Yay or neigh?

 

 

Maybe they'd got lots of letters/emails from constituents telling them how disgusting and unnatural it is.

 

One never knows.

I never understood the unnatural arguments it's quite common in nature.

The roosters on the farm near my uncle's as a kid were gay, I found it hilarious.

Maybe they'd got lots of letters/emails from constituents telling them how disgusting and unnatural it is.

 

One never knows.

 

I'm presuming they're doing it to gain votes, which is disturbing.

 

If they actually mean it, then it's even more disturbing.

On gay issues, Cameron wants to be remembered for something other than this interview, the thick cunt. As soon as he wanders off script he's sweating like a baboon with a Rubik's cube.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

Edited February 5, 201313 yr by Maggie Tate

You either have equality across society or you don't so in my view for those places of worship that are comfortable in presiding over same sex marriages then fair play to them,

You either have equality across society or you don't so in my view for those places of worship that are comfortable in presiding over same sex marriages then fair play to them,

 

and those that don't?

and those that don't?

Then they don't have to abide by the law (if it eventually ends up on the statute) as that's a key point of the bill, no place of worship will be forced into carrying out same sex marriage if they object. There's talk of taking cases of refusal to the European Court of Human Rights which opens up a whole new debate.

I don't give a fuck about either homosexuality or religion so I don't really mind it

 

However I can understand MP's objecting to it if they have received a large amount of correspondence from constituents who are apprised to it for religious reasons. After all it's an MP's job to represent them isn't it??

I don't give a fuck about either homosexuality or religion so I don't really mind it

 

However I can understand MP's objecting to it if they have received a large amount of correspondence from constituents who are apprised to it for religious reasons. After all it's an MP's job to represent them isn't it??

MP's and councillors often end up put forward the voice of those that shout loudest rather than the majority.

I dont mind gay men folk, it means the men to wimmin ratio is less for us blokes.

Well if its discrimination, you may as well legalise beastiality. Just as wrong but hey ho they must have some rights

I dont mind gay men folk, it means the men to wimmin ratio is less for us blokes.

 

Never thought if that angle

 

I like it

 

MP's and councillors often end up put forward the voice of those that shout loudest rather than the majority.

 

Well that's all you can do, you can't put the voice forward from the man that does not speak

 

I saw one mp who received 350+ letters against versus non for it, that's a fair no vote in my opinion.

I dont mind gay men folk, it means the men to wimmin ratio is less for us blokes.

 

You're assuming that all women fancy men so maybe the ratio remains just as it currently is, sorry to disappoint

Has anyone who thinks those who don't agree are backward, thought about the rights of straight folk wanting to get married in a church that hasn't been 'tainted' by homosexuality or gay marriage?

 

Particularly those who are perhaps deeply religious?

 

I couldn't care a shite. Live and let live. It doesn't affect me one iota. They could let dogs marry cows for me.

 

But to flatly dismiss the opinions of those who disagree is as ignorant as those who think gays are freaks of nature.

Let them marry ffs.

 

Whether they're married or not, they'll still be doing the unnatural thing and bumming one another, so I'm not how or why it would matter to you whether they've got a legal document to their name.

 

Out of interest, those who think they should all be stoned to death for their wicked ways, how many of you happily talk about doing a woman up the arse? Surely that makes you just as disgusting too?

 

The only thing I'd be wary of with regards to gay weddings is the buffet at the reception. I think I'll give that a miss.

 

Has anyone who thinks those who don't agree are backward, thought about the rights of straight folk wanting to get married in a church that hasn't been 'tainted' by homosexuality or gay marriage?

 

Particularly those who are perhaps deeply religious?

 

I couldn't care a shite. Live and let live. It doesn't affect me one iota. They could let dogs marry cows for me.

 

But to flatly dismiss the opinions of those who disagree is as ignorant as those who think gays are freaks of nature.

 

See your point, but first religious people have no more right for prejudiced views to be listened to than anybody else and second, the point is that the gays are freaks view underpins all the arguments against marriage. I seriously have not seen one which does not. As for religious straight couples and where they stand, they probably wouldn't be members of liberal churches if they didn't have yoghurt knitting views themselves. Leads to the obvious point - how can a vicar or priest or whoever expect to be taken seriously if he turns away a gay couple who've attended every Sunday for a decade, but welcomes in two retard 19 year olds who've never even been before? Quite often the religious definition of marriage is an insult to same sex couples too. One wench on telly last night said marriage is for the purpose of procreation. Would she ban marriage between couples with no plans for kids? Marriage where the bloke is a jaffa? Divorce rates are more than 50% nowadays, but that doesn't stop weddings going ahead.

 

All this proposal is trying to do is remove a legal barrier to churches who are happy to marry gay people. Churches who don't want to, won't have to. They can continue to sodomise boys instead. Once opponents come up with a good reason to oppose which is free of the gays are weird undertone, supporters won't be quite so dismissive.

Edited February 6, 201313 yr by Maggie Tate

If I had my time again I would seriously think twice before getting married or having my children christened/baptised. Other than a celebratory day, tradition and an expectation of society in this age, I really don't see the point.

 

Would I love my Mavis any less? erm no, would she feel she had missed out? probably. To me its simply an extension of the archaic mumbo jumbo that is religion, which is holding back the progress of civilisation.

the more queers the better.

the more queers the better.

 

Hello sailor

This board used to be obessed with race until we got our own black, well mixed race, poster.

 

Now as every other thread is about the gays I think we need a bummer poster so we can all move on.

This board used to be obessed with race until we got our own black, well mixed race, poster.

 

Now as every other thread is about the gays I think we need a bummer poster so we can all move on.

Do you want to apply for the position?

TO SUM UP

 

This board used to be obessed with race until we got our own black, well mixed race, poster.

 

He's not been around much of late.

 

Maybe he's out bumming?

i'd prefer not to have gay weddings in churches

 

i've no wish to justify my position, it's just how it is

 

no problem with gays, just think marriage should be for normal folks

Will people stop PMing me, I don't want to bum any of you.