U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[SteeleJoe]

Everything is changing in UK. Centuries of stuff and now everything is changing.

It's what is known as "progress". It's been going on for thousands of years (so perhaps it's time for you to deal with it).

And if you have even a passing acquaintance with history (or logic) and give it a moment's objective thought, you should recognize that the fact that something has existed for centuries doesn't make it a good thing or that it should never change.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I should deal with what. ?

A child is to have folk to call mum AND dad, not mum and mum or dad and dad.

"I should deal with what?"

I would have thought it obvious from my post: change (ie the fact that over centuries things don't remain the same - and all things considered, that's a very good thing).

"A child is to have folk to call mum AND dad, not mum and mum or dad and dad."

Says who? (If your answer is "me", forgive me if I don't acknowledge your authority to make such a declaration or feel that anyone need defer to it).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[transam]

Everything is changing in UK. Centuries of stuff and now everything is changing.

It's what is known as "progress". It's been going on for thousands of years (so perhaps it's time for you to deal with it).

And if you have even a passing acquaintance with history (or logic) and give it a moment's objective thought, you should recognize that the fact that something has existed for centuries doesn't make it a good thing or that it should never change.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I should deal with what. ?

A child is to have folk to call mum AND dad, not mum and mum or dad and dad.

"I should deal with what?"

I would have thought it obvious from my post: change (ie the fact that over centuries things don't remain the same - and all things considered, that's a very good thing).

"A child is to have folk to call mum AND dad, not mum and mum or dad and dad."

Says who? (If your answer is "me", forgive me if I don't acknowledge your authority to make such a declaration or feel that anyone need defer to it).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Then obviously you have forgotten about being a kid eh, l haven't.

[SteeleJoe]

Because marriage is, and should remain, a union between a man and a woman.

I agree with this, but I also think that gay unions should have all the same legal and financial rights as heterosexuals otherwise. I'm on the fence about gays adopting children, but IMO any loving home is better than growing up in some government institution with no family at all.

Sincere question as I obviously have heard this position plenty and I'm not clear on the reasoning behind it: you don't want it to be called "marriage" but you want it have all the same benefits under the law? Why?

And as to the latter comment, it doesn't seem you are on the fence at all.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Then obviously you have forgotten about being a kid eh, l haven't.

Uhmmm...<deleted>?

Obviously? I have?

Now this time you have to be the one to explain to me (to be fair, my post wasn't at all cryptic but yours certainly is)...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Morden]

I think is fantastic that equality is finally moving forward. More equal societies are happier societies.

I does genuinely surprise me that some people on here have such peanut brains and views to say this is a bad thing. Using terms like revolting and abnormal whilst using your own preferences, emotions and feelings towards the physical activity of two guys having sex is inherently flawed. Try for a moment to get out of your own head. Let's try to look at the bigger picture: equality is the goal of a progressive society and any step forward should be celebrated, big or small.

Just because we don't like something or do not understand, or associate our selves to an ideal doesn't mean we should automatically be against it. I personally might find the idea of a pension age male having sex with a younger thai girl disgusting and abnormal. Plus they have kids at such an old age, in a foreign country- Very abnormal for me! However I should have the ability to look beyond my own emotional reaction to this to understand the wider context: that people should be free to mary who they choose and love each other. I need to forget my own dislike of the situation and accept I don't understand those relationships or identify with those people. And whether these relationships occur or not, i will thankfully, never have to see an old man having sex with a young thai girl so even if it does disgust me, it doesn't matter; it is just a thought in my head. I need to look at the bigger picture and say, people should be free to marry and love each other regardless or age, race or sexuality. Live and let live. If you don't like the idea of thai a bride... Don't get one. If you don't like the idea of a gay marriage, don't get one.

Let's all remember not to let our individual preferences rule our brains and determine a response. Let's use some grey matter. More equality is a good thing , let's celebrate it as a small step closer to a happier and more equal world

Do you usually refer to people who have opinions different from your as 'peanut brains'?

