(March 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm)StatCrux Wrote: No, I simply want the definition of marriage to remain and not be redefined. Can you cite any instance of same sex unions historically being defined as marriage?

Roman Empire for one. Emperor Nero and Emperor Elagabus are referred to as marrying one of their male slaves.

Ancient Greece is another.

You did NOT invent marriage. Stop pretending your religion did.

Also, stop avoiding the questions posed, it makes you appear shifty.

Why do you believe your religion should have precedence over the state religion.
Do you demand that your religion is the only one whose views should be taken into consideration on the matter.

(March 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 6:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 6:36 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Initially the pro-gay supporters were hand in hand with NAMBLA until they realised it would hinder them, how long before they are reunited?

Showing your true colors again?

Am I factually incorrect?

It was a rhetorical question, a device intended to show observers your lame attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Just in case they missed it the first time.

Thanks for playing along.

(March 19, 2012 at 8:19 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Moot point for me - if I ever con some poor putz into marrying me, it'll be outside. Probably all pagan and barefoot, just to make the rest of both families feel uncomfortable.

And bare everything and a massive ceremonial orgy?

I think marriage should be between a heterosexual woman and a gay man. That way they could go out and shop for furniture & drapes together, go get their hair & nails done, and other things they enjoy. Then I and the lesbians could go pick up women.

Omfg who the fuck Get married in a church?! Especially when it is against it. I dont give a shit about the church and i am sure nobody is carrying some agenda to destroy those stupid churches.

(March 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm)passionatefool Wrote: Omfg who the fuck Get married in a church?! Especially when it is against it. I dont give a shit about the church and i am sure nobody is carrying some agenda to destroy those stupid churches.

PF -

Part of what's at issue here is that there are churches in the UK who aren't opposed to same-sex marriage, but are prevented by law from performing such ceremonies. Apparently some would like to keep it that way.

As much as I am opposed to religion in general, I'm not going to oppose them when they're trying to do the right thing.

(March 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(March 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm)passionatefool Wrote: Omfg who the fuck Get married in a church?! Especially when it is against it. I dont give a shit about the church and i am sure nobody is carrying some agenda to destroy those stupid churches.

PF -

Part of what's at issue here is that there are churches in the UK who aren't opposed to same-sex marriage, but are prevented by law from performing such ceremonies. Apparently some would like to keep it that way.

As much as I am opposed to religion in general, I'm not going to oppose them when they're trying to do the right thing.

I'm just responding to the thread starter, he/she asked if the church should be forced to perform the ceremonies or not and go on accusing people or the gays of carrying out some agenda or conspiracy to attack some church as if people really give a crap about that, if I want to attack it I would have better reason. This is just stupid and irrelevant. Churches are private organization so if they dont want to perform it then they shouldn't have to, and if they want to, then they should be able to, and if people dont want to get married in a church at all then idk do it at a strip club or something. Same Sex marriage should only be an issue when it is not recognized under the law. Other issues concerning the ceremonies should be up to the church and the individuals. I didn't read anything else so I don't know what you are referring to.

I would rather marry my cat than a disgusting freak of fucking nature, such as a homophobe. After all, a cat is just a cat and can't help it. It was born a cat. Homophobes are born human but choose to adhere to vile and warped ideals, as opposed to humanistic ones.

(March 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm)StatCrux Wrote: No, I simply want the definition of marriage to remain and not be redefined. Can you cite any instance of same sex unions historically being defined as marriage?

Roman Empire for one. Emperor Nero and Emperor Elagabus are referred to as marrying one of their male slaves.

Ancient Greece is another.

You did NOT invent marriage. Stop pretending your religion did.

Also, stop avoiding the questions posed, it makes you appear shifty.

Why do you believe your religion should have precedence over the state religion.
Do you demand that your religion is the only one whose views should be taken into consideration on the matter.

They were *male*, however they were beardless youth.
Something we call pedarasty.
Above all, many ancient philosophers have condemned this type of behavior.
It was very uncommon, and mostly practiced in secrecy, for two grown up males to be with eachother as they are now.

@passionatefool

My mistake, I assumed you were following the thread. FWIW, I completely agree.