Who voted for these idiots? c'mon own up.

PC Fascists

The fundamentalist wing of the PC brigade.

Hetero community

😆

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever, they might not make a lot of noise about it for fear of God knows what law, rule or phobia they may be accused of, so shout and scream as the Liberal Left may, it’s not going to alter any time soon, (that opinion) and as far as any mandate the Liberal part of the coalition may have had, it went out of the window with tuition fees.

In English please?

TORY POWER!
Up Dave!

The answer is no one voted for them, there was never any comittment in either the Tory or Lib-Dem manifestoes for a coalition agreement.

nickf – Member
Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever, they might not make a lot of noise about it for fear of God knows what law, rule or phobia they may be accused of, so shout and scream as the Liberal Left may, it’s not going to alter any time soon, (that opinion) and as far as any mandate the Liberal part of the coalition may have had, it went out of the window with tuition fees.
Not to mention Sharia view on the subject…
This hetero married person is entirely relaxed about it; speak for yourself only, if you don’t mind. Seems to me that the phobias you mention are in your own mind, but if you have specific instances of it, why not mention them.

And what on earth does Sharia have to do with it? We’re specifically looking at civil marriages here – everyone accepts that religions can do their own thing.

Read it again, I said that opinion not my opinion, which is such I could give a ****, gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it’s their lifestyle choice, if they want to draw more derision than is already aimed their way then that’s up to them. Doesn’t worry me if they get married or not, most of my pals have over the years just quietly lead their lives and no one really cares or even judges these days, it’s just the ‘scene’ gays that make all the noise and the workaday types often suffer the more in silence..

You can’t have travelled much if you haven’t noticed what effect Sharia is having on some gay sectors of the community..

Well, I just don’t know where to go with that.

Attention seeking fools.
Scene gays.
Swear-filter avoidance to boot.
All in all, a post lacking fabulousness.

You can’t have travelled much if you haven’t noticed what effect Sharia is having on some gay sectors of the community..

Seriously, I’m not really aware of what you’re talking about. Care to enlighten me?

who someone chooses to marry is no one else’s business.

I’d like two wives please. Bigamy should be legalised now.

druidh – Member
I thought that the problem with “marriage” for same-sex couples was that they could then go on to claim discrimination if a church refused to carry out the ceremony?

I bet it’s not beyond the bounds of the intelligent law type people (can you tell I’m not one) to draft a law which says that we call it all marriage but churches are entitled to decide who gets married there. Pretty sure I can’t get married in a synagogue or a mosque or whatever the scientologists call the place the aliens are expelled from so I don’t see this as different. Enshrine religious freedom in private places (i.e. places of worship) do not enshrine it in public places (i.e. you can’t have a religious town hall registrar refusing to do gay marriages).

I’d like two wives please. Bigamy should be legalised now.

If all three (or more) parties are consenting, what’s the reason for no bigamy beyond the religious throwbacks? Anyone know? I know several people who are polyamorous and although it’s absolutely not for me, I don’t see that their choice is my business any more than it is with the gay community.

I’m trying to work out if I’m a scene gay or just a workaday one.

what’s the problem with renaming, civil unions, civil marriage? Why would anyone have a problem with that?
Come to think of it, why would anyone feel the need for it?

The point is that one group in society can get married and one cannot so it is by definition unequal treatment on grounds of sexuality which is ironically illegal
Perhaps we should suggest no one gets married in a church just so they can see how it feels to be denied your right..that is the thing with religion they don’t mind oppressing other folk because of what their book says but go mental if anyone tries to do the same back to them..their view is a minority but vocal viewpoint. – we could easily have civil marriages say in registry offices with no religious overtones…oh we do now we just need to allow it for those of the same gender or ban hetros form marrying I don’t care massively each way as long as they are equal

Er I would have thought that was a contradiction, if it’s no-ones business why do they want to declare the union in any other way than just co habitant? Hetero or Gay?
It’s a big deal getting married if you haven’t noticed, bans have to be posted and read, vows taken in public before witnesses..
It’s entirely for other folks business and notice

Its public but it is a personal declaration of a love and a personal commitment between two people who are so happy they share this with their nearest and dearest..it is not just for “show” as you weakly imply nor for th ebenefit of other people.

We live in a world now where ones constantly worried by the PC Fascists to even discuss stuff like this and a clear majority of folk are represented by those Tory views.

