U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[SteeleJoe]

Nature? It's ridiculous to act as if "nature" has a position on issues and it's no less ridiculous to allow nature to indicate what is or isn't right.

Antiseptic and heart surgery aren't "natural" either. I'm guessing not many of you are against them. Any of you get braces for your children's teeth?

One can absolutely make the argument that monogamous marriage isn't "natural" for ANYONE. Not only is it a man made construct, it arguably conflicts with nature.

EDIT TO ADD: Upon consideration I decided to add a rea life example that I was going to leave out: my daughter was born with a condition which is the leading cause of mental retardation outside of Down's Syndrome. It can also prevent not only proper brain development, but dwarfism, deafness and a shortened lifespan. However, IF detected by a simple blood test within the first 10 days of a child's life, it can be 100% treatable with a simple daily pill.

My daughter's blood was tested for this at birth as a matter of routine (NOT NATURAL).

She was given an MRI for further diagnosis (NOT NATURAL).

She has taken a tiny pill every day of her life (NOT NATURAL).

She is completely normal in every way: and in fact all tests show her physical and mental development are at the upper end of the range and her problem has been completely corrected. If we had left it to nature, she'd possibly lived a relatively short life as a deaf, mentally retarded dwarf. (NATURAL).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[Jingthing]

...

Your line of thought in this thread is confusing.

Maybe confusing to you. I am not at all confused or "desperate" and although I see no reason for a full response to your crude personal attack post, I will say, once again, that in my opinion, separate but equal does not translate into fully equal, and it seems the PM and House of Commons thinks the same way. I am fine with people who have the opinion that separate but equal is equal and also with people having the opinion that current UK civil union laws for gay people are good enough already. Fine with, but don't agree. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[partington]

This is getting way too deep. What is nature? How are humans different than other animals? Are laws and human legal/social/religious institutions like marriage and civil unions part of "nature" or part of an artificial human construct? I really do think this is getting way off topic and you can call that a cop out if you want if you think you "won" your argument with such a primitive argument, be my guest for such a hollow victory. If you're saying that people of the same sex cannot biologically breed just among themselves, you have no argument and you never did!

Your line of thought in this thread is confusing. Perhaps you're confusing yourself in your desperation to make a case for homosexual unions.

You are over the moon at the possibility that homosexual marriage might be made legal the UK and yet you keep telling everyone here that you don't care about marriage being made legal. You constantly comment on the UK Parliamentary system and the Churches, or at least one of them, but probably are cherry picking what you learn from Google. You also bend over backwards as you go through hoops to either prove some point of your own or belittle the view of another poster.

Perhaps you can just settle for the fact that what suits you legally is already in place, many people disagree with the recognition of homosexual unions and most don't give a dam_n. You've already got what you want so why keep knocking people who disagree?

Without claiming to be speaking for Jingthing, to me his line of thought on this thread is perfectly clear, understandable and consistent, and your response is baffling.

He has said that the UK civil partnership system is very good, but separate and equal is never as good as being equal and NOT separate, so marriage is better - I understand and agree.

Since the thread is about the change of law in the UK it is perfectly clear why he makes reference to the UK parliamentary system and the CofE, since that is what the thread is about. To learn facts to support your position, from Google or anywhere else, is the norm for constructing a rational argument, not somehow reprehensible!To express your position in a number of ways with different examples (is this what you mean by "bend over backwards and go through hoops?) during an argument is also the way rational people have a dialogue.

To say another poster "does not have an argument" is not belittling them, it is saying they don't have an argument. He is right. Phuketjock doesn't have one.

Animals don't get married, they still reproduce. Humans invented marriage, it doesn't exist in the rest of nature. Many humans get married when there is no possibility of reproducing - women past menopause, marriages where one or both partners are infertile, and so on.

Therefore animals don't need to be married to breed, and humans who cannot breed still get married. Therefore there is no necessary connection in human society or in the rest of nature between marriage and breeding. Humans invented marriage and they can define it how they like.

[transam]

And so the tortuous justifications continue.

Imagine how the Vicar feels.

