U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[thaicbr]

Separate civil rights. Good enough for some. It's not something I would ever think is ideal to be classed as not good enough to be included with all other citizens though I realize many UK gay people are happy with the status quo. Like I said, it's not a critical issue in the UK but in my view it's worth doing sometime and there's better time than NOW.

No.. same civil rights under a different name.. The same as you being gay are different than me being heterosexual. You have sexual feelings for men. I have sexual feelings for women. But we are both men. same name but different.

So why not a different name for the same civil rights. I remember on another thread you stating that gay people should be proud of being gay. What prouder moment than having special laws passed just for gays.

That's totally ridiculous. Trying to sell separate as special. Special indicates better or more rights. Being barred from the same institution as heterosexuals and yes that means the exact same name marriage and the exact same institution marriage is without a doubt a LESS THAN, an OTHER, a we will make accommodation for you but really you still don't fully belong among the rest of us.

Q. So why do campaigners want the law changed?

They say that there should not be a separate system for different groups in society as a matter of principle. Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, says a two-tier system for recognising marriage is like a form of “apartheid”.

Marriage is recognised around the world as a clear statement of commitment and legal status between two people, he says. Outside Britain, hardly anyone knows what a civil partnership is.

http://www.telegraph...rtnerships.html

BTW, for those who think this is about just a word. Why be so niggardly about extending the use of this "special" word for your fellow citizens ... gay people?

Also if civil unions are so "special" would you anti-gay equality heterosexuals be willing to SWAP? You can have civil unions. Gay people can have marriage? Deal?

Jing. That's the problem with you. Some one has a different definition of a statement and it's "totally ridiculous"

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed. In the UK gay people have the equivalent civil rights in civil partnership as do heterosexuals in marriage. You call your self gay so you are different from a heterosexual. Same civil rights different name. Now who is quibbling about a name? Throughout this thread you have stated you want the same civil rights as heterosexuals. UK gays have that. So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

And by your last statement all can tell you have not been listening.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

Edited February 11, 2013 by thaicbr

[SteeleJoe]

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed...

... So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

I think perhaps this thread has become pointless and maybe holds no more interest for me personally - and I find it dispiriting and a little distasteful to be confronted with some of the antediluvian and ugly attitudes - but the last post contains a couple things that I do want to say because they seem to be key and common, so I'll dash this off before I dash off myself...

* The people who oppose gay marriage keep talking about accommodating a small minority -- leaving aside how outrageous it is that people actually think that's unreasonable or wrong, the implication there is that it's a case of gays vs. straights and only homosexual people want change, but that's simply not so; I can speak for the fact that there are significant number of straight people who want change and I would point out for me it is by no means simply a matter of sympathy for the situation but rather a belief in equal rights.

* Allowing gay people to get married won't "destroy the institution of marriage" - that's just hysterical and idiotic rhetoric.

* People keep repeating "marriage is between a man and a woman" but it is an obvious and objective fact that that is no longer always so and there's no law or logic that demands that it remains that way for everyone everywhere forever.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chiang mai]

http://www.telegraph...rtnerships.html

BTW, for those who think this is about just a word. Why be so niggardly about extending the use of this "special" word for your fellow citizens ... gay people?

Also if civil unions are so "special" would you anti-gay equality heterosexuals be willing to SWAP? You can have civil unions. Gay people can have marriage? Deal?

Jing. That's the problem with you. Some one has a different definition of a statement and it's "totally ridiculous"

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed. In the UK gay people have the equivalent civil rights in civil partnership as do heterosexuals in marriage. You call your self gay so you are different from a heterosexual. Same civil rights different name. Now who is quibbling about a name? Throughout this thread you have stated you want the same civil rights as heterosexuals. UK gays have that. So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

And by your last statement all can tell you have not been listening.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

I'm also very confused by the approach some posters are taking here, it's almost as though the differences between the two groups is being argued because it can be, not because the difference is large and real. JT seems to be arguing that he wants his prefered group to be the same in every way as the other group, status, rights, titles and so on. But of course the two groups can never be absolutely identical because the composition of the partnerships, their abilities, their habits and traits, are different and no amount of legislation will ever make change those things. So the push to allow two gay partners to marry seems nothing more to me than just an attempt to adopt the terms used by hetrosexual couples in the hope that it will make them appear more like the hetrosexual couple and demphasise the differences. Well unfortunately or otherwise, those differences are here to stay and until mother nature changes the male anatomy to allow it to give birth to offspring I forsee no improvement on this front. Personally, I like to think that if I was a gay rights campaigner I might be content in the knowledge that I could live my life with my partner in a protected and open way but that's just me,

[thaicbr]

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed...