We live in a world of morons who don’t understand election results or survey data who then use emotive BS arguments to defend their stupid and ill evidenced arguments.
They did not get a majority of votes in general so its not a majority and the majority view [ simple FPTP] as used for elections would involve us having gay marriages. Despite PC fascists no one here seems scared to discuss i. nor are they scared to use inflammatory language whilst doing so. I would imagine worse can be found elsewhere….do you have any evidence for the ”fear” you describe? Heterosexuals quivering with fear about no longer bein able to be mean to gays because of what PCers will do to them…is their some hate crime statistics for their indignant tutting at them and their views?
In essence that’s BS
You may wish to rant about PC fascists [ idiotic term showing your distain] but propably better to calm down first and see if the actual facts support your rantette. Otherwis it looks like another emotional outburst.

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs, ever, they might not make a lot of noise about it for fear of God knows what law, rule or phobia they may be accused of, so shout and scream as the Liberal Left may, it’s not going to alter any time soon

They would be accused of treating people different based on their sexuality whish is exactly what is happening.

Did you see the survey above this..it is currently at 46%. It also says the most vociferous opposition is from religious groups and most support from young people..you did read the link Derek?
it will be the majority soon once enough old out of touch fuddy duddies have fallen of the mortal coil..how old are you again Derek 😉 The newer generation do not share these fears and are ok with gays so it will become law.

Zulu I am glad to see you go on about majority view and I await you STFU about hunting as no one wants to do this and you seem so keen to follow the majority in a democracy

Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% – say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.

In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.

Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.

Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.

JY – just wondering, do you have strong feelings on this? 😉

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs

Arseburgers! I knew I had forgotten to do something last time I moved house. Evidently. I didn’t change my address on the Hetero Community Electoral Roll and now I’ve missed out on the vote to appoint derekrides as Straight Folks Delegate and express our opinion.

I bet it’s not beyond the bounds of the intelligent law type people to draft a law which says that we call it all marriage but churches are entitled to decide who gets married there.

Don’t need to – that’s already what the law is in E&W. As you suggest – just because you’re a couple that is able to be married in E&W law, it doesn’t mean that you can oblige any priest, imam, rabbi or similar minister[/url] to marry you.

I think it’s perfectly right that religious practitioners should be permitted to refuse to marry gay people because the Big Book of Spells says that they’re naughty people. I also think it’s perfectly right that people should shun such practitioners’ religions.

I’m trying to work out if I’m a scene gay or just a workaday one.

Oh no! This is just like the business core v business support debate! 😥

Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.

I’m for gay marriage, and I have an ideological problem with toffs on horses. But I shoot foxes when they’re on my land – they’ve killed too many of my chickens

sorry Junky – I don’t get what you’re saying!

Are you agreeing with me that democracy should take precedence regardless, or are you saying that its acceptable to “pick and choose” which “minorities” get their rights protected?

So, majority opinion holds sway on hunting, but its ok to slit animals throats regardless of public opinion on the issue, because its in someones big book of spells…

Fine way to run a society that is, isn’t it 😕

attention seeking fools

🙄

I think it’s perfectly right that religious practitioners should be permitted to refuse to marry gay people because the Big Book of Spells says that they’re naughty people. I also think it’s perfectly right that people should shun such practitioners’ religions.

I don’t, if churches are to perform duties with legal implications ie marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality, if they aren’t willing to do so, then church weddings should have no legal status.

then church weddings should have no legal status.

This, for me, would be a good solution. It would probably cause a lot of hassle and queues at the registry office though.

MSP +1

Otherwise Churches are basically just social clubs for the bigoted.

That’s just petulant, though, MSP.

Religious people don’t have a monopoly on performing marriages. If you don’t agree with the religious views of a religious institution (“we don’t like gays, divorcees and infidels”), then don’t go there. There’s tons of other much nicer people who will marry you if you want them to (I know, I used one).

Religions are fundamentally different from other businesses organisations. It’s just self-evidently not the same to be refused service at Tesco and to be refused marriage at a Tabernacle.

You said “if churches are to perform duties with legal implications ie marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality”. How about saying “if people are to perform procedures with legal implications ie getting marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality”. Do you think that people should be prohibited from refusing to marry people of different religions, races, sexual orientations? Of course not – that would be an absurd infringement of personal rights.

Otherwise Churches are basically just social clubs for the bigoted.

Otherwise? 😛

Read it again, I said that opinion not my opinion, which is such I could give a ****, gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it’s their lifestyle choice, if they want to draw more derision than is already aimed their way then that’s up to them.

This is why the navy doesn’t employ them.

