Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[zebo-the-fat]

As a heterosexual male, married to a heterosexual female, I fail to see how two homosexual males getting married across the street from me affects MY marriage in any way at all. What's the problem, their sex life is none of my business providing both are legally old enough to make that decision.

[ideologue08]

This sounds like the same dumb argument we have in America, that gay marriage will erode straight marriage---and I've yet to hear any actual explanation of that one, either.

I have yet to see any evidence that this has actually produced anything resembling erosion of 'traditional' marriage even though there has been legalized gay marriage in parts of the U.S. for enough years to produce at least trends worth remarking upon.

Well, that is the difference between the US and the UK. In, the UK, we have rational debates, in the US, the rednecks thump the Bible. You can't win a public policy debate by thumping the Bible.

---

As a heterosexual male, married to a heterosexual female, I fail to see how two homosexual males getting married across the street from me affects MY marriage in any way at all. What's the problem, their sex life is none of my business providing both are legally old enough to make that decision.

Nobody here said it will affect your marriage, jog on buddy.

---

And that's why I'm proud to say I live in Portugal.

Well, your economy is in the gutter and you have a record high unemployment rate, there's nothing much to be proud about is there now.

[Ryantology]

I have yet to see any evidence that this has actually produced anything resembling erosion of 'traditional' marriage even though there has been legalized gay marriage in parts of the U.S. for enough years to produce at least trends worth remarking upon.

Well, that is the difference between the US and the UK. In, the UK, we have rational debates, in the US, the rednecks thump the Bible. You can't win a public policy debate by thumping the Bible.

You think very highly of yourself if you think that your 'excellent reasons' form a rational debate. Thumping Bibles is certainly a terrible way to justify a position, but it's not the only terrible way to do it.

By the way, just for fun, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in the U.S., in 2004. Divorce rates in that state have been trending downwards ever since and, today, the state has the lowest divorce rate in the country by a significant amount (it is, in fact, just more than half of what it was in 2004).

So, where's the damage to 'traditional marriage' in Massachusetts?

[ideologue08]

He is probably scared he will fall to gay desires. Most homophobic people aren't very confident in their own sexuality.

I would put you on my ignore list so I don't have to read your bile were it not for the fact that it breaches the rules of this forum.

---

Well, that is the difference between the US and the UK. In, the UK, we have rational debates, in the US, the rednecks thump the Bible. You can't win a public policy debate by thumping the Bible.

You think very highly of yourself if you think that your 'excellent reasons' form a rational debate. Thumping Bibles is certainly a terrible way to justify a position, but it's not the only terrible way to do it.

By the way, just for fun, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in the U.S., in 2004. Divorce rates in that state have been trending downwards ever since and, today, the state has the lowest divorce rate in the country by a significant amount (it is, in fact, just more than half of what it was in 2004).

So, where's the damage to 'traditional marriage' in Massachusetts?

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm arguing against the re-definition of marriage. The so-called "damage" to traditional marriage is the re-definition itself. I don't agree that same-sex relationships should ever be equated with opposite-sex relationships, if you read through my posts, you will see my justification.

[Ryantology]

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm arguing against the re-definition of marriage. The so-called "damage" to traditional marriage is the re-definition itself. I don't agree that same-sex relationships should ever be equated with opposite-sex relationships, if you read through my posts, you will see my justification.

I see your justification. What I do not see is a single shred of evidence supporting it, nor do I see how you justify this particular redefinition of marriage is more damaging than the others which have already happened and, I presume, you do not have a problem with.

I suspect your true justification is that you think fags are yucky.

[ideologue08]

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm arguing against the re-definition of marriage. The so-called "damage" to traditional marriage is the re-definition itself. I don't agree that same-sex relationships should ever be equated with opposite-sex relationships, if you read through my posts, you will see my justification.

I see your justification. What I do not see is a single shred of evidence supporting it.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying a Man + Man= Man + Woman, because that is not true. They are different relationships, so can never be equated, they are not the same thing, despite your pleas to the contrary. And in the UK, we do not want an endless list of permutations of different humans in a relationship all having a so-called "marriage".

---

I suspect your true justification is that you think fags are yucky.