[Jingthing]

So gay people getting married stops you from continuing humanity not to mention the gay families that do have children? I don't understand this. Do you think being gay is contagious or something? Gay people are a TINY minority! To me it comes off as a power play. Straight men run the world so some straight men want to preserve something special, the top dog position, for themselves.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott
Deleted quotes edited out

[SteeleJoe]

*Deleted quotes edited out*

Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?

Who is advocating "changing everything"?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott

[Jingthing]

Yes. What's wrong with that? You are a TINY minority.

I favor equal civil rights for all minorities, even small ones, even ones that a lot of people dislike intensely. If you don't, that's your free choice, but expect all kinds of minorities denied full civil rights to continue fighting for them for as long as it takes. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[phuketjock]

About your last sentence it would seem untrue because only Homosexual humans can define it how they like. The rest of us are idiotic if we try.

So the several countries that now have legal same sex marriage are all run by homosexuals and/or heterosexual idiots? OK. If that's your position, run with it. I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments, but I think you've got a new one!

Don't talk rubbish, some here want to preserve the guy and gal stuff, plain and simple instead of changing everything to accommodate folk who have gone in their own direction. Why should the folk of continuing humanity bend ?.

So gay people getting married stops you from continuing humanity not to mention the gay families that do have children? I don't understand this. Do you think being gay is contagious or something? Gay people are a TINY minority! To me it comes off as a power play. Straight men run the world. We want to preserve something special for ourselves.

Then by all means preserve anything you like but don't foist your "something special" on normal nature abiding human beings

because whether you and your tiny minority of gay cavaliers like it or not you are not and never will be normal, accept it or don't

it's up to.

And you can carry on but it will not change your abnormality one single iota.

[thaicbr]

About your last sentence it would seem untrue because only Homosexual humans can define it how they like. The rest of us are idiotic if we try.

So the several countries that now have legal same sex marriage are all run by homosexuals and/or heterosexual idiots? OK. If that's your position, run with it. I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments, but I think you've got a new one!

The definition of marriage has been the same for centuries. But now gay people have to have it as well. Even though you may not use it because it is a reminder of the traditional marriage box. The reason it's a reminder is because THAT'S WHAT IT IS a centuries on tradition/institution for the joining of man and women in holy matrimony.

[transam]

The Vicar.

Sorry, I don't understand ( even your favorite emoticon doesn't help). Could you just answer the questions with a couple short sentences? (Or do forum rules suddenly prevent you again?)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars , big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them.

As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write.

[Jingthing]

About your last sentence it would seem untrue because only Homosexual humans can define it how they like. The rest of us are idiotic if we try.

So the several countries that now have legal same sex marriage are all run by homosexuals and/or heterosexual idiots? OK. If that's your position, run with it. I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments, but I think you've got a new one!

The definition of marriage has been the same for centuries. But now gay people have to have it as well. Even though you may not use it because it is a reminder of the traditional marriage box. The reason it's a reminder is because THAT'S WHAT IT IS a centuries on tradition/institution for the joining of man and women in holy matrimony.

Marriages do not need the HOLY part. That is optional.

[thaicbr]

Yes. What's wrong with that? You are a TINY minority.

I favor equal civil rights for all minorities, even small ones, even ones that a lot of people dislike intensely. If you don't, that's your free choice, but expect all kinds of minorities denied full civil rights to continue fighting for them for as long as it takes.

I think the difference is your idea of the same civil rights and mine are different just as our sexual preference is. I think it is the civil right of heterosexuals in the UK to have marriage as heterosexual only. You don't.

[Jingthing]

Yes. What's wrong with that? You are a TINY minority.

I favor equal civil rights for all minorities, even small ones, even ones that a lot of people dislike intensely. If you don't, that's your free choice, but expect all kinds of minorities denied full civil rights to continue fighting for them for as long as it takes.

I think the difference is your idea of the same civil rights and mine are different just as our sexual preference is. I think it is the civil right of heterosexuals in the UK to have marriage as heterosexual only. You don't.

So discriminating against a small minority is a civil right? That makes no sense but you are entitled to your opinion and I am also entitled to think your opinion makes no sense.

[thaicbr]

About your last sentence it would seem untrue because only Homosexual humans can define it how they like. The rest of us are idiotic if we try.