I have met a number of homosexuals and have got along with them as I would anyone else. If one touched my knee, things would change very rapidly.

I have already written to the effect that I think that homosexual couples should have similar civil rights as heterosexuals. My objection is only that such couples are not suitable as carers, parents or guardians of children. That's a rational view as well as an emotional one.

[SteeleJoe]

I think is fantastic that equality is finally moving forward. More equal societies are happier societies.

I does genuinely surprise me that some people on here have such peanut brains and views to say this is a bad thing. Using terms like revolting and abnormal whilst using your own preferences, emotions and feelings towards the physical activity of two guys having sex is inherently flawed. Try for a moment to get out of your own head. Let's try to look at the bigger picture: equality is the goal of a progressive society and any step forward should be celebrated, big or small.

Just because we don't like something or do not understand, or associate our selves to an ideal doesn't mean we should automatically be against it. I personally might find the idea of a pension age male having sex with a younger thai girl disgusting and abnormal. Plus they have kids at such an old age, in a foreign country- Very abnormal for me! However I should have the ability to look beyond my own emotional reaction to this to understand the wider context: that people should be free to mary who they choose and love each other. I need to forget my own dislike of the situation and accept I don't understand those relationships or identify with those people. And whether these relationships occur or not, i will thankfully, never have to see an old man having sex with a young thai girl so even if it does disgust me, it doesn't matter; it is just a thought in my head. I need to look at the bigger picture and say, people should be free to marry and love each other regardless or age, race or sexuality. Live and let live. If you don't like the idea of thai a bride... Don't get one. If you don't like the idea of a gay marriage, don't get one.

Let's all remember not to let our individual preferences rule our brains and determine a response. Let's use some grey matter. More equality is a good thing , let's celebrate it as a small step closer to a happier and more equal world

And what might the next small step you want us all to embrace?? I love my dog/cat/horse/pig and why can't I marry it??

Because humans can't marry animals. Such a step (interspecies marriage and marriage without the consent of one party) is not a small step. Next question?

(I'm just going to ignore the parts of your post that disgust me. Perhaps you should try to do that with other people's relationships and sex lives)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 7, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Morden]

And what might the next small step you want us all to embrace?? I love my dog/cat/horse/pig and why can't I marry it??

Homosexuality is not about equality, it is about deviants wanting to force normal society to accept them so please do not

attempt to dress it up as anything other than that and the thought of children being raised by deviants is abhorrent.

Although I generally agree that settled homosexual relationships should have recognition in civil law, I agree with your comments regarding the suitability of homosexuals as parents.

Homosexual acts are nit natural or normal and it's not right that a child should live in a home where such things happen. Children learn for the adults who care for them and showing them deviant practices as if they were normal is not acceptable.

Despite by views about civil rights, the more I read and hear suggestions that homosexuality is something that can't harm children in the home the more I'm inclined to harden my views.

[phuketjock]

I think is fantastic that equality is finally moving forward. More equal societies are happier societies.

I does genuinely surprise me that some people on here have such peanut brains and views to say this is a bad thing. Using terms like revolting and abnormal whilst using your own preferences, emotions and feelings towards the physical activity of two guys having sex is inherently flawed. Try for a moment to get out of your own head. Let's try to look at the bigger picture: equality is the goal of a progressive society and any step forward should be celebrated, big or small.

Just because we don't like something or do not understand, or associate our selves to an ideal doesn't mean we should automatically be against it. I personally might find the idea of a pension age male having sex with a younger thai girl disgusting and abnormal. Plus they have kids at such an old age, in a foreign country- Very abnormal for me! However I should have the ability to look beyond my own emotional reaction to this to understand the wider context: that people should be free to mary who they choose and love each other. I need to forget my own dislike of the situation and accept I don't understand those relationships or identify with those people. And whether these relationships occur or not, i will thankfully, never have to see an old man having sex with a young thai girl so even if it does disgust me, it doesn't matter; it is just a thought in my head. I need to look at the bigger picture and say, people should be free to marry and love each other regardless or age, race or sexuality. Live and let live. If you don't like the idea of thai a bride... Don't get one. If you don't like the idea of a gay marriage, don't get one.

