marriages should be allowed because they should have equal rights just like everyone else. Equal rights for blacks, whites, men, women...why not very flamboyant men? and manly women? As long as they aren't hurting anyone then it's should be allowed.

Fuck it, if they want to marry each other and then go off and fuck each other in teh ass (or fuck each other senseless with a giant dildo) then I say let them, it's their life, and just because their sexual orientation is different, that shouldn't deny them the same rights as the rest of us.

fine, let 3 'ho's' all marry each other, let Michael Jackson marry your boyfriend, but not in Merica, it won't fly, we have teenage mothers with 2 kids now, 2 different teen-age dads or wirse, (ho's brother).
throw sumt water on the grease fire?

...slipped smee mind Ronny still vertical, errrr if the bed is raised that way...:) Everyone knows gay men are promiscuous look at NYC gay parades, thank God the Fag next door left last summer, him and his 'friends' were the wirst

UK Scientist Charles Darwin chronicled:
on Gallopogos Islands, 12% gull pairs had no eggs in nest. he assumed sterility-- guess wha? Yup Lesbian birds, TRUE.

I think Sir Elton should be banned a full church wedding to David Furnish on the grounds that it would be fucking unbearable.

I can see the media cirque now. shudder. I dont see why gays can't get married. Gay people deserve the same rights straight folks.

I think marriage is quite an outdated idea. Now if they'd just change things around and issue life partner certificates to couples that had been together for a certain period of time, say 2-3 years, that might fix the problems.
Marriage as it stands in the US now is an unconstitutional influence of right wing christians on the State.
Denying people benefits based on their sexual orientation is an archaic idea. It has nothing to do with pedophiles or bestiality since it is mutually consensual (all parties involved can decide for themselves if they want to be)

bassoon spouted:
I think marriage is quite an outdated idea. Now if they'd just change things around and issue life partner certificates to couples that had been together for a certain period of time, say 2-3 years, that might fix the problems.
Marriage as it stands in the US now is an unconstitutional influence of right wing christians on the State.
Denying people benefits based on their sexual orientation is an archaic idea. It has nothing to do with pedophiles or bestiality since it is mutually consensual (all parties involved can decide for themselves if they want to be)

You are completely losing me on this. First why is marriage an outdated idea? I've been married for 22 years. I think that's it's great. That's why I think that gay people shouldn't be exempt from it. I also know quite a bit about the US Consitution how is marriage unconsititution and how is it right wing?

A. Marriage as it is practiced in the US is essentially a religious institution which has been integrated into the legal system. (church and state legally must be separate)

B. The largest proponents of traditional marriage have always been, and will continue to be the religious right (eg the Bush-Limbaugh family). The largest group of opponents of traditional marriage would belong to the liberal left as they call it(eg the .Clinton-Stern group (Clinton didn't oppose traditional marriage, but he certainly didn't penalize those who didn't practice it)).

bassoon spouted:
A. Marriage as it is practiced in the US is essentially a religious institution which has been integrated into the legal system. (church and state legally must be separate)

B. The largest proponents of traditional marriage have always been, and will continue to be the religious right (eg the Bush-Limbaugh family). The largest group of opponents of traditional marriage would belong to the liberal left as they call it(eg the .Clinton-Stern group (Clinton didn't oppose traditional marriage, but he certainly didn't penalize those who didn't practice it)).

So based on your interpretation of the US Constitution, would you propose a ban on all religious marriages? I don't know if you live in the US or if you are married, but I am wondering if you are aware that when you get married in the US, you are required by law, to obtain a marriage liscense (independant of the religious ceramony) and at one time you were required by law to take a blood test. Remember the reason for separation of church and state is to prevent etablisment of a state religion perscution based on ones religious beliefs.

