[MacOne]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But we aren't "made" at all. We just happen to exist.

Matter of opinion... This isn't the point anyway.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Then they were not actually infertile (just were very unlikely to have a kid).
If you are actually infertile, you CANNOT have kids biologically. Full stop. No different to a gay couple.

Not necessarily... Saying this is assuming that everything that has to do with this topic has been discovered. Which cannot be proven... and is highly unlikely.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But again, if the purpose of marriage is children (as you were arguing), then why do Christians see that as ok?

1) Because it's not ruling out the chances of conception.
2) In a couple looking to have babies, this can occur so at times it's inevitable.
3) Regardless of this, the argument is that same sex couples cannot procreate... so this part of the argument isn't necessary.

[Einheri]

(Original post by GeorgetheAug)
May I reiterate that even the (in)famous Leviticus passage does not specifically declare Gay Marriage to be an abomination:
"Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Not everyone believes in that crap. And without definitive proof that it is correct you cannot offer it as compelling evidence.

[xbethany]

It's so discusting and infuriating that some people have said no. If you don't want it four yourself, don't f-ing have one, but you can't take away other people's rights just because you personally don't think it's right.

[nase14_aldayz]

Yes, just move forward as a society. Opposing gay marriage is just delaying the inevitable.

[Mm_Minty]

No idea why there's any dispute about this at all.
It's about CIVIL marriage, not religious so it doesn't affect religion at all. If the whole "slippery slope" thing does indeed happen, protest about it then.

But before then, **** off. Live and let live. Gay civil marriage doesn't affect anyone but the couple themselves.

People need to go READ about this before they comment - this won't allow gay marriage in religious institutions. It's about being able to marry in registry offices and hotels. Yet despite this, the government are allowing themselves to be "advised" by religious organisations on the matter.

Religious people - don't want interference? Don't want to have to marry gays in churches? Maybe extend the same courtesy to civil matters first. ****ing hypocrites.

Also, ****ing UKIP.

[Jester94]

(Original post by master roflcopter)
Well, there is a difference (regardless of the mechanics of sex), in that the relationship is between two people of the same gender as opposed to different genders. I just happen to like the idea of being able to differentiate, and the phrase 'civil partnership' does that immediately. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind; I don't see any need to re-define the word marriage, and I fail to see any reason why people don't like the term 'civil partnership'.

(Original post by master roflcopter)
This is a completely separate issue to inter-racial marriage, which is of course, no different to marriage between two people of the same race. I'm merely debating the need to re-define the word marriage, there's absolutely no need to insinuate that I'm a racist (which has nothing to do with anything anyway).

The reason I see a need to differentiate is simply to provide social cues, nothing else. And I'm not advocating any sort of separation between the two, so I don't really know what you mean by saying that. You could easily apply the same argument for example to the words 'wife' and 'husband'; men and women should have equal rights, but there are obviously fundamental differences that require separate words to differentiate between the two.

I also didn't mention the church/religion as a related point, I don't know why you're bringing that up. Feel free to give me an actual reason why gay couples should have civil marriage as opposed to civil partnership, and you might change my mind- because at the moment I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about (and all you've said so far is that you see no reason not to)

By wanting a differentiation between what gay people and straight people can have (i.e. marriage vs civil partnership) you are advocating a separation. By not allowing gay people to get a civil marriage in the same way straight people can, you (not you in particular, in general) are causing divisions within society, which is pretty counter-intuitive to unity and equality within society!

The fight for inter-racial marriage to be allowed and to be viewed without discrimination was part of the same civil rights battle that the fight for gay marriage equality is. Denying someone the right to a marriage, on the basis of either their skin colour or their sexuality, is completely unacceptable, especially in the world we live in today.

Also, but erm, why does it matter, your desire to be able to differentiate between gay people and straight people in a long term committed relationship? Surely the fact that someone is in a long term relationship with someone of the same sex is enough of a clue...