Let's all remember not to let our individual preferences rule our brains and determine a response. Let's use some grey matter. More equality is a good thing , let's celebrate it as a small step closer to a happier and more equal world

And what might the next small step you want us all to embrace?? I love my dog/cat/horse/pig and why can't I marry it??

Because humans can't marry animals. Such a step (interspecies marriage and marriage without the consent of one party) is not a small step. Next question?

(I'm just going to ignore the parts of your post that disgust me. Perhaps you should try to do that with other people's relationships and sex lives)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

And not so long ago man could not marry man and woman could not marry woman but now they can, that was no small step

either but the stupid politicians took it.

Choosing to ignore the truth is your perogative, please do!!

[FritsSikkink]

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to bring up children?

The reason is quite clear to me.

Children should be brought up in as normal an environment as possible so that they grow up to be well balanced individuals. A childhood spent watching homosexuals show affection to each other is not normal and is likely to encourage the child to also live an abnormal adulthood.

I'm homosexual and I was bought up by a heterosexual couple. I spent my childhood watching them displaying affection to each other. Please explain why I'm not heterosexual?

I note your remark about lesbians which demonstrates just how little you've actually thought about all this. Lesbians , by definition, aren't attracted to men. It's not that they haven't yet met the man of their dreams (even though that man might be you). They just aren't interested. The fact that you are interested in them is your problem not theirs.

I've no idea how you grew up to be sexually normal but congratulations anyway. It's possible for children from abnormal families of other kinds to grow up as normal adults, even though most probably do not.

You misunderstood my comment about lesbians. Let me explain. The sight of two men snogging revolts me. That's a normal male reaction to that stuff, I think. However, a couple of lesbians having a snog doesn't revolt me at all. I find it quite interesting, so long as neither of them is butch. It makes no difference to my opinion about homosexuals bring up children. Neither male no female homosexual couples should have children in their care.

I think narrowminded people shouldn't be allowed having children.

[gmr85uk]

Ridiculous. Deviency is a socially constructed concept that is not quantifiable. What normal to one is not to another. That's diversity. Just because you think something is strange doesn't make it devient. Don't try justify your prejudice. Don't to kid yourself you're anything but a simple homophobe.

[gmr85uk]

Is not rational. There is no justification or evidence to support your claim. Believe it or not, homosexuals are just a capable of love and care. There not incapable of being patents and could do a better job than some heterosexual couples.

You clearly have a prejudice against Gay people. You'll be surprised to know they ARE normal people rather than the perverts and molesterers image all the haters out there love to promote and believe in

[transam]

Is not rational. There is no justification or evidence to support your claim. Believe it or not, homosexuals are just a capable of love and care. There not incapable of being patents and could do a better job than some heterosexual couples.

You clearly have a prejudice against Gay people. You'll be surprised to know they ARE normal people rather than the perverts and molesterers image all the haters out there love to promote and believe in

You are not thinking of a kid who wants a mum and dad, that is natural. You perhaps are looking at it from your perspective but not a kids.

[Jingthing]

It's sad that these anti-gay views are still bandied about as if they are socially acceptable. Imagine if people were making anti-Jewish comments, anti-black comments, anti-Thai comments of the same mean spirited nature as these anti-gay comments on this thread. Gay people are the last group that it is allowed to bash in "polite" society. Happily, younger people in many countries are the vanguard and they are not as bigoted as the older people (who will die out of course and then the forces of intolerance will be defeated). Of course, that depends on the country and sadly some countries are going BACKWARDS. (For example Russia.)

It seems now when looked at globally, pretty much every year we are seeing progress in this global civil rights movement for gay equality. The list of more advanced countries offering EQUALITY is growing, slowly but steadily and predictably year after year.

Even in Asean, Vietnam is looking at this issue and we recently had a report that Thailand is in the early stages of considering it as well.

