I think he's saying that gay people can get married just to somebody of the opposite sex, therefore there is nothing discriminatory about the present laws, however given that there is no evidence that a person can choose their sexuality then this does not refute the claim that the present laws are discriminatory.

Obviously you are that thick.

If two homosexual people choose to get married, no one stands to be harmed. There are no logical reasons for same sex marriage to remain illegal. The same cannot be said of incest. Your argument is utterly ridiculous.

Why would two consenting members of the family using contraception cause each other harm? Your argument is farcical. The issue comes down to one of morality (whatever that is) and you do not have a monopoly on that. Indeed, based on human history I would say your view would be considered morally regugnant in most socities in most eras. Just accept that.

FFS. Do you know of a form of contraception that's 100% effective? If you do, get it to market immediately - you'll be a very rich man. It's quite obviously not themselves they'll harm, you blithering idiot, it's any potential offspring. Making incest illegal prevents even the possibility of the sort of birth defects such a pairing might lead to.

As for your argument about morality, this just highlights your bigotry. If two people love each other, there's nothing remotely immoral about them marrying one another. Slavery was also fairly commonplace in the past, but that doesn't make it right.

'blithering idiot'.

It was worth reading over the entrenched forces just to read that phrase.

Thank you.

Well done UK MPs. My thoughts on this topic when discussed a while ago were driven by the (obviously wrong) impression that such a vote could never get through the Commons and losing such a vote by going too early would put the cause back a long way.

This may push Australia to have another look at the issue, although my (again possibly incorrect) feeling is that it would be hard to get enough Liberals (equivalent of Tories) to support it right now.

Julia Gillard doesn't support it either.

Not surprising really. Australia could hardly be held as a beacon for promoting equality and integration over the years

Unbelievable response.

She's to behind in the polls to support it, disappointing for someone who doesn't blame her position on religion.

I thought he was just contradicting himself. But this response is to the point and excellent.

On the whole 'traditional marriage' malarky – perhaps some of those who propound such an idea would like a return to some of what is described [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133here[/url?

Marriages of one person to another, without their consent, for political reasons, for instance.

Perhaps we should return to an understanding of 'conjugal rights', whereby a husband could rape his wife with impunity?

Polygamous marriage has existed in many cultures over the centuries – it's even acceptable in the [iBible[/i, so [perhaps the religious traditionalists would like us to return to that situation.

Interesting to note from that article the Catholic priest saying he wouldn't marry a couple who were not planning on breeding.

Two things occur: presumably, his god has some plan for how to feed the world's bulging population?

And second, if he was approached by, say, an injured veteran from Afghanistan who, because of those injuries could not possibly produce a child, would he refuse to marry them too?

Post-menopausal women would get short shrift too, I take it?

Well indeed – or any woman who has had a hysterectomy (which, of course, leads to being post-menopausal, even if young).

Reading through your drivel, I think you are getting confused with what constitutes a legally allowed relationship which can therefore lead to marriage. Being homosexual is not illegal, other scenarios with which you are trying to compare are. This particular argument is whether persons in a legally allowed homosexual relationship have the same rights to get married as heterosexual persons. The other scenarios are not relevant to the argument because they are illegal whether the persons (or animals) want to get married or not.

In my opinion, the reason why there is so much discussion over this is because the argument against the legalisation of homosexual marriage is purely a face with which to argue against the legality of homosexual relationships.

Therefore, unless you produce a valid reason for your arguing against it, you are a bigot.

Why?

OK, now pay attention because, as it has already been explained several times, this is your last chance to understand.

The union between same sex couples cannot produce children at all, hence NONE (0%, zip, zilch) with birth defects.
The union between an incestuous couple differs in the high level of birth defects it can produce.

"What if the incestuous couple use contraception" is a stupid irrelevance because, as far as I know, the use of contraception is not and has never been a mandatory condition for the allowing of opposite-sex marriage nor is it proposed as a mandatory condition for same-sex marriage.

So the justification for same sex marriage has moved from equal rights for couples in love to being because they cannot have kids!!!! What a bizarre idea.

That would make them "unequal" to heterosexuals in the first place - which, is rather the point that the anti-gay marriage make.

So, single-handedly you seem to have demonstrated there is no rational reason that justifies gay marriage. QED.

No.


Indeed.


You are either thicker than a whale sandwich or a troll. Possibly both.

If you are so intelligent, why make childish comments? The fact is that I have tried to debate the issue seriously and no one has come up with anything coherent - just the usual insults and emotional claptrap. So, I must conclude you are a "troll" until such time as you wrire something which addresses the fundamental issue of why gay marriage is so obviously acceptable whereas other forms of loving relationships are not. Why is gay marriage so special and a human right, only fair or whatever? For millions of people it is not right. Forty years afo it would not have been seen in anyway right. Why is it so clearly right in the eyes of those you think it is now, whereas other forms of relationship are not? Or are those other forms of relationship acceptable as a basis for marriage? Please enlighten me ratheer than insulting yourself with such inanity.

There is a one word answer to all of your questions - religion.

For a couple of thousand years or so religion has decreed what is and what isn't permitted, long before marriage became a legal entity the religions of the world decided what was and what wasn't a marriage and as with most things religious, they paid no heed to equality.

So, come on then, here's your chance, what is your rational reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?

May I raise a point that was highlighted to me earlier? The subject in question is not gay marriage, it is same-sex marriage. The difference may be subtle but it is there: gay marriage may preclude bisexual or trans marriages, same-sex would not.

On a not entirely unrelated subject: can any of our local religious nuts please explain to me how the Catholic church refuses to marry a divorcee but will happily marry someone whose previous marriage (no matter how long and how many children were produced within that marriage), has been anulled by Papal decree?

You really don't understand how logic works, do you? At no point did he say that the reason for allowing same sex marriage was that same sex couples cannot have children. What he was saying - quite clearly - was that incestuous marriages/relationships are NOT allowed because of the high likelihood of birth defects. As there is a 0% risk of birth defects in same sex marriages, this reason for NOT allowing certain unions would not be relevant. So it's not the reason same sex marriage should be allowed, but it's equally not a reason they should NOT be allowed. It's really not difficult.

I'll try to keep this brief, I thought I'd covered this subject comprehensively on the other threads. However this is a very silly argument which need addressing.

I keep getting told that this is about equality. Equal love. If that is the case, why should a man not be permitted to marry his brother, or a woman marry her sister?

Seriously guys, why not?

Let me tell you why. It's because those of you who accuse people like me of finding homosexuality repulsive have your own standard of what is 'too yucky', and, in your enlightened view, incest is.

There is absolutely no difference between the argument in support of gay marriage and that which would push for marriage between brothers. Absolutely none.