Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[Tiberius]

Well, the main reason I'm against gay marriage is the potential effect it might have on religious freedom, as I outlined in the first post. It is not acceptable for a gay couple to marry in mosques or to force an Imam or other religious figures to conduct such a ceremony. People can argue all they want how that isn't going to happen, but I see that happening, it's a very real possibility. The government have so far rejected all attempts by Muslim activists to apply the Church of England's exemption laws to Mosques.

You realize the only reason the government can make exemption laws for the Church of England is because the Church of England is controlled partly by government, as in, the head of the Church is the head of state, right?

Besides, I'm not sure you quite understand the law being proposed. When passed, no religious organisations are required to host gay marriages. In fact, any religious organisation must choose to "opt-in" before being allowed to do so. So, mosques are exempt by default.

[p90powa]

Guys guys! A gay couple will infringe on your rights! Well first, you could be with your family eating dinner with your son and wife (or husband) and a mysterious truck will pull up. You will wonder what it is, and all these gays get out. Then they break into your house and start having sex with each other plain view of the children. IT WILL HAPPEN. MARK MY WORDS!!

[Angrboda]

Actually, if you read the article carefully, it only states that Stonewall,"said it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down' and urged MPs from all parties not to 'play politics' with it." While it may be true that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals, nothing in the article actually indicates this.

In English, when you say to someone not to get "bogged down" with something, it means that you don't want them to make progress with it. This is from the Collins English Thesaurus: If you get bogged down in something, it prevents you from making progress or getting something done.. So, in plain English, it means Stonewall do not want progress on the heterosexual civil partnership cause. It's the exact same phrase used by our defence secretary when he justified his reasoning for opposing the gay marriage cause sighting other more worthy causes, they shouldn't be "bogged down" on gay marriage.

I'm going to be charitable here and presume that English is not your first language. Nor your second. Or even your third. Matter of fact, I'm guessing your education in the English language came in some place after "how not to accidentally burn toast so that it might inadvertently be interpreted as an attempt to create an image of the prophet (praise be upon hizzass)."

You have things exactly ass backwards.

[rexbeccarox]

... and you've still failed to address me. You're a coward and an ass. You win. I give up. I no longer care.

[Jackalope]

Ideologue, why aren't you answering my question?

He's probably got you on ignore.

[Cyberman]

On the other hand, he's already responded directly to people who have quoted rebecca's question in their replies, so there's really no excuse. He's either being evasive for whatever reason, or just plain rude.

[Ryantology]

Isn't he a Muslim? Maybe he doesn't like to respond to people his religion considers to be breeding animals.

[ideologue08]

Who do you think you're distracting?
It'll be noticed by everyone that you haven't denied what I said, you know, on account of it being pretty accurate. The thing is, we aren't homophobes, so we're not going to think badly of you if you just admit it, you'd be likely to get support from this place. Your sexuality isn't just going to go away if you hide it, really.

Do we have another fallacy on the cards from Mrs. Fallacy? Yes we do.

---

Well, the main reason I'm against gay marriage is the potential effect it might have on religious freedom, as I outlined in the first post. It is not acceptable for a gay couple to marry in mosques or to force an Imam or other religious figures to conduct such a ceremony. People can argue all they want how that isn't going to happen, but I see that happening, it's a very real possibility. The government have so far rejected all attempts by Muslim activists to apply the Church of England's exemption laws to Mosques.

You realize the only reason the government can make exemption laws for the Church of England is because the Church of England is controlled partly by government, as in, the head of the Church is the head of state, right?

Besides, I'm not sure you quite understand the law being proposed. When passed, no religious organisations are required to host gay marriages. In fact, any religious organisation must choose to "opt-in" before being allowed to do so. So, mosques are exempt by default.

I know but that's because they've amended an equality act, to make it, well...less equal. I wonder how long that stands up for. We need a binding legislation, similar to the Church of England.

---

I'm going to be charitable here and presume that English is not your first language. Nor your second. Or even your third. Matter of fact, I'm guessing your education in the English language came in some place

Yes, yes my friend. Throw insults because you know it makes you feel better after losing the argument You could have spent that time reading the Collins English dictionary that I cited as well hock: And did you just start a sentence with "matter of fact"? Oh the irony. Didn't know people actually went to hillbilly schools.

[Angrboda]

Yes, yes my friend. Throw insults because you know it makes you feel better after losing the argument You could have spent that time reading the Collins English dictionary that I cited as well hock: And did you just start a sentence with "matter of fact"? Oh the irony. Didn't know people actually went to hillbilly schools.

I'll take this slowly for your benefit, "friend." Collins is quite correct. Your interpretation of the idiom and your application of Collins is what is incorrect. As Collins quite rightly states, "If you get bogged down in something, it prevents you from making progress or getting something done." Substituting the relevant particulars, if Stonewall did not want the legislation to get "bogged down," then they did not want anything "[to prevent] [the legislators] from making progress or getting something done"; ergo, Stonewall did not want anything to prevent the legislators and their legislation from making progress. (Quoting: "it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down'" or in other words, it would be a pity if something prevented the legislation from making progress or being completed.)

Since I notice that you didn't challenge my contention that you are not a native speaker, I will ask you directly: are you in fact not a native speaker of the English language?

[ideologue08]

Yes, yes my friend. Throw insults because you know it makes you feel better after losing the argument You could have spent that time reading the Collins English dictionary that I cited as well hock: And did you just start a sentence with "matter of fact"? Oh the irony. Didn't know people actually went to hillbilly schools.

I'll take this slowly for your benefit, "friend." Collins is quite correct. Your interpretation of the idiom and your application of Collins is what is incorrect. As Collins quite rightly states, "If you get bogged down in something, it prevents you from making progress or getting something done." Substituting the relevant particulars, if Stonewall did not want the legislation to get "bogged down," then they did not want anything "[to prevent] [the legislators] from making progress or getting something done"; ergo, Stonewall did not want anything to prevent the legislators and their legislation from making progress. (Quoting: "it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down'" or in other words, it would be a pity if something prevented the legislation from making progress or being completed.)

I'm also going to assume that since you didn't challenge my contention that you are not a native speaker that you are in fact not a native speaker.

No; what's quite clear is Stonewall didn't want politicians to get "bogged down" on civil partnerships for homosexuals, it views it as a nuisance, whereas it views its own special interests as God-given rights. Here; let me translate into something you might actually understand haha: 深陷意味着阻碍了技术进步。