[Closed] Gay Marriage

Is that a euphemism?

What if the road is paved with lady boys? 🙂

No, actual dog [as in canine, not a minger].

I nearly wrote not a euphemism, but I worried with all the sexuality threads I was just finding filth in everything... 😆

EDIT: I don't even know which thread I'm in anymore... Is this the one about lady boy homophobic tory back benchers???

There are plenty of people who oppose it. If you read the telegraph comments it is filled with some angry people.

Personally, I think it is a complete non question in terms of the answer being obvious. Since some people object though, it needs to be debated. I respect Cameron for fighting to get this through. As above, give it a decade and people will be wondering why any fighting was required.

I'm worried that we'll be swamped by gay immigrants coming here to get married.

I'm worried that we'll be swamped by gay immigrants coming here to get married.

Ive met a few from Lesbia......

ITV 1 21.00 to see a docu soap about gay men being in a civil partnership. 🙂

ITV 1 21.00 to see a docu soap about gay men being in a civil partnership.

sounds really boring... I suppose at least they won't be arguing about who left the toilet seat up 😀

deadlydarcy - Member

"There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community that see this as but a stepping stone."

To what? Mandatory bumsex?

I did an aggressive xc ride with one of those newfangled gay chappies the other day, does that make him an aggressive homosexual? can we abbreviate it to homosexxual?

I did an aggressive xc ride with one of those newfangled gay chappies the other day, does that make him an aggressive homosexual? can we abbreviate it to homosexxual?

I think it makes you a homoseXCual...

no? really? sorry... there's been wine...

deadlydarcy - Member
"There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community that see this as but a stepping stone."

I'm part of the aggressive community, and I see this as a stepping stone to having my aggression rights enshrined in law.

What I don't get with all this, is they're saying this amendment to allow heterosexual civil partnerships will cost 4bn or whatever - are there tax/inheritance benefits available to people in a civil partnership but not a marriage? 😕

And are there really significant numbers of heterosexual people who won't get married but would love to have a civil partnership? 😕

I think it makes you a homoseXCual...
no? really? sorry... there's been wine...

I've got your coat for you already.....

That's not mine, mine is the one with the fabulous cut and pink sparkles...

*and pockets full of stereotypes.

Not read any of this thread but bet its the second most boring of the year.

aggressive homosexual

Ahem.

😯

I think he said aggressive rather than pirate

I think the whole homophobia thing is on its way out anyway. Once the current crop of vocal bigots have died off, it'll go the way of racism: frowned upon by the vast majority of society, at least publicly, and those that still harbour ill-feelings towards "the gays" will at least keep it to themselves.

Can't happen soon enough.

There are plenty of people who oppose it.

There's a loud shouty minority making lots of noise. I get the impression most people really couldn't care less one way or the other (and that includes gay people I know).

Not read any of this thread but bet its the second most boring of the year.

Link to the most boring please.

I was sitting next to that Cardinal Keith O'Brien on the plane the other day and he was looking a bit down.*

So to cheer him up I says to him "Keith, I know we have only just sat down next to each other, but will you marry me?" & He says: "You surely realize that I am opposed to Gay Marriage." So I say: " That's Ok mate, I'm not Gay"**

*This bit is true
** This might not be.

There's a loud shouty minority making lots of noise.

Who's that then, the bigots in the Tory party?

But, but all homosexuality is an abomination. It must be - it says so in Leviticus just before where he says that when a woman has her period she should be cast out for 7 days then must sacrifice a lamb or a dove.

That seems to be the justification for anti homosexuality - a nutter wrote it 2ooo years ago. I would like to think we have moved on a bit since then.

MP's - just do it and stop faffing about.

must not go on the telegraph talkback pages anyomore, im just giving that hate rag some advertising revenue and there are lots really very nasty homophobic comments floating about there

I think the whole homophobia thing is on its way out anyway. Once the current crop of vocal bigots have died off, it'll go the way of racism: frowned upon by the vast majority of society, at least publicly, and those that still harbour ill-feelings towards "the gays" will at least keep it to themselves.

Can't happen soon enough.

Whilst I'd love to agree with you, have you read the Telegraph or Daily Express recently?

It's fairly obvious their readership is pretty convinced that as soon as you allow gay marriage they'll be forcing pensioners into workcamps for mandatory bum sex with illegal immigrants and our ONLY salvation is to round them all up (gays and immigrants) and intern them all on the Isle of White whilst voting UKIP and quitting 'gay' Europe.

Equality and matters of principle are of great importance to governmwnts imo. Cant believe people think its a waste of time.

The fact it's in parliament isn't a waste of time. The fact it's just not been put to vote, where it will pass, saving all the swivel-eyed-loons they chance to spout their vitriol, [i]is[/i] a waste of time. HTH.

