Swivel-eyed loon speaks on gay marriage

[Old Greg]

You're being deliberately evasive now.

No, you made a ridiculous point.

Now, tell us why gay marriage shouldn't be legalised.

[vetran]

No they want to have a marriage instead of a civil partnership. They want access to the same institution rather than an 'equal but separate' institution to use the Jim Crow laws terminology.

The legislation is not talking about forcing any church to conduct a ceremony.

pretty much what I said. they have a near identical legal standing, they want the name.


The legislation isn't (I mentioned Gay people not Parliament) , but the intention from the pressure groups seems to be to force religion to treat it equally.

[Old Greg]

pretty much what I said. they have a near identical legal standing, they want the name.


The legislation isn't (I mentioned Gay people not Parliament) , but the intention from the pressure groups seems to be to force religion to treat it equally.

I'm not sure gay people speak with one voice but never mind.

If as a society we don't like that bit (churches having to conduct ceremonies), then we don't accept it. It's not all or nothing. Roman Catholic divorcees may well want the Roman Catholic Church to conduct ceremonies to marry them to their new partners, but the church seems to be doing a fine job at resisting such pressure, and there is no legislation pending around this. I don't see why this is any different.

[d000hg]

No, you made a ridiculous point.

No, you missed the point. That you consider it stupid I suggest you find your mother attractive is exactly the kind of indoctrination I am talking about. Intellectually you think incest is fine but in practice it's absurd that you would find your mother attractive.

What about if you have a hot teenage daughter, would you fantasise about her? Or would you fantasise about her friends but find the idea of fancying her silly?

[original PM]

interestingly enough I think the point whoever made about this century being about gay marriage and next century being about marrying anyhting does have some weight.

The pressure for gay marriage is coming from hooman rights to treat everyone equally thus a civil ceremony is not enough and the name marriage is wanted

in 100 years does anyone really doubt that hooman rights for those people who like fu<king sauce bottles will not have spread to the availbility of marriage to your prefered sauce bottle?

given the evidence of the past 50 years and the spread of hooman rights I think there is some justification for thinking this is where it will end up.

[EternalOptimist]

Old Greg is a bit like that bloke who started the Kinder Trespass

yeah. he does like to ramble on a bit

[Old Greg]

No, you missed the point. That you consider it stupid I suggest you find your mother attractive is exactly the kind of indoctrination I am talking about. Intellectually you think incest is fine but in practice it's absurd that you would find your mother attractive.

What about if you have a hot teenage daughter, would you fantasise about her? Or would you fantasise about her friends but find the idea of fancying her silly?

You are strange. I find the idea of fancying a man odd, but I don't moralise about those that do.

Now, what is you objection to legalising gay marriage?

[Old Greg]

interestingly enough I think the point whoever made about this century being about gay marriage and next century being about marrying anyhting does have some weight.

The pressure for gay marriage is coming from hooman rights to treat everyone equally thus a civil ceremony is not enough and the name marriage is wanted

in 100 years does anyone really doubt that hooman rights for those people who like fu<king sauce bottles will not have spread to the availbility of marriage to your prefered sauce bottle?

given the evidence of the past 50 years and the spread of hooman rights I think there is some justification for thinking this is where it will end up.

I refer you to the slippery slope argument.

Also, I assume you would have no objection to banning inter-racial marriages on the grounds of human rights or equality?

[original PM]

I refer you to the slippery slope argument.

Also, I assume you would have no objection to banning inter-racial marriages on the grounds of human rights or equality?

I was actually commenting against that in that potentially we are going down that slippery slope

but i personally do not have anything for or against gay marriage, straight marriage, interacial marriage, interacial gay marriage, midget marriage, animal marriage or sauce bottle marriage

as long as both sides are consenting adults then go for it.

[vetran]

I'm not sure gay people speak with one voice but never mind.

oh being petty and deliberately obscuring the point, looks like you are getting desperate.