Later this year, it will be possible for gays and lesbians in England and Wales to form a "civil partnership". From what I have heard, there is little difference to marriage, so that people are calling it "gay marriage". Considering it was a big issue in the US, what do you think: Yes, No, not bothered?

In my opinion this is a good thing. At the moment for example a couple may have been together for years, but are not next of kin. In case of illness, access and information may be denied to the other partner, inheritance is not secure, tenancy rights are not secure. Plus, two people in loving relationships are for the first time able to say to the wider community that they are a family, with all the rights and obligations that entails.

Absolutely, although I can see a fight looming for me about who gets to wear the dress...:hihi:

K x

If two people gay or straight feel that strongly about their relationship that they want to committ to each other this way (i.e. marriage) then why not?

I think it's about time society in the UK starts to move forward and become more open minded about things.

I love my wife, I married her because I wanted to - why shouldn't it be the same for two people of the same sex?

I rest my case.

Totally agree with same sex marriage. Gay & lesbian couples should benefit from the same rights that straight couples take for granted. In my opinion anything else is unacceptable.

If two people want to celebrate their love for each other by getting wed, then fair play to them.

If certain friends of mine ever get married then I can't wait to see their ceremony - It'll be a right shindig!! They'll both be tearing each others hair out when the play here comes the bride.

Originally posted by fhain29
Later this year, it will be possible for gays and lesbians in England and Wales to form a "civil partnership". From what I have heard, there is little difference to marriage, so that people are calling it "gay marriage". Considering it was a big issue in the US, what do you think: Yes, No, not bothered?

In my opinion this is a good thing. At the moment for example a couple may have been together for years, but are not next of kin. In case of illness, access and information may be denied to the other partner, inheritance is not secure, tenancy rights are not secure. Plus, two people in loving relationships are for the first time able to say to the wider community that they are a family, with all the rights and obligations that entails.

Not really too sure. I'm not heavily religious but I do believe that a biblical concept shouldn't be something that those in homosexual relationships (which the Bible itself deems immoral) should hijack. Before you run to grab the hot tar and feathers let me just clarify what I actually mean. I'm not in any way discriminatory towards people that are homosexual- I see them as equals and individuals who should be able to live their lives as they see fit. Personally it's not a life choice or value I would adopt but who am I to judge. What I take issue with is the alteration of what is fundamentally a Biblical concept. Tax and legal concessions I have absolutely no problem with whatsoever- in fact I think they should have come sooner! But I object to it being called a "marriage" because in the sense that word was intended - a homosexual relationship isn't a marriage.

I see marriage as a religious ceremony, for that reason alone I would not/will not get married, the legal rights would be nice though.

Jon makes a good point. I'm heterosexual, pretty much, and I think I wouldn't want to get married because I'm not religious. Perhaps some kind of civil union thing could be introduced across the board for gay and straight couples, to show commitment love and legal rights, but not marriage in the eyes of god?

Originally posted by kathythebean
Perhaps some kind of civil union thing could be introduced across the board for gay and straight couples, to show commitment love and legal rights, but not marriage in the eyes of god?
They already so - it's called a civil ceremony.
It's still marriage (since I have a marriage certificate) but when I married my wife it had no religious reference what so ever.

No I promise before God or anything - which was what we wanted cos I'm not religious.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
They already so - it's called a civil ceremony.
It's still marriage (since I have a marriage certificate) but when I married my wife it had no religious reference what so ever.

No I promise before God or anything - which was what we wanted cos I'm not religious.

No but you were a man and a women and made certain vows to one another. As such it is a "marriage".

Originally posted by JonJParr
No but you were a man and a women and made certain vows to one another. As such it is a "marriage".
Of course it is a marriage (and we are not were a man and woman :P ) - I dont despute that, maybe I'm just open minded enough to appreciate the benefits of this legislation being passed rather than focussing on outdated beliefs which create negatives. ;)

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Of course it is a marriage (and we are not were a man and woman :P ) - I dont depute that, maybe I'm just open minded enough to appreciate the benefits of this legislation being passed rather than focussing on outdated beliefs which create negatives. ;)

I don't think you can argue that religious beliefs are outdated. You certainly have no right to challenge me about being open-minded as I'm someone who does not inflict their own religious values on others and I don't discriminate against those who choose to adopt certain lifestyles. But it is rather hypocritical for someone who is homosexual to try and adopt marriage in their own relationship when the foundations of "marriage" as a concept are in religion!

It's like rewriting the Bible or Koran to say "homosexuality is welcomed and accepted by God". Rewriting religion to suit your own lifestyle is wrong!

Originally posted by JonJParr
I don't think you can argue that religious beliefs are outdated. You certainly have no right to challenge me about being open-minded as I'm someone who does not inflict their own religious values on others and I don't discriminate against those who choose to adopt certain lifestyles. But it is rather hypocritical for someone who is homosexual to try and adopt marriage in their own relationship when the foundations of "marriage" as a concept are in religion!

It's like rewriting the Bible or Koran to say "homosexuality is welcomed and accepted by God". It's wrong!
I apologise if you took my last comment as a challenge on your openmindedness - I believe however that I was referring to myself and not you in the slightest.

I can argue religious beliefs are outdated when you can't prove to me that what rewligion preaches is real?

To quote the OP:
Originally posted by fhain29
Later this year, it will be possible for gays and lesbians in England and Wales to form a "civil partnership". From what I have heard, there is little difference to marriage, so that people are calling it "gay marriage".
Note people are calling it "Gay Marriage" but it is in actual fact a "Civil Partnership" so you're getting you're manly boxers in a knot for no reason. If wanted to call my civil ceremony a "Ding Dang Do Union" or a "Marriage" I'm perfectly allowed - it doesn't mean it was performed under "god".

And who are you to say this Civil Partnerhsip between two people is wrong? Do you know God? Do you know the people who wrote the transcripts in the bible know God? Do you know God wants this or this for certain? How do you know god hasn't changed it's mind?

Think about it - open your mind :D

Originally posted by fhain29
Later this year, it will be possible for gays and lesbians in England and Wales to form a "civil partnership". From what I have heard, there is little difference to marriage, so that people are calling it "gay marriage". Considering it was a big issue in the US, what do you think: Yes, No, not bothered?
i think its about time everyone had equal rights!

Absolutely not, there should be no gay marriages.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I apologise if you took my last comment as a challenge on your openmindedness - I believe however that I was referring to myself and not you in the slightest.

I can argue religious beliefs are outdated when you can't prove to me that what rewligion preaches is real?

To quote the OP:

Note people are calling it "Gay Marriage" but it is in actual fact a "Civil Partnership" so you're getting you're manly boxers in a knot for no reason. If wanted to call my civil ceremony a "Ding Dang Do Union" or a "Marriage" I'm perfectly allowed - it doesn't mean it was performed under "god".

And who are you to say this Civil Partnerhsip between two people is wrong? Do you know God? Do you know the people who wrote the transcripts in the bible know God? Do you know God wants this or this for certain? How do you know god hasn't changed it's mind?

Think about it - open your mind :D

Your open mocking of what is such a sensitive issue to a lot of people only serves to trivialise what is a complex issue! My advice is not to do it - it's not a good way to debate an emotive issue.

How do I know God hasn't changed his mind? In the it Bible says, "Those who add to the words of God are liars. God said, do not add, do not take away. Whoever adds, God shall add to him plagues; whoever takes away, God shall also take away their part out of the book of life."
Quite a powerful and bold statement designed to stand the test of time and reason for us not to alter the Bible or its teachings.

Originally posted by Jamie
Absolutely not, there should be no gay marriages.
Why not Jamie?
To clarify it's not a marriage in the biblical sense of the word, it's civil partnership giving gay couples the same legal rights as married hetrosexual couples mate. :D

Originally posted by Jamie
Absolutely not, there should be no gay marriages.
i know ur kidding but maybe there shouldnt be any marriage at all? between anyone? people get married in church, that dont normally attend church or dont even believe in God. is it one in five marriages end in divorce anyway?

I would be happier if we just got the same rights as common-law partners after so many years.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Your open mocking of what is such a sensitive issue to a lot of people only serves to trivialise what is a complex issue! My advice is not to do it - it's not a good way to debate an emotive issue.
What open mocking am I doing John please tell me?
Originally posted by JonJParr
How do I know God hasn't changed his mind. In the it Bible says, "Those who add to the words of God are liars. God said, do not add, do not take away. Whoever adds, God shall add to him plagues; whoever takes away, God shall also take away their part out of the book of life."
Quite a powerful and bold statement designed to stand the test of time and reason for us not to alter the Bible or its teachings.
Who wrote that? Was it God? Was it a friend of God? Someone who knew god personally?

Exactly!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
What open mocking am I doing John please tell me?

Who wrote that? Was it God? Was it a friend of God? Someone who knew god personally?

Exactly!

It was Paul in the book of Revelations- the man who used to put Christians to death but whose life was turned around by God. He had what is deemed by many Christians to be the single closest relationship to God that any person has ever and will ever have.
He's the man who's founded the Catholic church and is buried under the High Altar in the Vatican.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
What open mocking am I doing John please tell me?

Who wrote that? Was it God? Was it a friend of God? Someone who knew god personally?

Exactly!

The mocking you're doing is not of the topic but of others viewpoints - it's childish!

Originally posted by JonJParr
It was Paul in the book of Revelations- the man who used to put Christians to death but whose life was turned around by God. He had what is deemed by many Christians to be the single closest relationship to God that any person has ever and will ever have.
He's the man who's founded the Catholic church and is buried under the High Altar in the Vatican.
Jon doesn't also say in the Bible if someone truly repents their sins then god forgives all? Did god not give people free will?

Again we're not referring to marriage in the biblical sense so why you have such an issue with I have no idea.

Again you cannot (no one other than God itself) can prove to me that Paul the Revelations guy was speaking for god. That this is what god actually wants or that god even exists.

Prove me these things and I will gladly stand corrected.

Originally posted by JonJParr
The mocking you're doing is not of the topic but of others viewpoints - it's childish!
I'm not mocking anyones view points Jon - I apologise if you take it this way.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and I accept it as such, even if to me it's very narrowminded (this is just my opinion).

You're arguing about nothing tho - the OP stated it's a Civil Partnership, and not a biblical marriage so why are you upsetting yourself about it mate.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Jon doesn't also say in the Bible if someone truly repents their sins then god forgives all? Did god not give people free will?

can i butt in? bit off subject but i dont like the word SIN being used - sorry

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
can i butt in? bit off subject but i dont like the word SIN being used - sorry
you're perfectly right Natalie - allow me to clarify why I used this statement.
John stated earlier that the "Gay Marriage" is wrong, even quoting this Paul guy about his Godly Revelations.
Something about God shall also take away their part out of the book of life.
I took this to mean that Jon feels in the eyes of 'god' it's a sin to be gay or have a homosexual union of some kind.

However if people repented this before they die, god forgives all.

Going off topic, but then this whole thread seems to have also :D

Can we all remember that the bible was written by men, and as such, contains many differrent instructions on how we shoud live, many of which are seriously outdated!

Checkout Deuteronomy 22:11, Leviticus 19:19. These condemn the wearing of fabric made from mixed fibres. i.e. anyone with a polycotton shirt is for it!!

K x

Originally posted by JonJParr
I don't discriminate against those who choose to adopt certain lifestyles.
I was not aware that gay was a lifestyle choice, even in my junior school there was a boy who was quite clearly showing the signs of being gay.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Why not Jamie?
To clarify it's not a marriage in the biblical sense of the word, it's civil partnership giving gay couples the same legal rights as married hetrosexual couples mate. :D

Well, if that's the case, the topic title is somewhat misleading (that'll teach me not to read all the posts before adding to a thread).

I think marriage should be banned full-stop, gay, straight or otherwise.

The feelings, emotion, connection and energy that two people share is between those two people alone, it is not the business of the state, or religious institutions (who just want to control everything ... incl. you and me).

If I want to love and spend time with or devote myself to another human being, I do not need or want permission from any external 'authority' to do so ...

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I was not aware that gay was a lifestyle choice, even in my junior school there was a boy who was quite clearly showing the signs of being gay.

Exactly; and did God not create every one of us in his own image?

