U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[endure]

Indeed. The pioneering nations that have already been doing this have discovered that the impact is basically a big NOTHING to society at large and to the institution of marriage at large.

For a very short time in a very limited number of places.Society is turning into something out of Blade Runner slowly - not all at once.

Can you explain that please? From my perspective those 'limited number of places' are finally affording me the same set of rights that you've always taken for granted.

[chiang mai]

I wonder if this is a debate that can actually be had here, with fifteen posts by Moderators in three pages it seems maybe it can't, or shouldn't, just an observation.

If you feel that any of the moderators (including me) who are posting as 'themselves' in this thread are breaking any of the forum rules then please hit the report button. I'm more than happy to be held to the same standards that you are.

That's not what I was refering to, I don't think it's possible to debate this topic in isolation of allied and connected issues such as religon and child adoption/rearing, any attempt to do so seems to meet with a call to stay on a very narrow topic which I think doesn't allow the debate to mature or reach logical conclusions.

[Scott]

Adoption is not going to be a permitted discussion. It is off-topic. Adoption is subject to a whole variety of laws and rules that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Most posters have been able to differentiate the Church of England as an institution from the Church as a theological entity.

Off-topic posts have been deleted, regardless of who posted them.

[HeavyDrinker]

The bottom line (if you pardon the pun) is (as I said in post #2, or # 3 - I can't be mithered scrolling back) that if 2 people love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, then let them be joined in the eyes of whatever God they worship and by the laws of whatever land they live in.

Intolerance is killing our world so can we please save it for English Teachers....

[Ulysses G.]

Indeed. The pioneering nations that have already been doing this have discovered that the impact is basically a big NOTHING to society at large and to the institution of marriage at large.

For a very short time in a very limited number of places.Society is turning into something out of Blade Runner slowly - not all at once.

Can you explain that please? From my perspective those 'limited number of places' are finally affording me the same set of rights that you've always taken for granted.

Jingthing is claiming that gay marriage has not changed society or the institution of marriage.I am saying that the jury is still out as it is very new and very limited in numbers. Personally, I believe that if it is forced on the populace it will harm both society and the institution of marriage in the long run, but once instituted widely, it will be too late. I am all for gay rights, but do not think that changing the definition of marriage is a right - domestic partnerships for same sex unions are.

[thaicbr]

The bottom line (if you pardon the pun) is (as I said in post #2, or # 3 - I can't be mithered scrolling back) that if 2 people love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, then let them be joined in the eyes of whatever God they worship and by the laws of whatever land they live in.

Intolerance is killing our world so can we please save it for English Teachers....

You want to kill English teachers!

[SteeleJoe]

Indeed. The pioneering nations that have already been doing this have discovered that the impact is basically a big NOTHING to society at large and to the institution of marriage at large.

For a very short time in a very limited number of places.Society is turning into something out of Blade Runner slowly - not all at once.

Can you explain that please? From my perspective those 'limited number of places' are finally affording me the same set of rights that you've always taken for granted.

Jingthing is claiming that gay marriage has not changed society or the institution of marriage.I am saying that the jury is still out as it is very new and very limited in numbers. Personally, I believe that if it is forced on the populace it will harm both society and the institution of marriage in the long run, but once instituted widely, it will be too late. I am all for gay rights, but do not think that changing the definition of marriage is a right - domestic partnerships for same sex unions are.

Perhaps YOU will answer the questions no other of the opponents to same sex marriage will. I sincerely would like to know:

How will "the institution of marriage" or heterosexual marriages be harmed?

Why must the definition not be changed?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 13, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[HeavyDrinker]

The bottom line (if you pardon the pun) is (as I said in post #2, or # 3 - I can't be mithered scrolling back) that if 2 people love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, then let them be joined in the eyes of whatever God they worship and by the laws of whatever land they live in.

Intolerance is killing our world so can we please save it for English Teachers....

You want to kill English teachers!

Well not just at this moment old bean. I'm dog sitting while the wife is at Tescos....would you rather go fishing...?

Uly, I think you're getting a bit "Daily Mail' on this issue. No one is 'forcing' anything on anyone, just giving people a freedom of choice....

[HeavyDrinker]

How so? I think they've been quite fair thus far and only clamped on off-topic posts.

Homosexuals don't tend to fit into the average sociological map of 'the family unit' as it is. You sound like you're quoting Richard Littlejohn here.

How will Gay marriage affect 'normal' heterosexual life in any way?

This isn't something being 'forced' on anyone. It is merely offering an option to those so inclined to take it.