BTW, just be clear, a person who is seriously arguing that legal equality for gay HUMAN BEINGS is equivalent or leads to legalizing sexual relations or marriage rights between SPECIES (the old man marries dog red herring) are expressing an inflammatory anti-gay point of view by definition. There is no point even attempting rational arguments against that kind of demagoguery. People with those kinds of views can't be converted to tolerance. It's more sensible to just keep working for equality among people who are less bigoted.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[IrishIvan]

I never thought I'd say this but well done Parliament!

If 2 people love each other then why the heck shouldn't they marry, regardless of sexual preference?

On a brighter note, hopefully this will signal an end to those godawful gay pride marches which have probably hampered their cause over the years....

Thats fine but I dont think its fair for them to have a child together, it would be too hard for children going through life having gay parents

[IrishIvan]

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to bring up children?

The children don't have a choice. They will be brought up in a life of torment

[Jingthing]

Equality is equality.

If single parents can have kids, if infertile heterosexuals can have kids, married gay people deserve the same choice under the law. Yes there will be a period of societal adjustment. Very similar to ways some societies have successfully adjusted to offspring of INTERRACIAL couples in countries where that used to be taboo and/or illegal.

[Scott]

An extremely homophobic remark has been deleted. You are welcome to your opinion, however, chose you words carefully. I might also add that this thread is not about gay adoption, but just to set the record straight, most reputable adoption agencies give priority to younger, healthier, stable heterosexual couples for adoption. State-sanctioned adoptions in most countries weigh heavily on what is considered as the best interest of the child.

Single people and gays are usually given special needs children or older children that are not usually adoptable by what is being called "normal" heterosexual couples.

And for those that are concerned about the financial aspects, it is extremely expensive for the state to raise a child and if anyone wants to look at the cost of foster care per child/per year, you will get an idea of the cost. It is also considered better for children to live with a family--rather than in an institution.

[SteeleJoe]

It's sad that these anti-gay views are still bandied about as if they are socially acceptable. Imagine if people were making anti-Jewish comments, anti-black comments, anti-Thai comments of the same mean spirited nature as these anti-gay comments on this thread. Gay people are the last group that it is allowed to bash in "polite" society. Happily, younger people in many countries are the vanguard and they are not as bigoted as the older people (who will die out of course and then the forces of intolerance will be defeated). Of course, that depends on the country and sadly some countries are going BACKWARDS. (For example Russia.)

It seems now when looked at globally, pretty much every year we are seeing progress in this global civil rights movement for gay equality. The list of more advanced countries offering EQUALITY is growing, slowly but steadily and predictably year after year.

Even in Asean, Vietnam is looking at this issue and we recently had a report that Thailand is in the early stages of considering it as well.

BTW, just be clear, a person who is seriously arguing that legal equality for gay HUMAN BEINGS is equivalent or leads to legalizing sexual relations or marriage rights between SPECIES (the old man marries dog red herring) are expressing an inflammatory anti-gay point of view by definition. There is no point even attempting rational arguments against that kind of demagoguery. People with those kinds of views can't be converted to tolerance. It's more sensible to just keep working for equality among people who are less bigoted.

If I could "like" a post more than one time, this one would be it.

I would differ on the "Polite Society" bit though; it's my feeling that - like racism but to a lesser extent - homophobia is largely socially unacceptable and exists more under the surface than above it (this is the anonymous Internet - people here wouldn't necessarily say the same things in real life social setting unless with those whom they know to be like minded bigots). A Internet forum is NOT polite society.

I had the very same thoughts about the "man marries dog" crap and how offensive it was and how anyone using that sort of rhetoric wasn't going to be reached with reason, but I opted to treat it dismissively as trite and obviously stupid (when perhaps I should have because it is implicitly disgusting).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Morden]

It's sad that these anti-gay views are still bandied about as if they are socially acceptable. Imagine if people were making anti-Jewish comments, anti-black comments, anti-Thai comments of the same mean spirited nature as these anti-gay comments on this thread. Gay people are the last group that it is allowed to bash in "polite" society. Happily, younger people in many countries are the vanguard and they are not as bigoted as the older people (who will die out of course and then the forces of intolerance will be defeated). Of course, that depends on the country and sadly some countries are going BACKWARDS. (For example Russia.)