... So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

I think perhaps this thread has become pointless and maybe holds no more interest for me personally - and I find it dispiriting and a little distasteful to be confronted with some of the antediluvian and ugly attitudes - but the last post contains a couple things that I do want to say because they seem to be key and common, so I'll dash this off before I dash off myself...

* The people who oppose gay marriage keep talking about accommodating a small minority -- leaving aside how outrageous it is that people actually think that's unreasonable or wrong, the implication there is that it's a case of gays vs. straights and only homosexual people want change, but that's simply not so; I can speak for the fact that there are significant number of straight people who want change and I would point out for me it is by no means simply a matter of sympathy for the situation but rather a belief in equal rights.

* Allowing gay people to get married won't "destroy the institution of marriage" - that's just hysterical and idiotic rhetoric.

* People keep repeating "marriage is between a man and a woman" but it is an obvious and objective fact that that is no longer always so and there's no law or logic that demands that it remains that way for everyone everywhere forever.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You state your opinions. I can state mine. For me its not idiotic. And I find it a bit rude that you state so.

And for some the institution of marriage should stay as it is.

Different opinions. Different ideas. That's what makes the world work.

Edited February 11, 2013 by thaicbr

[transam]

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.

[SteeleJoe]

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed...

... So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

I think perhaps this thread has become pointless and maybe holds no more interest for me personally - and I find it dispiriting and a little distasteful to be confronted with some of the antediluvian and ugly attitudes - but the last post contains a couple things that I do want to say because they seem to be key and common, so I'll dash this off before I dash off myself...

* The people who oppose gay marriage keep talking about accommodating a small minority -- leaving aside how outrageous it is that people actually think that's unreasonable or wrong, the implication there is that it's a case of gays vs. straights and only homosexual people want change, but that's simply not so; I can speak for the fact that there are significant number of straight people who want change and I would point out for me it is by no means simply a matter of sympathy for the situation but rather a belief in equal rights.

* Allowing gay people to get married won't "destroy the institution of marriage" - that's just hysterical and idiotic rhetoric.

* People keep repeating "marriage is between a man and a woman" but it is an obvious and objective fact that that is no longer always so and there's no law or logic that demands that it remains that way for everyone everywhere forever.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You state your opinions. I can state mine. For me its not idiotic. And I find it a bit rude that you state so.

And for some the institution of marriage should stay as it is.

Different opinions. Different ideas. That's what makes the world work.

Well, if you said "I think you are trying to destroy marriage" or "in my opinion it will destroy" marriage rather than just stating it as if it were fact, then I'd have still thought idiotic but I wouldn't have said so quite as directly. I apologize for being rude but I really do feel it's an absurd thing to say and I was so scathing and direct because it's totally absurd and unsupportable and sounds like someone who's frightened of ghosts or something. So even if I apologize for using "idiotic", the "hysterical" bit remains and is, I believe, quite apt.

Obviously for some marriage should stay as it is (though I still don't understand why anyone cares if it changes- it won't affect YOUR marriage; perhaps you can explain?). This thread wouldn't exist otherwise. It's also obvious everyone has a right to their opinion (and nowhere have I ever suggested in any way that they don't); but if you state your position, people may scrutinize it, ask you to support it and points out when you can't.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[thaicbr]

The facts are that a small minority in a minority want to change something that others think should not be changed...

... So in fact you just want to destroy the heterosexual institution of marriage as we know it in the UK. As an American may I suggest you get your own house in order before trying to destroy ours.

Marriage is between a man and a women.

And should stay that way.

I think perhaps this thread has become pointless and maybe holds no more interest for me personally - and I find it dispiriting and a little distasteful to be confronted with some of the antediluvian and ugly attitudes - but the last post contains a couple things that I do want to say because they seem to be key and common, so I'll dash this off before I dash off myself...

* The people who oppose gay marriage keep talking about accommodating a small minority -- leaving aside how outrageous it is that people actually think that's unreasonable or wrong, the implication there is that it's a case of gays vs. straights and only homosexual people want change, but that's simply not so; I can speak for the fact that there are significant number of straight people who want change and I would point out for me it is by no means simply a matter of sympathy for the situation but rather a belief in equal rights.

* Allowing gay people to get married won't "destroy the institution of marriage" - that's just hysterical and idiotic rhetoric.

* People keep repeating "marriage is between a man and a woman" but it is an obvious and objective fact that that is no longer always so and there's no law or logic that demands that it remains that way for everyone everywhere forever.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You state your opinions. I can state mine. For me its not idiotic. And I find it a bit rude that you state so.