[SteeleJoe]

Fully? Well you are the first to even give a partial answer...except you didn't: all you've done is introduce another broad and vague idea without any specifics or support and provoke yet another, "Why? How?"

I can't see how supporting positions that are permitted is not permitted. People have said homosexuals are abnormal and disgusting on this thread,why can't you give some civil and reasonable support for the idea that marriage will be destroyed or the definition should not be changed? I find it very hard to believe that posters who have made such a wide range of bold claims and declarations in opposition, are afraid to respond to these simple questions and I can't help but suspect that they simply DON'T HAVE answers.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott
Deleted quote edited out

[HeavyDrinker]

Uly, you're clutching at straws now.

How do you know what gay couples want? Maybe they just want some recognition in the eyes of their respective God(s)???

I'd say that is a basic Human Right regardless of sexual preference...

[HeavyDrinker]

No, I just believe in freedom of choice..especially in "the land of the free"....

[StefanBBK]

Big can of worms. There are some legal aspects to marriage. Back home married couples have advantages with taxes, they also have more security with shared pensions and in case of death.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[HeavyDrinker]

Why do you equate marriage with having kids? I've been wed 23 years and no kids.

Why do you assume heterosexual values on to homosexual life?

I think you need to put more (or maybe less) thought into this matter.

The bottom line is that if 2 people, regardless of their sexual preference, want to be united in the eyes of God (the very essence of a religious marriage) then they should be allowed to be, if God is as gracious as he is made out to be...

[Ulysses G.]

Big can of worms. There are some legal aspects to marriage. Back home married couples have advantages with taxes, they also have more security with shared pensions and in case of death.

I support domestic partnerships with equal financial rights. Edited February 13, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[HeavyDrinker]

No, I just believe in freedom of choice..especially in "the land of the free"....

Isn't that America......

Don't say it too loudly....

[SteeleJoe]

Very well said UG that is exactly right and that answers SJ but he does not like that answer and will ignore or

or belittle it and I have to say one of the strong reasons I am against gay marriage is because it can and will

be held up by gay/lesbian activists as a wrongful validation of their right to have children and that is very wrong

if only because the children involved will have no choice in that until it is way too late.

I haven't even responded to what you quoted - and only now see it in your quote - how is that you know I don't like it and can predict my reaction to it?

The rest of your comment I am not allowed to reply to.

He hasn't answered my questions: how will heterosexual marriage be destroyed? Why does the word matter if homosexuals can adopt without that word?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott
deleted post edited out

[SteeleJoe]

that answers SJ but he does not like that answer and will ignore or

or belittle it

From looking at this thread, that seems to be very common amongst the pro-gay marriage crowd.

So you support that unfounded and fabricated disparagement of my posting? Doesn't reflect well on you.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Jingthing]

Marriage is a HUMAN institution. Not a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals are humans. A surprising number of them MARRY the opposite sex! All belong in the human FAMILY. Some of these humans happen to have children. Some of them happen to be gay. More common with lesbians. A lesbian with children meets a lesbian to love and live with. It is much better for the children if these lesbians can MARRY and have fully legally bound (and equal) parents with her neighbors. The weird thing is the anti-gay marriage are actually the REAL anti-family people.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[thaicbr]

Marriage is a HUMAN institution. Not a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals are humans. A surprising number of them MARRY the opposite sex! All belong in the human FAMILY. Some of these humans happen to have children. Some of them happen to be gay. More common with lesbians. A lesbian with children meets a lesbian to love and live with. It is much better for the children if these lesbians can MARRY and have fully legally bound (and equal) parents with her neighbors. The weird thing is the anti-gay marriage are actually the REAL anti-family people.

That's just your view. Other's have differing views. Civil partnership is a legal partnership.

[Jingthing]

That's just your view. Other's have differing views. Civil partnership is a legal partnership.

Yes it is. But denying homosexuals from the same thing as heterosexuals is discriminatory. I doubt you would like to be stuck in a small minority class of people that was deemed not quite proper enough to be allowed to use the same vehicle as the majority. To insist on the status quo, SEPARATE things, is also to be pro-discrimination. Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I wonder if this is a debate that can actually be had here, with fifteen posts by Moderators in three pages it seems maybe it can't, or shouldn't, just an observation.

If you feel that any of the moderators (including me) who are posting as 'themselves' in this thread are breaking any of the forum rules then please hit the report button. I'm more than happy to be held to the same standards that you are.

