algy Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 I was once married (bigamously too!) to a good (male) friend of mine. I was his best man and, apparently, the registrar was a bit p*ssed and entered the names of the bride and the witness in the wrong boxes, having us sign in the same. It wasn't noticed until the records were filed a couple of weeks later. So it didn't last long, but we never had a crossed word! Was the marriage consumated, I do hope not fug's! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 You can consider me arrogant if you wish but at least I'm not a hypocrite. Was not too long ago that you all were making it known that you did not mind a gay's organs being used in transplants and here you all are now making it known that you do not think gays should have the right to marry like heterosexuals and should be content with what they already have. Good enough to be an organ donator but not good enough to be allowed equality with heterosexuals, second class persons. If some of you had your own way homosexuality would still be illegal. But their organs still acceptable for donations. Says it all really. And Eagle, if you don't like what I say then don't read it. In The words of wolfie - Well the last I heard, we had freedom of speech in this country, unlike many others. I and others are entitled to comment. whether you like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Why don't we do as they do in France, all marriages are civil marriages, and if you'd like a religeus cemromony you go and have a church wedding after, the one that counts in law is the civil one. But why should donkey's years of tradition change to another system, simply because of the protestations of a minority group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 It's none of your business and not affecting you in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 I am not big on tradition Wolfie,, Gay marriages where ever they are held would not bother me, but if the legal part of the marriages were made by the state, it might let some of the churches off the hook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 The "churches" will be "off the hook"; they are not a legal requirement of marriage and cannot legally be forced to participate in something contrary to their creed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadako Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 ...so what's the issue then. Churches get a choice and those that accept gay partnerships are free to marry them. Win win for all! I can understand why some gay couples would want to be married in a church. It doesn't bother me one bit and the only people it really affects are the couples themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 The favorite refrain of gay activists is "it won't affect you." In a broad sense, this has relatively little to do with affecting individual marriages. That's because to the homosexual movement, it's about a much larger issue. The passionate fight for "gay marriage" is really about the movement's obsession over society accepting their behavior -- and their rage that without the force of law we never will. By making homosexual behavior a legal entity -- as "marriage" or "civil unions" it carries with it the huge force of state-approved legal recognition. In America Acknowledging Mother's Day or Father's Day is already considered "verboten" in some public schools. In Ireland the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriages could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation. I think that the concerns are not what is happening now, but what is likely to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 The Ultimate Blame For Gay Marriages. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 If that were true homosexuality would have died out in the first generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadako Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Marriage is completely different today than it was 1000 years ago. It's a man made concept and has evolved in time. As far as I am aware it existed in some form before religion became involved. Gay marriages and relationships have been recorded since ancient Roman times. I really don't see it as an issue. There will always be gay people. Legalizing gay marriage won't make a difference to how many gays will be born. They have always been around. If marriage was still the same as it was 100s of years ago, women would be man's property and couples would be married for practical reasons rather than for love. Let's go back to those days should we because nobody is making an issue about that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 There will always be gay people. :rolleyes: There will always be paedophiles too. I don't follow your point:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 gays and paediphiles are two different subjects a paedophilke can be heterosexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 .. both being abnormal. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Don't worry about it observer, aint nobody gonna be bothering you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I don't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Oh good. I would hate to think of you losing sleep over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 zzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadako Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 You can't compare peadophiles to homosexuals.You will be comparing them to the mentally and physically disabled next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Who's trying to compare paedophiles with homosexuals? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Sadako, I don't think anyone is saying that they are "Anti Gay", even if they are. The problem in my opinion is that they continually want the same rights and conditions as everyone else even though they are different. They are already doing ok, why do they insist on getting people's backs up by wanting to go the further mile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Sadako, I don't think anyone is saying that they are "Anti Gay", even if they are. The problem in my opinion is that they continually want the same rights and conditions as everyone else even though they are different. They are already doing ok, why do they insist on getting people's backs up by wanting to go the further mile? Peter, lovie, they are not different, they are human beings just the same as the rest of us and look just like the rest of us so they are the same as us, just that they have a different sexual preference. So why shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us and perhaps if they did have the same rights they would be content and quiet. They are really not wanting to go the extra mile, they just want to be treated the same as everyone else. Now why should that get people's backs up? Really and honestly? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Well said Cleo, completely agree 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Well I don't, all species on this earth survive through procreation, since this is unavailable to same sex couples without third party input then marriage is a no no. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.