Gay Marriage - Are we doomed?

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnPYfpp4gI&feature=player_embedded

Pat Robertson obviously thinks so.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Personally I think that two people who love each other and decide to commit should have the same rights and obligations regardless of the make up of the couple, assuming both are human.

[Cripps_orig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnPYfpp4gI&feature=player_embedded

Pat Robertson obviously thinks so.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Personally I think that two people who love each other and decide to commit should have the same rights and obligations regardless of the make up of the couple, assuming both are human.

This

[Injury Time]

need to keep those poor divorce lawyers from going out of business so yeah knock themselves out :good:

[Master Splinter]

Outlaw marriage; everything is solved.

[Marc Overmars]

Eccentric gays are a bit disgusting tbh.

Normal gays are fine though, there is a lad in the office who is a homo but is just one of the lads really. Drinks beer, talks football, curses and farts.

No reason why they shouldn't have the same rights and obligations tbf. I'm sure a committed gay couple could give a better upbringing to a child than many of the immature and squabbling hetrosexual couples out there.

[Letters]

Eccentric gays are a bit disgusting tbh.

Normal gays are fine though

Innit.

I don't mind people being gay so long as they don't stick it down my throat :sulk:


PS: No, we're not doomed and I don't have any problem with gay unions and equal rights and all that but it doesn't sit well with me calling it marriage, to me that is by definition a union between a man and a woman. I guess that definition could change but that's how I feel about it.

[Syn]

Personally I think that two people who love each other and decide to commit should have the same rights and obligations regardless of the make up of the couple, assuming both are human.

That is the only correct stance.

[GP]

Equal rights for them dirty bum drillers.

[Marc Overmars]

I must admit though, I'd be gutted if my kid turned out to be gay.

:coffee:

[Niall_Quinn]

As long as they keep it behind closed doors and don't flaunt that shit around, keep their diseases to themselves and the sick faggot fucks element forgoes grooming confused kids, fine, why not, let them play house.

[Master Splinter]

That is the only correct stance.

It is prejudiced against all non-humans though.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

People are free to do as they please in their own homes, besides how are you going to dictate such an innate thing as sexual desires. What I object to is forcing the rest of society to accept and acknowledge a certain moral stance. That is the dictatorship of secuarism.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

It is prejudiced against all non-humans though.

Yeah, why shouldn't Jay Spearing be allowed to be with who he wants to?

[Coney]

It is prejudiced against all non-humans though.

Exactly. It should be all sentient beings, regardless of planet of origin.

[Thierrymon]

Outlaw marriage; everything is solved.

:gp:

Marriage means fuck all anyways these days.

[Nozza!]

People are free to do as they please in their own homes, besides how are you going to dictate such an innate thing as sexual desires. What I object to is forcing the rest of society to accept and acknowledge a certain moral stance. That is the dictatorship of secuarism.

Oi, geezer, your typing goes to shit when you're angry doesn't it?...

Oh and on gay marriage...science as always has the rationale...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-j-zak/gay-marriage-is-natural_b_112256.html

[Toronto Gooner]

People are free to do as they please in their own homes, besides how are you going to dictate such an innate thing as sexual desires. What I object to is forcing the rest of society to accept and acknowledge a certain moral stance. That is the dictatorship of secuarism.
Interesting statement. It can be easily argued that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is forcing all society to accept the judeo-christian view of the world. What makes the judeo-christian moral stance better than the hindu or muslim or athiest or shinto?

[Injury Time]

People are free to do as they please in their own homes, besides how are you going to dictate such an innate thing as sexual desires. What I object to is forcing the rest of society to accept and acknowledge a certain moral stance. That is the dictatorship of secuarism.


Interesting statement. It can be easily argued that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is forcing all society to accept the judeo-christian view of the world. What makes the judeo-christian moral stance better than the hindu or muslim or athiest or shinto?

The crusades? :unsure:

[Coney]

The crusades? :unsure:

... and the a-bomb. Dropping it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima shows our moral superiority over shinto.