I would tend to disagree with you about the religious right being proponents of traditinal marriage. Everyone here pretty much thinks that tradditional marriage (and I would venture to guess in the entire rest of the wordl) is a good thing. And I hate to break the news to you but Bill Clinton is not a member of the liberal left. Among many other things as govenor of Arkansas Bill Clinton executed a man with an IQ of 60. Hardly an act that would endear him to the liberal left. But that's probably not a discussion for this thread.

right i dont want to get on anybodies tits here its only my opinion but if it is in the bible (and it is check out leviticus) that being gay is wrong why the fuck do any puffs want to get married in a fucking church! jesus h christ are they stupid! if your not wanted there just bloody go somewhere that does want you and stop crying about it! who the hell wants to get roped up in that religious shit anyhoo its all bahlix

Whats the big deal its just a bit of paper. My uncle is gay and he has been with the same guy for about 30 years, longer than my parents managed. Its a legal contract and does not have to be done in "The Eyes of the Lord" I got married in a registry office and asked for all reference to God to be taken out of the vows as I am a firm atheist, this wasnt a problem. Its only a sin as far as god is concerned if you believe in god. Where does it say that I have to live and do what Priests/Vicars/Bishops/Popes/Sheiks/Rabbis tell you to do. Freedom to live as we want is our greatest gift, if two guys or two girls want to live with and love each other and want to make it official so they have the same rights as us "Straight" folks, who says they cant. I find it incredible that there is an arguement with this!! If the Catholic church spent more time tracking down the Priests who regularly are sodomising young boys and apologising for the fact that they covered it up I might listen to what they said..........but hey, thats not how it is..........

I am not gay but if i was i would like the same choices that straight people have.

Gay marriage is fine by me. It should be made that all marriages should be open to all gender realtionships.

Ban the bummers !!

Seriously I dont think gay couples should get married, I respect their choice and that they love someone of the same sex. I just don't agree with it.

I dont think gays should be penilised(sp) by the state etc... and if gays do have to get married they should be a law stating they should not get married in a church

I think we're moving rapidly toward legalization of gay marriage. It'll happen.
I don't have a problem with it all. 'M'all for it.

what if a fully grown adult (say age 20) falls in love with his father, and his father with him, then they enter a gay relationship and decide to get married. There'll be no outcome of abnormal children, so what's holding anything like this back from happening? The fact that it is intrinsically wrong, is what. Just like gay marriages/relationships were looked down on before and have become accepted now, decadence increases with the passing of time. As much as you may argue against paedophiles ever being accepted, mark my words....not so long from now they will be. And then we'll be the old generation arguing against them being accepted in society. Our arguments will be shattered and ridiculed, similarly to what will happen to anyone who argues against this thread now.

(For those of you who have seen The Woodsman, you can see it has taken the first step in that direction.)

Huh?????

Gay people want to marry their direct blood relatives and are peodophiles?????What what what. Look, when you get back from your UKIP/BNP/Hitler youth/Fuckups United meeting ,I have some very strong anti-psychotics you might want to borrow.

Your not hiding something personal about yourself are you?

Sorry , but I couldn't resist coming back to this one. I note your biog info says you "have big muscles"....sniggers....I have visions of you and your fitness biz job thingy all in hotpants and leather caps.

sorry , that was nasty. Perhaps I should adopt your reasoning , what if we allow chinese people to eat babies , then before you no it people up and down the land will be doing genetic experiments on donkeys and turning them into crude thermo-nuclear cyborg thingies....cos that's what would happen. No decency left I tell you.

Isnt it great to see that in our supposedly enlightened times, poeple are STILL homophobic. Not.

what's the big deal - doesn't affect anyone except those that are getting married.

As I see it getting married is telling your partner and the rest of the world that they are the one that you want to be with forever.

People ought to be able to marry the people they love, regardless of gender and sod the homophobes.

what's the big deal - doesn't affect anyone except those that are getting married.

As I see it getting married is telling your partner and the rest of the world that they are the one that you want to be with forever.

People ought to be able to marry the people they love, regardless of gender and sod the homophobes.

This is more or less what i was going to type but Dave has saved me the trouble.

