U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[SteeleJoe]

i answer.. not the same.. see the other post.. you should know people that are dynamically opposed in views tend to disagree.

I haven't objected to anyone disagreeing, ever. Why mention that obvious fact or imply that I don't know it?

You answer...not the same...see other post? Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means.

I recall you mentioning time and agin that civil union is enough or should be - as is your prerogative - but when there is an obvious and sound response to that and someone makes it, you cite that person for being excessively repetitive and want them to stop. That's hypocritical and and either shows a lack of self awareness or intellectually dishonesty.

Or is my recollection in error?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

probably not.. i think you have a much better memory than me... i have a very bad memory.. happy

My memory is crap. If I hadn't seen the same thing said over and over by you, I'd have a harder time remembering. Shall I go back through the thread or shall we just agree that your complaint was somewhat...ironic? (Please don't call my bluff and ask me to go back through it!)

Are you asking me if I'm happy about your memory being bad or mine being accurate or what? Or you acknowledging that your complaint/criticism was unfair at best? No to the former and yes to the latter...a tiny bit.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[thaicbr]

This super repetitive thread is crying out to be put out of its misery. Just saying.

to be fair MOST if not all gay threads on TV that you get involved with end up this way..you even manage to bash the other gays in some circumstances because THEY do not agree with YOUR ideas.

just saying

[Jingthing]

This super repetitive thread is crying out to be put out of its misery. Just saying.

to be fair MOST if not all gay threads on TV that you get involved with end up this way..you even manage to bash the other gays in some circumstances because THEY do not agree with YOUR ideas.

just saying

This super repetitive thread is crying out to be put out of its misery. Just saying.

to be fair MOST if not all gay threads on TV that you get involved with end up this way..you even manage to bash the other gays in some circumstances because THEY do not agree with YOUR ideas.

just saying

I have not bashed anyone here, mate. I have voiced objection to bigoted speech, such as trashing gay people with the deviants label. Please keep your inflammatory personal attacks on specific posters outside of a public thread. Thank you very much. Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

gold

its not difficult to understand..that is that you want the option to get "married" just so you don't have to explain civil partnership.. Crystal clear

[SteeleJoe]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Goldieinkathu]

gold

its not difficult to understand..that is that you want the option to get "married" just so you don't have to explain civil partnership.. Crystal clear

Not the only reason, just one of many, but i'm glad you get it.

[thaicbr]

i answer.. not the same.. see the other post.. you should know people that are dynamically opposed in views tend to disagree.

I haven't objected to anyone disagreeing, ever. Why mention that obvious fact or imply that I don't know it?

You answer...not the same...see other post? Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means.

I recall you mentioning time and agin that civil union is enough or should be - as is your prerogative - but when there is an obvious and sound response to that and someone makes it, you cite that person for being excessively repetitive and want them to stop. That's hypocritical and and either shows a lack of self awareness or intellectually dishonesty.

Or is my recollection in error?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

probably not.. i think you have a much better memory than me... i have a very bad memory.. happy

My memory is crap. If I hadn't seen the same thing said over and over by you, I'd have a harder time remembering. Shall I go back through the thread or shall we just agree that your complaint was somewhat...ironic? (Please don't call my bluff and ask me to go back through it!)

Are you asking me if I'm happy about your memory being bad or mine being accurate or what? Or you acknowledging that your complaint/criticism was unfair at best? No to the former and yes to the latter...a tiny bit.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

tiny bit.. i think... i forget

[thaicbr]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I think it has been an interesting topic.. it has actually reinforced my objection to gay marriage not eased it.. But that is what activists tend to do.. one way or other.

again i have no problem with gay civil partnerships. I just do not believe marriage should be extended to gays.. bye

[SteeleJoe]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I think it has been an interesting topic.. it has actually reinforced my objection to gay marriage not eased it.. But that is what activists tend to do.. one way or other.

That's a really immature and an unreasoning reaction.

