Who doesn't back gay marriage?

We're getting quite far off the subject, which is "Who doesn't back gay marriage?"

Me, I don't.

I am quite happy for anyone to get together with anyone else they want to, in fact it's nothing at all do do with me as long as it doesn't frighten the horses, but marriage is not for homosexuals. It's a term which is already taken; it has a meaning well understood by all.

Gays can have a garriage.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Just having a bit of fun with the pompous twit.

No, Frank, it was you, caught once again in your duplicity, seeking to hide it with a different measure of duplicity.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

We're getting quite far off the subject, which is "Who doesn't back gay marriage?"

Me, I don't.

I am quite happy for anyone to get together with anyone else they want to, in fact it's nothing at all do do with me as long as it doesn't frighten the horses, but marriage is not for homosexuals. It's a term which is already taken; it has a meaning well understood by all.

Gays can have a garriage.

Okay...whatever you do then...don't marry the guy.

Yes...it is a term already taken...and its meaning is understood: According to the Bible it means a man and just about as many women as he is able to afford and service.

Why should we stick with that, though?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why should we stick with that, though?

Trial and error in the logistics of social organisation where reproduction is the consideration. In Biblical times polygyny was presumably practiced because it worked best for them. Just as polyandry is practiced in other topographies and group marriage in others. And, of course, monogamy in still others.

All of these alternatives, blended possibly, are associated with reproduction and the bond existing between parents and children. Which is what dedicated socialists are set on dissolving.

Marriage with a 50% divorce rate is just a variant on monogamy but with all sorts of secondary problems.

The idea that because all those different forms of reproductive ways and means are, and have been, called marriage, is a reason to extend the term to those who cannot reproduce could only respectably be presented to an audience of gumps of the type who don't know their arse from their elbow.

We have stuck with reproduction methods whatever form they take. That some heterosexuals don't reproduce is neither here nor there.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

AMSTERDAM SQUARE KONG

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I have very strong views that gay marriage should be allowed: even if there is many problems with the institution of marriage itself, I believe that the new law passed in Britain at least puts us on the road equality, even if in many circumstances it will be only superficial.

I witnessed some speeches on the day which I found extremely offensive. Not knowing anyone who holds such strong views against gay marriage as some MP's, including, unfortunately the MP for my home town, I was absolutely fascinated that such views could possibly exist!

So, I want to leave those liberal views behind on this thread and talk to some people who don't support the bill, or gay marriage in general. Not just people from the UK, but anywhere. What I want to know is: do you feel any injustice that you are often portrayed in the media as bigoted? Many MP's said it was a 'sad day' for them and their beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Do you feel any sadness for those people who are gay and wish to get married? Do you feel 'sympathetic' for them, or do you feel that they are doing something wrong and that they should recognise this and repent? Do you believe that gay love could be as 'pure' as your own love, or is it a poor imitation of heterosexual love? Do you think that you have had it easy because you happened to be heterosexual and you found someone you loved who wished to get married? Or do you congratulate yourself for not being tempted by homosexuality and feel you deserve an accordingly higher moral status? Are you grateful that you are not gay? What do you think about the millions of heterosexual people who agree that gay people should be allowed to marry?

I'd also ask everyone else with a liberal mindset to try not to lambast the people sharing their opinions. I feel the same way you do, but it would be nice if people felt they weren't going to get screamed at for their opinion on this thread.

Also can we stay off the topic of which marriages should be allowed in churches or religious buildings because I think that's a different issue.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

but marriage is not for homosexuals. It's a term which is already taken; it has a meaning well understood by all.

As I mentioned, it's too late, McTag. That meaning of 'marriage' has been extended already to include the union of gays and lesbians. No matter how hard ya try ya just can't buck reality.

Even Frank has given up on the 'everyone/their' issue.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

the type who don't know their arse from their elbow.

I was going to make a joke about that, but decided against it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

As I mentioned, it's too late, McTag.

Not at all. The trial and error process, to which I referred, is ongoing. Where polygyny, polyandry and group marriage have been established they would have said that it is too late for anything else.

Let's see a homosexual couple in the White House.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Let's see a homosexual couple in the White House.

1960/1970/1980 - Let's see a Black couple in the White House.

1 Reply

@JTT,

What do you think of a woman referring to another woman as her "wife"?

I can't honestly say why I don't like it, but like it I don't. Am I a closet homophobe, I wonder.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

What do you think of a woman referring to another woman as her "wife"?

Causes me not the least bit of consternation, McTag. I can't even begin to imagine why such a reality would.

Quote:

I can't honestly say why I don't like it, but like it I don't. Am I a closet homophobe, I wonder.

closet, no. This thread is the first time I've noticed that you've come out.

I must say that disappoints me.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

1960/1970/1980 - Let's see a Black couple in the White House.