[Toronto Gooner]

The crusades? :unsure:
Have to ask: Is this a rhetorical question? Or one supporting my rhetorical question or refuting it?

[hymppi]

i'm finding it sad that we still have to even discuss this.
love conquers all.
no matter the sex, economic status, race, religious background etc.

(except the fatties.)
:lol:

[dazthegooner]

i'm finding it sad that we still have to even discuss this.
love conquers all.
no matter the sex, economic status, race, religious background etc.

(except the fatties.)
:lol:

Fatist :sulk:

[WMUG]

It doesn't sit well with me calling it marriage, to me that is by definition a union between a man and a woman. I guess that definition could change but that's how I feel about it.

Any reason for this other than Biblical bigotry? Genuine question btw, I'd like to know if it's for religious reasons, fear of change or something else.

[Toronto Gooner]

Eccentric gays are a bit disgusting tbh.

Normal gays are fine though, there is a lad in the office who is a homo but is just one of the lads really. Drinks beer, talks football, curses and farts.

What about eccentric heterosexuals? Woody Allen marrying the 22 year old adopted daughter of his then partner (Mia Farrow), when he was 56, having known her since she was 10?

[Toronto Gooner]

we're not doomed and I don't have any problem with gay unions and equal rights and all that but it doesn't sit well with me calling it marriage, to me that is by definition a union between a man and a woman. I guess that definition could change but that's how I feel about it.
Until not so long ago, marriage was NOT a union between a man and a woman: it was the handing over of a woman from one man (her father) to another man (her husband). She was always subservient to a man. So the definition has already changed, and it will continue to change and evolve.

[Coney]

What about eccentric heterosexuals? Woody Allen marrying the 22 year old adopted daughter of his then partner (Mia Farrow), when he was 56, having known her since she was 10?

Woody Allen is not eccentric. He is just a self-obsessed one-trick twat.

[Coney]

Until not so long ago, marriage was NOT a union between a man and a woman: it was the handing over of a woman from one man (her father) to another man (her husband). She was always subservient to a man. So the definition has already changed, and it will continue to change and evolve.

A lot of people seem insecure and threatened by others being 'different' and those worried about gay marriage need to man-up just like Lesbians have.

[Flavs]

... and the a-bomb. Dropping it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima shows our moral superiority over shinto.

Well them slanty eyed bastards love a good fireworks show

[Coney]

i'm finding it sad that we still have to even discuss this.
love conquers all.
no matter the sex, economic status, race, religious background etc.

(except the fatties.)
:lol:

Do you have a fat wa against them?

[Flavs]

Do you have a fat wa against them?

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7647/banhim4.jpg

[dazthegooner]

Woody Allen is not eccentric. He is just a self-obsessed one-trick twat.

Or a nonce!

[Master Splinter]

I think by 'eccentric' MO meant excessively camp. Like Graham Norton or Boy George.

[Coney]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7647/banhim4.jpg

Now he just HAS to be American, being that big. :cheapstereotypegag.gif:

[Coney]

Or a nonce!


:lol:

[Maorigooner]

I think the great playwright and raconteur Oscar Wilde best summed it up when he said 'Now tickle me nuts until I surge' but back to the point...

I believe the pickle kissing community should have all the same rights as the rest of us. Yes that includes 'Fatties' you cheeky barstewards!

[Cripps_orig]

Any reason for this other than Biblical bigotry? Genuine question btw, I'd like to know if it's for religious reasons, fear of change or something else.

Dont you have like 50 lesbians in your family?

Pics or GTFO tbh

Muggles family :bow:

Got any of the other lot? :sick:

[Toronto Gooner]

Woody Allen is not eccentric. He is just a self-obsessed one-trick twat.
I admit to being a little "liberal" in the definition of eccentric. While I totally agree that Allen is a self-obsessed one-trick twat, I would add over-hyped to that list. Additionally, I think that we have to accept that if he was anything other than a entertainment media darling, he would have been called a creepy, dirty old man for what he did.

[LDG]

As long as they're not trying to shove one up my arse, they can do what they like.