Grr!

I'm an aggressive homosexual.

If I see you wearing beige, I shoot on sight! 😆

If I see you wearing beige, [b]I shoot on sight![/b]

[img] [/img]

I’d love to know what’s next on the ‘Aggressive Homosexual Agenda’ after they get marriage rights. They might push to change the national anthem to ‘Defying Gravity’ from Wicked! Actually, that’d be ace...

I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords!

Next they'll be wanting to marry, then kill and eat our swans. It will be mandatory under gay sharia law.

Can anyone name one "aggressive homosexual" in the public eye? They don't seem to be taking over the world, or have I not noticed

Alan Carr,Julian Clary,Grahame Norton for 3 who seem to be taking over the world of tv, and well done to them.

The thing is 10 years ago being gay was usually hidden from all but a few trusted freinds, now it seems to be compulsory for most men and women to have a GBF gay best freind, and long may they last as freinds.

@wrecker:

I didn't mean it [i][b]that[/b][/i] way! Now I've gone all embarrassed and stuff! 😳

I’d love to know what’s next on the ‘Aggressive Homosexual Agenda’ after they get marriage rights

I imagine they'll be wanting to ram it down our throats...

IGMC.

I’d love to know what’s next on the ‘Aggressive Homosexual Agenda’

Well, at least this episode has shown that however much they spout off about reforming, the Tories will never shake off the 'Nasty Party' tag.

Good.

I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords!

I heard a rumour they were going to give us men dress sense, personal hygiene and pride in our appearance

i think the guardian are having too much fun at the expense of some bigoted old codgers .....

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen ]Gay marriage bill may lead to 'lesbian queen and artificially inseminated heir'
Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit also warns that legislation could allow him to marry his son to escape inheritance tax[/url]

just seen this phrase on facebook ...

Swiveleyesation under threat - made me chuckle

I'm prepared to fight for my right as a man to dress badly, smell and look awful.

what an awful horrible man... [tebbit]

Tebbit also said he had challenged a minister about legalising gay marriage at the same time as ending male primogeniture in the royal succession

"It's like one of my colleagues said: we've got to make these same sex marriages available to all. It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?"

My god Tebbit hangs out with some pretty sick mofos doesn't he... Tories are weird... 😯

Nutty comments there by Norman, but some of the people commenting seem to be missing the fact that he's right, it will be legal to marry his son (or for two sisters to marry, etc.) as incest laws are gender specific.

Wow so some [s]Tories[/s] people are willing to commit incest just to dodge taxes?

Normans argument seems well thought through, calm, and rational.

God only knows how Dave has arrived at the conclusion that some on the right of his party are 'mad, swivel-eyed loons'. Where on earth is the evidence for that?

incest laws are gender specific.

If only there was some way parliament could amend them...

Do you think they're going to, unklehomered?

Wow so some Tories people are willing to commit incest just to dodge taxes?

Ah, but the thing is you don't have to - you just have to get married.

Do you think they're going to, unklehomered?

shirley

I'm a bit surprised it isn't part of the same bill tbh. the bill is just a collection of amendments to previous bits of legislation.

Ah, but the thing is you don't have to - you just have to get married.

I think you might struggle to find a vicar or registrar willing to perform that ceremony.

I do actually support some of what Norm says in that if you are doing the legal stuff you should do it properly and make sure it makes sense. If you allow loop holes you'll end up with google having a gay marriage to amazon to avoid tax.

Still that is just a case of good paperwork. The principle that it should be allowed remains the same and we should work to close the loopholes to make it possible.

I didn't mean it that way! Now I've gone all embarrassed and stuff!

And there was me typing "beige" into the asos search engine. What a waste of time that was! 😀

Actually what's wrong with extending civil partnerships to siblings? Sex and marriage have been fairly seperate things for a long time anyway. Take the case of two elderly sisters living together for company and support. Why shouldn't they enjoy the same legal status as two elderly unrelated people doing the same thing.

Incest can remain illegal for good biological reasons. At it's legalistic heart marriage / civil partnership is just a contract.

artificially inseminated heir

That scene in There's Something About Mary?

what's wrong with extending civil partnerships to siblings?

lucien - Member
Not really sure I want to open up a debate about the for's and against arguments for the above; what I'm more interested in is a wider question about "do you really care about the topic" as there seems to be a great deal of debate in parliament / Govt / Clergy etc, but most ordinary people I speak with don't give two hoots about the whole thing, either way.

Getting back to the OP's comments, it seems to me that the debate over "for's and against" has become completely irrelevant: all three main parties support it so it has been inevitable that it will happen for a while.