Sir Hugh Maharggs: Homosexuals can’t swim, they attract enemy radar, they attract sharks, they insist on being placed at “the captain’s table”, they get up late, they nudge people whilst they’re shooting. They muck about. Imagine… the fear… of knowing you have a gay man on board a boat, when you retire at night you think to yourself “God… will I wake up and find everybody dead?” You can’t run a ship like that

gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it’s their lifestyle choice

I’d like to mirror iDave’s 🙄 , throw in a 😯 and suggest that perhaps Derekrides needs to take a long look at himself. I can’t think of a single gay person I know who has sat down and said “Hmm, what I need is to expose myself to a lifetime of overt and less overt prejudice, bullying and discrimination with constant threats of physical or verbal abuse from bigots. At the very least I’d love to be treated as a second class citizen in my own country despite the fact I am required to contribute as much as anyone else to society. I know, I’ll be gay”.

Wow. Just… wow.

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs

Maybe I forgot to pay my Hetero Community membership fees, but if my sister marries her girlfriend I’ll be just as happy and see it as just as valid as when my other sister married her husband or my brother married his wife.

Has anyone yet come up with a valid reason that I can tell my kids, so that they understand why Auntie Sarah and Uncle Ali can get married but Auntie Jo and Auntie Liz can’t? Apart from “some people are bigots”, I can’t think of one.

Well I think Derek’s rather showed himself up. No real need to comment on the stupidity of his post (other than that 😉 )

Gay Union is not likely to be received by the Hetero community as the same as theirs

Wishful thinking I reckon. I’m not sure that I know of more than a handful of people personally that think that way and tbh whenever they say anything along those lines, it’s clear that people don’t agree. Obviously there’ll be pockets of bigots out there that convince themselves that their views are the norm but that doesn’t make it so. Things are changing and for the better. (LOL @ ‘Hetero community’ though)

I’m trying to work out if I’m a scene gay or just a workaday one.

By my reckoning on here you’re a workaday one 🙂

Dammit. I read a post, get infuriated, start formulating a strong and verbose reply in my head, scroll down and blow me, I’m considerably beaten to it. It’s bloody annoying holding a sensible, popular position on a topic, you have to be quick to bring anything to the party!

Maybe I should pretend to hold an unusual opinion and be deliberately antagonistic and argumentative just to provide a public service, like… Ummm

Nope. Can’t bring myself to do it.

derekrides: you seem to be an attention seeking fools,but it’s your lifestyle choice, you appear to have drawn more derision than was already aimed your way but then that’s up to you.

If their really is an issue then MSP’s suggestion appears best and can be modeled on the french system . The couple can have a religious ceremony that accords with what ever beliefs they hold at what ever religious venue wishes to host them. This for all legal purposes is entirely irrelevant and is simply a private matter between them and their fellow believers . Then they go on to the town hall and have a legal civil marriage this would create the legal state of marriage and be the only required ceremony, this marriage would of course be available to all adults.

IanMunro – Member
Read it again, I said that opinion not my opinion, which is such I could give a ****, gays by their nature are very often attention seeking fools, it’s their lifestyle choice, if they want to draw more derision than is already aimed their way then that’s up to them.
This is why the navy doesn’t employ them.

Sir Hugh Maharggs: Homosexuals can’t swim, they attract enemy radar, they attract sharks, they insist on being placed at “the captain’s table”, they get up late, they nudge people whilst they’re shooting. They muck about. Imagine… the fear… of knowing you have a gay man on board a boat, when you retire at night you think to yourself “God… will I wake up and find everybody dead?” You can’t run a ship like that

What are you suggesting here chum?

I dont’ have any issues with Gay folk, I work with them daily, count several as friends have watched the problems they’ve faced heard their discussions, however like all sections of society they frequently disagree with the way they are projected by their peers…

As to what we’re discussing here is not my opinion, it is the opinion being complained about as demonstrated by the Tory opposition, so don’t try and wrap me up in it.

The term ‘Scene’ Gay is from within the shall we say more flamboyant of the Gay community, scene gays were the active oft more promiscuous as against the more down to earth everyday person who is just living a normal life with a gay partner rather than clubbing, parading, and ‘queening’ didn’t realise it wasn’t widely known.
In real life it shouldn’t matter what your bloody sexual preference is and for the most part doesn’t, however in my experience more like to shout it these days than don’t, gets to the point you wonder if its a challenge sometimes, why should it matter, at street level it’s been accepted now for forty years or more, no one cares, move on..

