Perhaps I should have wrote any better or worse.

Says the bloke who thinks 2 consenting adults is the same as 1 consenting adult and a pig.

Perhaps you think I'm being childish, but I mean it most sincerely. Anyone who would sink to equating homosexuality with bestiality is no more than human excrement.

Ok - what about incest?

Rock God doesn't like anyone's opinion other than his own. Anyone who disagrees with him is shouted down and called names. Imagine if he took power :shudder:

Robert Mugabe?

Rock God is fine with opinions other than his own, provided that those opinions do not display a disgusting level of prejudice.

The point you are singularly failing to see or acknowledge is that your 'belief' in the moral superiority of the argument for gay marriage is not that. The matter is one of judgment or personally morality and belief. That's what my examples are trying to demonstrate to you - where do you draw the line? Why is gay marriage acceptable but other practices not so far as YOU are concerned? Yet, when someone takes the view that gay marriage is not acceptable to them they are bigots? What are your bigotries then?

Your line is neither morally nor logically superior. It is simply comes down to your personal views. Likewise, those who are vehemently against gay marriage have their views and beliefs. Those are in no way inferior nor morally inferior to yours.

Would be a better debate than throwing it in with children and animals.

Without having all the facts available I'd struggle to pass judgement.

If a person is 'vehemently against' homosexual people being granted the same rights and freedoms as heterosexual people, that person is a bigot. No exceptions.

If a person then equates homosexuality with bestiality, as though the two are even remotely comparable, that person is a repugnant human being.

If a person then brings incest into the argument, that person is a total idiot.

Marrying a first cousin is not illegal but in our society is heavily frowned upon. In our 'Asian' communities the practice is relatively common with a concomitent increase in the prevalance of congential abnormality. Should that sort of marriage be celebrated or banned? Is it more or less acceptable than gay marriage?

Nothing is stopping homosexuals getting married although being homosexual would probably mean that they wouldn't want to. As has been said before, marriage is for couples of opposite sex. Why do they want to be married, other options are available, e.g civil partnerships.

How many birth defects do you think will occur as a result of homosexual marriage? Just a rough figure will do.

You are stupid.

It's a different debate to gay marriage and like I say one I don't have the facts on.

Why do people who oppose homosexual marriage bring it in to the debate? Scare mongering would be my guess.

Eh? Why would being homosexual mean that a person wouldn't want to get married?

Marriage is only for couples of the opposite sex because we haven't yet legalised it for couples of the same sex. There are no good reasons for us not to do this, and hopefully it won't be much longer until the law is enacted.

As far as civil partnerships go, why should homosexual people have to call their union by a different name to heterosexual couples as though it's somehow a lesser union? If two people love each other and want to spend their lives together, they should have the right to be married, regardless of their gender.

Excellent riposte. You are trying to compare two things that aren't remotely comparable in a bid to justify your bigotry.

It's an attempt to muddy the waters, and a poor one at that. The reasons for incest being illegal are so staggeringly obvious that only a total idiot wouldn't recognise them. Conversely, there isn't a single logical reason for same sex marriage to remain illegal.

I bring it in to demonstrate the subjective and judgemental nature of these issues and their underlying "morality. Alot of people on here seem to think they are morally superior because they support gay marriage.

The other matter of course is the time in which the argument is framed. I suspect that many the non-gay, pro-gay marriage 'bigots' would have been the most anti-homosexual 'bigots' in times when homosexuality was illegal and severely frowned upon. There is nothing more dangerous in humanity than 'group thinking.'

Yes, but as I pointed out marrying a cousin is not considered incestuous in law but can still have tragic consequences. As I keep saying where do you draw these lines and what makes you feel your view is superior to others? Was it you that took Gordon Brown's moral compass? At present it's looking as though you lost it too if you took it.

a) Aside from it being illegal you mean?
b) You what?

No you don't, you did it to scare monger or , as Rock God said, muddy the waters.

The rest is pure guess work.

Are you really as thick as you're going to great lengths to make out you are? Of course a line has to be drawn with what degree of relatedness should prevent two people from being able to marry. The reasons for that are obvious and where the line is drawn is open to debate.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the same sex marriage debate. There will be a 0% birth defect rate as a result of same sex marriages, so it's not a factor worth considering when deciding whether or not to legalise it.

To bring it into the debate shows either breathtaking stupidity, or deliberate disingenuousness.

I think he believes marridge to be a religious thing.

But you don't see or accept that some people draw a line on the marriage issue in a different place to you? Some people clearly draw a line in the metaphorical sand somewhere between heterosexuals and homosexuals. You seem to draw a line elsewhere but not in a place that allows anyone to marry anyone else they may love.