I believe in gay marriage

[ducatilover]

Its because we're not allowed to marry. both being blokes and all.

Fuck it all, I have to come up with more trollness now. Or give up.

[Madness]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

[Virago]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

Homo Lands, I believe they would be called...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_Black_Homelands

[Oakie]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

I thought that to 'cure' a homosexual you threw him in to a bottomless pit ...

[ducatilover]

I thought that to 'cure' a homosexual you threw him in to a bottomless pit ...

I see what you did there

[Oakie]

I see what you did there

Good. Glad to have my work appreciated. What about:

Q) "How do you get rid of gay mice?"
.
.
.
.
A) "Get a poofy cat"

[ducatilover]

Good. Glad to have my work appreciated. What about:

Q) "How do you get rid of gay mice?"
.
.
.
.
A) "Get a poofy cat"

Tastefully dry I say
I ran out of rep

[MD]

Just the queer buggers perverting the meaning of another good word. No one wants to have a gay old time now days.

They have their civil union which is basically the same thing but they want to be queers with all the benefits of heterosexuals, like kids, divorce, given half your hard earned stuff away to someone you have discovered you never actually knew.

If you chose to be queer then there are consequences to that choice just as they are if you chose hetero. Choice isn't always the result of free will and is often between being what you are or going against your natural inclination.

Spot on on both counts.

I'm neither for or against anyones choice to be heter or homo. Each to their own and all that.

What I do object to is the underhanded way homos go about trying to justify their choice.

The word gay had a simple meaning for us all i.e. happy. But homos had to hijack it and twist it to give a false sense of righteousness to their choice of sexual preference. Find your own word. Queer, now that you can use.

Now they want to hijack the word marriage. They don't need this word, civil union adequately covers their need and purpose to have their relationship recognised offically . Actually it's worse than hijacking the word. They are trying to change it's meaning all together from being the name of a traditional religious institution. I suspect their true intent is again to try and give false credence to their choice. How insecure they must be that they need to justify and 'make it right' to be homo by diluting the choice to be heterosexual. It's a subtle message, to be homo is to be gay, which implies to not be homo must therefore be the opposite i.e. unhappy.

If we concede that the meaning of the word and the institution of marriage must be changed, then what if homos next object to the use of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' within a marriage because it offends their sensitive natures imposing a male and female stereotype. Do the rest of us have to all go around describing ourselves as marriage partner A and B.

[ducatilover]

Spot on on both counts.

I'm neither for or against anyones choice to be heter or homo. Each to their own and all that.

What I do object to is the underhanded way homos go about trying to justify their choice.

.

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

[Tigadee]

[SimJen]

Spot on on both counts.
Now they want to hijack the word marriage. They don't need this word, civil union adequately covers their need and purpose to have their relationship recognised offically . Actually it's worse than hijacking the word. They are trying to change it's meaning all together from being the name of a traditional religious institution. I suspect their true intent is again to try and give false credence to their choice. How insecure they must be that they need to justify and 'make it right' to be homo by diluting the choice to be heterosexual. It's a subtle message, to be homo is to be gay, which implies to not be homo must therefore be the opposite i.e. unhappy.

If we concede that the meaning of the word and the institution of marriage must be changed, then what if homos next object to the use of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' within a marriage because it offends their sensitive natures imposing a male and female stereotype. Do the rest of us have to all go around describing ourselves as marriage partner A and B.

Civil union does not give adequate coverage in a legal sense for gay marriage. It still leaves many doors open and is not the same as "Marriage".
The institution of marriage is not being altered by gay marriage in any way or form, they want the same as any hetero couple do, to live and love together and in the eyes of the law gain the same acceptance and legal standing as anyone else.
Why should they not be able to have this? What gives anyone the right to stop this based on some bigoted opinion? Imagine if people told us we couldn't ride motorcycles anymore, or that married men could no longer ride motorcycles as their possible death might wreck the sanctity of christian values imposed on them by their wedding vows!
Marriage is of course no longer a religious ceremony for most, with many people now choosing non-denominational, non-church and non-religious weddings!
People need to get off their high horses with this percieved view of marriage, hetero couples do more to harm the "institution" of it all by the massive amount of divorces: Kim Kardashian for instance! marriage over in 72 days, or most of hollywood who see it as little more than a few years of their petty lives!

[oneofsix]

Civil union does not give adequate coverage in a legal sense for gay marriage. It still leaves many doors open and is not the same as "Marriage".
The institution of marriage is not being altered by gay marriage in any way or form, they want the same as any hetero couple do, to live and love together and in the eyes of the law gain the same acceptance and legal standing as anyone else.
Why should they not be able to have this? What gives anyone the right to stop this based on some bigoted opinion? Imagine if people told us we couldn't ride motorcycles anymore, or that married men could no longer ride motorcycles as their possible death might wreck the sanctity of christian values imposed on them by their wedding vows!
Marriage is of course no longer a religious ceremony for most, with many people now choosing non-denominational, non-church and non-religious weddings!
People need to get off their high horses with this percieved view of marriage, hetero couples do more to harm the "institution" of it all by the massive amount of divorces: Kim Kardashian for instance! marriage over in 72 days, or most of hollywood who see it as little more than a few years of their petty lives!

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.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

that is so fucking stupid I dont know where to start.

[oneofsix]

that is so fucking stupid I dont know where to start.

Then you aren't trying hard enough

[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.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

Civil union was a political stop gap to attempt to get rid of the "gays" and their way of life in a way acceptable to the bigotted amongst us!
Our laws are written from an underlying religious context, but nowhere in the bible does it make reference to same sex marriage.