So the several countries that now have legal same sex marriage are all run by homosexuals and/or heterosexual idiots? OK. If that's your position, run with it. I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments, but I think you've got a new one!

The definition of marriage has been the same for centuries. But now gay people have to have it as well. Even though you may not use it because it is a reminder of the traditional marriage box. The reason it's a reminder is because THAT'S WHAT IT IS a centuries on tradition/institution for the joining of man and women in holy matrimony.

Marriages do not need the HOLY part. That is optional.

That part is also a new modern invention

[transam]

About your last sentence it would seem untrue because only Homosexual humans can define it how they like. The rest of us are idiotic if we try.

So the several countries that now have legal same sex marriage are all run by homosexuals and/or heterosexual idiots? OK. If that's your position, run with it. I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments, but I think you've got a new one!

Don't talk rubbish, some here want to preserve the guy and gal stuff, plain and simple instead of changing everything to accommodate folk who have gone in their own direction. Why should the folk of continuing humanity bend ?.

So gay people getting married stops you from continuing humanity not to mention the gay families that do have children? I don't understand this. Do you think being gay is contagious or something? Gay people are a TINY minority! To me it comes off as a power play. Straight men run the world so some straight men want to preserve something special, the top dog position, for themselves.

THEN DO YOUR OWN THING, leave us folk to do our traditional stuff. WE will not interfere with what you want to do, good luck, but please back off from interfering with our stuff. Please.

[Jingthing]

THEN DO YOUR OWN THING, leave us folk to do our traditional stuff. WE will not interfere with what you want to do, good luck, but please back off from interfering with our stuff. Please.

Is anyone forcing you to gay marry? I thought not.

I don't consider expanding the CHOICE of marriage to small minority as interfering with your anything, so I guess the answer is no.

If the House of Lords stops it now, it will just happen later, and you can take that to the bank.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

So your answer to these questions:

'Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?'

'Who is advocating "changing everything"?'

Was:

"The Vicar."

And then when asked for clarification:

"Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars, big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome (sic) to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them."

That answers neither question and makes no sense as even attempt to do so.

"As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write."

What message regarding the number of words you write? I don't are how many words you use - I just thought two questions might be answered with more than two unrelated words -- but not only was the message in your first reply not clear, even your comment about that message doesn't make sense.

Edited February 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[transam]

So your answer to these questions:

'Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?'

'Who is advocating "changing everything"?'

Was:

"The Vicar."

And then when asked for clarification:

"Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars, big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them."

That answers neither question and makes no sense as even attempt to do so.

"As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write."

What message regarding the number of words you write? I don't are how many words you use - I just thought two questions might be answered with more than two unrelated words -- but not only was the message in your first reply not clear, even your comment about that message doesn't make sense.

Thats your problem. But not to others.

[SteeleJoe]

So your answer to these questions:

'Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?'

'Who is advocating "changing everything"?'

Was:

"The Vicar."

And then when asked for clarification:

"Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars, big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them."

That answers neither question and makes no sense as even attempt to do so.

"As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write."

What message regarding the number of words you write? I don't are how many words you use - I just thought two questions might be answered with more than two unrelated words -- but not only was the message in your first reply not clear, even your comment about that message doesn't make sense.

Thats your problem. But not to others.

It's not my problem to others? What? Whom are you speaking for? I challenge anyone to tell me how your answer made sense.

So you aren't going to answer, are you? Again. It's obviously your right but if you are so certain of being right (which you seem to be going by your insistent and implacable stance), why do you not answer simple and perfectly civil inquires about your position (and your very own words)?

Edited February 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[partington]

*Deleted quote edited out*

Hmmm. Your relish in calling homosexuals "abnormal" does reveal a disturbing dislike. If you don't agree, can you mention anything you approve of, like, or merely feel neutral towards, that you would call abnormal?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott

[partington]

So your answer to these questions:

'Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?'

'Who is advocating "changing everything"?'

Was:

"The Vicar."

And then when asked for clarification:

"Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars, big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them."

That answers neither question and makes no sense as even attempt to do so.

"As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write."

