Gay Marriage - The Vote

[Twinkle Toes]

Marriage should be a religious ceremony only, and religion should have no place in politics & law.

It should be down to the church whether they accept homosexual marriages, but the law should obviously continue civil partnerships.

Blimey. We have a Revolutionary in our midst!

 

[supaseagull]

It's a no from me.

I believe strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

[Nibble]

i have no objection to male homosexuality, I just dont want to see it .

I don't think any of us want to see it in detail but two men holding hands certainly wouldn't turn my stomach. Watching you get off with someone would probably turn my stomach though.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I have not.

You should.

 

[piersa]

You might as well quote from Grimm's Fairy Tales.

you have my pity

 

[Bold Seagull]

just gay parenting through surrogacy.

It shouldnt be allowed because i feel that children learn behaviour and life skills through both mother and father, we are playing with fire , going against nature to be perfectly honest.

So, what about orphans, children who have lost a parent, children whose parents have separated and one might have moved away, children in care, children who are victims of abuse, parents who just don't give a shit etc.etc.?

All those go against nature by your logic.

I honestly believe that all a child basically needs is love, care and stability. It doesn't matter where that comes from, whether a children's home, foster carers, single parents, gay couples, if they get those basic things they'll be fine, it's not playing with fire at all.

 

[topbanana36]

No thanks. More disgraceful quotes from liviticus.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them"[/QUOTE

Well done - except that it is leviticus and not liviticus, and that book is from the old covenant if you know your biblical history. You will also know reading the whole bible that it brings life and peace to those who believe, which is obviously not you as you come across as someone who is not at peace with themselves.

 

[The Large One]

It's a no from me.

I believe strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

It already is.

Soon it will be between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman.

There - honour is satisfied.

 

[Bozza]

Anyway, aside from the morals of this issue it is the usual issues starting to eat at the Tory party. Europe a few weeks ago and now gay marriage, when will they ever learn, when will they ever modernise?

So, Labour had, what, 13 years to make this change but didn't get round to it. The Conservatives propose the change and they are accused of not being willing to modernise?

You lefties are as looney as ever.

 

[piersa]

No thanks. More disgraceful quotes from liviticus.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them"[/QUOTE

Well done - except that it is leviticus and not liviticus, and that book is from the old covenant if you know your biblical history. You will also know reading the whole bible that it brings life and peace to those who believe, which is obviously not you as you come across as someone who is not at peace with themselves.

Ah yes, the amateur psychologist. Leviticus or liviticus, it is still a complete abomination. But hey, God works in mysterious ways, or at least he does when when there is no logical answer.

I have been approached by various religions who have attempted to brainwash me over the years but fortunately I have had the mental fortitude and intelligence to repel them.

 

[Frutos]

No thanks. More disgraceful quotes from liviticus.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them"[/QUOTE

Well done - except that it is leviticus and not liviticus, and that book is from the old covenant if you know your biblical history. You will also know reading the whole bible that it brings life and peace to those who believe, which is obviously not you as you come across as someone who is not at peace with themselves.

Old TESTAMENT, innit?

 

[Nibble]

No thanks. More disgraceful quotes from liviticus.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them"[/QUOTE

Well done - except that it is leviticus and not liviticus, and that book is from the old covenant if you know your biblical history. You will also know reading the whole bible that it brings life and peace to those who believe, which is obviously not you as you come across as someone who is not at peace with themselves.

It may well bring life and peace to those who believe. That doesn't give those who believe the right to deny an homosexual the right to life and peace.

 

[User removed 4]

So, what about orphans, children who have lost a parent, children whose parents have separated and one might have moved away, children in care, children who are victims of abuse, parents who just don't give a shit etc.etc.?

All those go against nature by your logic.

I honestly believe that all a child basically needs is love, care and stability. It doesn't matter where that comes from, whether a children's home, foster carers, single parents, gay couples, if they get those basic things they'll be fine, it's not playing with fire at all.

Yes , all the above go against nature , not a lot we can do about it though, why add to it ?As for the argument about kids staying in care through a lack of adoptive parents, the recent UKIP foster parent case has shown up the care system for what it is .

 

[Bold Seagull]

So, Labour had, what, 13 years to make this change but didn't get round to it. The Conservatives propose the change and they are accused of not being willing to modernise?

You lefties are as looney as ever.

Labour that introduced Civil Partnerships in the first place under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 you mean!?

 

[terryberry1]

30 pages. At least

 

[Nibble]

Yes , all the above go against nature , not a lot we can do about it though, why add to it ?As for the argument about kids staying in care through a lack of adoptive parents, the recent UKIP foster parent case has shown up the care system for what it is .

So you'd rather see a kid grow up in a children's home with a completely unnatural scenario, no two people specifically to raise them, no family unit, no hugs, no parental bond than see the child adopted by a loving, caring committed couple of the same sex? You haven't really thought this through have you?

 

[Bozza]

Labour that introduced Civil Partnerships in the first place under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 you mean!?

...but not gay marriage. Understood.

A fair number of Labour MPs will be voting against this too, I understand. Just when will they modernise?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes , all the above go against nature , not a lot we can do about it though, why add to it ?As for the argument about kids staying in care through a lack of adoptive parents, the recent UKIP foster parent case has shown up the care system for what it is .

I'm not for a second defending our care system, or social services responsibilities for protecting children in danger from male and female parents, of which there are many.

You're saying something bad can happen through a child being bought up by a same sex couple i.e. playing with fire, like there will be some kind of catastrophe in generations to come. There is no basis for this, just your instinctive opinion.

 

[Nibble]

Yes , all the above go against nature , not a lot we can do about it though, why add to it ?As for the argument about kids staying in care through a lack of adoptive parents, the recent UKIP foster parent case has shown up the care system for what it is .

So you'd rather see a kid grow up in a children's home with a completely unnatural scenario, no two people specifically to raise them, no family unit, no hugs, no parental bond than see the child adopted by a loving, caring committed couple of the same sex? You haven't really thought this through have you?

 

[terryberry1]

There should be a poll for this. Would be interesting to see the results