Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

then I mentioned Mr Cameron's idea of 'equality' regarding the lack of availability to heterosexual couples. I was merely demonstrating the utter tosh of his 'equality' argument ... and Mr Miliband's and Mr Clegg's as well.

To answer another of your questions, no, I can't honestly claim to 'support' Civil Partnerships but I accept these as a fact of modern life and as a way of bringing homosexual relationships into the legal framework. As a separate but 'equal' institution to heterosexual marriage I consider the current arrangements to be perfectly adequate in protecting the rights of everybody and also give each institution it's own "space". Some homosexuals have expressed similar views and are against 'same sex marriage' though for many other and quite different reasons! This itself explodes the whole myth of 'equality' being the driving-force behind 'same-sex marriage', imv.

That's just the way I see and understand things, I'm afraid, Julien ...

So do you think different sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships? I've not seen anything from a gay or lesbian group opposing the idea (in fact the opposite).

As it happens I have a gay friend who is in a civil partnership who sees same sex marriage as unnecessary. So you are indeed not alone, as it were .

[edit: no of course I'm not uncomfortable with or about reproductive biology. In fact, generally, I'm fairly relaxed about all forms of consensual adult sexual activity. But I don't see why reproductive biology should necessarily dictate an ideal arrangement for the care and raising of children. That's just the way I see and understand things, I'm afraid scottycelt]

[amateur51]

Now you're just being silly.

I'll address your, flossies and GG's usual trivialisation of anyone's views that do not agree with your own.

As a growing teenager I would have been very uncomfortable having to be exposed to mental, social or physical issues of sexuality, menstruation etc with an adult member of the opposite sex. I doubt that I am unique in this.

It might fly in the face of your happy-clappy liberal views and for you it may well not be a problem. But just for once, think about what other people or children might be concerned about ....

I'm not being silly at all. You posed a question & I responded with some others from the same category.

If you're finding it a bit hot in here, I'll quite understand

[scottycelt]

So do you think different sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships? I've not seen anything from a gay or lesbian group opposing the idea (in fact the opposite).]

No, I do not.

Heterosexuals have no business getting involved in a homosexual institution. In the same way as homosexuals have no business gatecrashing a heterosexual one.

That would seem all very fair and 'equal' to many of us, I suspect.

[MrGongGong]

I really struggle to understand some of the things people seem to believe

Some people are gay .......
Some people aren't .......

Some of both sets have children
Some don't

Some people find it easy to talk with people who share the same chromosome patterns
Some people find it easy to talk with people who have different chromosome patterns

Which pattern you have and what your sexuality is doesn't affect your ability to be a good parent

I happen to be heterosexual
some of my friends are
some aren't

some of my family are
some aren't

my ability to communicate effectively with people seems to have little to do with their sexuality
I find it odd that some people seem to think these things are huge issues

I'm at a loss to see why people who happen to be Gay should have their lives dictated to by people who lack basic levels of empathy and seem to think that somehow being Gay is a "sin" and a lesser way of being.

(and following Scotty again)

Marriage isn't a "heterosexual" institution.
Historically it was about power, land,ownership and politics

and what is a "homosexual institution" anyway ?
(cue MrPee with "I work in the theatre darlings" )

[Julien Sorel]

No, I do not.

Heterosexuals have no business getting involved in a homosexual institution. In the same way as homosexuals have no business gatecrashing a heterosexual one.

That would seem all very fair and 'equal' to many of us, I suspect.

So you opportunistically pick up on what you describe as the inequality of a situation where gay and lesbian couples can enter into a civil partnership and different sex couples can't while being completely opposed to civil partnerships for different sex couples?

So really nothing you write here can be trusted to be honest and straightforward. That's useful to know.

[Resurrection Man]

....

In a future post, I assume, as you haven't done it here. & I think most of the trivialisation comes from you, notably, and SC.

You will find that from time to time I do accept that you and others have an alternative viewpoint. What I rarely do now is post facile little childish comments that you, am51 and GG, like to constantly indulge in.

It is so infantile that first one of you will come in with a little trite comment, and an emoticon, closely followed by another even more immature comment from one of the other two and finally the third, not wishing to be left out, comes tediously jumping onto your little toy bandwagon.

As I say, I accept that you have a different viewpoint. All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to myself and others if that is not too difficult to manage. You are, after all, an adult.