And you said "bye" 5 posts ago...goodbye already.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[phuketjock]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I think it has been an interesting topic.. it has actually reinforced my objection to gay marriage not eased it.. But that is what activists tend to do.. one way or other.

again i have no problem with gay civil partnerships. I just do not believe marriage should be extended to gays.. bye

+1

[Jingthing]

The best of all possible worlds: no UPPITY gays demanding equality. They scare the horses or something like that. Out of sight, out of mind. Wish they never came out of the closet! The love that dare not speak its name now won't shut up! That's the ticket.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I think it has been an interesting topic.. it has actually reinforced my objection to gay marriage not eased it.. But that is what activists tend to do.. one way or other.

That's a really immature and an unreasoning reaction.

And you said "bye" 5 posts ago...goodbye already.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

what are you talking about? please explain why you think its blah blah blah.. whatever you said

i bye again because no one said bye back

[Goldieinkathu]

I understand people wanting threads to be closed almost as little as I do people wanting their accounts closed...if you don't want it to continue just stop posting, people. If you don't like its content or are bored with it , don't read it.

Simple, yes? Threads should die naturally when people can no longer argue their position or can't be bothered to or there is a conclusion of some sort (the latter obviously impossible in some cases - like this one).

But it would be kind of cool if the thread got closed after this pointless post saying why it shouldn't be...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I think it has been an interesting topic.. it has actually reinforced my objection to gay marriage not eased it.. But that is what activists tend to do.. one way or other.

That's a really immature and an unreasoning reaction.

And you said "bye" 5 posts ago...goodbye already.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

what are you talking about? please explain why you think its blah blah blah.. whatever you said

i bye again because no one said bye back

Bye

[thaicbr]

The best of all possible worlds: no UPPITY gays demanding equality. They scare the horses or something like that. Out of sight, out of mind. That's the ticket.

what a stupid statement. How on earth do you expect us to believe you could be out of mind etc... it's not as if by your own agreement gays have civil rights in the UK.

also i do not believe there has been any evidence to suggest gays scare horses..

[thaicbr]

goldie

thanks.. very polite of you

[Scott]

If the House of Lords blocks this bill, then it's just a matter of the people of the UK waiting for more older people to die. Like in the US the younger people are pro equal civil rights in larger majorities, and the older people have more retro attitudes of closed mindedness and intolerance, examples of which we can see on this thread. So full equality in the UK soon, or not so soon, but it is coming for sure.

I am not wishing to weigh in on the pro's or con's of gay marriage, but I do wonder about the general idea of the younger generation being the key to change (on a number of social issues). I was much more liberal when I was young. What is to ensure that when these young people are older, they won't be more conservative? It's not an opinion; just a query.

[Jingthing]

If the House of Lords blocks this bill, then it's just a matter of the people of the UK waiting for more older people to die. Like in the US the younger people are pro equal civil rights in larger majorities, and the older people have more retro attitudes of closed mindedness and intolerance, examples of which we can see on this thread. So full equality in the UK soon, or not so soon, but it is coming for sure.

I am not wishing to weigh in on the pro's or con's of gay marriage, but I do wonder about the general idea of the younger generation being the key to change (on a number of social issues). I was much more liberal when I was young. What is to ensure that when these young people are older, they won't be more conservative? It's not an opinion; just a query.

That's a fair point. Many people do get more conservative with age. But I think that is mostly about economic and finance issues and perhaps how to deal with criminals. I think on civil rights issues and that's what I think gay marriage equality is, a civil rights issue, that the rightward movement you speak of is much less likely to happen. I think if someone is pro gay equal rights in their 20's there is no logical reason they will support discrimination when aged. Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[jamhar]

My god, is this thread still alive?? Someone get me a 12 guage so i can put it out of its misery.

back when, it was slavery.

Then womens right to vote.

After that the civil rights movement.

then the feminst movememnt.

Lots of bumps along the way.

More bumps to follow.....

As a mild homophobe, i understand. But it will happen. Humanity is moving towards a place where people are accepted for who they are, and not where our narrow minds wants to put them. Maybe JT is right and that a few more of the old guard holding on to their beliefs needs to die off, and more of the younger generation needs to take control.

But it will happen. You must see that, cant you?

If not today, tomorrow. if not by you, by your kids.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jamhar

[FritsSikkink]

If you really want to be "fair" why don't you just tell it like it is " i don't like gays"

Oh, sorry, it's against forum rules.

