Quote ="Standee" Quote ="Rock God X"Perhaps when women are treated as being equal to men, that will be the case.'" You honestly feel they are not?'" Seems I'm not the only one. m.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/no ... gap-europe And that's before we even mention the fact that there are parts of the country where it is incredibly difficult for a woman to have an abortion.

Quote ="Standee" Quote ="Rock God X"Perhaps when women are treated as being equal to men, that will be the case.'" You honestly feel they are not?'" Seems I'm not the only one. m.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/no ... gap-europe And that's before we even mention the fact that there are parts of the country where it is incredibly difficult for a woman to have an abortion.

what, and it's easier for men?

No kids means nobody to perpetuate their bat views on human existence. If Catholics aren't producing more Catholics, sooner or later they'll die out. Hence their views on contraception and abortion.

If you don't agree with gay marriage as a concept (for whatever reason) then you're a bigot.

Whether your bigotry is motivated by religious belief, upbringing or an inherent insecurity in your own sexuality, you're still a bigot.

Might just be me, but I don't really want law making powers put in the hands of bigots.

As far as I'm aware, there are no laws prohibiting men from making decisions that affect their own bodies.

I agree.
Black people, gays, the aged, disabled etc aren't mentioned in her title and there are equality issues around all those sections of society ... so why single out women for inclusion in her ministerial title?

It's a fairly minor point but one worth mentioning.

Oxymoron alert.

No, he specifically mentioned the fact that we don't have a Minister for Men, as though that in itself was an inequality. He also asked if I 'honestly think it is the case' that women are not yet treated equally, implying that he held a differing view. Your point is valid - Standee's was not.

Like it or not, gay marriage is on the way. And anyone who opposes it, for whatever reason, will be called a bigot / homophobe.

You just chose to take my point in a certain way because of your pre-disposition towards me as an individual, but I didn't expect anything more from you.

That's your standard get-out clause when you're shown to be wrong. It's also a massive amount of crap. You very clearly and unambiguously commented on the fact that we have a Minister for Women, but no corresponding Minister for Men. This is in no way similar to the point El Barbudo made.

So, despite my clarification, you still think I am being disingenuous?

That is evidence of an agenda, and it's what you always do. So far as I am aware the single thing I share with every other man on the planet is gender, so saying "why isn't there a minister for men" is actually bringing things down to their most basic level in terms of equality, whatever an individual is or isn't they are male or female first and foremost (admittedly that has it's complications for trans-gender, but we need not complicate this discussion at this point), everything else is a subtle added detail.

El B' fully understood my point, as he chose to comment about the post and not the poster, you can't do that, as has been shown many a time, and will many times more I would imagine.

Any minister for equality should be just that and nothing more, it's like having a "Minister for Defence and BAE Aldermarston", it shows a specific bias in a certain direction.

Rubbish. You even questioned me - twice - when I mentioned that women aren't treated equally in our society. El B's point was why have a Minister for Women and Equality when we don't specifically mention all the other groups, not why have a Minister for Women when we don't have one for men.

Selective interpretation, as ever.

Anyway, equality of marriage.....

Just to add to that: what makes you think you're so special that I and other posters have some sort of agenda against you? You're forever banging the 'you respond to the poster, not the post' drum, and it just makes you look stupid.

If you post something I disagree with, I'll say so. If you don't, I won't. That's where my 'agenda' begins and ends.

Nonsense. Your comments were crystal clear. Why say "do you honestly believe they're not (treated equally)" if your opinion is similar to mine?

Serious question - how far do we go with the equality agenda?

Why just gay marriage, why not polyamorous marriage, as this is accepted in some communities?

And rightly so - what other reason can there be to oppose it?

In 10 years time, we'll look back at this furore and scratch our heads, wondering what all the fuss was about.

is it accepted, tolerated, or turned a blind eye to? (serious question as I don't know)

I think the fuss was about redefining the term marriage. Gay couples could already get all the same rights through a civil partnership.

And who cares about that, aside from the increasingly irrelevant religious nutjobs and a few white, middle-class Tory association stalwarts?

I'm married (to a woman) and we've produced two offspring; I don't think we'll be considering a divorce because the institution of marriage has been amended to give equality to same sex couples. On the contrary, like the vast majority of the population, it won't make a jot of difference to our tolerably satisfactory lives.

It's stuff and nonsense from a few bigoted homophobes who want to keep the uppity queers in their place, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Seems to me that marriage is a cultural norm in most societies and serves a number of purposes - to stabilise society by reducing competition over women, to provide a stable platform to raise children (which takes along time in our species), fertility symbolism, etc, etc. So far as I can see none of these factors come into play for so called gay relationships and so I see no point or reason for gay marriage other than homosexuals clamouring for "rights" for the sake of it.

If history tells us anything, the 'victory' will likely prove a pyrrhic one. I say that as at some point the pendulum will almost certainly swing and it will become wholly unacceptable to mainstream society for people be practising homosexuals. Married people will be much more easily identified and persecuted should a witch-hunt occur.

Homosexuals obviously care very much about redefining the term. If "marriage" is such a meaningless word why does it seem to have so much importance to those of same sex who want to get married in a church?
If it has deep significance for them then perhaps it has deep significance to another section of the population who see the term marriage applying specifically to a union between a man and a woman.

There may be homophobes involved in the argument but that doesn't mean everyone who opposes the change is homophobic.

I don't care myself, but I can understand someone might - from either side.

Does anyone know Dally? If so can you tell him that his account has been hacked. Not even he could have come up with that gem