K x

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I was not aware that gay was a lifestyle choice, even in my junior school there was a boy who was quite clearly showing the signs of being gay.
[Religious Mocking] Ahmen Brother [/Religious Mocking]

Originally posted by nick2
I would be happier if we just got the same rights as common-law partners after so many years.


Errr...forgive me for being dim, but what rights would those be? As I understand it, there is no such thing as a common-law partner in actual legal terms. :confused:

Originally posted by pussycat
Errr...forgive me for being dim, but what rights would those be? As I understand it, there is no such thing as a common-law partner in actual legal terms. :confused:

Oh, I thought there were, I take that back then. I know my mum isn't going to get married again and I think she assumed her boyfriend would be seen as her common-law partner (after nearly 20 years) and get everything if she should die. It seems a bit daft that she should have to get married against her wishes to ensure that happens.

Originally posted by nick2
Oh, I thought there were, I take that back then. I know my mum isn't going to get married again and I think she assumed her boyfriend would be seen as her common-law partner (after nearly 20 years) and get everything if she should die.
Technically in law there is not such term as common-law man and wife but some legal rights may be given as if it were a marriage. It all depends on the judge tho.

For example if they have bought their house and both names are on the title deeds then there is no argument.
However say your mum is really wealthy from before she met her life partner and when she died didn't have a will - then it may get tricky.

If they're not getting married a will is the best option as no such common-law exists anymore.
It's like if your mums partner was in the forces and was killed in action, I highly doubt your mum would get a widows pension from the government because they weren't legally married.

Also the Marriage thing is a bit of a victorian invention anyhow. From what I understand, only wealthy and higher class people had church weddings in the past (200+years ago).
Everyday citizens would have a marriage which was more of a partnership, with just close family and friends, and sometimes no ceremony at all. Sometimes a man would pay a ceremonial sum for his wife to her father as a woman was seen as his property. In sheffield it was possible to sell your wife in the market in paradise square on certain days.

What I have noticed is that we are counted as a couple when it suits whatever organisation, eg. if the council get to give us less money as a couple they will count us as a couple, if it's better for them to see us a two single men, they will do that.

Originally posted by nick2
my mum isn't going to get married again and I think she assumed her boyfriend would be seen as her common-law partner (after nearly 20 years) and get everything if she should die. It seems a bit daft that she should have to get married against her wishes to ensure that happens.
Absolutely not there are several stories in the news every month about this subject. There are no common-law husbands or wives, they don't exist in law. This is a very common misconception. They never did. It's just a myth.

This is another reason why same sex partners want a "married" type of status in law. And good luck to them, I think they should be allowed to.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Absolutely not there are several stories in the news every month about this subject. There are no common-law husbands or wives, they don't exist in law. This is a very common misconception. They never did. It's just a myth.

I will tell them to make a will then, thanks.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Absolutely not there are several stories in the news every month about this subject. There are no common-law husbands or wives, they don't exist in law. This is a very common misconception. They never did. It's just a myth.
That's not true - commonlaw man and wife laws were abolished in the mid 1950's IIRC, they did once exist but they don't anymore.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
That's not true - commonlaw man and wife laws were abolished in the mid 1950's IIRC, they did once exist but they don't anymore.
Oh thanks DaBouncer.
I didn't know that, thanks for correcting me.

Originally posted by JonJParr
It was Paul in the book of Revelations- the man who used to put Christians to death but whose life was turned around by God. He had what is deemed by many Christians to be the single closest relationship to God that any person has ever and will ever have.
He's the man who's founded the Catholic church and is buried under the High Altar in the Vatican.

This is incorrect. In Christian tradition, the book of Revelation was written by John on the island of Patmos, not by Paul. I wasn't aware that Paul (or John) had the closest relationship to God. In St John's Gospel John (the presumed author) names himself "the disciple Jesus loved", either a reference to their closeness (or gay relationship) or a euphemism (I'm no theologian). Generally it is presumed that God loves everyone the same amount.
Peter (not John nor Paul) is considered the first pope and thus founder of the Catholic church.

Enough has been said about the common law issue. It doesn't exist. Full stop.

I knew some people would start with the bible. It may be word of God, but it shouldn't be taken out of context, otherwise women shouldn't talk in front of men, you shouldn't have sex with women having their periods, and eating bacon would be a captal offence etc etc.

But maybe Jamie has a point. Maybe marriage per se is totally outdated and should be got rid of. However, the forming of a "family unit" gives identity to people, shows allegiences, makes people responsible for other people. Maybe it's important for society to made up of basic building blocks, be they m+w, m+m, w+w and for the state to recognise this and reward this as they do with other registered partnerships aka marriages.

Originally posted by fhain29
This is incorrect. In Christian tradition, the book of Revelation was written by John on the island of Patmos, not by Paul. I wasn't aware that Paul (or John) had the closest relationship to God. In St John's Gospel John (the presumed author) names himself "the disciple Jesus loved", either a reference to their closeness (or gay relationship) or a euphemism (I'm no theologian). Generally it is presumed that God loves everyone the same amount.
Peter (not John nor Paul) is considered the first pope and thus founder of the Catholic church.

Enough has been said about the common law issue. It doesn't exist. Full stop.

I knew some people would start with the bible. It may be word of God, but it shouldn't be taken out of context, otherwise women shouldn't talk in front of men, you shouldn't have sex with women having their periods, and eating bacon would be a captal offence etc etc.

But maybe Jamie has a point. Maybe marriage per se is totally outdated and should be got rid of. However, the forming of a "family unit" gives identity to people, shows allegiences, makes people responsible for other people. Maybe it's important for society to made up of basic building blocks, be they m+w, m+m, w+w and for the state to recognise this and reward this as they do with other registered partnerships aka marriages.

I wholeheartedly apologise for posting something that was inaccurate - less haste next time! However, if we choose to abolish the institution of marriage we would surely have to abolish the whole idea of Christianity and religion in this country. Whilst Christians should be tolerant of other's lifestyle choices (and I know that some aren't) why should their beliefs have to be changed to accommodate something that is fundamentally classed as a "sin" in their religion. Why must Christians worldwide have their Bible rewritten? Furthermore why is it that Christianity is deemed to be something which can be rewritten when it's deemed "unsuitable" and yet they don't dare touch Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Why must Christians worldwide have their Bible rewritten? Furthermore why is it that Christianity is deemed to be something which can be rewritten when it's deemed "unsuitable" and yet they don't dare touch Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

I think other religions are (seen to be) more strictly followed, Muslims and Jewish people don't "interpret" their holy writings like Christians do, like someone said earlier if you followed the Bible to the letter then a Christins life would be very different to what it is now, so if people are prepared to ignore some of the rules in the Bible becasue they arn't relevant any more, they arn't convenient in a modern world, or they just don't agree with that bit, then why bother witht he other rules ?

I'm not having a go at anyone BTW.

Originally posted by fhain29
But maybe Jamie has a point. Maybe marriage per se is totally outdated and should be got rid of. However, the forming of a "family unit" gives identity to people, shows allegiences, makes people responsible for other people. Maybe it's important for society to made up of basic building blocks, be they m+w, m+m, w+w and for the state to recognise this and reward this as they do with other registered partnerships aka marriages.

It's the notion that the state sanctions (gives permission for) couples to be together, that gets me. It's like they're saying that the authority rests with them, and you, the tiny people need their permission to get it together.

The state should be there to support, nurture and serve the people it represents, not lord it over them.

I guess it can be very healthy for people to be part of "family units" / "basic building blocks". I also think the state should support this, but it shouldn't do so in such a controlling way.

It comes down to a control / power issue ... should control be with the individual OR with the state / religion !?

Originally posted by nick2
I think other religions are (seen to be) more strictly followed, Muslims and Jewish people don't "interpret" their holy writings like Christians do, like someone said earlier if you followed the Bible to the letter then a Christins life would be very different to what it is now, so if people are prepared to ignore some of the rules in the Bible becasue they arn't relevant any more, they arn't convenient in a modern world, or they just don't agree with that bit, then why bother witht he other rules ?

I'm not having a go at anyone BTW.

From what I understand, from my father (who is a Doctor of Theology) the dietary laws given in the Old Testament are of the old covenant. The New Testament, and with it the arrival of Jesus, a Saviour and living sacrifice there came the new covenant which did not involve such dietary laws (as still observed by Jews who do not recognise the New Testament and Jesus as the Messiah). However, as for having sex with a women who is having her period - how many Christians do you think engage in this?

Originally posted by JonJParr
From what I understand, from my father (who is a Doctor of Theology) the dietary laws given in the Old Testament are of the old covenant. The New Testament, and with it the arrival of Jesus, a Saviour and living sacrifice there came the new covenant which did not involve such dietary laws (as still observed by Jews who do not recognise the New Testament and Jesus as the Messiah). However, as for having sex with a women who is having her period - how many Christians do you think engage in this?

Like I said, I'm not having a go at anyone.

I think people assume that if you are Christian you will follow everything in the Bible, not just half of it, this is where the confusion comes from, I think.

Originally posted by nick2
Like I said, I'm not having a go at anyone.

I think people assume that if you are Christian you will follow everything in the Bible, not just half of it, this is where the confusion comes from, I think.

I'm sure this type of discussion takes place in Islamic countries actually. In Britain people assume they know what's in the Bible without actually having read or studied it.... and people tend to pluck pieces out of context also.

One rather sad thing about all this I think.
A few years ago Gay relationships were seen as unconventional,daring, bohemian,outside the Mainstream---even rather exciting---all depending on your point of view.
Now , on T.V. and on the radio when they interview these Gay couples who have taken [or who are just about to take ] a vow , they come across as just as boring and schmaltzy as all those gooey, horrible, straight married couples.
We want the Joe Ortons , not the "Happy Together For 40 Years--Tonbridge Wells " lot.
Ironically , just as a lot of Gays are proclaiming their stable relationships , the Straight mob are divorcing in droves !

Originally posted by JonJParr
Whilst Christians should be tolerant of other's lifestyle choices (and I know that some aren't) why should their beliefs have to be changed to accommodate something that is fundamentally classed as a "sin" in their religion.

We live in a world of choice. But one thing that is not subject to choice is sexual orientation. Being gay or lesbian is not a lifestyle choice. It is how you are.

Originally posted by sheffexpat
One rather sad thing about all this I think.
A few years ago Gay relationships were seen as unconventional,daring, bohemian,outside the Mainstream---even rather exciting---all depending on your point of view.
Now , on T.V. and on the radio when they interview these Gay couples who have taken [or who are just about to take ] a vow , they come across as just as boring and schmaltzy as all those gooey, horrible, straight married couples.
We want the Joe Ortons , not the "Happy Together For 40 Years--Tonbridge Wells " lot.
Ironically , just as a lot of Gays are proclaiming their stable relationships , the Straight mob are divorcing in droves !

I think you'd probably find that the statistics for this were relatively equal. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexual relationships are anymore "long-lasting" or "stable" than their heterosexual counterparts. However, there are relatively fewer homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships also which would account for the apparently larger numbers.

Originally posted by fhain29
We live in a world of choice. But one thing that is not subject to choice is sexual orientation. Being gay or lesbian is not a lifestyle choice. It is how you are.

That's hard for me to accept because I've never been in that situation. We know that men and women are designed to be attracted to one another in order to procreate and further the human race. Where's the scientific proof, in essence, the part of our genetic makeup that makes someone gay or straight? So far nobody's found a "gay gene". Why?

When scientists can map our entire genetic makeup and yet not find a "gay gene" how can it be "how you are" and not "what you are"- that's why it suggests to me it's a lifestyle choice.

A few points from my point of view:

1) Civil partnerships should definitely be available to all men and women regardless.

2) If as stated above 1 in 5 marriages (read partnerships, I don't want to get into the religious arguments) fail, OK, this will happen, but conversely, that means 80 in 100 work. That's pretty important if you're one of the 80%.

3) I don't understand Jamies point (below),

Originally posted by Jamie
It's the notion that the state sanctions (gives permission for) couples to be together, that gets me. It's like they're saying that the authority rests with them, and you, the tiny people need their permission to get it together.

The state should be there to support, nurture and serve the people it represents, not lord it over them.

I guess it can be very healthy for people to be part of "family units" / "basic building blocks". I also think the state should support this, but it shouldn't do so in such a controlling way.