But what is interesting to me is how Cameron's attempting to handle it, (and Clegg and Milliband too.)
I'm not 100% sure how much he actually cares about the subject, but I am sure he had the foresight to see it as an inevitability and hoped to gain some political capital from being the leader that introduced it. He hoped it would increase his personal appeal to younger voters, and at a party level, maybe take some of the edge off the "Nasty Party" image and up their percent support.
In reality, what's happened is that the nasty side of his party have been very vocal, and probably increased the perception of the tories as "swivel eyed loons" and lessened the chance of younger voters actually supporting him/them. And on a personal level, he'll get no individual credit out of this as the bill's become a Con-Dem-Lab coalition effort with all three party "leaders" involved, but demonstrating equally wet levels of non-leadership. They've set up the next election to look like a choice between three flavours of wet lettuce. And it's now there for the taking for the first party to come up with a genuine leader.
IMO, Tory central command recognise this. The story is now not about gay marriage. That's 100% happening.
It's about the Tory party kicking Cameron in the balls, whilst trying their utmost to keep the buffoon with a soundbite for every occasion gagged 'till the shit blows over.

Stole this from DannyB's post earlier:

[img] [/img]
Replace the initial question with "Boris comes to power" and see how safe you feel about the pie-chart now 😉

insest laws ain't gemder specific see the sexual offences act

"64Sex with an adult relative: penetration.

(1)A person aged 16 or over (A) [F1(subject to subsection (3A))] commits an offence if— .
(a)he intentionally penetrates another person’s vagina or anus with a part of his body or anything else, or penetrates another person’s mouth with his penis, .
(b)the penetration is sexual, .
(c)the other person (B) is aged 18 or over, .
(d)A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (2), and .
(e)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related to B in that way. .
(2)The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. .
(3)In subsection (2)— .
[F2(za)“parent” includes an adoptive parent; .
(zb)“child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002;] .

(a)“uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning; .
(b)“nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning."

On topic i am very much in favour of mariage for all consenting non insestuous adults .

It's all a bit nuts. I caught a piece of the Scottish news last night, and the Church of Scotland it seems allows gay ministers to be ordained if the local parishioners chose them, but only long as they promise to be celibate.

Surely that means one stops being gay ?? I guess one doesn't stop being straight through lack of practice. Hmm, anyway it's all very odd.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22614994 ]Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.[/url] 😯

A bit off topic but explained what I couldn't to some young folk recently.

insest laws ain't gemder specific see the sexual offences act

Fairy nuff - the laws on incestuous marriage are, and a quick google suggested the incest laws were the same - clearly they've been updated. Sorry for being wrong - though at least I'm not as wrong as Tebbit.

So the MP's voted it through then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22605011

But is it just me, or is DC actually trying to take the piss out of the mad, swivel-eyed loons?

and Mr Cameron has sent an email to party members, insisting they still shared a "deep and lasting friendship" with him.

I really don't see why gay marriage is a problem at all but then I also wonder why gay marriage insists on taking place at a church or the like?

It's right that one does not wish to be discriminated but then it's also weird that one forces others to accept ...

Funny old world ... 😯

Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.

For a minute there I got all excited and thought that David Irving had done the decent thing and gone to meet his mate Adolf in the great bunker in the sky. Quite dissapointed really.

footflaps - Member

Award winning far right historian and anti-gay-marriage campaigner shoots himself at the altar of Notre Dame.

For a minute there I got all excited and thought that David Irving had done the decent thing and gone to meet his mate Adolf in the great bunker in the sky. Quite dissapointed really.

Well, his life so do whatever he wants to himself so long as his action does not affect others.

but then I also wonder why gay marriage insists on taking place at a church or the like?

Who has been insisting that gay marriages should take place on churches?

chewkw - I think it's an equality thing, gay and lesbian couples are being discriminated against by churches who won't let them get married in their church. They just want the same rights as everybody else, whether they care to exercise those rights is up to them.

MSP -
Who has been insisting that gay marriages should take place on churches?

That's amongst one of the many arguments as far as I know ...

hels - Member

chewkw - I think it's an equality thing, gay and lesbian couples are being discriminated against by churches who won't let them get married in their church. They just want the same rights as everybody else, whether they care to exercise those rights is up to them.

Does that mean one can force others to accept equality?

I mean I thought equality is given/accepted and not force upon others? No?

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader? No?

When one insists on being accepted it's like me saying I am the Dear Leader and if one opposes me one will suffer my almighty wrath ...

In the present case equality is achieved by hammering or changing the law to force acceptance is it not?

I am confused ... (no wonder I failed so miserably in the Identifying Lady-boy test ... )

🙁

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader?

No.

No?

Correct.

deadlydarcy - Member

It's like saying I insist on someone accepting me as his/her Dear Leader is it not and s/he has no choice but to love and to cherish me as Dear Leader?