[Resurrection Man]

You might not be unique, but I doubt that your feelings are (or were) universal. How do you think single (through divorce or death, for example) mothers manage with their sons, or fathers with their daughters? If the parent or child finds it difficult there are usually other family members (grandparents, aunts or uncles) or friends who can be called on. You seem to think that lesbians & gay men grow up & exist in a bubble, with no family or friends around them.
.

You make a good point.

[MrGongGong]

As I say, I accept that you have a different viewpoint. All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to myself and others if that is not too difficult to manage. You are, after all, an adult.

Why do you take yourself so seriously ?
This is a messageboard on the internet not a court of law
it's a conversation in the pub not a black tie debating society
i'm sure you can find a "serious" environment to air your views if you want

[amateur51]

You will find that from time to time I do accept that you and others have an alternative viewpoint. What I rarely do now is post facile little childish comments that you, am51 and GG, like to constantly indulge in.

It is so infantile that first one of you will come in with a little trite comment, and an emoticon, closely followed by another even more immature comment from one of the other two and finally the third, not wishing to be left out, comes tediously jumping onto your little toy bandwagon.

As I say, I accept that you have a different viewpoint. All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to myself and others if that is not too difficult to manage. You are, after all, an adult.

Like the homeopathy thread I think this one has been a fine example of a well-behaved thread until you start calling people children. Julien Sorrel, MrGG, Flossie and I have responded to points made with evidence and reasoned argument, much of which has been ignored.

If you have reasonable and informed points to make, I can assure you that I will try to address them.

I have not used emoticons as you appear to find them distracting - I like to use them because they help to establish a mood in which comments are made, but I hope that you will appreciate the effort I've made on your behalf, RM.

[Mr Pee]

Why do you take yourself so seriously ?
This is a messageboard on the internet not a court of law
it's a conversation in the pub not a black tie debating society
i'm sure you can find a "serious" environment to air your views if you want

Ah well, there we are. From the horse's mouth.

We need never take any post by Mr GG seriously again.

What a relief.

[MrGongGong]

I guess being able to read words is an optional extra when you posses the green clarinet ?
There's a huge difference between taking yourself too seriously
and dealing with serious things

(maybe you saw some of the documentary about neurological surgery on TV the other day ?...... one of the most brilliant and talented surgeons who didn't take himself "seriously" at all)

[scottycelt]

So you opportunistically pick up on what you describe as the inequality of a situation where gay and lesbian couples can enter into a civil partnership and different sex couples can't while being completely opposed to civil partnerships for different sex couples?

So really nothing you write here can be trusted to be honest and straightforward. That's useful to know.

So now let's see if I can achieve the seemingly impossible and gain your vital trust in proving to be 'honest and straightforward'.

Civil Partnerships discriminate against heterosexuals .... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want CPs open to heterosexuals, anyway, as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Marriage already ... FACT

Marriage discriminates against homosexuals ... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want Marriage open to homosexuals anyway as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Civil Partnerships already ... FACT

Honest and straightforward enough to abide by the Julien Sorel Forum Moral Code, and just as useful to know?

[eighthobstruction]

Whatever....Welcome to the Bored Julien Sorrel....

[Julien Sorel]

Yes that's pretty clear. You get a buzz from discriminating against people.

However I'd got the impression your line was that same sex marriage would be (yet another) form of discrimination against heterosexuals because civil partnerships aren't possible for heterosexuals.

And, of course, were we at the stage where civil partnerships were first suggested for gay and lesbian couples you would have found all sorts of reasons to oppose them. That's true isn't it?

Some different sex couples don't want to get married but do want some form of civil recognition of their commitment to one another. So what's your problem with civil partnerships for different sex couples?

[MrGongGong]

Civil Partnerships discriminate against heterosexuals .... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want CPs open to heterosexuals, anyway, as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Marriage already ... FACT

Marriage discriminates against homosexuals ... FACT

Scottycelt doesn't want Marriage open to homosexuals anyway as he believes (among other things) that would be pointless as they have Civil Partnerships already ... FACT

Honest and straightforward

There is no evidence for a God FACT

The church's opposition to equal marriage is based on dogma and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus FACT

(I'm not so sure about this one so tell me if i'm wrong )

There are more words in the Bible about not eating seafood than about homosexuality FACT (?)