More women to go round innit.

[Master Splinter]

As long as they're not trying to shove one up my arse, they can do what they like.



So they can shove it elsewhere then?

Good to know ##.

[Coney]

I admit to being a little "liberal" in the definition of eccentric. While I totally agree that Allen is a self-obsessed one-trick twat, I would add over-hyped to that list. Additionally, I think that we have to accept that if he was anything other than a entertainment media darling, he would have been called a creepy, dirty old man for what he did.

:gp: Glad I am not alone in thinking his stuff is overrated. I've never understood what all the fuss was about.

[Coney]

As long as they're not trying to shove one up my arse, they can do what they like.

More women to go round innit.

Yeah, but some of them are Lesbians. Mind you, I guess that wouldn't stop most guys.

[Joker]

Gay marriage should be recognised as equal to marriage between a man and a woman.

[Coney]

Gay marriage should be recognised as equal to marriage between a man and a woman.

The fact that a man-woman couple could undergo a ceremony enabling, for instance, the surviving partner to have a dying partner's estate tax free, but a same-sex couple could not is so clearly unfair the law needs to deal with that.

[WMUG]

Dont you have like 50 lesbians in your family?

Pics or GTFO tbh

Muggles family :bow:

Got any of the other lot? :sick:http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Joeview/DillonandAnna.jpg

Backwards, I took that ages ago and have since lost the magazine. Those are the only lesbians, quite a few gay guys though.

[Alan B'stard]

im ok with homosexualists as long as they dont support sp*rs
or stoke

[Joker]

The fact that a man-woman couple could undergo a ceremony enabling, for instance, the surviving partner to have a dying partner's estate tax free, but a same-sex couple could not is so clearly unfair the law needs to deal with that.

Agreed.

[WMUG]

The fact that a man-woman couple could undergo a ceremony enabling, for instance, the surviving partner to have a dying partner's estate tax free, but a same-sex couple could not is so clearly unfair the law needs to deal with that.

Isn't the only difference what it's called? What are the differences between marriages and civil unions, do you know?

[Coney]

Isn't the only difference what it's called? What are the differences between marriages and civil unions, do you know?

Unions are civil, marriages are uncivil, the bitch.

[Cripps_orig]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Joeview/DillonandAnna.jpg

Backwards, I took that ages ago and have since lost the magazine. Those are the only lesbians, quite a few gay guys though.
You following their lead?

The batty boys lead, not the lesbians lead obviously

[WMUG]

You following their lead?

The batty boys lead, not the lesbians lead obviously

:rolleyes:

No, as it happens.

[Coney]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Joeview/DillonandAnna.jpg

Backwards, I took that ages ago and have since lost the magazine. Those are the only lesbians, quite a few gay guys though.


Popplewell, who is gay, has helped a lesbian couple, lawyer Sarah Brooke and dentist Lucy Nichols, each conceive a child by acting as a sperm donor. A son and a daughter, Dillon and Anna, were born five months apart in 2006

Yeah right. So a guy tells a pair of Lesbians that he will inseminate them but it is OK because he is gay really. Nice work of you can get it. ;)

[LDG]

:rolleyes:

No, as it happens.

Ish.

[Cripps_orig]

:rolleyes:

No, as it happens.

As you know, ive been away for a while from GW.

How old are you now?

[WMUG]

Ish.

Stop reminding me of my idiocy :(

[WMUG]

As you know, ive been away for a while from GW.

How old are you now?

17 :good:

[Cripps_orig]

17 :good:

Wtf?

You were like 11 before my absense.

How long was i really gone for? :unsure:

[WMUG]

I joined when I was 12. 5 years have passed since :good:

[Letters]

Any reason for this other than Biblical bigotry? Genuine question btw, I'd like to know if it's for religious reasons, fear of change or something else.

You left the bit out of my post which pretty much answers your question.
It's just the label of marriage which doesn't sit well with me, I don't really know why, guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist.
Quite happy to call it something else which has all the same rights.

