Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[ideologue08]

The majority don't support equal marriage? This is a "majority"?
Like I said, you're a fucking liar.

Hello again,
No, you’re the liar. You’re confusing same-sex marriage with equal marriage. Equal marriage means any two consenting adults can marry including mother-son or father-adopted daughter etc. The majority of Brits find that unacceptable. 

Again, so what if the argument is the same? If you want to play the "the argument is the same!" game I could point out that the argument against gay marriage is the same as the argument against interracial marriage. Oh look, I just did.  

You’re correct. Traditionally in the United States, the arguments opposing interracial marriage have been identical to the current arguments opposing same-sex marriage. But this does not mean a line should be drawn somewhere. It is my opinion that this line must be drawn as it currently stands. 

Tell me again why you think it will happen?  

Because it can. Forcing religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies is  a legal possibility that could be enacted as a direct result of the passing of the same-sex marriage bill.

They pay their taxes

So do peadophiles and mothers and sons. Paying taxes isn’t a criteria for legally judging who can or cannot marry. And speaking of taxes, the tax system underpins how an unequal and unfair secular democratic society can function; the best we can hope for. 

ignorant tiny-dicked Narnia-dwellers like yourself

It’s not very difficult to make cheap insults at your private part as well you know http://www.healthdailies.com/womens-well...n-periods/  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_flatulence

And I forgot, after that they had a campaign going with Christian schools where they offered gifts to schoolkids for signing their petition. Lol

There’s still more signatories against than for gay marriage, I think you can find the names on the website. 

---

Right, but I don't agree with a subjective form of government. I think government should be as unbiased as possible, and personal opinions should not affect policy. Restricting marriage to just one man and one woman is unfair whether you think gay marriage (or poly marriage, incest marriage, etc.) is disgusting or not. Nobody who thinks marriage should remain between a man and a woman has ever been able to come up with a reason for keeping it that way that wasn't based on subjective personal beliefs, or complete falsehoods. They never will either, because the unfairness of the current marriage system simply isn't up for debate; it's as unfair as having non-white people separated from white people.
I disagree that there is no such thing as objective fair in a secular democracy. I'd argue that secular democracy can be objectively fair, but that no secular democracy (or democracy for that matter) has ever done things right.
My imagined utopia isn't based on what I consider to be fair or right. It's based on whether or not the government should dictate how people live their lives. I'm against overbearing nanny states in almost all respects. A government does not have a right to tell me who I can marry, what I can eat, what I wear, what I can say, etc. Governments that insist they do are simply making up those rights out of thin air.
I can't understand how you can think something is unfair yet still insist it is "right" that it happens. It violates even the most basic standard of ethics...that of the golden rule. It's so very easy for straight people to reject the notion of gay marriage; they will never have to suffer the same kind of unfairness that gay people have to put up with every day.
I get your point about children though, but the point is, they are developing citizens; most do not have the mental capacity to understand how society functions; there is no need for them to be treated the same way as adults in some aspects of life. One can think of children as almost a form of property of the parents, up until society deems them adult enough to handle everything on their own. In the UK, that age is 16, but I reject even the notion of a static age for that sort of thing. Some children are highly independent before that age; others aren't adult enough after it.
They should be. By that I mean, they should pay the same rate of tax. There is no fair justification for taxing rich people more "just because they have more". That said, I'm actually more of a fan of taxes on spending rather than on income these days.
I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

Ok, I don’t agree with most of your points at all and find them disturbing, I can see you have a vendetta against government having powers despite centralised government power being the sole reason and factor of eliminating corruption, discrimination, fighting poverty, regulating private businesses etc. I can’t really see how in the world you can say that an objective “fair” is even possible in a secular democracy. I can see that you hate big government, perhaps I will start a thread on why big government works sometime in the future because I’m a big government conservative.

With regards to the gay marriage issue, why do you accept the government mandating who can legally marry? Don’t you think it would be more libertarian to abolish the government’s powers of defining marriage and just allow private institutions such as religions etc. to define marriage. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Of course unequal things can be “right”. The NHS and the UK social welfare runs on progressive taxation, unless you oppose universal healthcare, you must accept that unequal unfair taxation does result in a greater good. Who cares about the golden rule? I don’t, I don’t see why I should. It should not applicable in all circumstances.