It seems now when looked at globally, pretty much every year we are seeing progress in this global civil rights movement for gay equality. The list of more advanced countries offering EQUALITY is growing, slowly but steadily and predictably year after year.

Even in Asean, Vietnam is looking at this issue and we recently had a report that Thailand is in the early stages of considering it as well.

BTW, just be clear, a person who is seriously arguing that legal equality for gay HUMAN BEINGS is equivalent or leads to legalizing sexual relations or marriage rights between SPECIES (the old man marries dog red herring) are expressing an inflammatory anti-gay point of view by definition. There is no point even attempting rational arguments against that kind of demagoguery. People with those kinds of views can't be converted to tolerance. It's more sensible to just keep working for equality among people who are less bigoted.

If I could "like" a post more than one time, this one would be it.

I would differ on the "Polite Society" bit though; it's my feeling that - like racism but to a lesser extent - homophobia is largely socially unacceptable and exists more under the surface than above it (this is the anonymous Internet - people here wouldn't necessarily say the same things in real life social setting unless with those whom they know to be like minded bigots). A Internet forum is NOT polite society.

I had the very same thoughts about the "man marries dog" crap and how offensive it was and how anyone using that sort of rhetoric wasn't going to be reached with reason, but I opted to treat it dismissively as trite and obviously stupid (when perhaps I should have because it is implicitly disgusting).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Why is an opinion different from yours about how far civil rights for homosexuals should go homophobic? It's a poor response to the opinions of others.

They can have their weddings and divorce rights as far as I care but peple who do what they do for amusement should not have chldren in their homes. Or perhaps, by example, you would argue that even a violent father should have the same rights as a good father.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Morden

[SteeleJoe]

It's sad that these anti-gay views are still bandied about as if they are socially acceptable. Imagine if people were making anti-Jewish comments, anti-black comments, anti-Thai comments of the same mean spirited nature as these anti-gay comments on this thread. Gay people are the last group that it is allowed to bash in "polite" society. Happily, younger people in many countries are the vanguard and they are not as bigoted as the older people (who will die out of course and then the forces of intolerance will be defeated). Of course, that depends on the country and sadly some countries are going BACKWARDS. (For example Russia.)

It seems now when looked at globally, pretty much every year we are seeing progress in this global civil rights movement for gay equality. The list of more advanced countries offering EQUALITY is growing, slowly but steadily and predictably year after year.

Even in Asean, Vietnam is looking at this issue and we recently had a report that Thailand is in the early stages of considering it as well.

BTW, just be clear, a person who is seriously arguing that legal equality for gay HUMAN BEINGS is equivalent or leads to legalizing sexual relations or marriage rights between SPECIES (the old man marries dog red herring) are expressing an inflammatory anti-gay point of view by definition. There is no point even attempting rational arguments against that kind of demagoguery. People with those kinds of views can't be converted to tolerance. It's more sensible to just keep working for equality among people who are less bigoted.

If I could "like" a post more than one time, this one would be it.

I would differ on the "Polite Society" bit though; it's my feeling that - like racism but to a lesser extent - homophobia is largely socially unacceptable and exists more under the surface than above it (this is the anonymous Internet - people here wouldn't necessarily say the same things in real life social setting unless with those whom they know to be like minded bigots). A Internet forum is NOT polite society.

I had the very same thoughts about the "man marries dog" crap and how offensive it was and how anyone using that sort of rhetoric wasn't going to be reached with reason, but I opted to treat it dismissively as trite and obviously stupid (when perhaps I should have because it is implicitly disgusting).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Why is an opinion different from yours about how far civil rights for homosexuals should go homophobic? It's a poor response to the opinions of others.