If I wanted something banned because it is yucky then there's a load of fucking things I'd want banned starting with food items such as pork and alcohol and ending with internet censorship such as on pornography.

[LastPoet]

I would put you on my ignore list so I don't have to read your bile were it not for the fact that it breaches the rules of this forum.

Don't worry, I won't trouble you anymore, I have all the answers I would ever need

[Ryantology]

I see your justification. What I do not see is a single shred of evidence supporting it.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying a Man + Man= Man + Woman, because that is not true. They are different relationships, so can never be equated, they are not the same thing, despite your pleas to the contrary. And in the UK, we do not want an endless list of permutations of different humans in a relationship all having a so-called "marriage".

Every marriage is a different relationship which cannot be equated. My wife and I have a marriage that, in certain ways, is not like anybody else's and this is true for every married couple. There are married couples in my country. Their marriages are, in no categorical way, inferior to what I have.

In the UK, as far as I can determine, you and some other hate-filled bigots in a significant and shrinking minority live in fear of the slippery slope. Why should your opinion matter? Nobody's forcing you to be in a relationship of any kind. At no point, ever, has legalized gay marriage led to even the first stirrings of any other marriage advocacy.

If I wanted something banned because it is yucky then there's a load of fucking things I'd want banned starting with food items such as pork and alcohol and ending with internet censorship such as on pornography.

And the only reason you aren't trying is because you probably realize it's a waste of time. That will eventually become true of marriage equality. Sounds to me like you have such a tremendous opinion of yourself that you believe everybody else should change their lifestyles so that you're happy.

[NoraBrimstone]

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.

Wrong again. "Equal marriage" currently only refers to same-sex marriage.

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.

And you literally don't see what's wrong with that? You think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation? Really?

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.

So? You know what's much more likely? Nothing of the sort will happen. All they want is the right to marry the person they love. The location isn't the issue. There will be Churches offering wedding ceremonies to same-sex couples under the current plans. The only reason people may fight this imaginary battle of yours is if certain people get their way and the plans change to prohibit Churches from performing same sex marriages. If that happens, it'll be the Churches kicking off first.
It's fucking appalling that I could meet a man today and marry him in a fortnight whether I gave a shit about him or not, but if I had been with a woman for 10 years and loved her to death I wouldn't be allowed to marry her just because of a bunch of outdated homophobic laws which have no place in this century. It's fucking ridiculous.

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.

Paedophiles have broken the law when they start a sexual relationship with a child. So has a mother if she shags her son. Not the same thing. They're not even the same as each other. Incest is a victimless crime, paedophilia isn't.

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

Which of those was meant to be an insult?

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

So? They're not even sincere.

[ideologue08]

Every marriage is a different relationship which cannot be equated. My wife and I have a marriage that, in certain ways, is not like anybody else's and this is true for every married couple. There are married couples in my country. Their marriages are, in no categorical way, inferior to what I have.

In the UK, as far as I can determine, you and some other hate-filled bigots in a significant and shrinking minority live in fear of the slippery slope. Why should your opinion matter? Nobody's forcing you to be in a relationship of any kind. At no point, ever, has legalized gay marriage led to even the first stirrings of any other marriage advocacy.

There was another poll done which shows 34 to 28 points in favour of gay marriage, those in favour of gay marriage have a narrow lead but all that matters to me is that my local MP voted against it in parliament and plans to vote against it in any upcoming bill in parliament. I fully back her opinion. We do not want something that is different to be labelled the same, same-sex relationships are not the same as opposite sex relationships.

And the only reason you aren't trying is because you probably realize it's a waste of time. That will eventually become true of marriage equality. Sounds to me like you have such a tremendous opinion of yourself that you believe everybody else should change their lifestyles so that you're happy.

No. The reason I'm not trying is because I don't want something banned just because I find it "yucky". That's not a good enough reason. Nobody should be forced to change their lifestyle just so I can be happy. But the government should not be forced to change definitions just so they or a special interest lobby group should be happy either. Most MP's in the ruling party are against gay marriage, it's those bastards on the left wing and especially in the coalition that are the problem. The left are going to win by a landslide in 2015 because the conservative leadership threw its base under the bus.