What message regarding the number of words you write? I don't are how many words you use - I just thought two questions might be answered with more than two unrelated words -- but not only was the message in your first reply not clear, even your comment about that message doesn't make sense.

Thats your problem. But not to others.

It is to me also. I don't think you are clear at all. Half your posts don't make sense.

[transam]

So your answer to these questions:

'Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?'

'Who is advocating "changing everything"?'

Was:

"The Vicar."

And then when asked for clarification:

"Well, in UK ladies wanted to become Vicars, big problem with the guy Vicars BUT they had to sercome to their hierarchy, seems now another problem for them."

That answers neither question and makes no sense as even attempt to do so.

"As for the number of words l post, seems to me my message is clear regarding how many words l write."

What message regarding the number of words you write? I don't are how many words you use - I just thought two questions might be answered with more than two unrelated words -- but not only was the message in your first reply not clear, even your comment about that message doesn't make sense.

Thats your problem. But not to others.

It's not my problem to others? What? Whom are you speaking for? I challenge anyone to tell me how your answer made sense.

So you aren't going to answer, are you? Again. It's obviously your right but if you are so certain of being right (which you seem to be going by your insistent and implacable stance), why do you not answer simple and perfectly civil inquires about your position (and your very own words)?

No, l will not stamp my feet , read all the posts again and you will in the end learn where some of us are coming from without being removed from the forum. If you cannot understand our stance, well then that is up to you.

[endure]

The Commons is elected by the people. The Lords is full of toffs and political hacks who are there because of the political favours that they've done when they were in the Commons. Not forgetting the 26 bishops who aren't elected either.

The Commons is NOT voted by the MAJORITY of the UK people.

I didn't say they were elected by the majority of the UK people.

If the majority of the UK people choose not to vote than that's their prerogative but they can hardly then complain when those they couldn't be bothered to vote for don't do what they want.

When was the last time you voted in a UK election?

You don't understand my point. We have a Conservative government that the majority of people did not vote for. The majority voted for the combination of all parties. In fact we could of had a Con/Lab government if they got on. What should of happened was another election which WOULD have got a gov of the majority. As for my voting, none of your business.

I voted Tory in the last General Election. Go on - don't be shy. How did you vote?

[partington]

Oh dear. I'm afraid I 'm beginning to understand now

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

He wants to do this but can't?

I think I'm out of this thread at this point

[SteeleJoe]

Here are my questios that supposedly are against forum rules to answer. I respectfully ask them just the same and genuinely would like to hear from the opposition:

Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?

Who is advocating "changing everything"?

How will allowing gay marriage destroy or even affect heterosexual marriages?

Why must "marriage" be strictly between a man and a woman (leaving aside the simple fact that that is o longer true in some places)?

[SteeleJoe]

Some people just do not like homosexuals taking things away from heterosexuals.

And then trappling their words until they are not heard. A bit like this thread.

You are being heard, obviously. That's why you get replies.

Who is taking something away from you and what is it?

[thaicbr]

Here are my questios that supposedly are against forum rules to answer. I respectfully ask them just the same and genuinely would like to hear from the opposition:

Plain and simply, how will gay marriage endanger or even alter in any way the "the guy and gal stuff"?

Who is advocating "changing everything"?

How will allowing gay marriage destroy or even affect heterosexual marriages?

Why must "marriage" be strictly between a man and a woman (leaving aside the simple fact that that is o longer true in some places)?

Honestly no matter what people answer with you will ridicule them for being idiotic or something similar so why bother. You don't listen anyway.

[Jingthing]

Hopefully the discussions in the House of Lords will be more substantive.

[SteeleJoe]

Honestly no matter what people answer with you will ridicule them for being idiotic or something similar so why bother. You don't listen anyway.

That wasn't "honestly". You have zero reason to say such a thing. I have listened and everything I post is in response to what people say thus proof that I listen. Why the ad hominem?

I made a sincere and civil request for answers and all I get is "forum rules won't let me" and "You won't listen".

Where's the courage of your convictions? Where's your intellectual integrity? Where's the civil discourse? Where's the effort to bolster your position with answers to simple and absolutely sincere questions?

I simply wanted to understand.

Edited February 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

Most of the positions here are hardened. It is a divisive issue. May the best homosexuals win.