Same sex marriage

[StatCrux]

The fact you resorted to comparing to gay marriage to marrying a woman and an animal tells us everything about your opinions. Any respect you were due for arguing your point politely was lost at that instant.

I was not comparing gay partnerships with animal partnerships, I was simply pointing out the logic involved. Any minority group can justify redefinition of existing norms in order to include them. Failure to do so induces cries of opression and intolerance. If a woman really loved her cat and insisted it loved her back and wanted to make a commitment in public, calling it marriage would be wrong, call it cattage, fine, but calling it marriage is to diminish the sacrament of marriage. Let marriage remain marriage without redefinition and use other terms to describe other forms of relationship.

---

I'm with Tiberius and RevJ on this one, when they say the state should not have a say in marriage. If an institution does not want to marry a homosexual or even a heterosexual couple, fine, whatever, we now know they are douchebags. But few would say no, they want your fucking $$£$£$£ and bumbandits make up about 6% of population here in UK (wiki), thats a big $£ potential gain. Let's face it, Churches in the UK need money, they're closing quicker than my bitch's legs.

Very true, the Churches losing credibility and closing are the very churches that would accept gay marriage, the Catholic Church is still very strong, worldwide and in the UK. That in itself is telling..

[Nine]

If a woman really loved her cat and insisted it loved her back and wanted to make a commitment in public, calling it marriage would be wrong, call it cattage, fine, but calling it marriage is to diminish the sacrament of marriage. Let marriage remain marriage without redefinition and use other terms to describe other forms of relationship.

Okay on the basis cats cant agree to marry I have to say fuck that. But if a cat could decide and they loved each other. Fuck it let em get married. No harm done. No new words. Woman and cat are married.

[5thHorseman]

6% of our population is a large minority of CITIZENS. No gay marriage is inequality and its no more than persecution.

Animals, are not citizens. It's illegal too, it's called bestiality.

[Jackalope]

Failure to do so induces cries of opression and intolerance.

Failure to do so IS oppression and intolerance.

That is, when we're talking about people. You were the one that went off on a tangent about marriage to non-human species. That equivocation (oh, I'm sorry, analogy) isn't going to fly here.

[StatCrux]

6% of our population is a large minority of CITIZENS. No gay marriage is inequality and its no more than persecution.

Animals, are not citizens. It's illegal too, it's called bestiality.

Yes, homosexuality was illegal once too, are you saying that makes something wrong? Initially the pro-gay supporters were hand in hand with NAMBLA until they realised it would hinder them, how long before they are reunited?

[Jackalope]

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?

[StatCrux]

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?

[NoMoreFaith]

What this comes down to, is that you demand your religions view on Marriage is the correct one.

Despite the fact your religion didn't invent the idea, despite the fact that historically many cultures had no issue with it, despite the fact that the concept has undergone continual adjustment and has never been set in stone.

What this really, really boils down to, is that you demand that only your definition is valid which is based upon your private belief that you have the "right religion", despite the many religions, and non-religious views in the world.

This has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage at all. This is all to do with control. You want your religion to have the power, and all other viewpoints to be subservient to your religions views, even in a country which does not count your religion as its state religion.

You want to talk about a hidden agenda. Yours is plastered behind a thin flaking veneer of respect for your cult, and hides a multitude of sins and hatred.

Come out and say it, be honest. You believe yours is the one true religion, and all should bow to its eminence. That's what you WANT to say, but know that you can't.

I'm only surprised it took you so long to make spiteful and inaccurate comparisons to bestiality and paedophilia.

[StatCrux]

What this comes down to, is that you demand your religions view on Marriage is the correct one.

Despite the fact your religion didn't invent the idea, despite the fact that historically many cultures had no issue with it, despite the fact that the concept has undergone continual adjustment and has never been set in stone.

What this really, really boils down to, is that you demand that only your definition is valid which is based upon your private belief that you have the "right religion", despite the many religions, and non-religious views in the world.

This has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage at all. This is all to do with control. You want your religion to have the power, and all other viewpoints to be subservient to your religions views, even in a country which does not count your religion as its state religion.

You want to talk about a hidden agenda. Yours is plastered behind a thin flaking veneer of respect for your cult, and hides a multitude of sins and hatred.

Come out and say it, be honest. You believe yours is the one true religion, and all should bow to its eminence. That's what you WANT to say, but know that you can't.

I'm only surprised it took you so long to make spiteful and inaccurate comparisons to bestiality and paedophilia.

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?

[thesummerqueen]

maybe you're right, lets just give up and start having cermonies for women to marry their cats and be done with the whole issue...I'm sure other churches would be happy to perform the "marriage" ceremony for cat lovers...

Now the conversation has ended. You have brought up exactly the slippery slope argument they always bring out.

Animals are not citizens, despite PETA's efforts, because they are not sapient. You understand this - don't be an idiot.

Marriage is constantly redefined. People of mixed races used to not be allowed to marry, nor people of mixed religion. Again, don't be an idiot.

I'm done with this conversation. We've clearly established that you are trying to keep marriage to being what YOU want it to be, worried that somewhere, somehow, a fag might be equal to you.