On the old board Jens' wrote an excellent post on his take on what you call 'Biblical bigotry'. I found it very helpful.

[Cripps_orig]

I joined when I was 12. 5 years have passed since :good:

I still think of you as the little kid who celebrated Xmas and every other religious holiday tbh despite being an Athiest.

[WMUG]

You left the bit out of my post which pretty much answers your question.
It's just the label of marriage which doesn't sit well with me, I don't really know why, guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist.
Quite happy to call it something else which has all the same rights.

On the old board Jens' wrote an excellent post on his take on what you call 'Biblical bigotry'. I found it very helpful.Letters decrying the use of selective quoting :lol:

And isn't it up to the people it'll affect what they get to call their unions? Calling it "marriage" won't adversely affect anyone, just get on with your own life.

I didn't see Jens''s ( :unsure: ) post, what was the gist?

[Letters]

Have you seen Jens' posts? You can't write a gist! :lol:

But basically it was an analysis of the original Greek and Hebrew in the places in the Bible which (apparently) condemn homosexuality.
He's a clever bloke that Jens'.
His take on it was that if you understand the original writing and language (I wouldn't claim to) then it's nowhere near as clear cut as a lot of Christians seem to think. Was an interesting read, I'll see if I can dig it out of the old site.

As for what it's called...I agree, it doesn't really matter, it's just how I feel. It's not something I have massively strong feelings about, if they decide to call it marriage I won't be campaigning or carrying placcards.

[WMUG]

Have you seen Jens' posts? You can't write a gist! :lol:

But basically it was an analysis of the original Greek and Hebrew in the places in the Bible which (apparently) condemn homosexuality.
He's a clever bloke that Jens'.
His take on it was that if you understand the original writing and language (I wouldn't claim to) then it's nowhere near as clear cut as a lot of Christians seem to think. Was an interesting read, I'll see if I can dig it out of the old site.

As for what it's called...I agree, it doesn't really matter, it's just how I feel. It's not something I have massively strong feelings about, if they decide to call it marriage I won't be campaigning or carrying placcards.
Good luck convincing the Christian Right in America of that :lol:
Anyway, if you condemn homosexuality because of Leviticus, you've got to do all sorts of crap: http://wellcraftedpuppies.com/node/71

[Sirjackofwilshere]

Interesting statement. It can be easily argued that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is forcing all society to accept the judeo-christian view of the world. What makes the judeo-christian moral stance better than the hindu or muslim or athiest or shinto?

But by and large in the West, irrespective of the labels attributed, homosexuals are protected by legisation and do not face persecution. On the other hand the secular state forces reigious people to fall in line with its arbitrary values, impinging on peoples freedom of religion and freedom of conscience - in fact the Judeo-Christian current (and the religious in general) is forcebully maligned and its followers targeted for ridicule and I would argue persecuted.

[Toronto Gooner]

But by and large in the West, irrespective of the labels attributed, homosexuals are protected by legisation and do not face persecution. On the other hand the secular state forces reigious people to fall in line with its arbitrary values, impinging on peoples freedom of religion and freedom of conscience - in fact the Judeo-Christian current (and the religious in general) is forcebully maligned and its followers targeted for ridicule and I would argue persecuted.
Interesting view point. I wonder how it fits with NBC having to publicly apologise for omitting "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the U.S. Open Golf? http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110619/pl_dailycaller/nbcomitsundergodfrompledgeofallegianceduringusopen sayswasntintentional

Simple question: Do you really think that anyone could be elected President of the U.S., Prime Minister of Canada, or Prime Minister of the U.K. if he or she were openly atheist?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Simple answer: No

[WMUG]

Maybe here. Know nothing about Camada, the US, absolutely not.

[Japan Shaking All Over]

Letters decrying the use of selective quoting :lol:

And isn't it up to the people it'll affect what they get to call their unions? Calling it "marriage" won't adversely affect anyone, just get on with your own life.