Try not to misread posts I’ve noticed a lot of it going on on this forum, more interest in writing than reading happens a lot here.

Junkyard – Member
what’s the problem with renaming, civil unions, civil marriage? Why would anyone have a problem with that?
Come to think of it, why would anyone feel the need for it?

The point is that one group in society can get married and one cannot so it is by definition unequal treatment on grounds of sexuality which is ironically illegal
Perhaps we should suggest no one gets married in a church just so they can see how it feels to be denied your right..that is the thing with religion they don’t mind oppressing other folk because of what their book says but go mental if anyone tries to do the same back to them..their view is a minority but vocal viewpoint. – we could easily have civil marriages say in registry offices with no religious overtones…oh we do now we just need to allow it for those of the same gender or ban hetros form marrying I don’t care massively each way as long as they are equal
Er I would have thought that was a contradiction, if it’s no-ones business why do they want to declare the union in any other way than just co habitant? Hetero or Gay?
It’s a big deal getting married if you haven’t noticed, bans have to be posted and read, vows taken in public before witnesses..
It’s entirely for other folks business and notice

Its public but it is a personal declaration of a love and a personal commitment between two people who are so happy they share this with their nearest and dearest..it is not just for “show” as you weakly imply nor for th ebenefit of other people.

Oh really?

So if it isn’t ‘for show’ why did Bernie Ecclestone spend 6 million on his daughters wedding including having a professional video of cinematic proportion made?

Because he’s a gypsy in an expensive suit.

Or maybe 6m is picket money for him.

Maybe he’s an attention seeking ‘scene’ Hetero fool.

Because HE is an idiot (or doting father and blinded by his love for his idiot daughter).

Spot on Crankboy – that would work very well indeed.

Though we’d miss the opportunity to see Mrs and Mrs Emsz-and-her-now-wife swish down the aisle in a flurry of attention-seeking silk. Less of an excuse to do that if there is, in fact, no aisle, and you’re in the romantic setting of Watford Registry Office.

So I’d stick with the licencing of posh houses, for aesthsetic reasons if no other.

I voted for them, I voted for my local Tory MP who has done a lot more for the area than the previous labour MP.

How has this debate moved on from the first page? Issues sorted in first few posts, up to about Ian’s, and all fine and dandy.

I think it’s moved more towards Derek being a bit silly now and enjoying the attention. Worse fools us for falling for it.

If their really is an issue then MSP’s suggestion appears best and can be modeled on the french system

No, that’s a crap and unnecessarily complicated system that infringes on people’s freedom to be married by their spiritual advisors for reasons of spite.

The American system (well, used in many US states) is far superior: get a marriage licence from government office, then have the actual ceremony performed by a celebrant. The celebrant can be anyone who passes the (minimal) test to be recognised as one: religious practitioner, (equivalent of) registry officer, singing Elvis, whoever.

Exactly!

(oops too slow)

When I get married, I want a singing gay gypsy to perform the ceremony.

Surely having two of them at the wedding would be a faux-pax though 😉

two of what? 😕

why did Bernie Ecclestone spend 6 million on his daughters wedding including having a professional video of cinematic proportion made?

ok two points
1. his ex wife Petra Ecclestons paid for it not Bernie – I assume you can google
2. It was !2 million not 6 million

Bernie said:’My younger daughter got married and I thought, as father of the bride, I should pay for the wedding.

‘But when it was suggested how much they would be spending on drinks, I thought it was absurd, and I managed to upset my daughter and my wife.

‘Then she spent in excess of £12million on my daughter’s wedding, which I did not know about until afterwards.’

I dont see how the cost or the outlandishness of it all counters this point

Its public but it is a personal declaration of a love and a personal commitment between two people who are so happy they share this with their nearest and dearest..it is not just for “show” as you weakly imply nor for th ebenefit of other people.

Notice not Just for show – do you claim she got wed just for the extravagenace or do you think she loved him and wants to spend the rest of her life with him? Go on derek guess
Apart from all that another excellent post del boy

don’t, if churches are to perform duties with legal implications ie marriage, then they should have to according to the laws of equality, if they aren’t willing to do so, then church weddings should have no legal status.

+ loads

Why do we allow the religious to be bigots? how would they react if we decided to actively discriminate against them, ..say for example ban them from teaching, being doctors, public office etc. It should not be used as a cloak to hide behind and when religious belief conflicts with the law the later should win….its just more pamdering to folk who want to enforce a 4000 year old belief system and moral code on us all.

Two’undred.

I believe this is a tradition round these parts, no?