That was envisaged in those years. A female president is being envisaged. Can you see a homosexual couple in the White House? Do you think that has anywhere near the same possibility of happening that the other two had or have.

I don't think that settled polygyny, polyandry and group marriage arrangements would ever have thought of monogamy.

You're evading the point which is that marriage is associated with reproduction and property and inheritance.

It's something of an insult to homosexuals to envisage them being married because it implies that they are of no consequence and it doesn't really matter what they do.

A lot of educated people have long ago resigned themselves to the reality that a large percentage of the population now consider themselves educated and are prepared to assert that they are. And believe it true.

One might say the word "marriage", or "married", or "wife", or "husband", or any number of other words and expressions, in a manner which might well be, or be felt as, more cutting than the cruder expressions we have been banned from using. The heterosexuals will find a way of ensuring that the distinction will remain. Just as the educated do.

How do you think the Bridal Suite should be designed for the honeymoon of two longshoremen? Or lumberjacks?

How do you choose which is the bride and which the bridegroom? You can't really without risking a few improper indelicacies. So you don't make the distinction to save face and end up with a marriage ceremony minus a bride and a bridegroom. And a minister of an accredited religion.

Wonderful eh! It's a long-winded assertion really. A couple of homosexuals with some friends shuffle into a government building, sixth floor, next to last door on the left, listen to some meaningless farrago of double-talk, applaud, smile, shuffle out again and that's a wedding. Designer words. It's a stunt. Not a responsibility in sight. A fine example to set I must say to the obviously large number of married couples who only stay together because of a felt responsibility without which there might be a 95% divorce rate.

I think we might be reducing sexual relations to a mere matter of holes. Being married to a blow-up doll might be next. One with Furby characteristics at first.

0 Replies

It suffices to say there is a difference to be made between someone wanting to be distinct of, in terms of culture, group, habits, or whatever else, then being against what is distinct...I have nothing, absolutely nothing against there being different people then me. As a naturalist I certainly believe that if distinctive people exist and are here, is because they have a purpose and a place on our world, and thus of course, as a gentle urban social chap I believe I am, I'm all in favour, for the sake of diversity and complexity, of there being distinctions be it things or people, or again, whatever needs distinguishing...now lets clarify, that in turn per se says nothing to support the idea that my wanting of distinction results in any form of segregation of other peoples rights or results in the diminishing of their own space...I am not against gay unions social rights or entitlement to protection under the scope of Law as gays are a social reality and social reality's need real addressing, not shoving under the table, I'm against gay marriage specifically because marriage is culturally an heterosexual institution that is entitled to preserve its identity as long the majority believes its worth protecting...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I have nothing, absolutely nothing against there being different people then me.

As you have no alternative Fil it is probably best that you employ such generosity.

There is no segregation of anybody's rights in not allowing homosexual couples to be officially denoted as married.

The only argument I am making is the cultural one. With a bit of economic stuff on the side.

It's a bit like Nevada legalising gambling first and making money by doing so. Red light districts are similar. If nobody else does it money can be made by catering for those who want it. It happens with abortion.

It happens with marriage itself. Cathedral weddings. City stuff again.

Did you ever read about the argument concerning where Charles Darwin should be buried? Guess who won it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The only argument I am making is the cultural one.

That argument is no different than you being a racist, Spendi. Have you ever heard of "equality before the law"?

2 Replies

@JTT,

Look JT. You haven't put any flesh on the bones of your cheap jibe about hypocrisy yet. And you were asked to.

Are you bouncing from one assertion to another as seems suitable for the moment?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Equality before the law... let's see if you really believe that JTT.

We have a polygamous family unit that wants to get married. A man wants to marry his 4 girlfriends. What about their equality before the law?

How about an incestuous couple? How about a father and his 20year old son or daughter? A 25 year old brother and sister that wants to get married and receive marriage benefits? Should they receive equality before the law?

Do you REALLY believe in equality? Or do you only believe in equality when it's beneficial to your argument and YOU agree with the actions they're performing?

Not only should these groups receive marriage benefits that we all have to pay for, but they should also have the right to force their beliefs on our children at school whether we agree with them or not. So you think incestuous couples should be allowed to force their ideologies on your children? They should ahve the right to teach your children in school that being in an incestuous relationship, as long as all parties are consenting adults, is just as much of a healthy, moral lifestyle choice as heterosexuality and homosexuality. Right?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

closet, no. This thread is the first time I've noticed that you've come out.
I must say that disappoints me.

Balderdash. I have made clear in earlier posts my feelings in these matters.
I am discussing terminology only here.

1 Reply

@McTag,

The gay marriage bill, has just passed its reading in the House of Lords.

Now that's a turn up for the books. Everyone I knew thought the Lords would throw it out.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know