I dont see the problem, you should be able to marry who you want.

I gotta say i was probably a bit out of order the way I went at it, so I apologise to a degree , I don't think what was said meant gay people are peodos though that was the impression that came across,the phrasing seem to make it that way.Perhaps I should have been a little nicer , but then homophobia is a nasty thing.

Anyway , I can see marriage as a problem cause of the religeous context and all that stuff in leviticus /that story of the wife telling the bandits to rape her and not her hubbie (whatever that was ). Though there are plenty of gay preists , never figured that one. I suppose you have gay people who are religeous , though how they get around it I don't know....is it the new testement replaces the old one (or did Jesus say something about not replacing the old law). People seem to be able to interpret all sorts of stuff out of the bible. Any gay religeous people here who could explain it to me?

Civil ceromonies yes , same thing as a marriage really to most , registry office jobs are non-churchy thingy. I geuss it's important due to all the legal rights that flow from a legal union , pensions,tenancy etc.Anyway let them live there lives and be happy. "Sod the homophobes"...like that one. Personally I have nothing against homophobes so long as they do it in the privacy of their own home.

Huh?????

Gay people want to marry their direct blood relatives and are peodophiles?????



no offence mate but are you dyslexic? Either that or you read my post in a few seconds flat. If you don't get the essence of what I'm trying to say then please stfu, it will save you getting embarrassed and having to repost straight after it.

Oh yeah, another bit of advice, don't believe what you read in people's bio's. I'm a skinny shit and I import cardio machines into the country, only selling to wholesalers.

Oh , I got the essence of what you were trying to say allright. Incest wrong.Peodeophilia wrong. Being gay wrong.The tone was that these are equal and equatable with each other , and further you could play around with the terms as if ( I said as if ) they interchangable ,though granted you didn't say that they were the same thing . Its an old trick to lump various evil forces together till the terms seem to become synomous with one another. Damnation by association . I gave a qualified apology , but then you are homophobic , oh yes you are.Saying a gay relationship is intrinsically wrong gives muscle to "queer bashers".If you said it was a sin , then at least it would be suggesting a religeous objection ( still not particularly right in my book ) but at least that would be something.
Homophobia is wrong. Shall we say intrinsically wrong.
Dyslexic ??? os hwat fi i am.

I'm with Loki on this. To somehow say that acceptance of homosexuality is the thin end of a wedge that ends in accepting paedophilia is absolute rot.

If anything paedophilia has become less and less acceptable whereas homosexual sex has been generally accepted by (most) people as the private affair between two CONSENTING adults.

If you're not going to be affected by it and no children are molested then why can't gay people marry?

Never ceases to amaze me when homophobes rope in homosexuality with paedophilia in the same conversation.

I don't care what people do as long as it has no adverse effect on other people. But, civil partnerships are going to get the same tax treatment as heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages enjoy tax priveleges at the expense of the population generally. Those tax privileges were given for a reason. To give the married couple economic stability to bring up their children. I have no objection to civil partnerships, but am opposed absolutely to them sharing the preferred staus of "normal" marriages, as the reason for that preference is absent.

The tax system has different aspects for children . People who marry don't necessarilly have children to begin with. You work on the basis that all coulples will have children yet alone be able to have children or want children. Then there are single parents. Then there are gay couples who have children as part of their household . Further , it is possible for gay people to foster ( not sure about adoption but I pressume so ). It's differential treatment , and even if the tax system was spefically designed for children , which I don't think it is , a couple with no children do not get working families tax credit .Thats still no excuse for denying certain aspects of other laws .

I don't care what people do as long as it has no adverse effect on other people. But, civil partnerships are going to get the same tax treatment as heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages enjoy tax priveleges at the expense of the population generally. Those tax privileges were given for a reason. To give the married couple economic stability to bring up their children. I have no objection to civil partnerships, but am opposed absolutely to them sharing the preferred staus of "normal" marriages, as the reason for that preference is absent.

