Swivel-eyed loon speaks on gay marriage

[Old Greg]

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

I did say 'never mind' and then move on, but you ignored that bit.

[ZARDOZ]

I think the Police should look into what Norman has being doing to his Son.

[mudskipper]

You mean like with homosexuality? i.e. with regards to not being able to reproduce (2 males), spread of disease being much greater etc.

The irony is that if the church hadn't forbidden gay relationships, there would probably be a lot fewer gay people.

There's plenty of evidence that homosexuality can be inherited, so pushing gay people into heterosexual relationships has ensured the gay gene's survival.

[vetran]

The irony is that if the church hadn't forbidden gay relationships, there would probably be a lot fewer gay people.

There's plenty of evidence that homosexuality can be inherited, so pushing gay people into heterosexual relationships has ensured the gay gene's survival.

ouch - very good point.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

1. Look up slippery slope. Here's some extracts.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





2. Having done 1, look at the merits or otherwise gay marriage on its own terms. Is your objection that it can't produce children? Is it that the nature of marriage is immutable?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

This has nothing to do with slippery slope. 100 years ago homosexuality was considered disgusting and appalling - now it is becoming more and more acceptable.

We now consider incest and bestiality as disgusting and abominable. In 50 years time we will start having a debate about opening marriage up even further.

100 years ago modesty and marriage had more to it than just paper and some words - now we are a "open society" where women are considered as objects. Families are breaking apart, having children before marriage is the norm. Now we want to take a further bash at marriage by ridiculing it so gays can do it too.

While there are some values we may have progressed in, namely democracy, equality of the genders, moving away from racism etc. We are also regressing with lots of others....

[Mich the Tester]

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

This has nothing to do with slippery slope. 100 years ago homosexuality was considered disgusting and appalling - now it is becoming more and more acceptable...

...but pederasty was tolerated by some, and more recently has been considered 'disgusting and appalling'.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

...but pederasty was tolerated by some, and more recently has been considered 'disgusting and appalling'.

While there are some values we may have progressed in....

read.

[Old Hack]

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

This has nothing to do with slippery slope. 100 years ago homosexuality was considered disgusting and appalling - now it is becoming more and more acceptable.

As were Negroes and Asians

We now consider incest and bestiality as disgusting and abominable. In 50 years time we will start having a debate about opening marriage up even further.

Nah, outside of the Forest of Dean, some parts of Wales, and where Shaunboy lives, it's always been considered disgusting, and always will be imo.

100 years ago modesty and marriage had more to it than just paper and some words - now we are a "open society" where women are considered as objects. Families are breaking apart, having children before marriage is the norm. Now we want to take a further bash at marriage by ridiculing it so gays can do it too.

Modesty, will always be modesty. It's not being modest I think you have an issue with, it's immodesty. As for Marriage having more to it than paper and words, that's as much a bag of bunkum as I have ever read; the only difference between today, and yesterday, is people were embarrassed to be divorced, as it was socially unacceptable. Again, we've grown so we don't have to live with someone we've grown to hate just because society turns it's ugly nose up at it. There was a judge the other day who said 'in the old days, even if we did hate each other, we'd stick together as we'd got this far, we might as well get to the end' - Quoted as verbatim.

While there are some values, which I agree with, we may have progressed in, namely democracy, equality of the genders, moving away from racism etc. We are also regressing with lots of others, in which I personally don't

FTFY - The truth is, what is regressing about allowing a group of people, whom love each other as much as any hetrosexual couple do, to make an oath to each other, that they will stay with each other until they die, that they will love, honour and respect each other?

What's regressive about that ffs?

[d000hg]

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

We were never discussing morality. We were discussing how your so called logical thought processes are massively shaped by ingrained childhood indoctrination of the world around you. You proudly told me how you had broken such limitations and logically concluded incest was not wrong even though you were raised to think otherwise, and I suggested that your intellectual view does not displace your underlying feelings on the matter, that while you might think incest is OK generally you would still find it disgusting in practice.

Also... I hadn't made a position public on whether I support or approve of gay marriage so why are you asking me why I think it's wrong? Putting words in my mouth?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

As were Negroes and Asians

Hardly the same comparing somebody's skin colour with a sexual act.

Nah, outside of the Forest of Dean, some parts of Wales, and where Shaunboy lives, it's always been considered disgusting, and always will be imo.



Modesty, will always be modesty. It's not being modest I think you have an issue with, it's immodesty. As for Marriage having more to it than paper and words, that's as much a bag of bunkum as I have ever read; the only difference between today, and yesterday, is people were embarrassed to be divorced, as it was socially unacceptable. Again, we've grown so we don't have to live with someone we've grown to hate just because society turns it's ugly nose up at it. There was a judge the other day who said 'in the old days, even if we did hate each other, we'd stick together as we'd got this far, we might as well get to the end' - Quoted as verbatim.



FTFY - The truth is, what is regressing about allowing a group of people, whom love each other as much as any hetrosexual couple do, to make an oath to each other, that they will stay with each other until they die, that they will love, honour and respect each other?

What's regressive about that ffs?

What's regressive about it is where it will lead - 2 Dad and 2 Mum families, who will be allowed to marry next, the continuous erosion of what marriage actually means and it's importance in society.

above