Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Gay Marriage - The Vote
- Thread starter The Large One
- Start date
I actually edited my comment before you posted a reply to better reflect my question.
And as we're here, yeah, actually there is a need. I was simply asking them for the reasons behind it, not an uncommon practice on a discussion board. I never insinuated that they were not entitled to an opinion. Why would I want to do that? They can enter a debate with me or not, I don't think there's any need for you to throw your toys out the pram of their behalf.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
I think the phrase " what a c*nt " is on most people's lips, it's certainly on mine
Is that your best shot in the use of your words *** Warning time again: Language and abuse on NSC ***
Louis C.K - **** ****** - YouTube
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
I am not opposed to gay marriage.
However I am opposed to religious institutions being forced to marry homosexuals when it is against their beliefs, which is what this law will do.
I am happy for non religious marriages for homosexuals to take place though.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #305
NSC is no more a cross-section of society than anywhere else, aside from we're football fans.
I think it's disingenuous to other clubs' fans, and tokenistic, just because We Are Brighton, to presume the kind of outcome you present.
User removed 4
New member
I cant play it as I'm at work, I'm not sure of your point, you do realise I was referring to myself and my catastrophic miscalculation ?
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #307
You haven't paid any attention to this law at all, have you?
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
Amazingly the Church of England has managed to get the bill wording to allow opting out, I wonder of they will start chucking out priests if they start marrying Gay people in Quaker houses and not in CoE premises. So I am under the impression no one will be forced to do anything.
But that state isn't forcing religious institutions to allow homosexuals to marry. It's just allowing said couple the right to be married. That place doesn't have to be a church..
I don't really care who loves who and am happy for anyone who can find love that is reciprocated.
My main objection to Gay Marriage is that I don't think a Government can suddenly redefine what an ancient and long standing institution like marriage actually is.I also believe that the importance of traditional marriage has been undermined by society,but that is probably a topic for another time!!
Let us have marriage for a man and a woman and civil partnerships for gays.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
Its not work safe
User removed 4
New member
I got ther impression you thought i was referring to someone else as (vnt ?
skipper734
Registered ruffian
Ok. I'm gonna poke the Bear here.
Strange form of words Mr Biscuit. Bozza libeled all the No voters, by labeling us all bigots, nice.
I voted No because I cannot understand how Gay Marriage can be carried out under the same Law under which my marriage took place and then divorced.
Gay marriage cannot be consummated as required by British Law. To get divorced........ I've no idea how to describe adultery in a Gay marriage to conform to British Law.
So to enable there to be equality you have to completely rewrite the form of words that describes marriage, thus rendering all previous heterosexual marriages different from what would be current marriage, or have two different forms of marriage and where is the equality in that?
Strange form of words Mr Biscuit. Bozza libeled all the No voters, by labeling us all bigots, nice.
I voted No because I cannot understand how Gay Marriage can be carried out under the same Law under which my marriage took place and then divorced.
Gay marriage cannot be consummated as required by British Law. To get divorced........ I've no idea how to describe adultery in a Gay marriage to conform to British Law.
So to enable there to be equality you have to completely rewrite the form of words that describes marriage, thus rendering all previous heterosexual marriages different from what would be current marriage, or have two different forms of marriage and where is the equality in that?
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,085
Wonder if this'll ever catch on?
That's interesting.
I'd say the problem is that people would not view a civil partnership on an equal footing to marriage. For example, if homosexuals aren't allowed to get married, would that not create a form of social snobbery (or as Aker put it a 'class system') that'd boil it down to 'this is something we can have, and you can't'.
banjo
GOSBTS
You obviously feel strongly about this subject to feel the need to show who voted NO. Its simply I voted no. Its a football forum were not on Prime ministers question time so don't feel I need to explain why.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
It allows gay people to be married. Chruches, Mosques, Synagogues or any other religious place of worship ARENT forced to marry gay people - and chances are they wont want to get married with a religion anyway so it doesnt matter. Weddings would happen in private venues, like registry offices or the Amex, for example.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
No the use of Chaucer's words
JCL - the new kid in town
Well-known member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
As previously mentioned surely a marriage is about a loving union? I disagree that it needs to be religious and it doesn't need to have old fashioned ideas like "obey" in the ceremony. I don't believe being married has changed my relationship and i don't think its necessary either but everyone should surely have the choice.
I could understand objection more if marriage was always about religion however i'm pretty sure registry office weddings do not allow any religious mentions anyway and so are only different from civil partnerships in name so why the need to call it something different except for a couple of laws and politicians are always changing (modernising) laws anyway.
On the slightly off topic subject of same-sex couples having children, i believe that the fact they choose to have a child means that they may give it a better upbringing than other parents. In fact if you object to anyone having children then i feel you're only one step from a big brother state where anyone has to be vetted before they have children
I could understand objection more if marriage was always about religion however i'm pretty sure registry office weddings do not allow any religious mentions anyway and so are only different from civil partnerships in name so why the need to call it something different except for a couple of laws and politicians are always changing (modernising) laws anyway.
On the slightly off topic subject of same-sex couples having children, i believe that the fact they choose to have a child means that they may give it a better upbringing than other parents. In fact if you object to anyone having children then i feel you're only one step from a big brother state where anyone has to be vetted before they have children
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
They can enter a debate with me or not, I don't think there's any need for you to throw your toys out the pram of their behalf.
I love it when you get indignant and pretend you're not with a smiley.
I think we're all aware of what a discussion board is and how to join in with the debate if we choose. It came across to me as a bit Charlie Big Potatoes listing everyone who you disagreed with and asking them to justify themselves (made worse by the fact that you just clearly steamed in without reading the thread as a lot of the people who you had listed had already stated their positions).