I believe in gay marriage

[HenryDorsetCase]

Then you aren't trying hard enough

Actually, I'm going to disengage entirely.

KB is OK for motorbike related stuff, and to talk about bikes and riding. After all, its what all of us supposedly have in common. But as for the rest of it I just can't be bothered, and this is one of those times. Basically from now on, anything that isn't motorcycle specific, I wont't bother.

[mashman]

Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word.

It obviously wasn't. Any other misguided delusions you would like pointed out today?

[SimJen]

Can't accept that. Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word. Marriage is between male and female, not same sex.

"While civil unions paved the way for dozens of pieces of legislation to be changed so that they did not discriminate against same-sex couples, that didn't go far enough, Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson says. "We got that in all but two laws - the Adoption Act and the Marriage Act, I think we made good progress with the civil unions, we achieved a close to equal situation, but it wasn't equality, and I think that's what most people want."

[oneofsix]

It obviously wasn't. Any other misguided delusions you would like pointed out today?

You mean "obviously didn't".
It was also to fulfil one of Aunty Helen's wish lists I guess as she was reported to say at the time that she would have preferred a C U to marriage.

[SimJen]

You mean "obviously didn't".
It was also to fulfil one of Aunty Helen's wish lists I guess as she was reported to say at the time that she would have preferred a C U to marriage.

She said that as many others do as a stand against discrimination!

[EJK]

[oneofsix]

Can't tell the difference? Well, the dogs licence should be renewed yearly, although as it is naked its impossible to tell if it is licensed.

[MD]

Wait, they choose to be gay? Are we still at that point?
Fuckin' flat worlders

Oh. A bit sensitive are we. You have missed my point. Homos are welcome to be homos, welcome to be born homos, welcome to choose or convert to being homo. Doesn't bother me. WHAT DOES, is the corrupting of a word and it's intended purpose/meaning to suit their cause.

Homos are welcome to have a ceremony to recognise and commit to their relationship. Have their own convention or institution to recognise it in law. Call it a civil union or whatever name they wish to dream up. They are welcome to invent a name and institution to recognise their relationship. JUST DON'T call it a marriage as that word has already been spoken for over centuries to describe a man and woman committing to a relationship. For f's sake. Lets put it another way. We have the word 'green' to describe the colour of grass. Used for centuries, we all undertand it's meaning and what it describes. But wait, a group of hard done by dissidents feel oppressed having to use this word to describe that colour so they demand the word green must now describe a different colour of THEIR choice. Piss off and HTFU

[ducatilover]

I'm still struggling to find any historical evidence that marriage has to be between opposing sexes. With the exception of Christianity's gay hate. But marriage is not a Christian made thing, so it doesn't count, nor do we live in a country governed my Christian "morals"

Let HDC marry his buddy, who is it going to hurt and why exactly is marriage between man/woman?
Has someone said something I've missed?

[SimJen]

Oh. A bit sensitive are we. You have missed my point. Homos are welcome to be homos, welcome to be born homos, welcome to choose or convert to being homo. Doesn't bother me. WHAT DOES, is the corrupting of a word and it's intended purpose/meaning to suit their cause.

Homos are welcome to have a ceremony to recognise and commit to their relationship. Have their own convention or institution to recognise it in law. Call it a civil union or whatever name they wish to dream up. They are welcome to invent a name and institution to recognise their relationship. JUST DON'T call it a marriage as that word has already been spoken for over centuries to describe a man and woman committing to a relationship. For f's sake. Lets put it another way. We have the word 'green' to describe the colour of grass. Used for centuries, we all undertand it's meaning and what it describes. But wait, a group of hard done by dissidents feel oppressed having to use this word to describe that colour so they demand the word green must now describe a different colour of THEIR choice. Piss off and HTFU

The Oxford dictionary is constantly being altered to move itself in line with societies new spellings/meanings. Thats life, get over it.
Marriage may have been that way for centuries but that doesn't make it right!
Coloured people were used as slaves for centuries, should they still be?

[oneofsix]

I'm still struggling to find any historical evidence that marriage has to be between opposing sexes. With the exception of Christianity's gay hate. But marriage is not a Christian made thing, so it doesn't count, nor do we live in a country governed my Christian "morals"

Let HDC marry his buddy, who is it going to hurt and why exactly is marriage between man/woman?
Has someone said something I've missed?

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.

[ducatilover]

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.

Damn, that was fast

[SimJen]

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.

Thats because narrow minded people with religious overtones would have never allowed it, or as in some countries still, stoned the individuals concerned!
Homosexuality has been around since time began! Its just that people have chosen to overlook it as it doesn't suit their societal conditioning.
Queer marriages/civil unions are widely regarded as setting the example for marriages full stop. When was the last time you heard of a messy break up between a gay couple?

[oneofsix]

Thats because narrow minded people with religious overtones would have never allowed it, or as in some countries still, stoned the individuals concerned!
Homosexuality has been around since time began! Its just that people have chosen to overlook it as it doesn't suit their societal conditioning.
Queer marriages/civil unions are widely regarded as setting the example for marriages full stop. When was the last time you heard of a messy break up between a gay couple?

No, that sort of religion is relatively recent. Now with the Maori as an example of a stone age people with a set of believes in pagan style gods I could understand the Christian missionaries not recording queer marriages but they did recognise a form of marriage with maoridom. If their had been queer marriages, and it is only a couple of hundred years back, then why hasn't the tribal knowledge surfaced?
Last time I heard of a messy queer break-up? today.
Last time I heard of a queer partner being robbed of their position, inheritance, rights through lack of legal protection and other family members walking over them would go back to before Civil Unions gave them the protection they require.
They have the civil union to recognise and protect their relationship. Leave the word marriage alone.
What next abolish the words husband and wife because they imply gender? Everyone will then have to be partner? Sorry by it isn't a business arrangement but I bonded with my wife to become one married unit.
The queers have ruined the word gay because they said they need a special, non-negative word to refer to both homos and lessys and all they succeeded in doing was converting a good word into a negative word. What's wrong with queer, as in not the norm?

[SimJen]

Last time I heard of a queer partner being robbed of their position, inheritance, rights through lack of legal protection and other family members

Sally Ride, first woman astronaut and physicist: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/27/dom...rides-partner/

The queers have ruined the word gay because they said they need a special, non-negative word to refer to both homos and lessys and all they succeeded in doing was converting a good word into a negative word. What's wrong with queer, as in not the norm?

The Norm?
So you in a room full of Homosexuals would not be the norm, then you would be the Queer one?
Discrimination on any level is unfair