And for some the institution of marriage should stay as it is.

Different opinions. Different ideas. That's what makes the world work.

Well, if you said "I think you are trying to destroy marriage" or "in my opinion it will destroy" marriage rather than just stating it as if it were fact, then I'd have still thought idiotic but I wouldn't have said so quite as directly. I apologize for being rude but I really do feel it's an absurd thing to say and I was so scathing and direct because it's totally absurd and unsupportable and sounds like someone who's frightened of ghosts or something. So even if I apologize for using "idiotic", the "hysterical" bit remains and is, I believe, quite apt.

Obviously for some marriage should stay as it is (though I still don't understand why anyone cares if it changes- it won't affect YOUR marriage; perhaps you can explain?). This thread wouldn't exist otherwise. It's also obvious everyone has a right to their opinion (and nowhere have I ever suggested in any way that they don't); but if you state your position, people may scrutinize it, ask you to support it and points out when you can't.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Oh don't be so pedantic. I was of course stating things from my perspective.

And we obviously differ on perspective.

[SteeleJoe]

Oh don't be so pedantic. I was of course stating things from my perspective.

And we obviously differ on perspective.

I'm not being pedantic, I'm trying to explain that the tone of your post(s), to me, is absolutist and that affected the tone of my response.

So that's it? Your objection is to "idiotic" - and I'll apologize for that again - but the rest we'll just let stand, right?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions for non-mixed race marriages because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist.

I could answer that drivel but l dare not.

[Jingthing]

I could answer that drivel but l dare not.

But you are OK labeling it drivel. I made some serious logical arguments against making eligibility for marriage to be about breeding. The fact is a huge percentage of heterosexuals enter marriage with no biological capability and/or no intention to breed and they are allowed to marry. Some who can't will adopt or use sperm banks, just like gay couples. So that argument falls completely apart. There is no justification to discriminate against gays for lack of capability to directly biologically breed. Period. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaicbr]

I could answer that drivel but l dare not.

But you are OK labeling it drivel. I made some serious logical arguments against making eligibility for marriage to be about breeding. The fact is a huge percentage of heterosexuals enter marriage with no biological capability and/or no intention to breed and they are allowed to marry. Some who can't will adopt or use sperm banks, just like gay couples. So that argument falls completely apart. There is no justification to discriminate against gays for lack of capability to directly biologically breed. Period.

Flip flop. You started by stating you wanted equal civil rights. Gay people in the UK do. They have the right to a recognized partnership with all that goes with it.

[Jingthing]

I could answer that drivel but l dare not.

But you are OK labeling it drivel. I made some serious logical arguments against making eligibility for marriage to be about breeding. The fact is a huge percentage of heterosexuals enter marriage with no biological capability and/or no intention to breed and they are allowed to marry. Some who can't will adopt or use sperm banks, just like gay couples. So that argument falls completely apart. There is no justification to discriminate against gays for lack of capability to directly biologically breed. Period.

Flip flop. You started by stating you wanted equal civil rights. Gay people in the UK do. They have the right to a recognized partnership with all that goes with it.

No flip flop at all.

In my opinion which I have stated many times already and have believed all my life: separate but equal can never mean fully equal. I do think the UK civil unions are very good though, which is kind of unusual in the world. That makes the UK case different than most and opponents can say why bother, you've got it good already. This is why I am surprised (and pleased) that enough people in the UK agree with me that separate but equal is still not good enough. In my opinion, that's the core of the legitimate argument about the UK issue. Is separate but equal acceptable forever for gay UK people or will they (and of course supporters who way outnumber gays) continue to fight for full marriage equality, in case this is crushed by the Lords.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[chiang mai]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

[SteeleJoe]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

Wow.

Someone should accept because of "fundamental mechanical and biological differences" in their sex lives/relationships, they will never have the same rights, titles, opportunities or privileges as a huge number of other people with a vast array of differences in sex lives and relationships among them...

WOW.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Jingthing]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

Seems like you just supported my argument that if gay people can't marry because of breeding deficiencies, so should breeding incapable mixed sex couples.

Chip on my shoulder? That's weak. I guess Harvey Milk and Martin Luther King had chips on their shoulders too. I should be so lucky (except for the being assassinated part).

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

Seems like you just supported my argument that if gay people can't marry because of breeding deficiencies, so should breeding incapable mixed sex couples.

Don't be daft, my ex wife could not have children but we both practiced the reproduction procedure on a regular basis.