They can have their weddings and divorce rights as far as I care but peple who do what they do for amusement should not have chldren in their homes. Or perhaps, by example, you would argue that even a violent father should have the same rights as a good father.

Two unintelligent and intellectually dishonest lines in one brief post - well done!

1) a difference in opinion on this issue is not automatically homophobic and nowhere is that said or implied. What is implied (in my response to a post from someone who made relevant comments) is that someone who implicitly attempts to equate homosexuality with bestiality or zoophilia is homophobic.

2) In what possible way is your "example" a reasonable one? How is a violent parent analogous to homosexual parents? Who argues, anywhere, that having violent parents is ever a good thing or not detrimental to a child? Where is it legal to be violent with your children?

And why would you insult me in such a way?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Scott]

A post with altered quotes has been deleted.

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[Morden]

It's sad that these anti-gay views are still bandied about as if they are socially acceptable. Imagine if people were making anti-Jewish comments, anti-black comments, anti-Thai comments of the same mean spirited nature as these anti-gay comments on this thread. Gay people are the last group that it is allowed to bash in "polite" society. Happily, younger people in many countries are the vanguard and they are not as bigoted as the older people (who will die out of course and then the forces of intolerance will be defeated). Of course, that depends on the country and sadly some countries are going BACKWARDS. (For example Russia.)

It seems now when looked at globally, pretty much every year we are seeing progress in this global civil rights movement for gay equality. The list of more advanced countries offering EQUALITY is growing, slowly but steadily and predictably year after year.

Even in Asean, Vietnam is looking at this issue and we recently had a report that Thailand is in the early stages of considering it as well.

BTW, just be clear, a person who is seriously arguing that legal equality for gay HUMAN BEINGS is equivalent or leads to legalizing sexual relations or marriage rights between SPECIES (the old man marries dog red herring) are expressing an inflammatory anti-gay point of view by definition. There is no point even attempting rational arguments against that kind of demagoguery. People with those kinds of views can't be converted to tolerance. It's more sensible to just keep working for equality among people who are less bigoted.

If I could "like" a post more than one time, this one would be it.

I would differ on the "Polite Society" bit though; it's my feeling that - like racism but to a lesser extent - homophobia is largely socially unacceptable and exists more under the surface than above it (this is the anonymous Internet - people here wouldn't necessarily say the same things in real life social setting unless with those whom they know to be like minded bigots). A Internet forum is NOT polite society.

I had the very same thoughts about the "man marries dog" crap and how offensive it was and how anyone using that sort of rhetoric wasn't going to be reached with reason, but I opted to treat it dismissively as trite and obviously stupid (when perhaps I should have because it is implicitly disgusting).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Why is an opinion different from yours about how far civil rights for homosexuals should go homophobic? It's a poor response to the opinions of others.

They can have their weddings and divorce rights as far as I care but peple who do what they do for amusement should not have chldren in their homes. Or perhaps, by example, you would argue that even a violent father should have the same rights as a good father.

Two unintelligent and intellectually dishonest lines in one brief post - well done!

1) a difference in opinion on this issue is not automatically homophobic and nowhere is that said or implied. What is implied (in my response to a post from someone who made relevant comments) is that someone who implicitly attempts to equate homosexuality with bestiality or zoophilia is homophobic.

2) In what possible way is your "example" a reasonable one? How is a violent parent analogous to homosexual parents? Who argues, anywhere, that having violent parents is ever a good thing or not detrimental to a child? Where is it legal to be violent with your children?

And why would you insult me in such a way?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Both environments are unhealthy for children. Jeez, I wouldn't share a home with them myself as an adult.

I'm not insulting you but you might do better to be more respectful yourself in your choice of words when you direct comments at posters with whom you disagree.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Morden

[SteeleJoe]

Both environments are unhealthy for children. Jeez, I wouldn't share a home with them myself as an adult.

I'm not insulting you but you might do better to be more respectful yourself in your choice of words when you direct comments at posters with whom you disagree.