'Civil partnership' is more than just a separate term, it is a separate institution. Legally, gay people cannot say they are married, because they are prohibited from marrying, just as it is 'civil partner' not 'wife' or 'husban' legally (though obviously loads of people ignore this!), so it is not a redefinition of terms we are seeking but an equal access to civil marriage.

We should be allowed civil marriage on the basis that there is no actual reason why we shouldn't be allowed it. It isn't right to prohibit us from getting a civil marriage on the basis of something we cannot change; it is exactly the same as if you tried to prevent a black person from getting married, because of the colour of their skin. That such an ingrained belief that LGBT people shouldn't be allowed civil marriage still exists and is still so common baffles me when similar views involving skin colour have long been proved ridiculous.

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
No, and I'm not religious either.

Homosexuality just isn't right. It's not natural.

And why is that? And it is fairly natural, given how common it is among various species of animals.

Also, if it wasn't natural, why is the anus capable of accomodating a penis, and why is the male g-spot located there?

Also also (think you can tell I'm a lesbian here!), why are girls so hot? Perfectly natural...

(Original post by walkhms)
It shouldn't have to be a law that forces all churches to allow gays to marry. That is not a good idea. But it should be an option nonetheless to allow gay marriage in the first place.

There are churches out there that would allow gays to marry happily with no problem. I wouldn't want a law forcing churches to marry anyone gay or not. Thats a violation of their religious freedom I guess.

In the UK, if gay people are allowed to get a civil marriage, religious marriage will still remain prohibited - no church will be forced to marry gay people. It is hypocritical for us to demand that churched be forced to marry us, when we are so against religion being forced on us (though I do think churches should be given the option to perform religious marriages for gay people, for there are some that would, though that is a question for the various churches and not for government to decide if they want to)

[AdvStudy]

I voted no but only because I feel that marriage is something that is highly associated with religion. Religion, sadly, states that gay marriage is wrong, so I think that it is also wrong for gay marriage to occur within a religious building.

But then again why would someone who is gay but not religious want to marry in a church? Would you want to marry in a place that says that homosexuality is a reason for your death?

But also, for respect to those who're religious; I'm not religious but I feel that it should be right for religious ideals to be upheld because then I feel that it's related to this obscene political correctness 'gone mad'. It has to stop somewhere, otherwise where will it stop? When will the government finally stand up and say the two letter word they dread. NO.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I support gay marriage that is not in a religious building unless the religion allows it!

[Amhorangerdgerriug]

I have no problem with two homosexual men or women getting married, what I have an issue with is the idea of the state forcing a particular church/mosque etc. (delete as appropriate) to conduct the ceremony against their will.

[BioFurMatPhyStudent]

(Original post by Jester94)
Also also (think you can tell I'm a lesbian here!), why are girls so hot? Perfectly natural...

PRSOM

Exactly you'd think he'd be able to relate to that.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by GeorgetheAug)
May I reiterate that even the (in)famous Leviticus passage does not specifically declare Gay Marriage to be an abomination:
"Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Also, this doesn't even forbid gay sex, as long as you stand up to do it.

[BioFurMatPhyStudent]

(Original post by AdvStudy)
I voted no but only because I feel that marriage is something that is highly associated with religion. Religion, sadly, states that gay marriage is wrong, so I think that it is also wrong for gay marriage to occur within a religious building.

But then again why would someone who is gay but not religious want to marry in a church? Would you want to marry in a place that says that homosexuality is a reason for your death?

But also, for respect to those who're religious; I'm not religious but I feel that it should be right for religious ideals to be upheld because then I feel that it's related to this obscene political correctness 'gone mad'. It has to stop somewhere, otherwise where will it stop? When will the government finally stand up and say the two letter word they dread. NO.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I support gay marriage that is not in a religious building unless the religion allows it!

