Gay Marriages

[Gladys]

'Fraid I agree with Lonan. To me marriage stands for a relationship in which procreation is, at least, a possibility, therefore is only for heterosexuals. I am quite liberal on all other aspects of this, but I think calling it marriage does stir up emotional responses which then become very difficult to argue or counter. Surely, a civil partnership will include all the recognition of the depth of the relationship without giving rise to the emotional response?

[cheesemonster2005]

So what you're saying is that the vast majority of people who prefer male-female relationships - and wish to make to a commitment to each other - should accept either that they are no different to homosexual couples who wish to make the same commitment or, if not, should be required to give up the terminology of many centuries and find some new terminology to describe their relationship.

Sorry, but the logic escapes me. I have no objection to same-sex relationships being formalised in some kind of civil ceremony (or even a religious one, for all I care!), but I cannot and will not accept the view that they are 'married' in the way that my wife and I are married.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough but your views are in the minority now as I doubt most married people would object. It wouldn't and shouldn't bother them one bit.

[Declan]

England should drop Beckham.

 

My team:

 

Robinson

 

Carragher  Terry  Ferdinand  Cole

 

Lampard  Gerrard  Downing

 

Rooney

 

Owen  Smith

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

9 out of 11 not bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cheeky. Downing is the only natural left-footer in the Premiership. Cole always has to turn in to cross and every defender knows it hence he was ineffective against NI. The style and aggression of Smith compared to Owen would give defences a lot of problems having to cope with both. Don't tell me, you've got James in your side?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I'd have 4-4-2 to start with. Beckham coming in at right mid. Smith losing out.

I'd favour Joe Cole instead of Downing.

[ButterflyMaiden]

Found a potted history of same sex "marriages" / civil partnerships in the US

 

Same Sex Marriages

[cheesemonster2005]

Found a potted history of same sex "marriages" / civil partnerships in the US

 

Same Sex Marriages

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The stuff on that PDF document about Virginia upholding the ban on interracial marriages is amazing. It shows how times have changed and for the better. In 30 years time arguements promoted on here against gay 'marriages' (and that's the word which should be used) will also seem barbaric and distastful. Quite right too.

[jetson]

And then we have those that are married and have childa.

 

Conveniently.

 

In positions of very power. Legal beings they are too. Judgmental.

 

And yet they swing. Stick it up the bum or take it as the case may be, wi' some Island 'celeb'.

 

And all accepted in some quair places maybe, aye. But they are as deceitful as life gets.

 

Deciept as can possibly be.

 

An' she stays at home makin' the gyr Sunday breakfast for them all.

 

Not even got a clue has she really. No wonder the young 'un is so misplaced.

[the-rhymes]

Nah, that's just what mental people think. If there is a God he'll just have a laugh with you about all the naughty things you've done. And everyone knows Jesus was gay, so he'll be cool about that too.

 

 

I suspect Jesus was married to a female.

 

Anyway people should be able to do as they like so long as it doesn't harm others.

[Gladys]

The whole point about civil ceremonies is to take the religion out of it! It is a declaration of commitment between two people of whatever persuasion and how they want the law to deal with their inter-personal property, rights etc. I just don't see it about morals or sexual preferences!

 

As I think I said earlier in this thread, what is being dealt with is not a list of God-given rights, but rights given by man (pension, life assurance etc etc) so the debate shouldn't go anywhere near religion or morals. Man has given himself these rights (and obligations) and so should be able to change the rules without a plea to a higher being.