1) The posit that an environment with homosexual parents is unhealthy for a child is entirely a subjective one. To imply that it is analogous to having a violent parent is vile and unsupportable.

2) Who you would share your home with is totally irrelevant and of no interest to me (but hardly surprising).

3) You insult me by suggesting that I might approve of a child having a violent parent.

4) feel free to cite where you feel I should have been more respectful; I will gladly apologize if I have been gratuitously offensive.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chiang mai]

I don't have a view either way on the same sex marriage issue although from what I gather a vast majority of Brits are not in favour of it. What is an issue for me is that the people didn't give David Cameron a remit to get this law passed and secondly, is that really the highest priority issue on his agenda!

[SteeleJoe]

I don't have a view either way on the same sex marriage issue although from what I gather a vast majority of Brits are not in favour of it. What is an issue for me is that the people didn't give David Cameron a remit to get this law passed and secondly, is that really the highest priority issue on his agenda!

I think you are quite wrong about UK public opinion - how did you gather that?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chiang mai]

I don't have a view either way on the same sex marriage issue although from what I gather a vast majority of Brits are not in favour of it. What is an issue for me is that the people didn't give David Cameron a remit to get this law passed and secondly, is that really the highest priority issue on his agenda!

I think you are quite wrong about UK public opinion - how did you gather that?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

From a couple of UK newspapers where readers comments on the subject seem to provide some direction, nothing scientific mind you and I may well be wrong,

[SteeleJoe]

I don't have a view either way on the same sex marriage issue although from what I gather a vast majority of Brits are not in favour of it. What is an issue for me is that the people didn't give David Cameron a remit to get this law passed and secondly, is that really the highest priority issue on his agenda!

I think you are quite wrong about UK public opinion - how did you gather that?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

From a couple of UK newspapers where readers comments on the subject seem to provide some direction, nothing scientific mind you and I may well be wrong,

If I'm not mistaken, several surveys indicate that rather than the vast majority not being in favor, a clear majority IS in favor.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chiang mai]

I don't have a view either way on the same sex marriage issue although from what I gather a vast majority of Brits are not in favour of it. What is an issue for me is that the people didn't give David Cameron a remit to get this law passed and secondly, is that really the highest priority issue on his agenda!

I think you are quite wrong about UK public opinion - how did you gather that?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

From a couple of UK newspapers where readers comments on the subject seem to provide some direction, nothing scientific mind you and I may well be wrong,

If I'm not mistaken, several surveys indicate that rather than the vast majority not being in favor, a clear majority IS in favor.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Possibly so but I've not seen any. Once again I have no really feelings on this, my concerns are Camerons priorities, it's almost as though he's Billy no mates and is trying to win some from somewhere, tell you what Dave, fix the economy, that'll do the trick.

[JemJem]

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to bring up children?

The reason is quite clear to me.

Children should be brought up in as normal an environment as possible so that they grow up to be well balanced individuals. A childhood spent watching homosexuals show affection to each other is not normal and is likely to encourage the child to also live an abnormal adulthood.

I'm homosexual and I was bought up by a heterosexual couple. I spent my childhood watching them displaying affection to each other. Please explain why I'm not heterosexual?

I note your remark about lesbians which demonstrates just how little you've actually thought about all this. Lesbians , by definition, aren't attracted to men. It's not that they haven't yet met the man of their dreams (even though that man might be you). They just aren't interested. The fact that you are interested in them is your problem not theirs.

I sort of admire your persistence in debating with bigots, dear Endure. Personally, I normally refrain from arguing with people who are full of hatred and discrimination because it is mainly useless and I just get a headache..

Well done to the UK Parliament.

And, once again, shame on Russia and those Middle Eastern and African countries which have anti-gay laws.

Edited February 7, 2013 by JemJem

[Krataiboy]

Sadly the whole western world seems to have gone all queer. They will be

wanting to adopt kids they can't possibly sire next! Perish the thought.

They already can in certain circumstances.