It comes down to a control / power issue ... should control be with the individual OR with the state / religion !?
when I married, it was for the benefit of me and my wife, not the state, I didn't have to ask the states permission (I'm not in the Army) we just did it. The state *recognise* marriage, they don't authorise it in the way you seem to intimate.

NB Again, each time I refer to marriage above, read partnership, I don't want to get embroiled in the religious arguments surrounding this, to me they are not relevant.

Originally posted by sheffexpat
One rather sad thing about all this I think.
A few years ago Gay relationships were seen as unconventional,daring, bohemian,outside the Mainstream---even rather exciting---all depending on your point of view.


Finally people are begining to realise we are just as boring and "normal" as everyone else, we don't mince round all day being funny, witty and glamourous, only on TV are gay people so GAY, they make me cringe.

In "real" life there are gay mums & dads, gay grandparents, gay doctors, fireman, police men and plumbers, gay pimps, murderers and prostututes.

All I want is to not be treated specially, in a negative or possitive way, I just want to be left to get on with my life.

Originally posted by JonJParr
When scientists can map our entire genetic makeup and yet not find a "gay gene" how can it be "how you are" and not "what you are"- that's why it suggests to me it's a lifestyle choice.

They might eventually, we have mapped the entire genome but we still have no idea how 99.999% of it works.

Originally posted by JonJParr
That's hard for me to accept because I've never been in that situation. We know that men and women are designed to be attracted to one another in order to procreate and further the human race. Where's the scientific proof, in essence, the part of our genetic makeup that makes someone gay or straight? So far nobody's found a "gay gene". Why?

When scientists can map our entire genetic makeup and yet not find a "gay gene" how can it be "how you are" and not "what you are"- that's why it suggests to me it's a lifestyle choice.
I don't think it's something you can have a gene for. Just like there won't be a gene for being infertile or having erectile disfunction.
Nobody knows if the human race was designed so that every single individual reproduces, or a few individuals reproduce lots of times and some of the others dont. I am a hetrosexual and have absolutely no desire at all to have any kids,I can't stand them. I know a woman who has the similar thoughts. Have you stopped to think that there may be a valid reason for the existance of homosexuals? After all they appear in every culture on the planet and in some eastern communities are considered extremely important and have a particular role.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
when I married, it was for the benefit of me and my wife, not the state, I didn't have to ask the states permission (I'm not in the Army) we just did it. The state *recognise* marriage, they don't authorise it in the way you seem to intimate.

That's fair enough Foo, but I'd be interested to learn in what ways being married benefits the two of you.

It does however, seem to me like interference, and I can't see any reason to marry unless there are real and tangiable benefits (tax breaks for example).

No problem at all with it. Why on earth shouldn't gays and lesbians be able to make a public statement about their love and committment to oneanother?

I would like one of our gay forumers just to clear up for me this issue about inheritance. If you make a will and decide to leave it to your lover then surely the issue of whatever sex they are does not come into it. You can leave your worldy belongings to the cats home, the queen or whoever can't you?

Originally posted by JonJParr
That's hard for me to accept because I've never been in that situation. We know that men and women are designed to be attracted to one another in order to procreate and further the human race. Where's the scientific proof, in essence, the part of our genetic makeup that makes someone gay or straight? So far nobody's found a "gay gene". Why?

When scientists can map our entire genetic makeup and yet not find a "gay gene" how can it be "how you are" and not "what you are"- that's why it suggests to me it's a lifestyle choice.

They haven't found a "straight gene" either.

Originally posted by Mo
No problem at all with it. Why on earth shouldn't gays and lesbians be able to make a public statement about their love and committment to oneanother?

I would like one of our gay forumers just to clear up for me this issue about inheritance. If you make a will and decide to leave it to your lover then surely the issue of whatever sex they are does not come into it. You can leave your worldy belongings to the cats home, the queen or whoever can't you?

It's about inheritance tax: The answer from Stonewall:
Lack of partnership rights in inheritance mean that gay men and lesbians often have to sell their own homes to pay the tax debt.

When a married partner dies, money and property that is transferred to the remaining partner is exempt from taxation.

When a same-sex partner dies, anything that the remaining partner inherits is liable to inheritance tax. There is a general exemption of £250,000, but anything over that amount is liable to inheritance tax at 40%.

This can and does mean those gay men and lesbians often have to sell their own homes to pay the tax debt.

Problems arise particularly in places like London where property prices have shot up sharply."

I think there is a problem is you die intestate. Then the state takes a greater slice too.

Originally posted by Jamie
That's fair enough Foo, but I'd be interested to learn in what ways being married benefits the two of you.

It does however, seem to me like interference, and I can't see any reason to marry unless there are real and tangiable benefits (tax breaks for example).
Benefit ? We both feel good about the idea.

Interference ? Where ? You're the one interfering saying that people who want to make a commitment to each other shouldn't be able to...

...and no, it's not about "real and tangible" benefits, or tax breaks.

When I asked my wife to marry me, she didn't 'phone her parents and friends to tell them about gaining "potential tax breaks", and I didn't phone my parents and friends to tell them she had said yes to "obtaining some state benefits".

If you don't understand the above, I really do feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by fhain29
It's about inheritance tax: The answer from Stonewall:
Lack of partnership rights in inheritance mean that gay men and lesbians often have to sell their own homes to pay the tax debt.

When a married partner dies, money and property that is transferred to the remaining partner is exempt from taxation.

When a same-sex partner dies, anything that the remaining partner inherits is liable to inheritance tax. There is a general exemption of £250,000, but anything over that amount is liable to inheritance tax at 40%.

This can and does mean those gay men and lesbians often have to sell their own homes to pay the tax debt.

Problems arise particularly in places like London where property prices have shot up sharply."

I think there is a problem is you die intestate. Then the state takes a greater slice too.

That clears things up.

But where does that put couples who have lived together as friends all their life without a sexual relationship and one of those dies, or a brother and sister both unmarried living together. You could say that the law should allow the same rights to them as individuals in gay relationships but it wouldn't. That then seems unfair on them.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Benefit ? We both feel good about the idea.

Interference ? Where ? You're the one interfering saying that people who want to make a commitment to each other shouldn't be able to...

...and no, it's not about "real and tangible" benefits, or tax breaks.

When I asked my wife to marry me, she didn't 'phone her parents and friends to tell them about gaining "potential tax breaks", and I didn't phone my parents and friends to tell them she had said yes to "obtaining some state benefits".

If you don't understand the above, I really do feel sorry for you.

Well firstly, I DO NOT accept your "feeling sorry for me", to do so would imply that I am lacking in some department or inferiour to you in some way, which I am not. Neither am I superior. I clearly just have a differing perspective to you Foo (which I am quite comfortable with).

Do you assume that the only way to make a commitment, is through marriage!? What about couples who are are together and do not marry?

Do they not make a commitment to each other? (Perhaps their commitment isn't recognised by the state or written on some scrap of paper. Perhaps it's only a commitment of the heart, a commitment of feeling and of love, a commitment to the well being of their partnership).

My view is that people should commit to being honest with each other (and themselves), and should commit to treating each other with love and respect. They should be together because of the love they share and the mutual benefit the relationship brings to each one.

I don't at all like the idea of marriage. I'm quite OK wih the fact that other people will not share my view, and I wish them all the best, I really do.

To my way of looking at things Foo, the only thing that counts is how you feel inside about each other.


[EDIT]

Another thing that puzzles me about marriage (maybe someone can shed some light on this) is ....

Given that we (people) do not have control over how we feel, how can we make a commitment / promise that we will love and cherish another person for the rest of our days.

I am taking love to mean the feeling of love, not love as in "to act in a loving manner".

I just don't get that. How can you guarantee that you will feel love for another person for the rest of your days?

PS. Not trying to offend any married person(s) here.

Originally posted by Mo
That clears things up.

But where does that put couples who have lived together as friends all their life without a sexual relationship and one of those dies, or a brother and sister both unmarried living together. You could say that the law should allow the same rights to them as individuals in gay relationships but it wouldn't. That then seems unfair on them.

That's a general problem of inheritance laws, not of partnerships.

Originally posted by nick2
I see marriage as a religious ceremony, for that reason alone I would not/will not get married, the legal rights would be nice though.

Exactly. A marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, which forbids homosexuality. Perhaps there could be a separate kind of "marriage" for same sex couples and heterosexuals wanting to completely remove themselves from any association with religion?

Originally posted by t020
Exactly. A marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, which forbids homosexuality. Perhaps there could be a separate kind of "marriage" for same sex couples and heterosexuals wanting to completely remove themselves from any association with religion?
there already is - read the entire thread I've posted it more than once!

you dont chose to be gay though, do you? God makes you the way you are. and He loves all of us, yeah? Its a civic thing anyway, not religious

Originally posted by DaBouncer
there already is - read the entire thread I've posted it more than once!

:help: 5 pages of it?! Maybe later if I have more time... ;)

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
you dont chose to be gay though, do you? God makes you the way you are. and He loves all of us, yeah? Its a civic thing anyway, not religious

No. God doesn't make us anything - God is a fictional character in a variety of fairytale stories called "religions". Marriage IS a religious ceremony and of the religions I know of, they forbid homosexuality. On that basis, it would be somewhat hypocritical for churches and other places of worship to suddenly start offering gay marriages.

Of course gay marriages should be allowed. I feel patronising just using the word 'allowed'. I think it is a sorry state that it is still an issue.
The only argument against it is ultimately a bigoted one based on prejudice and fear.
I can understand why the church gripes about it, seeing as their organised religion forbids same sex partnerships. However, long gone are the days when the church has any significant power over the thoughts and actions of either the people or indeed the powers that be. Thank goodness! But of course gay people should have access to a civil ceremony.
On the subject of marriage in general, I don't need a piece of paper to prove my love... but I do need one to prove my legal rights! and that is why when the time is right, I'll (with the boyfriend in tow!) be heading straight for the registry office! Why leave anything to chance that doesn't need to be?

Originally posted by t020
No. God doesn't make us anything - God is a fictional character in a variety of fairytale stories called "religions". Marriage IS a religious ceremony and of the religions I know of, they forbid homosexuality. On that basis, it would be somewhat hypocritical for churches and other places of worship to suddenly start offering gay marriages.
so if God is fiction and his ceremonies are too, am i still married? heheh! We have gay vicars though. and father ted lives with father dougal and arent we supposed to love our neighbours?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
so if God is fiction and his ceremonies are too, am i still married? heheh! We have gay vicars though. and father ted lives with father dougal and arent we supposed to love our neighbours?

No, that's not what I meant. Religion is fundamentally a story used to control people into living a certain way, part of that way being getting married. It's still part of society though and marriages are a product of religion, hence traditionally a religious ceremony. Marriages may be a product of religion but they are still an important aspect of our society. Making gay marriages legal however would seem somewhat contradictory and hypocritical, much in the same way that gay vicars are being hypocrites.

Originally posted by t020
No, that's not what I meant. Religion is fundamentally a story used to control people into living a certain way, part of that way being getting married. It's still part of society though and marriages are a product of religion, hence traditionally a religious ceremony. Marriages may be a product of religion but they are still an important aspect of our society. Making gay marriages legal however would seem somewhat contradictory and hypocritical, much in the same way that gay vicars are being hypocrites.
i know most religions are against gay people, but i cant remember when our vicar has ever said "thou shalt not...." cos its outdated
people get married who arent even religious, so whats the point?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
i know most religions are against gay people, but i cant remember when our vicar has ever said "thou shalt not...." cos its outdated
people get married who arent even religious, so whats the point?

I think some of the older religions are ok with it, the ones that tend not to involve a single god.

Originally posted by nick2
I think some of the older religions are ok with it, the ones that tend not to involve a single god. are we thinking religions from africa etc... im thinking tribal, where everyone "loves" everyone etc...?
i dont see the problem with it or the issue, why cant we all do what we wanna do? its not like we asking to harm someone - people just wanna show their love and commitment and get even rights

Originally posted by Jamie
Well firstly, I DO NOT accept your "feeling sorry for me", to do so would imply that I am lacking in some department or inferiour to you in some way, which I am not. Neither am I superior. I clearly just have a differing perspective to you Foo (which I am quite comfortable with).

Jamie,

I did NOT say that I felt sorry for you.

