No dear. You are 'arguing' from a standard, homophobic approach.

Really, why don't you just start a Homophobe Pride group somewhere? You could have a black and white rainbow as your badge.

Has this been sorted yet?

Is it legal to take your boyfriend up the aisle or not?

Apologists?
Listen Dally, listen hard ... can you hear anyone apologising?
Not to you they're not and not to your fellow "principled" homophobes.

You are quite wrong that homosexuality was illegal here "quite recently".
It was sex between two men that was illegal, not their homosexuality (and, between women, sexual acts were never illegal anyway).

However, it no longer is illegal.
Deal with it.

What principle is it that should stop homosexual marriage? Homosexuality is not illegal anymore, and hasn't been for generations.

If you want a proper debate, we shall have one:

[iI propose that the motion carried in the house of commons last week on the concerning the bill to allow same sex marriage should be passed. My reason for this is that I see no valid reason that same sex couples should not have the same rights that heterosexual couples have.[/i

It is at this point that you respond in full to my proposition and offer a counter argument. Please, feel free.

I am not going to repeat the last n pages again. Read them if you want. I am thoroughly bored with this now. None of the pro- brigade ever make any serious comment beyond the ridiculously simplistic. Either that or silly "homophobe" comments. You can have your opinion I will have mine and seemingly never the twain shall meet.

When faced with the insane arguments you have been trying to put forward what do you expect? The bigots have been equating homosexuality with illegal acts for years.

one does have to wonder what your poor disabled daughter and mentally frail wife are doing whilst you're promoting homophobic bigotry 24/7, not to mention that tourtoured soul son, answering all those calls from nasty Personal Injury Solicitors touting for business.

I don't think I know of any other family that has fallen on such bad luck.

maybe God doesn't love you?

Good.


No, not "simplistic", the word is "simple".
The real argument is very [usimple[/u ... should people who can have sex legally, marry legally?
In all these pages you have not put forward a single point other than you have a moral objection but, apart from comparisons with illegal acts, you have utterly failed to articulate that moral objection.


You brought that on yourself by your incessant anti-gay posts.


It does seem so.

I see Dally hasn't got a retort, maybe he's busy cutting eye holes in pillowcases?

Equal marriage and adoption now passed in France.

Well done the French.

Not quite.

Homosexuality between males when in private was made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and in Northern Ireland in 1982 (and is still illegal in 70 countries in the world). The age of consent for gays was brought into line with straights in 1997 - however, no 'minor persons' could be present.

So to leap from illegality to gay marriage in [iat most a generation[/i is a big ask and really it shouldn't surprise anyone that the leap cannot be made by everyone.

And the French have the right separation of church and state, quelle surprise.

When was it made illegal and how did people adjust?

Its not really such a big ask, we made the leap from signs in boarding house windows stating "no blacks" to having a black Archbishop of York (and they STILL won't support women in their gang) in one generation, gay marriage is a small step really especially as its not going to affect the religious at all.

Do you still defend the right of a husband to rape his wife, since rape cannot exist in marriage? The old 'conjugal rights', eh?

After all, that's only really been tackled in very recent years. Is it a bit modern for you?

It does surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would have an issue with it. It doesn't affect me yet I can see that it will benefit a large number of people, and cannot harm anyone.

My lack of understanding is why people would be against it. I can't believe that people are still so averse to accepting same sex couples, times have changed! You now have a mobile phone and the internet - would you prefer to go back to paper and ink and carrier pigeons?

It may seem a minor issue but it was [uthe sexual activity[/u between men that was illegal before 1967 NOT the homosexuality of those men.
Let's be accurate please.

OK, let's be accutate, what was the nature of the"sexual activity" between men that was illegal? What reasons were given for treating it as illegal?

Religion based morality.

accutate?

is there such a word

accurate, perhaps?

now, repeat after me "I'm a homophobic bigot with no argument against equality of rights in marriage other than some spurious "standards" I perceive the sky pixie to have, and a general discomfort with the idea of bum sex"

then go do ten hail Mary's for saying "bum sex", it will make your god angry otherwise.

Between late Victorian time and the late 1960's ?
As I understand it, it was ANY sexual activity between men, known in the courts back then as "gross indecency".
The sheer mechanics of sex would lead one to include anal, manual and oral sex as the main "methods".
Of course, under that law, it wasn't considered "grossly indecent" or illegal if heterosexuals did it.
I don't know that any reasons for a law are included in the statute but I could easily be wrong on that.

Woman on woman wasn't even covered in legislation at all.

As you are the one who is getting all upset about this, why don't you do the research and tell us, instead of asking these vague questions, looking for some pathetically slight anomaly that might make you feel justified.

I'd wager that "clergy on choirister" was an act deemed acceptable by God, in Dally's f'd up little world.

What you're failing to understand that sexual activity let alone the relationship is legal. This is not going to change. Get used to it.

Understanding the above, what other valid reasons do you have?