Would you go to a gay wedding?

[CheeseSlice]

force. what a word.

Born to drink. Forced to work?

[EternalOptimist]

Born to drink. Forced to work?

exactly.
have you ever looked closely at your wrist ? I mean really closely

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think that:
1) Any gays who campaigned for the legislation are idiots.
2) What two people do and how they arrange their personal affairs is no business of the church or the state.
3) Why the **** would anyone care if the church or state recognised their union?!
4) Anyone who has a strong opinion on the matter is almost certainly a busybody loser with nothing better to do that try to control what other people do in there own lives.

I mean, come on... this surely is the non-topic of the 21st century?!

[OwlHoot]

2) What two people do and how they arrange their personal affairs is no business of the church or the state.
3) Why the **** would anyone care if the church or state recognised their union?! ...

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, two words - inheritance tax

But that aside I don't think many people would disagree these days

[NotAllThere]

Of course. Why have just two people in a marriage. It used to be defined as something that happened between a man and a woman. Now it's something that can happen between two non-closely related people, regardless of gender, so it's only a small step to having it between any number of people.

That's pretty much my view on the matter.

Other wise you get the idiots talking about elderly brothers or elderly sisters getting married to get around inheritance tax laws.

But it is a logical progression. Marriage:
a) A legal union between a man and a woman who are not closely related
b) A legal union between two people who are not closely related
c) A legal union between two people who are not closely related
d) A legal union between more than two people who are not closely related
e) A legal union between more than two people

The jump between a) and b) seems about as significant as that between d) and e). It's only idiotic to argue that as we might end up with e) we shouldn't have allowed b). It might well stop here.

There were two old sisters who shared a house they'd inherited, that wanted to (but weren't allowed) to register a civil partnership. They wanted to do this so that when one of them died, the other wouldn't be forced to sell their house to pay inheritance tax.

Marriage isn't just about inheritance tax dodging though, it's also about next of kin rights. That's a very important issue.

thats the boys sorted out. what about the birds

From the letter to the Romans.

...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones....Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them.

[MarillionFan]

What surname do they take?

[mudskipper]

If you remove the religious bit, and accept that marriage is a construct of society, then marriage should reflect a changing society.

Allowing gay weddings in a society where gay couples are socially accepted and afforded legal protection against discrimination seems like a logical step.

[mudskipper]

What surname do they take?

The one that doesn't have an urban dictionary entry.

[mudskipper]

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

HTH BIDI

Leviticus 19:19

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:27

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.


We've managed to ignore some of the other decrees.

[EternalOptimist]

Leviticus 19:19

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:27

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.


We've managed to ignore some of the other decrees.

What did the Daily Leviticus think about house prices ?