I said that I got married because WE wanted to on an emotional level, and NOT for materialistic reasons.

I said that if you didn't understand that, THEN I felt sorry for you (because then you would be emotionaly lacking, and/or base everything on materialistic reasons).

The judgement was left entirely for you to make.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Jamie,

I did NOT say that I felt sorry for you.

I said that I got married because WE wanted to on an emotional level, and NOT for materialistic reasons.

I said that if you didn't understand that, THEN I felt sorry for you (because then you would be emotionaly lacking, and/or base everything on materialistic reasons).

The judgement was left entirely for you to make.

I think I probably took you're post quite the wrong way Foo (a bit too personally) and I'm sorry if I over-reacted.

In fact, I'm not at all materialistic (well, maybe just a little bit).

Guess it's a complex issue (marriage), I don't really have time to expand on my views at the mo (just off to yoga). At the end of the day, if you have love and a loving relationship, then that's great, married or not, gay or straight.

:)

I sympathise with comments totally against marriage itself, but unfortunately that is not the world we live in! In the reality of the present day, there are lots of things that would be improved in the lives of gay and straight people if others could accept that they mean a lot to each other but dont want to marry (in the religious sense). For example, if my boyfriend goes to hospital in an emergency, I'm not allowed to go and see him, or make decisions about his treatment, since we're not married. That is the same for gay and straight couples who are unmarried.

Without wanting to offend, I also think its a little foolish to think that "the only thing that counts is how you feel inside about each other". Children count (whos name they get, what legal rights you have to them if you are unmarried etc), legal rights count, money counts (sorry to sound mercenary but if you disagree with me you've probably got too much of it!). I believe in love wholeheartedly and I'm a big soft romantic but there IS a practical side to life that has to be considered when debating this kind of issue.

There are several references in this thread of 'marriage' as a 'biblical' construct. Stone me, as it were, but I thought those of most other denomications have ceremonies that celebrate and mark the entwinement of two lovers' lives. The Buddhists do it, the Islamists, the Mormons (several times over), the Parsees, the Jews, the ancient Egyptians (sun-worshippers, weren't they?). Australian Aborigines did it for centuries before God's anointed arrived on the Australian land mass and started hunting them down.

I don't think I'm wholly incorrect in asserting that not all civilisations and denominations restrict this to the union of male and female either (although I recognise that quite a few organised religions tend towards a "burn the bummers" creed). Having deftly pared the idea of nuptials from the Christian church, we are easily freed to see the joining of two people of the same sex in a lifelong commitment as perfectly natural and worthy of the same legal rights as a heterosexual wedding.

If homosexuals want to get married then they should have the right to do so, but only in a register office or some where like that, all the same legalitys should be there as a straight marriage , but I dont believe that gay marriage should take place in a church by a religous leader as it goes against many religious beliefs.

My cousin is married to his partner, and they share real love just like straight people, so there marriage should have the same legal strength as a straight marriage.

Originally posted by Jamie
Guess it's a complex issue (marriage)... ...At the end of the day, if you have love and a loving relationship, then that's great, married or not, gay or straight.
I'll go 100% with those sentiments.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Without wanting to offend, I also think its a little foolish to think that "the only thing that counts is how you feel inside about each other". Children count (whos name they get, what legal rights you have to them if you are unmarried etc), legal rights count, money counts (sorry to sound mercenary but if you disagree with me you've probably got too much of it!). I believe in love wholeheartedly and I'm a big soft romantic but there IS a practical side to life that has to be considered when debating this kind of issue.
OK, what you say is correct, but...

...I really, really hope you don't get hitched (civil ceremony or otherwise) for *just* the reasons above.

I saw Simon Le Bon being interviewed yesterday, and one of his statements really struck home. "A successful marriage depends on a lot of luck to find the right person with which you have an initial 'spark', to make a succesfull marriage 'then' takes 2 people who both want it to work in the long run" (or words to that effect).

I 'think' that's what I'm trying to say; get married (civil blah blah... ...or just live together happily if that's what suits) because you *want* to, if it makes logical sense as well, all the better, cos it'll stand a better chance of lasting (longer) too.

Love can overcome though (I hope).

Originally posted by kathythebean
Without wanting to offend, I also think its a little foolish to think that "the only thing that counts is how you feel inside about each other". Children count (whos name they get, what legal rights you have to them if you are unmarried etc), legal rights count, money counts (sorry to sound mercenary but if you disagree with me you've probably got too much of it!). I believe in love wholeheartedly and I'm a big soft romantic but there IS a practical side to life that has to be considered when debating this kind of issue.

You won't offend me Kathy ... so there !!! :P

When I made that comment I meant it in terms of reasons for being in / staying in a relationship with someone.

If children are involved, it could be argued that it's healthier all round for a couple (who no longer love each other) to seperate and then remain on good / amicable terms for the sake of the children. Rather than remaining together, living a lie and probably creating all sorts of unhealthy 'beneath the surface' tensions ... which would be good for no-one and hardly a good example to set the kids.

Practical stuff like the things you mention (money, legal rights) are valuable of course, because they provide a strong and stable environment in real world terms for the flower of true love to blossom. Looking at this from a purely pragmatic point of view, those things would be (IMHO) good reasons to marry, and the marriage itself is nothing more than those things (again IMHO).

The real juice of it, is in the feelings two people have for each other, and those feelings are only found in our hearts, and not written out on some piece of paper.

Having said that, it's all speculation on my part. I haven't been lucky enough to find someone who I could spend the rest of my life with (and who'd have me / is available) and maybe I never will ... I just don't know (but if I did, I may change my mind on the marriage thing, who knows!?).

:help:

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
i know most religions are against gay people, but i cant remember when our vicar has ever said "thou shalt not...." cos its outdated
people get married who arent even religious, so whats the point?

Because it would be hypocritical on the part of the religion to suddenly change their 'rules' after thousands of years.

Originally posted by t020
Because it would be hypocritical on the part of the religion to suddenly change their 'rules' after thousands of years.
Nah, it's easy...

...you just get yourself a new messiah, then re-write all the rules as you see fit...

...and then , Bob's your Auntys male partner through a civil (or other) ceremony.

;)

You're all right :) When I get married it'll be because I've been swept off my feet by a handsome prince and I love him to bits *Swoon* !!

I only mentioned those other things because I've been a relationship where I thought if you loved each other that was enough (see guardian articles in G2 this week about love and money), and it turns out its not always..but you're absolutely right especially about staying together for the kids etc

Originally posted by foo_fighter

I saw Simon Le Bon being interviewed yesterday, and one of his statements really struck home. "A successful marriage depends on a lot of luck to find the right person with which you have an initial 'spark', to make a succesfull marriage 'then' takes 2 people who both want it to work in the long run" (or words to that effect).


And of course, to quote an earlier Simon Le Bon saying from when he was the idol of teen girl mags where he couldn't swear, things are helped along by "amazing rumpo". Bless 'im. And, in a showbiz world where weddings can last literally hours, he's made a pretty good fist of his marriage.

Originally posted by t020
Because it would be hypocritical on the part of the religion to suddenly change their 'rules' after thousands of years.
mm but things have changed in religion over the years, things arent as strick etc...

Gonna get slagged off but........

I dont think gays should marry simply because being gay is not natural.

Why?

Any creatures sole purpose is to procreate. Gays cannot achieve this therefore it is not a natural thing. Therefore the thought of them marrying should go out the window as well.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Gonna get slagged off but........

I dont think gays should marry simply because being gay is not natural.

Why?

Any creatures sole purpose is to procreate. Gays cannot achieve this therefore it is not a natural thing. Therefore the thought of them marrying should go out the window as well.
our other purpose is to love and care for eachother, we are also driven by lust......which has a lot to answer for

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
our other purpose is to love and care for eachother, we are also driven by lust......which has a lot to answer for

Thats why I said "creature" in order to include rats, birds etc

Biology lesson number 1

A creature:-

breathes
eats
procreates

Originally posted by coopster1974
Gonna get slagged off but........

I dont think gays should marry simply because being gay is not natural.

Why?

Any creatures sole purpose is to procreate. Gays cannot achieve this therefore it is not a natural thing. Therefore the thought of them marrying should go out the window as well.
Hey, don't worry about it, if Darwin was right "the gays" will die out in a few years by natural selection.

Of course if the religious people are right, then "the gays" were made by god in his own image, and that must be why they're still around against the odds.

Hmmm, or was it the other bit of the bible I should've read...

...oh, I'm just confused now.

;)

I'm with Basil Brush (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/tv/basilbrush/joke.shtml) on the Marriage issue !!

why cant we all just bonk and love who ever we want and be done with it?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
why cant we all just bonk and love who ever we want and be done with it?

Would you like my address?

Originally posted by coopster1974
Would you like my address?
cheeky! you know what i mean, we should be able to fall in lust or love with whoever, and if there is a chance of actually settling down with this person, go for it. whether they boy or girl. too many broken marriages and people not being true to themselves. i say if you like it, do it - doesnt matter what type of dangly bits they got!

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
why cant we all just bonk and love who ever we want and be done with it?
That an offer Natalie :P

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
cheeky! you know what i mean, we should be able to fall in lust or love with whoever, and if there is a chance of actually settling down with this person, go for it. whether they boy or girl. too many broken marriages and people not being true to themselves. i say if you like it, do it - doesnt matter what type of dangly bits they got!

Well what exactly is stopping you Natalie !?

You got the power girl !! You can do what you want with whoever you want ... (assuming they want to too).

Originally posted by coopster1974
Would you like my address?
Natalie is a fittie too ;)

But her fella is HUGE so I wouldn't bother giving out your address just yet Coop mate :P

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Natalie is a fittie too ;)

But her fella is HUGE so I wouldn't bother giving out your address just yet Coop mate :P
he he! tell me you agree though bouncer boy, spread the love eh??? snd how do you know fella is huge? something i should know?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Natalie is a fittie too ;)

But her fella is HUGE so I wouldn't bother giving out your address just yet Coop mate :P

What exactly do u mean by huge?!?!?!

Plus I dont think Mrs Coops would be too happy either :rant:

Originally posted by coopster1974
Gonna get slagged off but........

I dont think gays should marry simply because being gay is not natural.

Why?

Any creatures sole purpose is to procreate. Gays cannot achieve this therefore it is not a natural thing. Therefore the thought of them marrying should go out the window as well.

We can procreate, just not with each other, I can still get a woman pregnant you know, and lesbians can have babies. This is how we spread and survive, by tricking straight people into carrying our offfspring and raising them - Mwwwahhh ha ha

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Hey, don't worry about it, if Darwin was right "the gays" will die out in a few years by natural selection.

;)
I used to think that gay people came about as natures way of saying we were overpopulated,however i read or heard of a study ages ago that said nature "makes up for it" by increasing the fertility of the gay persons siblings.Unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it as i can't find the source.
Ps i think the civil partnership is a great thing and it should have been done ages ago.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Gonna get slagged off but........

I dont think gays should marry simply because being gay is not natural.

Why?

Any creatures sole purpose is to procreate. Gays cannot achieve this therefore it is not a natural thing. Therefore the thought of them marrying should go out the window as well.

This is illogical and wrong. As Nick2 says, gays and lesbians can procreate, just not with one another. Plus: if any creature's sole purpose is to procreate, and gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't procreate, then you are arguing in other words that because all creatures' purpose is to procreate, and marriage is for procreation, that animals should marry before they procreate.

This revolutionary discovery will win you a Nobel prize!

Originally posted by sarah_d
I used to think that gay people came about as natures way of saying we were overpopulated,however i read or heard of a study ages ago that said nature "makes up for it" by increasing the fertility of the gay persons siblings.Unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it as i can't find the source.
Ps i think the civil partnership is a great thing and it should have been done ages ago.

One of my sisters has 2 children, my other sister has 3 and my brother has 3 children. Being an uncle can be expensive.

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
mm but things have changed in religion over the years, things arent as strick etc...

That's my point though..... by changing how strict they are on issues they're being hypocritical.

Originally posted by nick2
One of my sisters has 2 children, my other sister has 3 and my brother has 3 children. Being an uncle can be expensive.
See!I have proof!
I think this is an amazing discovery and a very decent argument for the people who claim it isn't 'natural'. It's only because the men who wrote the religious texts didn't understand it themselves that so much homophobia has come about.

