Now that could've been the script from yesterday's Nicky Campbell show

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/12/a-catholic-writes-gay-marriage-was-our-idea-bishops-should-embrace-it/Gay marriage was originally a catholic idea[/url

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. What is offensive or homophobic about that?

Denying one group of people rights that are afforded to another group of people, solely because their sexual orientations differ, is wrong.

Marriage is available to everyone over 16.

The simple fact that it denies access to recognition, tax breaks and equal treatment under the law to people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

No it is not. Unless you're suggesting that gay people who want to get married should just stop being gay and marry someone of the opposite sex. But you wouldn't be suggesting that, because you're not a fooking idiot, are you?

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been. If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership? A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

I've seen several republicans make the exact same point including Michelle Bachmann who claimed that gay people had the right to marry just as long as it was to someone of the opposite sex. In their bigotted minds gay people choose to be gay and they can simply choose to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex if they really want to get married.

I've even seen some social conservatives claim that by allowing gay marriage, gay people are being given "special rights", which ignores fact that gay marriage is open to everyone should these social conservatives suddenly "choose" to be gay.

Because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it should continue to be that way. It wasn't that long ago that women had 'always' been subservient to men and black people had 'always' been seen as inferior to white people.



A religious ceremony is a sham at any wedding, but that's not the point. There are plenty of religious people who are also homosexual, and they should be able to include the same content in their weddings as heterosexual couples.

That aside, it's not just about the religious angle. Gay couples should be able to declare themselves as 'married' just the same as heterosexual couples.

It would not be a sham if homosexuals/lesbians got married in the slightest. It's about time the religions got their heads out of their bums and joined the 21st Century.

And once upon a time voting was for men and always had been The fact that someone has always been a certain way does not mean that it should always remain that way. Besides marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman, for instance in some cultures men have been allowed to have multiple wives



Perhaps because many gay people want have their relationships recognised by the state as marriages and want more than simply being allowed to have a civil partnership. Many people in same sex relationships may also prefer not to have the state infering that their relationships are inferior to that of opposite sex couples by not allowing same sex marriage.



Civil marriages have existed in England since the 19th century and many non religious people have civil marriages free from religious observance. This is what gay people are asking for, they are not demanding that Catholic & Anglican churches suddenly start providing same sex marriages.

There are also many gay people who are religious and many religious denominations that have no issue marrying same sex
couples. For these individuals a religious ceremony would certainly not be a sham.

It appears that you, like many religious and/or simply homophobic nutjobs have spectacularly missed the point that a gay marriage would only entail a civil ceremony. There is no requirement in the proposals for any religion to perform such a marriage. It would be conducted at a registry office or any suitable place sanctioned to perform the act of marriage.

But please don't let that fact prevent you from stamping your god-bothering little feet and feeling threatened.

I'm neither particulary religious or homophobic.

So you're not homophobic, but you do support the idea of denying equal rights to homosexual people. Glad we've cleared that up.

OK, what would best describe you then?

Mad, stupid, bigotted?

You tell me. What is the problem you have with people of the same sex being married to each other?

Well I just suppose I'm a little bit of a traditionalist. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with one another or living together but marriage just doesn't seem right to me. Especially with marriage being for procreation.

Okay, I'm calling Poe's law on this one.

Marriage does not have to be for procreation. I know several couples who are married and have no children. People marry because they love each other and not necessarily to have children.

So, tests before marriage to make sure that the prospective newlyweds are actually capable of producing brats, eh?

Serious grilling to make sure that any couple wishing to marry will actually breed?

Obligatory divorce for anyone who doesn't do their duty in this department?

Only if you class medieval as tradition could you be labeled a traditionalist.

I think you are homophobic. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it doesn't mean that you hate homosexuals, it's a phobia just the same as any other. It is an irrational fear of homosexuality. There now, does that feel better?

Why? Surely societies need norms to hold them together. I would guess that most stable societies throughout human history have supported heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones. Just because the current trend pushed at us by the media is otherwise, doesn't mean that denying these 'rights' is wrong outside the current context.

The fact that most stable societies have favoured heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships says nothing about the effect of homosexual relationships on society.

Correlation does not equal causation and there is nothing to suggest that societies which allow equal rights for gay people become any less stable than those that dont. In fact looking at the countries which allow gay marriage many of them seem to have a pretty decent standard of living and that doesn't appear to have been negatively affected by allowing gays to marry.

Your argument seems more like an excuse for homophobic bigotry than a rational argument against allowing gay people to marry.

I know several couples that are not married but have children . I know several couples that are married and have no children . I know several same sex couples whose WEDDINGS I have attended . I highlighted 'weddings' because that is my opinion of what the ceremonies were . A celebration of the couple's love for eachother where they could pledge their futures to eachother . You know... like a WEDDING . I ain't having any of this civil ceremony bull . A wedding is a wedding . Or would it be more accurate (I may be wrong on this bit), and therefore more easily acceptable to just call them marriages ?

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Surely, they should simply just pilot one gay marriage, and if God is displeased, wouldn't he smote the participants, or send a plague of locusts, or whatever it is he does when he is not best pleased?