Gay Marriage - The Vote

[Nibble]

i think that this debate is a bit harsh in as much as there is very little leeway by the pro-camp given to people who through conditioning and the overall social attitudes up until VERY recently, find it difficult to accept. the prevailing wind is with the pro camp and to their detriment its all a bit Year Zero in terms of understanding the anti or undecided camp and portraying them as bigoted dinosaurs without any acceptance of the causes of the reticence outside religious objection.

i couldnt give two fucks to be honest I like people to be treated fairly and if this is what it takes in our society then so be it. but hectoring and bullying is undignified on either side no matter if one sides had a far harder and more unjust time of it through history. the victors must show compassion to the vanquished.

Totally disagree. Hectoring and bullying has been the ONLY way to get this to a vote. Homosexuals had to put up with bullying and hectoring from these bigots for years, they were even criminalised for it, so if it takes hectoring for these hipocritical old walruses to finally get with the program then so be it.

 

[albion534]

It's the 21st century, these fools need to get with the times and stop living in the Stone Age, if you can accept a gay couple, let them be married, if you are offended by it because its not gods way, let him deal with it?

I just think its a massive fuss about nothing, a gay couple has the same rights as anyone

 

[OzMike]

Of course, I must be of school age if I disagree with you. But it's ok for you to suggest that anyone who has religious beliefs is stupid? You sir, are a complete twat!

Again, take religion, freedom of choice; everyone should have freedom of choice and be free to exercise it however they see fit.

 

[brightn'ove]

Being uncomfortable is a valid reason.

If you can't explain why it makes you uncomfortable, then you are by definition, homophobic.

Much the same as if somebody can't explain why they are uncomfortable around cotton wool, they are by definition bambakomallophobic.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Was the creation of homosexual marriages in the Tory party manifesto? I don't seem to remember it, can anyone remember?

It was something to do with creating prosperity for all through a leaner, meaner Britain - thanks to the role of Venture Capitalists & decimating public spending & services. Just the usual MO.

Oh yeah, and "we're all in it together" of course. Hope that helps.

 

[Arthur]

Apparently, religious readings are forbidden in civil partnership civil ceremonies. Gay marriage v civil partnership: what's the difference? | World news | The Guardian (EDIT: TLO just posted that Q&A above)

I think it's a personal preference whether they say 'husband/wife' or 'partner', much like with straight marriages.

But I don't think you can so easily dismiss the importance of being able to put your relationship on the same level as everyone else's, it can be hard for people who aren't in that position to understand how much it affects you to be told you're not allowed the same as others, to be told you're different and have to sit at that other (metaphorical) table. It is more than just a name.

That was kinda my point. To me personally there is a difference to someone saying "I'm going to meet my husband/wife at the shops" to "I'm going to meet my partner at the shops". If as you say it's about equality and they were that hell bent on ensuring they got it you'd assume they'd say the former?

 

[Nibble]

Right, let me walk you through this slowly , you should be able to grasp what I say then. You asked me if i would

" 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?


I replied

" What part of

" 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 . "are you struggling with ?? you haven't really read my post have you ?

Thus answering your post, you obviously couldnt work out the point I was trying to make , i'll spell it out for you ,

i believe there are plenty of parents turned down for adoption by biased and frankly, not fit for purpose social services departments, this was highlighted by the local authority who's social services removed a pair of foster children due to the foster parents membership of UKIP.

I can post it in large print if you're still having difficulty ?

You could do, or you could just answer the question I actually asked you without bringing UKIP into it. In no way does the above rambling answer my question. But don't worry Bushy, it's pretty obvious what your position will be. Same as it always is. You are excused.

 

[The Spanish]

Totally disagree. Hectoring and bullying has been the ONLY way to get this to a vote. Homosexuals had to put up with bullying and hectoring from these bigots for years, they were even criminalised for it, so if it takes hectoring for these hipocritical old walruses to finally get with the program then so be it.

thanks for proving my point so spectacularly nibble.

 

[terryberry1]

If you can't explain why it makes you uncomfortable, then you are by definition, homophobic.

Much the same as if somebody can't explain why they are uncomfortable around cotton wool, they are by definition bambakomallophobic.

Righty o

 

[DJ Leon]

I voted YES. I believe in equality.

 

[Buck]

Again, take religion, freedom of choice; everyone should have freedom of choice and be free to exercise it however they see fit.

Absolutely. As long as they don't try to impose their will on others and don't do others harm, live and let live.

 

[The Spanish]

Totally disagree. Hectoring and bullying has been the ONLY way to get this to a vote. Homosexuals had to put up with bullying and hectoring from these bigots for years, they were even criminalised for it, so if it takes hectoring for these hipocritical old walruses to finally get with the program then so be it.

this is an imaginary enemy like your bankers. old walruses colonel blimp types and a country full of angry repressed littlejohns. to be honest its pushing an open door right now thats my point about the hectoring.

 

[The Large One]

Right, let me walk you through this slowly , you should be able to grasp what I say then. You asked me if i would

" 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?


I replied

" What part of

" 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 . "are you struggling with ?? you haven't really read my post have you ?

Thus answering your post, you obviously couldnt work out the point I was trying to make , i'll spell it out for you ,

i believe there are plenty of parents turned down for adoption by biased and frankly, not fit for purpose social services departments, this was highlighted by the local authority who's social services removed a pair of foster children due to the foster parents membership of UKIP.

I can post it in large print if you're still having difficulty ?

You're appear to be using the argument of one dreadful case - the ridiculous politicisation of child adoption - to justify the concept of two same-sex parents as being wrong.

In short, you've answered a question he didn't ask.

 

[MattBackHome]

I voted YES. I believe in equality.

Word.

 

[topbanana36]

It was something to do with creating prosperity for all through a leaner, meaner Britain - thanks to the role of Venture Capitalists & decimating public spending & services. Just the usual MO.

Oh yeah, and "we're all in it together" of course. Hope that helps.

Thank you someone who doesn't resort to abuse.

 

[piersa]

Of course, I must be of school age if I disagree with you. But it's ok for you to suggest that anyone who has religious beliefs is stupid? You sir, are a complete twat!

How did you know I have a knighthood?

 

[User removed 4]

You're appear to be using the argument of one dreadful case - the ridiculous politicisation of child adoption - to justify the concept of two same-sex parents as being wrong.

In short, you've answered a question he didn't ask.

What part of the question that nibble asked


" 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?


are YOU struggling with ??

 

[Lush]

you have my pity

"Pity originally means feeling for others, particularly feelings of sadness or sorrow, and was once used in a comparable sense to the more modern words "sympathy" and "empathy". Through insincere usage, it now has more unsympathetic connotations of feelings of superiority or condescension."

 

[Nibble]

this is an imaginary enemy like your bankers. old walruses colonel blimp types and a country full of angry repressed littlejohns. to be honest its pushing an open door right now thats my point about the hectoring.

Oh I see, so nobody criminilised homesexuality, people didn't go to prison for their "crime", people aren't going to vote against homosexual marrriage. Righto!

 

[birthofanorange]

I have no problem whatsoever with this, if that is what gay couples want. Why on earth should anyone have a problem with something that will (possibly!) make two people happy, and will have no adverse effect on your own life? Why try to impose your opinions - for that is all you are doing - on someone elses choices? Surely there are more worthy targets for your 'discomfort' and general busybody-ness. *shrug*