Originally posted by coopster1974
What exactly do u mean by huge?!?!?!

Plus I dont think Mrs Coops would be too happy either :rant:
He's similar size to me in fact (maybe a bit taller).
6ft 4inch tall, broad shoulders and has the nickname BIG before his real name, used to be a bouncer and you'll be close.

Nice guy tho, but then I've never chatted up his nearest and dearest so... ;)

Originally posted by nick2
We can procreate, just not with each other, I can still get a woman pregnant you know, and lesbians can have babies. This is how we spread and survive, by tricking straight people into carrying our offfspring and raising them - Mwwwahhh ha ha
Oh damn, theres the hole in my theories...

...or have you maybe prooved Darwin could have been right, and you devious swines have got round it a different way...

...either way, I'm gonna call you CUCKOO from now on.

(Chuck out other peopls kids, and leave your own there, mumble mumble grumble...)

;)

Originally posted by fhain29
This is illogical and wrong. As Nick2 says, gays and lesbians can procreate, just not with one another. Plus: if any creature's sole purpose is to procreate, and gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't procreate, then you are arguing in other words that because all creatures' purpose is to procreate, and marriage is for procreation, that animals should marry before they procreate.

This revolutionary discovery will win you a Nobel prize!

Nope - I'm saying its a bonus for not being queer!!

Tis a fair point about still being able to give a woman a baby or a lesbian become pregnant.

How would this happen? Turkey baster? In which case it goes against the natural way of becoming pregnant (which supports the theory that being gay is not natural). And before anyone starts about IVF, this is a way to combat what doesnt come naturally so totally different arguement.

If, however, penetration would be acceptable then this is going against monogamistic rules in which case the marriage has been dirtied and is not worth the paper its written on.

Originally posted by t020
That's my point though..... by changing how strict they are on issues they're being hypocritical.
im lost now, forgot what we were discussing!
bouncer boy - didnt know it was BIG b4 his name? although i have heard him called his name then savage? dont know were that came from, he soft as brush. bit of a bone head most of time though - arent all rugby lads?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
im lost now, forgot what we were discussing!
bouncer boy - didnt know it was BIG b4 his name? although i have heard him called his name then savage? dont know were that came from, he soft as brush. bit of a bone head most of time though - arent all rugby lads?
If you say so Nats ;)

Originally posted by coopster1974
Nope - I'm saying its a bonus for not being queer!!

Tis a fair point about still being able to give a woman a baby or a lesbian become pregnant.

How would this happen? Turkey baster? In which case it goes against the natural way of becoming pregnant (which supports the theory that being gay is not natural). And before anyone starts about IVF, this is a way to combat what doesnt come naturally so totally different arguement.

If, however, penetration would be acceptable then this is going against monogamistic rules in which case the marriage has been dirtied and is not worth the paper its written on.

I would laugh myself silly if you ended up having a gay kid that you raised yourself! Wonder if you'd change your attitude then Mr. Narrow-minded? :loopy:

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
im lost now, forgot what we were discussing!


Hint: use the scroll bar. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Kristian
I would laugh myself silly if you ended up having a gay kid that you raised yourself! Wonder if you'd change your attitude then Mr. Narrow-minded? :loopy:

Maybe - maybe not, Ones 16 with a girlfriend and the others only 6 so there's time yet.

But who's to say I'm wrong and your right.

The difference is I'm not calling you loopy :D

Originally posted by coopster1974
Maybe - maybe not, Ones 16 with a girlfriend and the others only 6 so there's time yet.

But who's to say I'm wrong and your right.

The difference is I'm not calling you loopy :D

Well calling you loopy wasn't exactly insult of the year was it? Quick get a mod in here?!?

I could have called you a lot worse things. Homophobe and bigot come to mind. I chose to use a cute emoticon instead. Thats how nice we 'queers' are!

Have a pleasant evening!

K x

Originally posted by coopster1974
Maybe - maybe not, Ones 16 with a girlfriend and the others only 6 so there's time yet.

But who's to say I'm wrong and your right.

The difference is I'm not calling you loopy :D

LOL - I had a girlfriend at 16, I had to give it a try.

Originally posted by nick2
LOL - I had a girlfriend at 16, I had to give it a try.

I had one until I was 22!

Yeay! Gay marriage gets the go ahead from December this year. Read about it here. (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/7532?REFRESH)

K xx.

:clap: :thumbsup: :clap:

It's a partnership contract not a wedding, which I'm happy with.

So now I know what Sheffielders think: about two thirds have no probs. That's positive.

Got my licence this week. On July 15th will be forming my civil partnership (according to German law).

Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare and inflexible register office though. The civil servant really got off on getting his little stamps and seals out of his little locked-up drawer. No Saturday ceremonies, only weekday mornings, only at the registry office. Cost of licence: €144 (about 97 quid).
But I'm sure it'll be worth it. I hope so anyway.

Any other Sheffielders already entered into a civil partnership abroad? There must be some somewhere in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Canada etc.

And what about you lot in the UK? Will you be storming the registry office when the time arrives?

I agree with what DaBouncer said, if two people are in love, then they should annonce their love for each other by getting married!

Originally posted by fhain29
So now I know what Sheffielders think: about two thirds have no probs. That's positive.

Got my licence this week. On July 15th will be forming my civil partnership (according to German law).

Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare and inflexible register office though. The civil servant really got off on getting his little stamps and seals out of his little locked-up drawer. No Saturday ceremonies, only weekday mornings, only at the registry office. Cost of licence: €144 (about 97 quid).
But I'm sure it'll be worth it. I hope so anyway.

Any other Sheffielders already entered into a civil partnership abroad? There must be some somewhere in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Canada etc.

And what about you lot in the UK? Will you be storming the registry office when the time arrives?

I think a lot of the negative poll responses were denouncing marriage as a whole, and not gay marriage.

Good Luck anyway fhain29; post us some pictures of the happy day of you can!

K x

Here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050223/356/fd1yo.html) it is. I guess you can't teach old dogs new tricks. :roll:

Who cares if two people want to be together, and they are of the opposite sex! I see nothing wrong with it if they are in love. About the whole abortion thing, I have no comments!!

He should have taken part in the Forum's own poll on the subject. Two-thirds of Sheffielders don't agree with John Paul.

Here is the thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27525)

I wish everyone would stop calling it "gay marriage", it's not a marriage.

Yeh but if people said 'civil partnership' then half the population would think it was something else.

'Gay marriage' is easier to understand. What can ya do eh?

Bloody hell we live in the 21st century isn't it time we let people live as they want, or maybe we should bring back the inquisition and burn and torture anyone who's gay.:loopy: :rant: :gag: :mad:

No, Nick, you're right. It's not marriage because it's not called marriage. It is however 99% marriage in all but name. We all say Holland when we mean the Netherlands and Europe when we mean the EU and America when we mean the US. And that's why the majority of people will say "gay marriage" because two people will have stag nights :heyhey:
go to the registry office, have a tacky cake with three tiers, become next of kin, have affairs, will get "divorced" (or whatever that's called??), will have to pay alimony to the "divorced partner" and then do the whole thing all over again.
If that's not marriage, what is?:?

I thought the Pope was dead? He's always looked a bit dead in my opinion!

K x

Maybe he's been practising for the last few years. ;)

I have a policy of "don't knock it 'till you've tried it!" I bet the Pope can't say that on this issue! :D

K x

Originally posted by Kristian
I have a policy of "don't knock it 'till you've tried it!" I bet the Pope can't say that on this issue! :D

K x

I wouldn't be sure on that one!!

Anyway, we all know what the pope thinks on this. It's nothing new. Do you listen to it? Do you care? Will you change? No.

Let's all be good Catholics, love the sinner and do the sin and don't talk about it, and leave the pope up to his own devices.

Forgive me for being a pedant - the word marriage means a union, a match, go-between, matrimony. It doesn't mean one thing so in my view it is a marriage, of two people unified in love.
Yup, those are slushy words but in essence that's what marriage is.
Regarding the original matter - the church needs to step forward into the 21st century before it loses its followers. The archaic laws are now beginning to repel people as much as it keeps others. Once the older generation pass on - who will keep the church on its feet?
Surely it won't be gay people who are frowned upon for their sexuality. Nor will it be the new generation of non- believers plus with the advent of 'other' religions being fashionable, maybe Hinduism will be more appealing?

Rob says that Catholocism is the "ideology of evil"

anyone that thinks two gay men getting up to god know what behind closed doors is accepable is in my mind not normal is it me or is being a homo/lesbian{gay meant happy when i was a kid} the norm i find the thought of two men kissing totally disgusting dont get me wrong each to his own but we seem to have this gay crap thrust upon us i personaly do not care for these types but thats me, it just isent right for blokes to kiss blokes ps i dont want to offend people its my opinion and i dont suppose i will ever change

This from the pope as Elton John announces his intention to have a 'gay marrige' with his partner in December (sometime around christams) as a new law comes in I believe to allow this.

Originally posted by tattoo
anyone that thinks two gay men getting up to god know what behind closed doors is accepable is in my mind not normal is it me ?
Well you could argue that tattoos are not normal/natural either. When I see a pretty girl with something metal sticking out of her lip/nose/eyebrow/tongue I find it repulsive and that in my view, makes her extremely ugly looking.

I haven't met too many openly gay men, but what they want to do in private doesn't bother me at all. I have always wondered if people that take offence to Homosexuals have a problem themselves as if it is a threat to them. [I hope that nobody takes offence to that sentence I just feel it's strange that some people feel so strongly about it.]

I used to have a woman work colleage who used to get extremely angry about it from time to time, "do you know what they actually do?" she'd rant, time and time again, She clearly had some unresolved issues, and obviously thought about it far too often.

What is a fact, is that Gay people have been around for thousands of years, probably from the start of the human race, and many of them have become famous and important figures in history. While it is a little difficult for us hetrosexual people to understand what physical pleasure they get out of it. You've got to consider that it is natural for some people. Especially now we know for certain that many other species do it too. Especially penguins!

Originally posted by tattoo
anyone that thinks two gay men getting up to god know what behind closed doors is accepable is in my mind not normal is it me or is being a homo/lesbian{gay meant happy when i was a kid} the norm i find the thought of two men kissing totally disgusting dont get me wrong each to his own but we seem to have this gay crap thrust upon us i personaly do not care for these types but thats me, it just isent right for blokes to kiss blokes ps i dont want to offend people its my opinion and i dont suppose i will ever change

I'm sure God does know what I get up to behind closed doors, and doesn't have a problem with it. :clap:

If you don't like to think about two men kissing then just don't! If you have trouble blocking out these thoughts, speak to your GP; I'm sure he or she will be able to recommend some form of medication, or alternatively, a good therapist.

Finally, when was the last time someone 'thrust gay crap on you' ? (I paraphrase there.) I'm sure I don't remember that in the last newsletter! :D

Chill out, don't judge lest you should be judged, and lear to accept and embrace diversity!

K x

Well, there are some people in the world who just cant stand people different then themselves. Just look at Raceists...they see black/asain people as inferior and undeserving - it is the same with homophobia.

I agree that there is a lot of crap in the world in relation to gay's - but at the same time there are some good things too - like the Equal Opportunities (Sexual Orentation) Regulations 2003 whch outlaw discrimination against gay people in the workplace.

As long as people dont start having sex in the streets and keep it behind closed doors then i really cant see a problem?

On the topic of "Gay Marriage" - why shouldnt gay couples have the same rgiths as straight couples? Say i lived with a male partner and he died - i would not be entilted to ANY of his estate, but if i married a lady i would automatically be entiled to my wifes estate.

Whether or not it is right in God's eyes i cant say - im not God! The only thing i will say is that the bible outlways lots of things that we all do today - like divorce (incidentaly you cant marry in a catholic church if you have devorced), and allows things that we have outlawed like slavery, bigomy etc.

Thats my opinion - feel free to disagree!

I'm sure the Pope is a nice enough guy, but he is the leader of a religion that used to burn people at the stake or turture them to death if they didn't see things their way.