I didn't see Jens''s ( :unsure: ) post, what was the gist?


just get on with your own life.

top top post

why it should worry anyone is beyond me!
people saying they don't like the aggressive self-promoting manner in which some go about displaying their sexual prference
should remember that this behaviour is not only limited to homosexuals.

by legalising gay union/marriage (call it what you will) will not mean a sudden increase of behaviour patterns that are deemed unacceptable in conservative Britain
quite the opposite, it would result in the a certain peace of mind, a feeling of equalness from a community that contributes just as much to every facet of socirty, both good and bad.

People who are treated as an equal tend to happier than those that don't, for this simple reason alone there is no reason why everyone should not enjoy the same rights.
Why do we feel the need to build brick walls between ourselves just because we are uncomfortable with the way some looks or speaks.......surely we were all brought into this world as an equal and leave it as one.....why on eath can't we live our lives as ones too

[Coney]

Whilst religious groups have the right to say they don't approve of gays, have the right to keep their books (which suggest stoning them to death - as long as it is in private, of course, otherwise it would be incitement which is illegal) - while they might think such things, they do not have the right to impose it on others or to force inequality based on gender. Why should a person be prohibited from behaving as others and having a freely chosen partner because someone else disapproves?

[Letters]

Isn't that pretty much what everyone has said? :shrug:

[Coney]

Isn't that pretty much what everyone has said? :shrug:

If you don't want me posting on GW, just say so, otherwise get off my back.

[Letters]

What? :blink:

It was me who emailed you to tell you about the new site...

I've no idea how you took my post as a dig, all I'm saying is there's not much debate in this thread, pretty much everyone is agreeing with one another.

:shrug:

[LDG]

I hate gays.

[Coney]

What? :blink:

It was me who emailed you to tell you about the new site...

I've no idea how you took my post as a dig, all I'm saying is there's not much debate in this thread, pretty much everyone is agreeing with one another.

:shrug:

The other day I made a post giving my opinion and was told by a mod to 'give it a rest'. Now either we can post what we think or we can't.

Maybe things are meant a different way but I would suggest that the mods have a specific 'admin' account when posting as an administrator, and a different account to use when making comments like anyone else.

[Letters]

That post was by Gary who subsequently made it clear he wasn't giving you an instruction as a mod but it was his personal thought.

But I take the point about potential confusion when we post. Personally if I thought someone was out of line I'd most likely PM. If there was a squabble I might say something on the thread though.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, was it during your nap time,? the "give it a rest" post might have been out of concern for the more discerning, elder posters...

[Coney]

Oi, mush, was it during your nap time,? the "give it a rest" post might have been out of concern for the more discerning, elder posters...

:lol:

[Japan Shaking All Over]

:hug:

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://milkfordeadhamsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/acceptance.jpg

[Toronto Gooner]

In answer to the question of whether we (society) are doomed, I think this is something that is a threat:

Major League Eating & International Federation of Competitive Eating: http://www.ifoce.com/

Check out the records on this page: http://www.ifoce.com/records.php

[Xhaka Can’t]

7-Eleven Sports Slurpee
22 oz Sports Slurpee/7-Eleven Sports Slurping Time Trials
9 seconds/April 15, 2010
I'm getting a brainfreeze just thinking about this.

[Toronto Gooner]

The reason why I "thought" of this was that the local CBC radio morning programme was talking about the Tour de France, and then compared it to some hot dog eating competition that had been broadcast on ESPN (the commentary was nauseating :)). They pointed out that the average Tour cyclist expends about 8000 calories a day whereas the winner of the competition consumed about 20,000 calories in 10 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Wengerbabies]

Meh. Gaydos are disgusting but marriage is a stupid concept in itself. As long as two hetros who can't get/don't want a regular marriage are allowed to get a 'union' for tax breaks etc. I don't really see the problem. Ideally gays would be stoned to death though.

[Master Splinter]

Meh. Gaydos are disgusting but marriage is a stupid concept in itself. As long as two hetros who can't get/don't want a regular marriage are allowed to get a 'union' for tax breaks etc. I don't really see the problem. Ideally gays would be stoned to death though.

Your enlightened views have been missed.

Not really.