No.

No?

Correct.

Explain yourself!
It would be unfair to confuse your Dear ... 😆

Personally, I thought that with Church attendances the way they are, the churches would snatch the gay arm off for their support, likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have.

Regarding equality, I can't get married in most Churches, because I don't subscribe to their beliefs. Personally quite comfortable with that, and whilst I do believe they are seriously missing out by not having me, I don't feel discriminated against, anymore than I do that I'm not eligible to become king..... that's a lie actually, that one really boils my pee!

So there we have it, not being accepted into an arcane and irrelevant club doesn't really matter, however state sponsored discrimination does.

Berm Bandit - Member

... likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have. ...

Yes, I thought the whole thing is driven by trying to attract votes rather than actual equality thing. Everyone is trying to outdo each other by trying to be whiter than white ... errmm ... okay ... that might sound discriminatory by referring to colour.

the whole thing is driven by trying to attract votes

I'm not 100% certain, but isn't that the whole idea underpinning the concept of democracy? 😯

chewkw - I think it might make for better discussion if you understood the concept of equality properly before arguing for or against it. Don't look for this information in the UKIP pamphlets.

hels - Member

chewkw - I think it might make for better discussion if you understood the concept of equality properly before arguing for or against it. Don't look for this information in the UKIP pamphlets.

Back to equality ...

Do you force/insist the concept of equality on others?

Or

Do you wait to gain acceptance from others on the concept of equality?

😯

Equality in this context is a concept in law, so yes, the guaranteed rights equality affords an individual are backed up with the full force of the law.

ernie_lynch - Member

Equality in this context is a concept in law, so yes, the guaranteed rights equality affords an individual are backed up with the full force of the law.

Ok. By force back up by law ...

Please Do Not export such concept to other countries ...

Please Do Not use this as an excuse to police the world ...

Please Do Not use this concept to exterminate other cultures ...

Please Do Not use this to kill of diversity ...

Keep this local ... please.

Otherwise, it's equally fair to accept Dear Leader and his wisdom. 😆

Do you force/insist the concept of equality on others?

Do you wait to gain acceptance from others on the concept of equality?

Junkyard - lazarus

Saddly yes as some think it is ok to discriminate

Isn't that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

Is it ok if you are told by law to love Dear Leader? Will you?

Do you think this law change means they suddenly accepts gays as equal ?

No. But then if the answer is no then why still change it?

Plenty fishy ...

😯

I'm utterly perplexed at the concept of equality being something that's a matter of debate as to whether it should be forced on people.

By extension, do you think that slavery should be optional? That we should, in the interests of equality, allow people who want to beat black people to carry on with that rather than imposing our views on them?

It's not about thought police, it's about being decent human beings rather than allowing prejudice to go unchallenged.

You [i]have[/i] to be trolling, surely?

Cougar - Moderator

I'm utterly perplexed at the concept of equality being something that's a matter of debate as to whether it should be forced on people.

The western world might have the concept of equality but the rest of the world might interpret equality differently from yours so does that mean they are wrong and out of order?

Why would you suggest your concept of equality is far superior to the concept of equality say in other part of the world?

By extension, do you think that slavery should be optional? That we should, in the interests of equality, allow people who want to beat black people to carry on with that rather than imposing our views on them?

In other part of the world they do not have to have slave because their hierarchical society enable things to work nicely. They are called maids/servants and not chained ... etc ... whatever you can think of. Yes, not all are treated nicely etc and yes, they do have "slave" but not in large scale ...

Fast forward a few centuries later ... the "developed nations" entered the scene. Now they considered themselves advance so by this I mean they played god. Then the "old European nations" took the concept of maids/servants to the extreme and that they called them stock ... I mean slave. A concept which older older nations with brown/black/yellow/red etc people simply did it small scale but at the same time in the old western nations (old EU for simplicity) it was sanctioned by their states. The fast forward ... you have all the slavery argument.

I really don't think any of the non-European (EU) nations had ever affected human migration as much as the old EU nations ... with slaves.

Bloody hell ... talking about playing god and then the devil ... make up your mind.

🙄

Berm Bandit - Member

Personally, I thought that with Church attendances the way they are, the churches would snatch the gay arm off for their support, likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have.

The logic here is that they expect to lose more of their existing supporters than they would gain from the pink pew. Missing the point that it's not just gay people they would gain more appeal to, it's also straight people who don't like dickheads, which is quite a big market.

But that's the trouble with religion, you've only got one product to sell and it's not easy to change it. And unfortunately, that product in most cases is basically VHS- once massive, now obsolete. So they're stuck selling VHS tapes to the few people who still use VHS. Some of their more progressive elements are pushing for a change to DVD and thinking they're cutting edge 😉