As it's become fairly obvious in my previous posts on this forum I'm not one for organised (contradiction) religion. A bad example of how religion can be used is this. An old school friend of mine was abused as a child by her apparent catholic god-fearing mother who seemed to believe that she could do what she liked during the week because she could go to confession at the weekend and she'd be forgiven for all the physical and psychological hurt she'd caused her daughter. Nice. :loopy:

Don't know what anyone else would call that but it's close to 'evil' in my eyes. At least gay marriage/civil partnership is about two people caring about each other. :(

Note: My friend is fine now and is living a happy life with her 3 children. I admire her strength to just get on with life and enjoy it despite the demon in her past. :)

I have this horrible vision of gay versons of Anna Nicole Smith praying on old unsuspecting queens, like, say, George Michael and robbing them of all their money.

Hey, we will be normal !

muddycoffee would i be right in thinking you are gay?it seems to me that if you dont conform to the idea that being gay is ok then you are the not a normal person , any normal man would never in a month of sundays say that being gay is normal how the hell can it be, remember god created adam and eve not adam and steve,i dont have any probs with my sexuality i love women . allways have done allways will sorry if my view offend but i have the right to my point of view, just one other thing muddycoffee going back to piercings gay women spend small fortunes on piercings/tattoos /so do some gay men , why is it when you mention not likeing gays loads seem to jump out saying it is fine , men marrying men its sick and no one will ever convince me its not .remember all you gays out there this is only my view and my thoughts so dont take it personal

Originally posted by tattoo
gay women spend small fortunes on piercings/tattoos /so do some gay men , why is it when you mention not likeing gays loads seem to jump out saying it is fine , men marrying men its sick and no one will ever convince me its not .remember all you gays out there this is only my view and my thoughts so dont take it personal

Your not the worlds smartest bussinessman are you ?

If gays want to spend money with us who am to argue?.And lets start getting this into perspective shall we ?. My opinion is my opinion ok.Just that and nothing more.I dont personally hate gay people.But lets just say its a lifestyle that i dont feel comfortable with.End of.

How many more times is an anti gay forum member going give us the old 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It's getting very old and tiresome. :roll:

Originally posted by tattoo
whats that supposed to mean

well, saying that lesbians and gay men spend a fortune on tattoos and piercings in your shop then saying we're all sick isn't exactly going to drum-up customers is it ?

Originally posted by tattoo
whats that supposed to mean

I think he means that as gay people spend money in the business you are in, you didn't ought to be alienating your customer base!

Would you like me to write that in words of less than two syllables? Perhaps our use of punctuation has confused you. The lack of punctuation / coherency in you posts certainly confuses me!

Go pedal you backward ideas somewhere they are more welcome! This is a friendly site, and we don't tolerate hatred of anyone or any group.

I don't know how you express yourself face to face, but you're just making yourself sound stupid and bigotted.

Good evening!

People should be allowed to live their lives as they want to - as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

What harm does it do to you if 2 guys 'marry'? or two women 'marry'

I really don't see why so many people have a problem with it. Let's face it, if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together why not have something that will recognise that committment (like marriage) if that's what they want?

My personal opinion is that marriage is something that people should think long and hard about before they commit. But that doesn't mean they should be of the opposite sex does it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kristian
[B]I think he means that as gay people spend money in the business you are in, you didn't ought to be alienating your customer base!

Would you like me to write that in words of less than two syllables? Perhaps our use of punctuation has confused you. The lack of punctuation / coherency in you posts certainly confuses me!

Go pedal you backward ideas somewhere they are more welcome! This is a friendly site, and we don't tolerate hatred of anyone or any group.

I don't know how you express yourself face to face, but you're just making yourself sound stupid and bigotted.

Thought you said this site was friendly, and everybody's opinion is supposed to be open to discission.Not everyone is pro gay.

Yeah but on the other hand most people can clearly see what is prejudice and ignorance. I recently had a conversation with a couple of Catholic friends, who openly regarded gay relationships as 'sick and disgusting'. I had no idea they felt this way but it certainly makes you think how backwards the church so often is.

I don't sunscribe to the idea that 'everyone's opinion is as valid as the next person'. I agree with free speech, but when that leads to discrimination, surely we have to realise that certain ideas are more 'wrong'? I don't know...

My natural reaction to homosexuality is that I find it slightly..... disgusting. I don't think it has anything to do with being backwards or old fashioned, I think it's an instinctive reaction for straight men to have, whether they admit it or not, to find the act of homosexuality repulsive. At the same time though, I wouldn't be intolerant of homosexuals - they can't help finding other men attractive any more than I can help finding what they do distinctively unattractive. I wouldn't want it "in my face" but live and let live.

Originally posted by t020
they can't help finding other men attractive any more than I can help finding what they do distinctively unattractive.

What the hell is this 'I suppose they can't help it' attitude? It's just as bad as the blatent homophobes!

It's not a personality dysfunction - have none of you never heard of the Sliding Scale of sexuality? (Klein, Limoncelli, etc). I just don't think the terms 'homosexual', 'bisexual' and 'heterosexual' are adequate enough.

And one more thing...purely from personal observation; why is that so many men have a distinct repulsion towards male homosexuals, and women generall have no problem with either gay or lesbianism. And moreover, how do these same men that become so disgusted with male homosexual intercourse find lesbian porn so attractive? Why is it wrong for men to do it and not women?

I think it comes down to the... penetration aspect that makes it especially repulsive for me.

As for the "they can't help it" attitude, yes it does sound a tad patronising but the point was that people like you get at people who find homosexuality disgusting as though they CAN help what they do/don't find disgusting. If it's someones natural reaction to homosexuality, you can't have a go at them for it, just like you can't have a go at someone for being homosexual.

Originally posted by t020
I think it comes down to the... penetration aspect that makes it especially repulsive for me.

As for the "they can't help it" attitude, yes it does sound a tad patronising but the point was that people like you get at people who find homosexuality disgusting as though they CAN help what they do/don't find disgusting. If it's someones natural reaction to homosexuality, you can't have a go at them for it, just like you can't have a go at someone for being homosexual.

Fair point...except I'm not to up on the idea of a 'natural reaction'...being a sociology type of girl. However I think that being gay is a combination of biological and sociological factors. In fact, much as I don't like putting much down to this kind of thing, as I believe most thigns are socialised, I can't see how homosexuality can be much other than biological - it's evident in the animal kingdom, as well as in humans with no exposure to what we might call 'gay culture'.

I definitely think it's biological. Some may be drawn into it and confused/ influenced by social aspects but I don't think they're naturally homosexual and they're probably the ones who experiment before knowing for sure that they're heterosexual.

I don't much care whether the cause of people being gay is nature or nurture. I just care that it feels very normal to an awful lot of people, and as a group we don't need approval from society to be who we are.

I personally find a lot about what straight people do repulsive; I just don't judge them because if it makes them happy, let it continue!

as a gay bloke with a long term partner
all I want is the same legal abilities as any other partnership.........

marriage I could do without!!

Originally posted by crowefan
as a gay bloke with a long term partner
all I want is the same legal abilities as any other partnership.........

marriage I could do without!!

Come on Crowefan, you must have wondered what you'd look like in a big white gown... :clap:

K x

Originally posted by tattoo
muddycoffee would I be right in thinking you are gay?it seems to me that if you dont conform to the idea that being gay is ok then you are the not a normal person , any normal man would never in a month of sundays say that being gay is normal
No I'm Not gay, but I don't find the idea of it disgusting. I would be disgusted if a man tried to kiss me on the lips, but that doesn't happen, so I have nothing to worry about in general.
Sorry.
And I have come to the conclusion that being gay is a form of natural relationship for small numbers of individuals. Not a lifestyle choice. Most homosexuals are born like that, although I would agree that some people do seem to have bisexual leanings for some part of their life, and aparently change form gay to straight.

So to conclude, you're saying that because I'm more tolerent than you are, then I'm not a normal person.

I disagree..

Originally posted by t020
My natural reaction to homosexuality is that I find it slightly..... disgusting. I don't think it has anything to do with being backwards or old fashioned, I think it's an instinctive reaction for straight men to have

Unless it's two lesbians getting it on in high heels and black underwear then it seems to have the opposite effect (on most straight men, going by the content of straight porn films).

Originally posted by t020
I wouldn't want it "in my face"

Indeed.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Fair point...except I'm not to up on the idea of a 'natural reaction'...being a sociology type of girl. However I think that being gay is a combination of biological and sociological factors. In fact, much as I don't like putting much down to this kind of thing, as I believe most thigns are socialised, I can't see how homosexuality can be much other than biological - it's evident in the animal kingdom, as well as in humans with no exposure to what we might call 'gay culture'.

Doing our A levels are we?

Originally posted by tattoo
anyone that thinks two gay men getting up to god know what behind closed doors is accepable is in my mind not normal is it me or is being a homo/lesbian{gay meant happy when i was a kid} the norm i find the thought of two men kissing totally disgusting dont get me wrong each to his own but we seem to have this gay crap thrust upon us i personaly do not care for these types but thats me, it just isent right for blokes to kiss blokes ps i dont want to offend people its my opinion and i dont suppose i will ever change

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm more worried about your full-stop-phobia... you almost brought on an asmatha attack! :blush: :blush:

Originally posted by robbie
Rob says that Catholocism is the "ideology of evil"

I bet you don't make it into the news.

I can see both sides of the argument.

Most straight men find the idea of a gay man...how can i say...unsettleing...but at the same time there ARE gay people in the world that hate straight people! Weird!

Personally i do not understand why we cant all just get along and put the sexuality factor out of our minds. We must come into contact with loads of gay people in every day life but we dont go round thinking "urgh...i bet that tram driver was gay...thats disgusting.." do we?

So if someone tells you they are gay then just accept it and move on, they are not aliens and they are not mentally ill, they are not automatically into tatoos or peircings (although some are) - this is another classic sterotype, just like "all gays wear pink and are camp, dont like football and automatically try and seduce everyone of the same sex..." simply not true....:loopy:

the episode of the simpsons was on last night that has homer being all homophobic about 'jon', until he saves them from the reindeer with the robotic santa.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the episode of the simpsons was on last night that has homer being all homophobic about 'jon', until he saves them from the reindeer with the robotic santa.

The bit with bart wearing a wig was so funny.

Originally posted by nick2
It's a partnership contract not a wedding, which I'm happy with.

Daft question, but once two people have entered into a "partnership contract", which box will they tick on a form? Married? Will there have to be a new box? :huh:

K x

Look like it could be curtains soon for the old guy... here. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/Health/wireStory?id=527190)

K x

Originally posted by Kristian
Daft question, but once two people have entered into a "partnership contract", which box will they tick on a form? Married? Will there have to be a new box? :huh:

K x

Over here in the Land of the Hun forms are gradually being changed and state now "married/partnered", apart from tax declaration forms, partnered people are still "single" on those because there is no taxation equality, i.e. partnered people are still taxed as if they were single.

Originally posted by fhain29
Later this year, it will be possible for gays and lesbians in England and Wales to form a "civil partnership". From what I have heard, there is little difference to marriage, so that people are calling it "gay marriage". Considering it was a big issue in the US, what do you think: Yes, No, not bothered?

In my opinion this is a good thing. At the moment for example a couple may have been together for years, but are not next of kin. In case of illness, access and information may be denied to the other partner, inheritance is not secure, tenancy rights are not secure. Plus, two people in loving relationships are for the first time able to say to the wider community that they are a family, with all the rights and obligations that entails.

Gay Marriages? tell you what I think! a load of old cobblers, thats what : Marriages made in heaven? don't make me laugh, marriages for perverts more like : misfits. Idiots and all the other expletives one can think of. I can remember a time when homosexuality was something to be ashamed of and so it should be, disgusting filthy perverts!!!

Originally posted by halevan
I can remember a time when homosexuality was something to be ashamed of

Really ? Remember Noel Coward, he wasn't ashamed in 1902, I doubt you remember that far back.
Originally posted by Noël Coward
I was taken to church, the moment the organ started, I was in the aisle dancing, and was taken home and put to bed. It was hardly an encouraging beginning, but it showed the way the wind was blowing . . .

Originally posted by halevan
Gay Marriages? tell you what I think! a load of old cobblers, thats what : Marriages made in heaven? don't make me laugh, marriages for perverts more like : misfits. Idiots and all the other expletives one can think of. I can remember a time when homosexuality was something to be ashamed of and so it should be, disgusting filthy perverts!!!