It's a shame you didn't vote yes then since that's what the proposed consultation is set to change.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...nt?view=Binary

[Gales]

(Original post by AdvStudy)
I voted no but only because I feel that marriage is something that is highly associated with religion. Religion, sadly, states that gay marriage is wrong, so I think that it is also wrong for gay marriage to occur within a religious building.

But then again why would someone who is gay but not religious want to marry in a church? Would you want to marry in a place that says that homosexuality is a reason for your death?

But also, for respect to those who're religious; I'm not religious but I feel that it should be right for religious ideals to be upheld because then I feel that it's related to this obscene political correctness 'gone mad'. It has to stop somewhere, otherwise where will it stop? When will the government finally stand up and say the two letter word they dread. NO.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I support gay marriage that is not in a religious building unless the religion allows it!

Perhaps you should research things then, because what you said you'd support is exactly what the law proposes.

[AdvStudy]

(Original post by BioFurMatPhyStudent)
It's a shame you didn't vote yes then since that's what the proposed consultation is set to change.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...nt?view=Binary

Ah brilliant, wish I could change my vote to yes now!

@Gales - Ignorance truly is blissful, 'ey?

[Gales]

(Original post by Amhorangerdgerriug)
I have no problem with two homosexual men or women getting married, what I have an issue with is the idea of the state forcing a particular church/mosque etc. (delete as appropriate) to conduct the ceremony against their will.

That's not what the law is planning to do. I really wish people would read about the law before suddenly coming to a conclusion.

[3.14Pie]

Honestly I'm not gay myself but I seriously don't understand why closed minded people feel the need to point out ever difference there is between people, and make it a big deal. IF you're gay or straight you're still a person, just because you're attracted to the opposite or same sex doesn't give anyone a right to discriminate or stop anyone from doing anything. ALL people should have the same rights, especially when these are factors that they don't choose. I'm an Athiest, and honestly feel that religous people get off so easily for so obviously discriminating against the gay community but because its apparently "stated in their religion" *enter totally ambigous religous text* they get away with a lot. This world is so horrible and unfair.

I have nothing against faith but religion is just bull****, we should be bringing people together not tearing communities apart and causing segregation.

Neg all you want. I just really needed to rant/..

[BioFurMatPhyStudent]

(Original post by darksideday)
x

Hey OP,
Maybe you might want to link in this. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...nt?view=Binary

I kind of get the idea that most people don't actually know what's being proposed, seeing as there are many "I don't religious institutions to be forced to marry same-sex couples!" and it might be misinterpreted that the proposed consultation is aiming to do this.

[Jester94]

(Original post by Amhorangerdgerriug)
I have no problem with two homosexual men or women getting married, what I have an issue with is the idea of the state forcing a particular church/mosque etc. (delete as appropriate) to conduct the ceremony against their will.

That is not what is going to happen. When/if the law is changed allowing gay people to get a civil marriage, a religious marriage ceremony will still be prohibited.

(Original post by BioFurMatPhyStudent)
PRSOM

Exactly you'd think he'd be able to relate to that.

Exactly!! You'd think he would get that!

Forgive my ignorance, but what does PRSOM mean? Feel like it's something I should know by now!!

(Original post by AdvStudy)
Just to make it absolutely clear, I support gay marriage that is not in a religious building unless the religion allows it!

Haha, then you're supporting exactly what is being proposed! The proposed change is to allow civil marriage, but still restrict gay people from getting married in a church

[laureng492]

When you can marry your first cousin, but not your long term partner then I think there is something seriously wrong with legislature.

[BioFurMatPhyStudent]

(Original post by Jester94)
Exactly!! You'd think he would get that!

Forgive my ignorance, but what does PRSOM mean? Feel like it's something I should know by now!!

I know right?
It means 'please rate some other members'!

[Jester94]

(Original post by BioFurMatPhyStudent)
I know right?
It means 'please rate some other members'!

Clearly lesbians just get girls' hotness more than straight guys...what a pity!

Oh, okay, I see now haha! Thanks for explaining