[Jingthing]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

Seems like you just supported my argument that if gay people can't marry because of breeding deficiencies, so should breeding incapable mixed sex couples.

Don't be daft, my ex wife could not have children but we both practiced the reproduction procedure on a regular basis.

No you didn't. You had sex that was completely divorced from reproduction. The vast majority of sex that happens in the world, gay and straight, is not for reproduction. It's for sex. You guys CONTINUE to make arguments for gay marriage equality. Thank you. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I would strongly suggest you limit your discussion to the OP.

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott

[SteeleJoe]

The ridiculous argument against gay marriage was raised pointing out that two people of the same sex cannot breed. That is true if you're going to be 100 percent literal, but welcome to the REAL WORLD which isn't that cut and dried. So let's also FORCE heterosexuals who also can't/won't/or refuse to breed, the infertile, the post-menopause, etc. into a "special" non-marriage status and allow those gay people who have already bred or have children from previous relationships into the marriage status reserved for the breeding class. See how ridiculous and wrong to make this about breeding? Also when two gay people do enter the non-breeding category non-marriages, if later they do have children however they are going to have them (lesbians using sperm banks, etc. ... welcome to the MODERN world folks, adoption, a relative dying and leaving care of the children to them, etc., etc.) then of course I'm sure those obsessed with breeding will be happy to allow them to graduate into the marriage class, for the breeding capable.

Those against full equality with choice and access the SAME institution of marriage are for DISCRIMINATION and SEGREGATION no matter how you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Another point was made that gay is not straight. No it is not. Is a mixed race marriage the same as a non-mixed race marriage? Would you also approve a "special" category of unions and deny them MARRIAGE for mixed race legal unions because they are a different class of people joining? No of course you wouldn't. Because that would be racist and it's not OK to openly favor discrimination based on race these days.

That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need.

Wow.

Someone should accept because of "fundamental mechanical and biological differences" in their sex lives/relationships, they will never have the same rights, titles, opportunities or privileges as a huge number of other people with a vast array of differences in sex lives and relationships among them...

WOW.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I said "titles", only!

Huh? Did you not say the following?

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Jingthing]

Anyway, UK gay people are in a good position. If you win this, that's great, if you lose this, you've still got a choice much better than most gay people in the world.

BTW, favoring gay marriage equality is not the same thing as advocating that people, gay or straight, actually get married.

The issue is about full equality of choices, not forcing or even encouraging gay people into traditional heterosexual boxes if they don't wish to go there.

Many gay people want this full marriage equality for themselves and many or most probably will never enter into either civil unions or marriage. I think people of good will would want to grant the wish for full marriage equality under the law to those to wish for it. It doesn't take anything away from the heterosexually married.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[chiang mai]

Huh? Did you not say the following?

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You must either quote me fully or not at all, context and completness is critical - you position quotation marks part way through my quote and then attribute your words/my scrubbed out words in the same context, not nice!

[thaicbr]

Anyway, UK gay people are in a good position. If you win this, that's great, if you lose this, you've still got a choice much better than most gay people in the world.

BTW, favoring gay marriage equality is not the same thing as advocating that people, gay or straight, actually get married.

The issue is about full equality of choices, not forcing or even encouraging gay people into traditional heterosexual boxes if they don't wish to go there.

Many gay people want this full marriage equality for themselves and many or most probably will never enter into either civil unions or marriage. I think people of good will would want to grant the wish for full marriage equality under the law to those to wish for it. It doesn't take anything away from the heterosexually married.

You think that. Other's think differently.

I like the comment " traditional heterosexual box "

[SteeleJoe]

Huh? Did you not say the following?

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You must either quote me fully or not at all, context and completness is critical - you position quotation marks part way through my quote and then attribute your words/my scrubbed out words in the same context, not nice!

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

This is exactly what I see on my screen. I have changed nothing. And I don't know what "scrubbed out words" mean.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chiang mai]

Huh? Did you not say the following?

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You must either quote me fully or not at all, context and completness is critical - you position quotation marks part way through my quote and then attribute your words/my scrubbed out words in the same context, not nice!

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Scrubbed out = lined through. as in "rights privelleges opportunities".

This is exactly what I see on my screen. I have changed nothing. And I don't know what "scrubbed out words" mean.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

From Post 260 above:

Someone should accept because of "fundamental mechanical and biological differences" in their sex lives/relationships, they will never have the same rights, titles, opportunities or privileges as a huge number of other people with a vast array of differences in sex lives and relationships among them...

Edited February 11, 2013 by chiang mai

[SteeleJoe]

Huh? Did you not say the following?