That's not what I was refering to, I don't think it's possible to debate this topic in isolation of allied and connected issues such as religon and child adoption/rearing, any attempt to do so seems to meet with a call to stay on a very narrow topic which I think doesn't allow the debate to mature or reach logical conclusions.

I fully agree with that.

Perhaps we need a new topic that will allow discussion of the entire subject of homosexual union and the issues connected with it.

Good luck with that. This is a news item. There won't be any news item that will be that wide.

[Morden]

Marriage is a HUMAN institution. Not a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals are humans. A surprising number of them MARRY the opposite sex! All belong in the human FAMILY. Some of these humans happen to have children. Some of them happen to be gay. More common with lesbians. A lesbian with children meets a lesbian to love and live with. It is much better for the children if these lesbians can MARRY and have fully legally bound (and equal) parents with her neighbors. The weird thing is the anti-gay marriage are actually the REAL anti-family people.

A few sweeping statements there, chap, some of them off topic. Your first sentence is an opinion presented as fact.

[HeavyDrinker]

Why do you all keep clouding the one resounding issue of 2 consenting, loving adults being allowed to be joined in legal union?

There is only one issue here.

Were we discussing heterosexual marriage, none of the other 'issues' these opponents of freedom keep throwing into the mix would crop up...

[Jingthing]

A few sweeping statements there, chap, some of them off topic. Your first sentence is an opinion presented as fact.

OK, mate. I'll take all that under advisement.

[Jingthing]

Why do you all keep clouding the one resounding issue of 2 consenting, loving adults being allowed to be joined in legal union?

There is only one issue here.

Were we discussing heterosexual marriage, none of the other 'issues' these opponents of freedom keep throwing into the mix would crop up...

Yes, it is about denial of equality for an unpopular minority. Simple as that.

[Morden]

I wonder if this is a debate that can actually be had here, with fifteen posts by Moderators in three pages it seems maybe it can't, or shouldn't, just an observation.

If you feel that any of the moderators (including me) who are posting as 'themselves' in this thread are breaking any of the forum rules then please hit the report button. I'm more than happy to be held to the same standards that you are.

That's not what I was refering to, I don't think it's possible to debate this topic in isolation of allied and connected issues such as religon and child adoption/rearing, any attempt to do so seems to meet with a call to stay on a very narrow topic which I think doesn't allow the debate to mature or reach logical conclusions.

I fully agree with that.

Perhaps we need a new topic that will allow discussion of the entire subject of homosexual union and the issues connected with it. If anyone is interested, I'll happiy start one.

[HeavyDrinker]

Marriage is a HUMAN institution. Not a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals are humans. A surprising number of them MARRY the opposite sex! All belong in the human FAMILY. Some of these humans happen to have children. Some of them happen to be gay. More common with lesbians. A lesbian with children meets a lesbian to love and live with. It is much better for the children if these lesbians can MARRY and have fully legally bound (and equal) parents with her neighbors. The weird thing is the anti-gay marriage are actually the REAL anti-family people.

A few sweeping statements there, chap, some of them off topic. Your first sentence is an opinion presented as fact.

And the post will survive because it is pro-gay marriage unlike the numerous anti-gay marriage posts that have mysteriously

disappeared as this one will for pointing that out!!!

It's neither a pro or anti topic here, merely a post discussing the issue at hand surely?

Some posters are pro, some are anti and thus far reasonable points have been made by both parties.

Posting a directly pro or anti thread would surely be in breach of the laws of the forum?

[Morden]

Marriage is a HUMAN institution. Not a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals are humans. A surprising number of them MARRY the opposite sex! All belong in the human FAMILY. Some of these humans happen to have children. Some of them happen to be gay. More common with lesbians. A lesbian with children meets a lesbian to love and live with. It is much better for the children if these lesbians can MARRY and have fully legally bound (and equal) parents with her neighbors. The weird thing is the anti-gay marriage are actually the REAL anti-family people.

A few sweeping statements there, chap, some of them off topic. Your first sentence is an opinion presented as fact.

And the post will survive because it is pro-gay marriage unlike the numerous anti-gay marriage posts that have mysteriously

disappeared as this one will for pointing that out!!!

It's neither a pro or anti topic here, merely a post discussing the issue at hand surely?

Some posters are pro, some are anti and thus far reasonable points have been made by both parties.

Posting a directly pro or anti thread would surely be in breach of the laws of the forum?

My point is that the topic is too constrained for a full discussion of the rights attached to homosexual marriage, or civil partnership for that matter - and going nowhere, I might add.