Open-minded as ever Halevan. Is this a pitchfork I see before me? :roll:

Originally posted by Zamo
Doing our A levels are we?

You betcha :D

Threads merged...

i cannot see any harm in a couple of the same sex wanting to openly commit and express thier love for each other, unfortunately it will cause alot of trouble with people that are perhaps ignorant or phobic towards the gay communities and i think because of that alot of gay couples will be more bullied

[MOD NOTE] Can we drop the unpleasent personal abuse and homophobia please. Thread now reopened after trimmage!

Originally posted by Kristian
Can we all remember that the bible was written by men, and as such, contains many differrent instructions on how we shoud live, many of which are seriously outdated!

Checkout Deuteronomy 22:11, Leviticus 19:19. These condemn the wearing of fabric made from mixed fibres. i.e. anyone with a polycotton shirt is for it!!

K x

We already DO live by what it says in the Bible !!!, remember the TEN COMMANDMENTS ?

They are the basis of all our laws!!!

Originally posted by halevan

They are the basis of all our laws!!!

Not really Hal, the basis of most of our laws is protecting the haves against the have nots.

I am a royalist but seeing that Charles is getting re-married after committing one of the ten commandments, how can we live from the bible.

I don`t see why gay marriages should not be allowed, with those I know that are gay they would have better marriages than many of my other friends have.

I have no problem with gay relationships or marriages, we are all human and are entitled to love someone are we not.

Originally posted by rosie
I am a royalist but seeing that Charles is getting re-married after committing one of the ten commandments, how can we live from the bible.

I don`t see why gay marriages should not be allowed, with those I know that are gay they would have better marriages than many of my other friends have.

I have no problem with gay relationships or marriages, we are all human and are entitled to love someone are we not.

Only if Halevan says so apparently. ;)

Originally posted by Kristian
Can we all remember that the bible was written by men, and as such, contains many differrent instructions on how we shoud live, many of which are seriously outdated!

Checkout Deuteronomy 22:11, Leviticus 19:19. These condemn the wearing of fabric made from mixed fibres. i.e. anyone with a polycotton shirt is for it!!

K x

Originally posted by halevan
We already DO live by what it says in the Bible !!!, remember the TEN COMMANDMENTS ?

They are the basis of all our laws!!!

So you've never worn polycotton? :suspect:

Originally posted by halevan
We already DO live by what it says in the Bible !!!, remember the TEN COMMANDMENTS ?

They are the basis of all our laws!!!

So coveting is illegal is it ?

Lock me up, I covet my mates flat screen TV.

Sod the 10 Commandments, I say. After all they're not carved in stone, are they? Oh, hang on...

Anyway, I shall still continue to covet my neighbour's BMW X5 and his lawn mower. :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Anyway, I shall still continue to covet my neighbour's BMW X5 and his lawn mower. :)

Can you smell brimstone ?

What is brimstone, anyway?

Originally posted by kathythebean
What is brimstone, anyway?

Sulphur, as it happens.:D

Not to be confused with Rimstone (http://www.goodearthgraphics.com/virtcave/rimstone/rimstone.html) :heyhey:

Yes. I'm sick of my friends having to either get married abroad or wait for eternity till they can here. It's not fair.

WM :rant:

I'm still expecting to get struck down for taking the lord's name in vain. I must do it at least 5 times a day. Everybody indoors!!! :o

Does Halevan have a permanent indent on his table where he's bashed it so many tiimes, with either fist or bible? :)

Originally posted by cgksheff
Sulphur, as it happens.:D

Not to be confused with Rimstone (http://www.goodearthgraphics.com/virtcave/rimstone/rimstone.html) :heyhey:

I was afraid to click on that link at work, then curiosity got the better of me :)

Originally posted by Pauly
Does Halevan have a permanent indent on his table where he's bashed it so many tiimes, with either fist or bible? :)

For someone still living in such a dark age as he/she does I'd be suprised if they could actually see the table from pile of issues they have ;)

Originally posted by Deejay
For someone still living in such a dark age as he/she does I'd be suprised if they could actually see the table from pile of issues they have ;)

Or pile of tissues? :D

K x

someone said they see marriage as a religious thing, so civil ceremonies don't count and gay people can't get married in a church before god so they can't marry. But, for me, I see marriage as a legal thing firstly, and a religious thing for people that choose to add an extra dimension to it. I see the legal laws of this country as overseeing my behaviour, not religious laws. so to me, civil marriages are the basic binding of two people with religious weddings being a bonus. Also, what about people who get married in a temple/mosque/synagogue? do christian people feel their marriages are 'valid'?

I think it's terrible that a gay couple who have committed to each other and live as married for a long time don't have any rights in terms of inheritance of property or assets, in the same way co-habiting but unmarried couples aren't recognised in the eyes of the law when one partner dies - I think its about time these rights are recognised for all committed couples either by allowing gay marriage or by a legal document (like a will) that ensures inheritance for the widow.

Originally posted by HarrietStar
someone said they see marriage as a religious thing, so civil ceremonies don't count and gay people can't get married in a church before god so they can't marry. But, for me, I see marriage as a legal thing firstly, and a religious thing for people that choose to add an extra dimension to it. I see the legal laws of this country as overseeing my behaviour, not religious laws. so to me, civil marriages are the basic binding of two people with religious weddings being a bonus. Also, what about people who get married in a temple/mosque/synagogue? do christian people feel their marriages are 'valid'?

I think it's terrible that a gay couple who have committed to each other and live as married for a long time don't have any rights in terms of inheritance of property or assets, in the same way co-habiting but unmarried couples aren't recognised in the eyes of the law when one partner dies - I think its about time these rights are recognised for all committed couples either by allowing gay marriage or by a legal document (like a will) that ensures inheritance for the widow.

Quick Harriet Run! If you go now, the closed-minded bigots won't have time to catch you, and disagree with your forward-thinking, well-reasoned argument!

K x

haha i don't really mind what people say, it's their opinion, i don't have to agree with it. I had 2 v.close christian friends at school, 1 of whom turned into what I would call an extremist religious fanatic and i've learnt to agree to disagree!

Originally posted by HarrietStar
haha i don't really mind what people say, it's their opinion, i don't have to agree with it. I had 2 v.close christian friends at school, 1 of whom turned into what I would call an extremist religious fanatic and i've learnt to agree to disagree!

Learning to agree to disagree is something I don't think I will ever accomplish.

K x

well it took me a great number of heated discussions going round and round in circles before i could, admittedly i had to move away to sheffield and lose contact with them, but hey it was worth it :)

Well, this topic is old now, but I started it back then because my partner and I were plannung on entering into a civil partnership, or, as it's called in Germany, a "life partnership" . My partner and I stopped talking about civil partnership after all our friends and family looked at us gone out and talked about wedding and marriage. So we joined in with them.

We've now done the deed. After the event itself, I can certainly say that it was a wedding, and a bloody good one too!

Trust the big day went well for you fhain29! :) I can't get the link to work though! :(

K x

Originally posted by Kristian
Trust the big day went well for you fhain29! :) I can't get the link to work though! :(

K x

You might need flash.

It looks like you had a great day! Thanks for sharing! ;)

Aww! what lovely pictures!

Congratulations!

PT

I dont see any problems in gay marriage.. everyone in the world deserves the right to be happy, whatever their sexual preference.. so good on 'em I say!

Originally posted by fhain29
We've now done the deed. After the event itself, I can certainly say that it was a wedding, and a bloody good one too!


Well done. What you've done hasn't harmed a single soul on this planet. Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

why anyone would want to get maried full stop is beyond me but if two legal people who love each other want to then I cannot comprehend any sensible reason for stopping them.

Originally posted by JonJParr


It's like rewriting the Bible or Koran to say "homosexuality is welcomed and accepted by God". Rewriting religion to suit your own lifestyle is wrong!

Quite. Religion doesn't welcome homosexuality and is not accepted by god. Any attempt by so called moderates or progressives to say otherwise is doomed to fail. You cannot be gay and a member of any of the Abrahamic religions. Full stop. See the new Pope or any random Mullah for confirmation of this.

Given this, don't these religions fall foul of sexual discrimination laws? Furthermore, why would anyone want to sign up to something that discriminates against gays (which is illegal and illogical and which religion does in spades)? :huh: Do religions discriminate against gays because they see homosexuality as unnatural or a 'sin'? If so, the implication is that individuals choose to be gay, a mere lifestyle choice that could be reversed if only that individual would embrace religion! (Fat chance in any state governed by sharia law as they would be stoned to death before repenting of their 'sin').

If religion wishes to see homosexuality as a sin, fine. Let them believe in whatever nonsense they like (from Noah's Ark to immaculate conceptions, weeping statues :loopy:and all the rest of it) but those beliefs need to be kept out of public life. Otherwise we would be living in a theocracy. Iran anyone? :gag:

The problem with certain quarters' attitudes towards homosexuality, is that it's a bit "pick 'n' mix" which bits of the rules and regulations are followed, and which bits aren't.

For example, folks seem to rant and rave on about the "sins" of homosexuality, and how the Bible says it's supposed to be "wrong".

However, it also says that it is forbidden to wear cloth of mixed fibres. So, that poly-cotton shirt that I wore yesterday will have me burning in hell for eternity...

It also says that we are forbidden to eat meat from pig, or shellfish, so that prawn cocktail in the restaurant, or the bacon and eggs you had for breakfast this morning will have your eyebrows singed off in double-quick time.

It also says that the keeping of slaves is acceptable, but surely no one in this day and age who has all their faculties would say that it's right to have someone enslaved to them (no, i'm not referring to the S&M circles)

It really gets my goat that a loving, monogamous, and stable relationship can be condemmned out of hand simply because the couple are of the same gender.

I know of supposedly devout, (and church-going) christians, who have the morals of tom-cats, "bonking" anything with a pulse. It just doesn't scan.

If a couple love each other, and are settled, happy and stable, what the F* does it/ should it matter, if they are the same gender or different?

Why should Fhain not enjoy a wonderful day, with a marriage ceremony, and wedding reception (or equivalent) just because his partner is male?

I don't know him, except through this forum, and his postings, but, what does that matter? I rejoice with him, and his partner, over the "nuptuals", and I wish them a long and joyous life together, and every happiness.

PT

Chatting with some friends the other day, I learned that Sheffield is going to be the first city in the UK to hold legal same-sex weddings. This would be fantastic news, so can anybody back that up, and if so when is it going to happen?

My friends suggested that as I am already a celebrant (baby namings, green burials, rites of passage etc) that I should advertise gay wedding planning too. I LIKE it!

Whaddyall think?

I've heasrd keeble hawson solicitors are keen to take on same sex clients to help with their rights. If you need a contact there let me know as I know a few people there.

I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea!

I do believe you will have to be registered as an "Authorised Person" to carry out the 'wedding ceremony', as has a person who conducts 'straight' weddings.

(which may mean that you can be a marriage celebrant for 'straight' weddings as well, IIRC)

I'd look into it asap, and get the necessary documentation.

Good luck.

PT

Queer's AAhhh :(

A wedding? 2 blokes? Surely not!

posted by corpg
A wedding? 2 blokes? Surely not!

and why not ?, if 2 men love each other then they should get married, its a great idea, makes allsorts to spin this world round.

Originally posted by peter41
and why not ?, if 2 men love each other then they should get married, its a great idea, makes allsorts to spin this world round.

If they love each other then yes, they should be able to formalise their relationship. I just believe the terms wedding and marriage should be for the bond between a man and a woman, like they have always been.

Originally posted by CorpG
A wedding? 2 blokes? Surely not!

Or two women :gag:

lets not forget the ladies, if two women love each other and want to get married then they should be able to! and should they want to send me photos of their wedding night, they wouldnt go to waste! all entrys post to PO BOX...

Originally posted by MagnumPI
lets not forget the ladies, if two women love each other and want to get married then they should be able to! and should they want to send me photos of their wedding night, they wouldnt go to waste! all entrys post to PO BOX...

I retract my previous statement(s). :heyhey:

Originally posted by CorpG
A wedding? 2 blokes? Surely not!

Why is it always about Men & Men there are also Woman & Women... But i guess that doesnt really matter to some men as that just seems to appeal as a huge 'turn on!'