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

You must either quote me fully or not at all, context and completness is critical - you position quotation marks part way through my quote and then attribute your words/my scrubbed out words in the same context, not nice!

"That chip on your shoulder JT is there because as a gay person you do not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as your straight counterparts, my argument is that you never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two, get over it and move on, you have what you need."

This is exactly what I see on my screen. I have changed nothing. And I don't know what "scrubbed out words" mean.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

From Post 260 above:

Someone should accept because of "fundamental mechanical and biological differences" in their sex lives/relationships, they will never have the same rights, titles, opportunities or privileges as a huge number of other people with a vast array of differences in sex lives and relationships among them...

You mean to say I have mischaracterized or distorted your position in that summation? I absolutely and with total sincerity apologize if I have; I would NEVER deliberately do that with anyone as I value the fact that I can certainly not always claim to be right but I can claim to always strive for intellectual integrity.

You say that Jingthing, because he is a gay person, does not have all the same rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles as his straight counterparts.

You say he never will because there are fundamental mechanical and biological differences between the two.

You say he should get over that.

I say, "wow".

Or have I got it wrong?

EDIT TO ADD:

My previous reference to "a huge number of other people with a vast array of differences in sex lives and relationships among them" is in regards to the other of the "two" you mention - straight people - and meant to point out that straight people are not identical in terms of their sex lives and relationships but somehow those differences don't matter in terms of what rights, opportunities, privelleges and titles they are entitled to.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited February 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[nakhonandy]

Anyway, UK gay people are in a good position. If you win this, that's great, if you lose this, you've still got a choice much better than most gay people in the world.

BTW, favoring gay marriage equality is not the same thing as advocating that people, gay or straight, actually get married.

The issue is about full equality of choices, not forcing or even encouraging gay people into traditional heterosexual boxes if they don't wish to go there.

Many gay people want this full marriage equality for themselves and many or most probably will never enter into either civil unions or marriage. I think people of good will would want to grant the wish for full marriage equality under the law to those to wish for it. It doesn't take anything away from the heterosexually married.

Very true. I do not understand why this is such an issue.

I assume most of the posters live in Thailand where pretty well everything goes and is accepted. If we can deal with it here then why care about this new law in the UK?

All it means is people can have an option earlier denied. It does not impact my life one iota.

People should be able to have the same rights irrespective of there sexual persuasion.

It is called equality.

[Nowhereman60]

maybe not some of you Brits will return back home.

[thaicbr]

Anyway, UK gay people are in a good position. If you win this, that's great, if you lose this, you've still got a choice much better than most gay people in the world.

BTW, favoring gay marriage equality is not the same thing as advocating that people, gay or straight, actually get married.

The issue is about full equality of choices, not forcing or even encouraging gay people into traditional heterosexual boxes if they don't wish to go there.

Many gay people want this full marriage equality for themselves and many or most probably will never enter into either civil unions or marriage. I think people of good will would want to grant the wish for full marriage equality under the law to those to wish for it. It doesn't take anything away from the heterosexually married.

Very true. I do not understand why this is such an issue.

I assume most of the posters live in Thailand where pretty well everything goes and is accepted. If we can deal with it here then why care about this new law in the UK?

All it means is people can have an option earlier denied. It does not impact my life one iota.

People should be able to have the same rights irrespective of there sexual persuasion.

It is called equality.

They have the same rights. Just using a different name. It's called equality

[transam]

Anyway, UK gay people are in a good position. If you win this, that's great, if you lose this, you've still got a choice much better than most gay people in the world.

BTW, favoring gay marriage equality is not the same thing as advocating that people, gay or straight, actually get married.

The issue is about full equality of choices, not forcing or even encouraging gay people into traditional heterosexual boxes if they don't wish to go there.

Many gay people want this full marriage equality for themselves and many or most probably will never enter into either civil unions or marriage. I think people of good will would want to grant the wish for full marriage equality under the law to those to wish for it. It doesn't take anything away from the heterosexually married.

Very true. I do not understand why this is such an issue.

I assume most of the posters live in Thailand where pretty well everything goes and is accepted. If we can deal with it here then why care about this new law in the UK?

All it means is people can have an option earlier denied. It does not impact my life one iota.

People should be able to have the same rights irrespective of there sexual persuasion.

It is called equality.

The discussion is about changing the stuff we know as n............. for folk who are different to the n..............

Next thing clergyman's marriage text will be changed.

'' I now pronounce you man and eeeeeer, hmmmm''

'' You may kiss the eeeeeeeer hmmmm''

''I now I pronounce you eeeeeer hmmm''

Edited February 11, 2013 by transam