Had you taken the time to read the thread in full you would see from way back that I have stated that I

have no problem with anyone who wishes to get into any relationship with anyone of the same gender,

my objection, which still stands, is the attempt by the gay community to use marriage to validate their

decision. Nothing at all to do with forum rules.

You only state they exclude themselves from normal human activities.

Gay people are born gay, it is not an deciscion. Maybe people are strugling because they are gay but the people they mix with

say that it is a sin and they should not "choose" to be gay.

Who are you to say that people are excluded from normal human activities.

Edited February 13, 2013 by FritsSikkink

[phuketjock]

If you really want to be "fair" why don't you just tell it like it is " i don't like gays"

Oh, sorry, it's against forum rules.

Had you taken the time to read the thread in full you would see from way back that I have stated that I

have no problem with anyone who wishes to get into any relationship with anyone of the same gender,

my objection, which still stands, is the attempt by the gay community to use marriage to validate their

decision. Nothing at all to do with forum rules.

You only state they exclude themselves from normal human activities.

Gay people are born gay, it is not an deciscion. Maybe people are strugling because they are gay but the people they mix with

say that it is a sin and they should not "choose" to be gay.

Who are you to say that people are excluded from normal human activities.

Your post does not seem to relate to the quote above it so I will have to assume you have mixed up the quotes, if not

perhaps you should try again, but I did say that i believe nobody is born gay, and that it is a choice they make by their

own voalition. I stand by this statement in the light of no proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

[Jingthing]

Your post does not seem to relate to the quote above it so I will have to assume you have mixed up the quotes, if not

perhaps you should try again, but I did say that i believe nobody is born gay, and that it is a choice they make by their

own voalition. I stand by this statement in the light of no proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. Are you a leading scientist in the field of human sexuality? Wow!

It is easy to assert there is NO evidence for a biological role in etiology of sexual orientation just because yes we are in the earlier years of this kind of research. There is indeed some evidence. You can say you are not convinced and that the research is confusing but to say there is no evidence is simply a false statement, not really an opinion. There IS evidence.

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,^[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.^[2] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Goldieinkathu]

If you really want to be "fair" why don't you just tell it like it is " i don't like gays"

Oh, sorry, it's against forum rules.

Had you taken the time to read the thread in full you would see from way back that I have stated that I

have no problem with anyone who wishes to get into any relationship with anyone of the same gender,

my objection, which still stands, is the attempt by the gay community to use marriage to validate their

decision. Nothing at all to do with forum rules.

You only state they exclude themselves from normal human activities.

Gay people are born gay, it is not an deciscion. Maybe people are strugling because they are gay but the people they mix with

say that it is a sin and they should not "choose" to be gay.

Who are you to say that people are excluded from normal human activities.

Your post does not seem to relate to the quote above it so I will have to assume you have mixed up the quotes, if not

perhaps you should try again, but I did say that i believe nobody is born gay, and that it is a choice they make by their

own voalition. I stand by this statement in the light of no proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

I knew from the time i was 3/4 years old. For 32 years i tried to deny my sexuality. I don't need scientific evidence, i know the truth. I presume you think i'm a liar?

[phuketjock]

Your post does not seem to relate to the quote above it so I will have to assume you have mixed up the quotes, if not

perhaps you should try again, but I did say that i believe nobody is born gay, and that it is a choice they make by their

own voalition. I stand by this statement in the light of no proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. Are you a leading scientist in the field of human sexuality? Wow!

It is easy to assert there is NO evidence for a biological role in etiology of sexual orientation just because yes we are in the earlier years of this kind of research. There is indeed some evidence. You can say you are not convinced and that the research is confusing but to say there is no evidence is simply a false statement, not really an opinion. There IS evidence.

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,^[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.^[2] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

I suppose you just missed the word proven or as usual just ignored it as you have done anything that vaguely shakes your

personal views throughout the whole thread.

From your own source

" No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated "

" Research generally suggests "

Hardly conclusive is it????

