You were provided with evidence by FA – and anecdotal evidence that supported that by me – and yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim (not even anecdotal): just a statement.

To reiterate: you have presented no evidence here for your own case – just your own statements.



How don't have to look far: FA has already provided evidence of this and Jerry has now repeated it, complete with a link.

And the change has not been recent. My father was toting around the registers when he had nine chapels ('parishes') in the Kirkby Stephen district back in the late 1950s. And yes, I am aware that is an anecdote.

Dally, if you read this, may I have an answer please?

Only when he manages to recover [ithat[/i famous off-site book.
The answer will be in there.

You won't get answers from either of them. They've been called on the rubbish they were spouting and they both realise now they can't back it up, so they've disappeared.

For the avoidance of doubt in your seemingly troubled mind:

Yes - I "deny" what you wrote.

I have no sense of superiority over gay people.

I am not sure what "valid" in the context of love means? But, I do not think the term "marriage" should be applicable to gay relationships (to me it's a bit like women wanting to be members of men only clubs rather than setiing up their own).

The situation was clarified for me again by one of my rather naive daughters at the weekend. One of her friends had texted her to say she'd had sex with another girl. My daughter asked Mrs Dally how two women could have sex. Mrs Dally gave a couple of examples and my daughter answered "that's not sex."

I can't wait for "The Only Way Is Dally", the lives and times of a completely baffled family.

So what?
How did that "clarify" anything?
We don't know what the supposed examples were so cannot agree or disagree with your "rather naive" daughter.

After you were put on your backside I'm not surprised.

He'll be getting a kick in the balls off his daughter shortly when he asks her if she's a lesbo.

nah, he'll be too busy complaining she can't get a "strapdictomy" on the NHS.

Clearly 'sex' in the Dally household is a joyless, functional bout of missionary position intercourse that takes place on the third Sunday of every month, and with the minimum of foreplay.

Your weird daughter and her bizarre views on sex aside, there is no difference whatsoever in the love between a man and a woman, and the love between two people of the same sex. It follows then, that there really ought to be no difference in their respective marriages either.

Who cares?
Was it intended to? It was your lack of clarity that was the issue?
Name any example that is sex or "sexual relations" (in the Clintonesque sense).

??

I always thought the union of a man and a woman was the expression of love and the basis of marriage. Indeed, a species is often defined via the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction. I must have missed something given that I am clearly wrong. Could someone please elucidate?

Eh? My "lack of clarity"?, I wasn't even present at your family tut-tutting session.


As you were talking about sex between women, oral and manual sex spring to mind as likely examples (but, as a man, I can't speak for what two women together might prefer).

But, according to you (or your daughter) that isn't sex ... on that you must be in a small minority of opinion.

Was Clinton on oath when he said he hadn't had sexual relations with that woman? If so, maybe he was clear on the legal meaning of his words?

Oh FFS ... you are quoting Clinton as a reliable source of meaning for the words "sexual relations"?

You must be the one person in this country who thought that a blowjob wasn't sexual relations.

Oh, hang on ... maybe your daughter thought it wasn't either.

..... and off he went to confirm that he knows not what he talks about. (He being the only person who has ever claimed that anyone other than a registrar can be a registrar). Poor lamb.

Strangely, he has not been heard of since.

Should we organise a search party?

It depends what function you place marriage. If we all agree that our primary function is to procreate marriage serves a purpose in that function then it quite clearly isn't the same for a same sex couple.

...or for a couple where one or both partners is infertile, for a couple who are too old to procreate, or for a couple who simply don't wish to start a family.

If we go down the line of stating that marriage is only for procreation, then all of those people I mentioned above should be prevented from marrying. If marriage is not solely for procreation, then there's absolutely no reason that same sex couples should not marry.

You're missing the point. The reason why "marriage" should be for heterosexuals is not procreation per se but as a basis to celebrate the union of a man and a woman - union in the sense of the act of marriage and the act of naturally expression that love via sexual intercourse. Sexual intercouse being an act between man and woman as shown by the realities of sexual reproduction.

As I said previously, I personally have nothing against equal legal rights in terms of tax status, etc but not the hijacking of the term "marriage".

Once again for the hard of understanding, it is the religious (mainly right wing) that have hijacked the term and the ceremony of marriage.

Don't be daft.

I suppose Genghis Khan hijacked the word "gay" too?

How is it daft, there was weddings long before your prophet was around.