Toddler sings "Aint no homo gonna make it to heaven." Church crowd cheers

[Anomalocaris]

Also - and I'm sick and tired of saying this - marriage was not founded as a fucking religious institution!

Indeed, for men, marriage is founded mainly on the common desire for a reliable fuck and assurances that the resulting children, if desired, is theirs.
Marriage, for women, is founded mainly on the benefits having something with which to convince the men that the women's children actually is men's and therefore should receive the men's resources.
For the society, Marriage is secondarily useful for forming family alliances.

It's only when society have already stupidly indoctrinated its lesser members on the "sanctity" of so pragmatic an institution that the more repulsive of religions like christianity slithered in, low to the ground, to cynically coopt the sanctimony for its own aggrandizement.

[Minimalist]

If this was in the UK, the NSPCC would be knocking on there doors and take to be fostered, It is disgusting and anybody who agreed with the kid is a morally retarded bigot. Its bad enought having over 30's spouting crap like that, but a little todder, Zeus help us.

The UK is a civilized country.

[Anomalocaris]

The UK is a civilized country.

Yeah, they exported their religious nutjabs to North America.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You view marriage as a sacred thing, and that's perfectly fine; you still can. It'll still be as sacred as you want it to be even when (not if) the membership is opened up to same-sex couples. Nothing is being devalued here.

Can I? If my shirt is stained with mud, is it still clean?
And as for membership, why would you be a member of the kennel club without having a dog?
Why would you be a member of your local bridge club if you don't know how to play it?

How are homosexuals going to be a member of this "club" while they do not possess the necessary requirements?

And well, how can this not devaluate the value of marriage, while there are now talks of all kinds of marriage? Marriage is not your, or anyone's toy, friend.
It has certain limits. If you are outside of those limits, or simply have no limits on your own, maybe you should reconsider before applying for "membership".

[Cyberman]

So extending the legal recognition of an institution so as to make it more inclusive equates to staining its purity? Sorry Mehmet, but I want nothing more to do with you. Life's far too short to bandy words with a hateful, narrowminded bigot.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So extending the legal recognition of an institution so as to make it more inclusive equates to staining its purity? Sorry Mehmet, but I want nothing more to do with you. Life's far too short to bandy words with a hateful, narrowminded bigot.

Well, I state the same for any other couples that might request a similar wish regarding marriage.
Homosexuals are just the vanguard of this long wave.
Besides, I don't know why you have chosen to "have nothing to do with me" as though you had too much of me on your hands to deal with, I will simply view the last sentence you threw down as a sign of "intolerance towards opinions", the sentence with which I come in contact with most of the time here.
I certainly have no worries about listening to your counter-culture, liberal views. They're interesting, and allow me to understand any similar views that might exist around here, to combat them better, with words, of course.
Besides, this isn't an extention, it's an overhaul, so that marriage may be re-defined in your terms and your terms alone, whereas you are, as I've said before, in no position to actually define what marriage is.

[King_Charles]

Well, from a christian perspective, he is telling the truth, though.

From your perspective maybe...

This opens up a whole can of worms in terms of how far the state should intervene in a parent's raising of their child...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, from a christian perspective, he is telling the truth, though.

From your perspective maybe...

This opens up a whole can of worms in terms of how far the state should intervene in a parent's raising of their child...

*My* perspective? Friend, it is not really my concern whether homosexuals go to hell or heaven. Marriage, for me, is a worldly business. I oppose their outrageous claims to the privilage of marriage on that account.

[Tobie]

So extending the legal recognition of an institution so as to make it more inclusive equates to staining its purity? Sorry Mehmet, but I want nothing more to do with you. Life's far too short to bandy words with a hateful, narrowminded bigot.

Well, I state the same for any other couples that might request a similar wish regarding marriage.
Homosexuals are just the vanguard of this long wave.
Besides, I don't know why you have chosen to "have nothing to do with me" as though you had too much of me on your hands to deal with, I will simply view the last sentence you threw down as a sign of "intolerance towards opinions", the sentence with which I come in contact with most of the time here.
I certainly have no worries about listening to your counter-culture, liberal views. They're interesting, and allow me to understand any similar views that might exist around here, to combat them better, with words, of course.
Besides, this isn't an extention, it's an overhaul, so that marriage may be re-defined in your terms and your terms alone, whereas you are, as I've said before, in no position to actually define what marriage is.

How are you in any more of a position to define marriage than anyone else? Why do you reserve a right to define it as between a man and woman?

Your statements saying that all homosexuals and all those who support gay marriage are "counter culture" is ridiculous. Give me a reason beyond your pathetic appeal to a bigoted tradition why homosexuality is detracts from society.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, I state the same for any other couples that might request a similar wish regarding marriage.
Homosexuals are just the vanguard of this long wave.
Besides, I don't know why you have chosen to "have nothing to do with me" as though you had too much of me on your hands to deal with, I will simply view the last sentence you threw down as a sign of "intolerance towards opinions", the sentence with which I come in contact with most of the time here.
I certainly have no worries about listening to your counter-culture, liberal views. They're interesting, and allow me to understand any similar views that might exist around here, to combat them better, with words, of course.
Besides, this isn't an extention, it's an overhaul, so that marriage may be re-defined in your terms and your terms alone, whereas you are, as I've said before, in no position to actually define what marriage is.

How are you in any more of a position to define marriage than anyone else? Why do you reserve a right to define it as between a man and woman?

I define it not according to my own opinion alone. I define it by what marriage was, how it is relevant to society, and what it is in our world today, and what it should be in the future.

Your statements saying that all homosexuals and all those who support gay marriage are "counter culture" is ridiculous. Give me a reason beyond your pathetic appeal to a bigoted tradition why homosexuality is detracts from society.

Oh, please forgive me, if I lump people together, as you do. Once a person does not support gay marriage, they are considered to be bigots of the extreme.
As you consider me a bigot by whatever standards you have to call someone a bigot, I consider those who support this ridiculous movement to undermine the very fabrics of society as people who oppose society.
Counter-culture activists, anarchists and nihilists, these are the people who are able to support such things.
I'm fairly certain that this won't end here. The legalisation of marriage for homosexuals will bring tons of other things into question.
You don't care, because you obviously don't care about much, other than homosexuals, perhaps.