Edited February 13, 2013 by phuketjock

[phuketjock]

Had you taken the time to read the thread in full you would see from way back that I have stated that I

have no problem with anyone who wishes to get into any relationship with anyone of the same gender,

my objection, which still stands, is the attempt by the gay community to use marriage to validate their

decision. Nothing at all to do with forum rules.

You only state they exclude themselves from normal human activities.

Gay people are born gay, it is not an deciscion. Maybe people are strugling because they are gay but the people they mix with

say that it is a sin and they should not "choose" to be gay.

Who are you to say that people are excluded from normal human activities.

Your post does not seem to relate to the quote above it so I will have to assume you have mixed up the quotes, if not

perhaps you should try again, but I did say that i believe nobody is born gay, and that it is a choice they make by their

own voalition. I stand by this statement in the light of no proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

I knew from the time i was 3/4 years old. For 32 years i tried to deny my sexuality. I don't need scientific evidence, i know the truth. I presume you think i'm a liar?

I would not presume to think anyone a liar Goldie and am sure you believe you knew since you were 4 because you

have had 32 years to conjure up enough reasons to convince yourself that you must have been that way since you were

3/4. I really don't care it is of little cosequence is it???

[Goldieinkathu]

Just the reply i expected from you

[Chicog]

No takers?

I still have yet to hear a single reasonable argument as to how this negatively impacts heterosexual marriage.

[FritsSikkink]

" No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated "

" Research generally suggests "

Hardly conclusive is it????

Because there are more causes: http://discovermagaz...07/jun/born-gay

It is also becoming increasingly clear that gay genes are not the only biological factor that influences homosexuality. Some homosexual men appear to have their sexuality oriented not by their DNA but by the environment they experienced in the womb.

So it has nothing to do with choice.

Edited February 13, 2013 by FritsSikkink

[thaicbr]

" No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated "

" Research generally suggests "

Hardly conclusive is it????

Because there are more causes: http://discovermagaz...07/jun/born-gay

It is also becoming increasingly clear that gay genes are not the only biological factor that influences homosexuality. Some homosexual men appear to have their sexuality oriented not by their DNA but by the environment they experienced in the womb.

So it has nothing to do with choice.

so in fact.. environment can make you gay.. right? or am i reading this wrong?

[FritsSikkink]

" No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated "

" Research generally suggests "

Hardly conclusive is it????

Because there are more causes: http://discovermagaz...07/jun/born-gay

It is also becoming increasingly clear that gay genes are not the only biological factor that influences homosexuality. Some homosexual men appear to have their sexuality oriented not by their DNA but by the environment they experienced in the womb.

So it has nothing to do with choice.

so in fact.. environment can make you gay.. right? or am i reading this wrong?

Yes, you (and phuketjock) are reading what you want to read.

the environment they experienced in the womb. This is before you are born and can make any choices.

Edited February 13, 2013 by FritsSikkink

[Jingthing]

This choice thing is a can of worms.

As far as civil rights is concerned: it does not matter.

I have never met even one exclusive gay man who thought he chose to be gay.

Many gay men who aren't really bisexual experiment with hetero sex just as many straight men experiment with gay sex. Neither kind of exploration changes a person's sexual orientation just because of the sex. Often people experiment just to confirm (or not) what their feelings really are.

There is a huge range of human sexual experience, crossing the spectrum of simple orientation labels.

Of course, there is the Kinsey scale thing. Lots of people are bisexual. Women's sexuality is VERY DIFFERENT than male sexuality. Consider the phenom of college lesbianism. Academic studies tend to show women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's, and men's is generally set in concrete, and set VERY EARLY. With bisexuals, of course they are free to CHOOSE who they love either short term or as a lifetime commitment and the object(s) of their affection can be either gender.

A discussion of the VAST topic of etiology of sexual orientation, gay, bi, straight, etc. is way beyond the scope of this topic.

Using the complexity of the choice red herring as a reason to justify denying gay people equal civil rights is just another TRAP. Civil rights advocates should reject such traps. The issue is EQUAL civil rights. Period. How and why people became the sexual orientation they are is an interesting academic question but there is no logical reason to directly link this to the civil rights demand. No, exclusive gay men didn't choose, exclusive gay men know that, but again, it does not matter. People should be FREE to choose if they could, anyway.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Jingthing