Whether they were given or not for couples to procreate is irrelevant. Married couples allowance has been abolished in favour of tax credits so gay couples would not be eligible unless they themselves had children. And inheritance tax is not applicable to transfers between spouses whether they have children or not. Why can't gay couples enjoy the same rights?

In fact one lesbian couple I know benefit rather well from it as the mother is deemed to be a single parent even though the two lesbians are in a stable relationship and are quite well off. They would prefer to be married but this shows the inconsistencies of the current law.

I don't understand why you feel that heterosexuals should get preferential treatment. Gay people pay taxes, contribute to society etc. the same as 'normal' (sic) people. (God - I hate the word 'normal' - gay people are normal - they just prefer to have same sex relationships).

This discrimination belongs in the past.

As much as you may argue against paedophiles ever being accepted, mark my words....not so long from now they will be.

Yeah... I can see that happening. Definitely. Oh, gawd... I don't know. My feelings about allowing any 2 people, whether they be gay, straight, child/adult in a relationship, parent/child in a relationship (I mean, like, a relationship that would be considered abnormal) is that if a truly "pure" love between them exists, then it shouldn't be looked down upon. However, children, for fuck's sake... Well, they've hardly developed either physically or emotionally to be able to identify a "pure" kind of love when they see it, and they're so vulnerable, hence, easy to take advantage of... I don't know.

Whether they were given or not for couples to procreate is irrelevant. Married couples allowance has been abolished in favour of tax credits so gay couples would not be eligible unless they themselves had children. And inheritance tax is not applicable to transfers between spouses whether they have children or not. Why can't gay couples enjoy the same rights?

In fact one lesbian couple I know benefit rather well from it as the mother is deemed to be a single parent even though the two lesbians are in a stable relationship and are quite well off. They would prefer to be married but this shows the inconsistencies of the current law.

I don't understand why you feel that heterosexuals should get preferential treatment. Gay people pay taxes, contribute to society etc. the same as 'normal' (sic) people. (God - I hate the word 'normal' - gay people are normal - they just prefer to have same sex relationships).

This discrimination belongs in the past.

I'd be happy with Civil Partnerships on the same tax basis as Dinkys, with the Dinkys losing their preferences. (I don't want to hi-jack the thread onto the broader question of whether tax incentives for population growth are appropriate anyway - or perhaps I should)

To me "normal" is nothing more than a mathematical expression of the centre, which is, statistically, heterosexual.

A. Marriage as it is practiced in the US is essentially a religious institution which has been integrated into the legal system. (church and state legally must be separate)

Utter bullshit. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you don't have the vaguest idea about which you speak.

B. The largest proponents of traditional marriage have always been, and will continue to be the religious right (eg the Bush-Limbaugh family). The largest group of opponents of traditional marriage would belong to the liberal left as they call it(eg the .Clinton-Stern group (Clinton didn't oppose traditional marriage, but he certainly didn't penalize those who didn't practice it)).
The largest proponents of traditional marriage has been society for, oh the last 4000 years, give or take. Hence the name "traditional."

The largest group of opponents to traditional marriage has been the newly empowered radical left, especially the militant homosexual faction thereof.

I don't really care if you're for it or against it. Just please try to know what you're talking about.

dont think that gay people should be married in churchs, in the same way as i dont think i should be allowed to married in a muslem temple, because i dont follow the faith.
should gay people be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony and have all the rights of a hetersexual couple? hell yeah of course.
as for all the talk of pedo's and incest i think that has no bearing on this thread

I respect their choice and that they love someone of the same sex. I just don't agree with it.

What exactly does that mean?


I dont think gays should be penilised(sp) by the state etc... and if gays do have to get married they should be a law stating they should not get married in a church

Even if it's their own church?

The state of Kansas amended their Constitution by referendum yesterday to prohibit gay marriage:

Wichita Eagle - AMENDMENT PASSES - GAY MARRIAGE BAN WINS 70% OF VOTE (http://http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11321672.htm)