People should be treated with equal rights... What difference does it make if a couple wishes to marry? If someone falls in Love with another and wants to show their love by proposing... who are we to stand in the way... May they be Gay or Straight...

Gay people dont shove it down Hetrosexual peoples necks... Complaining and moaning about Women being married to men and vice versa... So...

Live an let live! Life is too Short!

End of!

ps... Alot of people go on about being normal... there is no 'Normal' everyone is different! otherwise the world that we live in would be a boring place...

Originally posted by Angel05

ps... Alot of people go on about being normal... there is no 'Normal' everyone is different! otherwise the world that we live in would be a boring place...

Well, actually there is:

Normal (adj)
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

Normal is what MOST people do.

Originally posted by MagnumPI
lets not forget the ladies, if two women love each other and want to get married then they should be able to! and should they want to send me photos of their wedding night, they wouldnt go to waste! all entrys post to PO BOX...

My point is proved correct! :roll:

Originally posted by t020
Well, actually there is:

Normal (adj)
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

Normal is what MOST people do.

I meant in the way of the Gay side of things... people are always compaining that they're not normal people...

I know there is a normality in the world... but my point was being made at the low minded people... who are against the gay community in thinking some way they are abnormal... only due to the fact that they like the same sex...

I dont see a problem myself... i have had many gay friends in my time and a couple i would class as my closest friends!

heh, im only kidding though, im actually all for equal rights. i dont see any problem why same sex marriages shouldnt happen and be legally valid the same as any heterosexual marriage.

one thing ive never been able to understand though, is why gay club nights always have to be named with such vulgarity. i think of gay relationships the same as i do straight, but whats the difference between the two in the appeal of nightclubs? they always seem to have names like 'ejaculation' or 'trouser snake' or somesuchness.

ill see you all at Rim-Job at Climax, next week i hope! :suspect:

Originally posted by Angel05

Gay people dont shove it down Hetrosexual peoples necks... Complaining and moaning about Women being married to men and vice versa... So...

Live an let live! Life is too Short!

This weekend I have been shown how some people in this world are not prepared to live and let live.

One of our friends is a sweet, gentle, loving (and really very sexy- if only he was straight!) gay man, who to my knowledge has never done anything to hurt anybody else, except he's not what some members of society call 'normal'.

He has been in a stable and loving relationship with another lovely man for a number of years. On Wednesday evening our friend's partner was in the gym when he was attacked by a group of men who believe that it is OK to gay bash. The gym owner decided that he didn't want the fuss of having the emergency services on the premises and forced our friend to carry his partner out on to the street to call for an ambulance.

Due to the nature of the brain injury caused by the attack, and the delay caused by the gym owner, the decision was taken to switch off his life support system this evening. It didn't happen in the UK, it was in a country perceived by many to be one of the most permissive on earth- Sweden.

My intention in relating this is simply to encourage a little proportion and understanding- in a world where there are atrocities occurring daily, it is worrying how many people are prepared to take exception to others based entirely on their own values, and it is baffling how somehow people think that this sort of thing is OK.

I'm not suggesting that any on this Forum would do this, far from it, but I would like people to understand that it's bad enough to live your life in a world where you're not treated as 'normal'. To be in physical danger for it is abhorrent.

Originally posted by medusa666


He has been in a stable and loving relationship with another lovely man for a number of years. On Wednesday evening our friend's partner was in the gym when he was attacked by a group of men who believe that it is OK to gay bash. The gym owner decided that he didn't want the fuss of having the emergency services on the premises and forced our friend to carry his partner out on to the street to call for an ambulance.

Due to the nature of the brain injury caused by the attack, and the delay caused by the gym owner, the decision was taken to switch off his life support system this evening. It didn't happen in the UK, it was in a country perceived by many to be one of the most permissive on earth- Sweden.



This is awful and feel very saddened by this story... I know alot of this gay bashing went on alot in Bournemouth but certainly not to this extent...

I'm lost for words... the society that we live in can be so damn cruel... i hope these people get what they deserve! :rant:

Hope your ok :|

Thanks hon. I'm fine (angry, but fine).

I just want people to see that treating other people, who may not share your beliefs or values, with tolerance and dignity is the only way towards a better society for us all.

Bigotry and hatred lead only to more bigotry and hatred.

Granting same sex couples the right to look after each other in the same was as straight couples is a drop in the ocean of the problems out there, but it's a start.

Originally posted by medusa666
Thanks hon. I'm fine (angry, but fine).

I just want people to see that treating other people, who may not share your beliefs or values, with tolerance and dignity is the only way towards a better society for us all.

Bigotry and hatred lead only to more bigotry and hatred.

Granting same sex couples the right to look after each other in the same was as straight couples is a drop in the ocean of the problems out there, but it's a start.

Its understandable to be angry... i know i would be... why the hell should someone lose their life because someone didnt agree in the kinda person they were or wanted to be... it's just so wrong... there are no words to describe such anger and frustration...

This is ill minded people who really cant let others live the way they wish to live they're lives... they should be banged up along with the gym owner... may this guilt be with him/them for the rest of his lives...

A very sobering and moving post. If this changes just one person’s attitude at least his death will not have been in vain.

gosh, medusa, that's dreadful news.

my condolences to you, and your friend's partner and his family.

PT

Originally posted by RALLY
Queer's AAhhh :(

"Question for all you lovely Gay forum users out there"

You looked at the thread and you responded..........hmmmm, you obviously read the title and thought it applied to you?

Apologies to everyone for getting a bit, er, overemotional last night. What started out as a message of tolerance and support turned into a rather large rant, which intended to show tolerance and support but actually came out as an angry rant.

Sorry lizzmobile for hijacking the thread- I actually meant to support your stance and idea of training as a celebrant. I think that it sounds like a great idea (and this will teach me to post when a little 'tired and emptional').

Sweetheart, you didn't hijack the thread, the thread was there at the right time for you to express a horrendous experience. I had tears in my eyes as I read it and feel desperately sorry for everyone involved, including the attackers for I cannot imagine how dreadful it must be to carry so much darkness around in your heart that you feel you can kill another person because they are different to you and you don't understand how they feel. This would be a great premise to kill children, wouldn't it? (I am being extreme here and please don't perceive this as my having any intention ever to do so.)

I for one embrace difference, and encourage my children to do so to so that they are prepared as much as possible for what life may lead them to. Normal for me is not attractive, unless of course it involves my health.

I have to go now, but I'll get back on to the original subject later tonight, but thanks all for your messages, and yes bonny, that struck me too!

Back to the subject in question, gay marriages. Is marriage not a 'Christian' biblical institution that is fundamentally based around religious principles? I believe so. Homosexuality defiantly isnt acknowledged as 'biblically acceptable'. Why then do wish to enter into the bounds of Christianity? I have no problem with the same sex couples and also agree that your statutory rights should be equal to those of heterosexual couples. What I dont understand is why 'marriage' is such a big deal to you guys when its based around outdated traditions of a religion that is less and less represented by modern society and that less and less people are involved in. Or, is it more about your 'legal rights' and being recognised as the same as straight couples? If thats the main thing of marriage then I've got news for you - your not the same as straight couples - and from what I have seen you often pride yourself on this fact. Why then do you wish to be the same?

Hi dhwembro,

I think I am in agreement with you hun, and I am a gay guy. Whilst I'm taking a break from relationships altogether at the moment, I too have difficulty in the use of the term 'marriage' - I prefer partnership myself. As someone who has no interest or religious faith (I am totally tolerant of people who do provided they show tolerance to me for who and what I am), I see 'marriage' as a Christian/bible construct and as such don't feel it is relevant to me.

I do beleive it is important that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as that of a mixed couple, but I don't beleive I need the concept of 'marriage'.

Legally, I find it difficult the belief that we shouldn't be recognised on a par as straight couples, but I've no intention in arguing the pros and cons of it. Its something we have to live with and slowly, times are changing and I'm sure they will change in our favour eventually - and thats not to say I wish for greater rights than straight people. I hear what you say dwhembro and I do worry that the feeling from straight people that we want 'more than equality' is a damaging one.

Just my 2p's......

I do not want to see gay weddings in Sheffield or indeed anywhere else. If two people want to have some paperwork which gives them legal rights to each others assets (such as pension funds) then they should just go to a solicitors and have such documents drawn up and signed. Changes in the law should have been made to recognise such a document and then it could apply to all sorts of other partnerships not just same-sex. Marriage is between men and women, anything else isn't a marriage and so can't have a wedding ceremony. It just becomes something made-up to sound official and is, therefore, pointless, unless you make money from such things.

Mod: Similar topics merged.

marriage has become a legal thing as well as a religous thing, so whilst I doubt any gay couples would be having a christian wedding in a church there is no reason not to call there ceremonial commitment to each other a wedding.

If we're going to start the religious-VS-legal marriage debate, I think we need to link this to the atheists taking time off at Christmas thread. My marriage had nothing at all to do with religion (since I'm humanist), so does that (legally) somehow reduce the implications or importance of getting married?

AFAIK every form of marriage/legalised partnership is about commitment to each other, and only to each other, and also a recognition of a number of things which legally link both partners together to enable protection and benefit for a surviving partner in the event of one partner dying.

To suggest that my marriage is less valid or meaningful because it wasn't in a church would be daft, so the fact that gay couples may choose not to be joined in chrch should be treated in exactly the same way as mixed sex couples.

Originally posted by medusa666
If we're going to start the religious-VS-legal marriage debate, I think we need to link this to the atheists taking time off at Christmas thread. My marriage had nothing at all to do with religion (since I'm humanist), so does that (legally) somehow reduce the implications or importance of getting married?

AFAIK every form of marriage/legalised partnership is about commitment to each other, and only to each other, and also a recognition of a number of things which legally link both partners together to enable protection and benefit for a surviving partner in the event of one partner dying.

To suggest that my marriage is less valid or meaningful because it wasn't in a church would be daft, so the fact that gay couples may choose not to be joined in chrch should be treated in exactly the same way as mixed sex couples.

I wasn't trying to start a debate on it, I was saying the same thing as you. Gay marriage should be allowed because marriage is no longer just a religous thing.

If two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other then why should anyone else have a problem with that?

who needs to get married to show they love each other? more of a statement to society at large amongst other things. But being allowed to get married would be nice i suppose.
love
kim

Why shouldn't a same-sex couple have the same rights as a hetero couple? Not only to have legal authority in having a say in the relationship, but to be recognised, as a couple?

I tried to explain this to an aquaintance the other day, and she just could not get her head around it:-

A straight husband and wife partnership, should one of the partners be involved in an accident, the other partner can make decisions about treatment, even , God forbid, that the life support be turned off.

A same-sex couple could have been together for forty years, but in the same scenario, would be excluded from the decision making, and have no rights/ no say over what happened to their "other half".

My God! they could even be excluded from the hospital How unjust!

I applaud the concept of same sex marriage.

PT

Civil partnerships between people of the same sex is legal from today.... this gives the same rights as "Married" opposite sex partners under the present law.

Is this right or does this just demean the sanctity of marriage?

The idea of a 'partnership' makes sense from the perspective of property rights, pensions etc when one of the couple dies or they split up perhaps. I don't have any problem with that, it seems that it had been a bit unfair before if a couple had spent donkeys years together for there to be no legal framework to recognise the fact and afford financial rights as would a heterosexual marriage. Using the word 'marriage' though I think should be avoided as this is a rite belonging to the church which doesn't condone such a union.:thumbsup:

It is being talked about on this thread

this thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27525&highlight=gay+marriages)

Originally posted by daverity
The idea of a 'partnership' makes sense from the perspective of property rights, pensions etc when one of the couple dies or they split up perhaps. I don't have any problem with that, it seems that it had been a bit unfair before if a couple had spent donkeys years together for there to be no legal framework to recognise the fact and afford financial rights as would a heterosexual marriage. Using the word 'marriage' though I think should be avoided as this is a rite belonging to the church which doesn't condone such a union.:thumbsup:

Well said daverity..... and peter41 it's also being talked about on this thread.... I'm glad you noticed. :P

where will it end.....equal rights for pets or what?

Mod: Threads Merged. Please search before starting a new topic.

how ridiculous is that,what next free IVF treatment:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

the worlds going mad:|

going mad its gone mad

we'll be landing on the moon next