celebrity shaggers

[manxb&b]

Yeah homophobia is always a barrel of laughs.

you're right there... especially when they're celebrity homos!

[dilligaf]

 

Yeah homophobia is always a barrel of laughs.

you're right there... especially when they're celebrity homos!

 

[woolley]

I always seem to arrive just too late. Does dilli do that so that we feel as though we've missed something good?

[hillshepherd]

 

the excuse was the "children" may be affected,for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? a life of queerdom no doubt,i'd rather stay hungry,homeless and sleep easy at night than with this pair of queer guys.

 

I would rather live in luxury with a couple of homosexuals

YUK.

[Bananaman]

I've always found 3somes quite awkward for the host.

 

Hang on love, I'll be there in a mo'.

 

Silly

[woolley]

I've always found 3somes quite awkward for the host.

 

Hang on love, I'll be there in a mo'.

 

Silly

"Don't start without me. I'm just making some sandwiches for after."

[Rhumsaa]

 

 

the excuse was the "children" may be affected,for FUCKS sake what have a pair of queers got to offer a couple of orphaned kids? a life of queerdom no doubt,i'd rather stay hungry,homeless and sleep easy at night than with this pair of queer guys.

I would rather live in luxury with a couple of homosexuals

I thought you already did.

 

 

I'd hardly call a mansion with merely 3 Jacuzzi's "luxury".

[HeliX]

We are in the area of "thought legislation" aren't we? Where rather than telling you what you can't do, the law presumes to tell you what you can't think. Therefore, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman full stop, that is somehow wrong. Thought legislation brings the law into disrepute.

This is a very silly post. I notice you weren't complaining before the legislation was changed that anyone who thought a marriage should be between two people regardless of gender was being told what they can and can't think?

[woolley]

 

We are in the area of "thought legislation" aren't we? Where rather than telling you what you can't do, the law presumes to tell you what you can't think. Therefore, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman full stop, that is somehow wrong. Thought legislation brings the law into disrepute.

This is a very silly post. I notice you weren't complaining before the legislation was changed that anyone who thought a marriage should be between two people regardless of gender was being told what they can and can't think?

 

Of course not. You are seeking to change the definition of marriage by this legislation. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't change it. It's like legislating for it to stop raining. A partnership between a same gender couple is OK, a civil partnership is fine, but it isn't marriage.

[HeliX]

 

 

We are in the area of "thought legislation" aren't we? Where rather than telling you what you can't do, the law presumes to tell you what you can't think. Therefore, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman full stop, that is somehow wrong. Thought legislation brings the law into disrepute.

This is a very silly post. I notice you weren't complaining before the legislation was changed that anyone who thought a marriage should be between two people regardless of gender was being told what they can and can't think?

 

Of course not. You are seeking to change the definition of marriage by this legislation. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't change it. It's like legislating for it to stop raining. A partnership between a same gender couple is OK, a civil partnership is fine, but it isn't marriage.

 

What's changing it got to do with telling people what they think is wrong? Whether you change it or not, it's telling some group of people that what they think is wrong.

 

EDIT: Also, it's already changed, for reference.

"the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."

[woolley]

It's a different kind of partnership. So call it something else. It's like having brown eyes but wanting blue eyes, so you legislate that from now on brown eyes can be blue eyes. So it's legal but illogical.

[HeliX]

It's a different kind of partnership. So call it something else. It's like having brown eyes but wanting blue eyes, so you legislate that from now on brown eyes can be blue eyes. So it's legal but illogical.

Except that marriage is a social construct and eye colour is a fact.

 

Out of interest do you have a list of all social constructs you consider to be immutable somewhere?

 

Also, what is the big deal if it does change? How does it impact you?

[woolley]

 

It's a different kind of partnership. So call it something else. It's like having brown eyes but wanting blue eyes, so you legislate that from now on brown eyes can be blue eyes. So it's legal but illogical.

Except that marriage is a social construct and eye colour is a fact.

 

Well. You say that. Blue is only the fact of what we understand it to be until we change the definition of blue to include other pigmentation to suit our own expediencies. Marriage is the same.

[HeliX]

 

 

It's a different kind of partnership. So call it something else. It's like having brown eyes but wanting blue eyes, so you legislate that from now on brown eyes can be blue eyes. So it's legal but illogical.

Except that marriage is a social construct and eye colour is a fact.

 

Well. You say that. Blue is only the fact of what we understand it to be until we change the definition of blue to include other pigmentation to suit our own expediencies. Marriage is the same.

 

If you can't see how ridiculous that comparison is there's a good chance you're beyond help.

[woolley]

Run out of logic have we?