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?

There's absolutely no reason why a gay couple cannot have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I do question the use of the term 'marriage' as possibly coming under a general religious banner - the sham is those hetero couples who marry in a church despite no beliefs. Whilst religion itself is b*llocks, whilst it exists I don't have a problem narrowing the definition of marriage itself to some religious ceremonies.

The other caveat is that despite what people in (some) western countries might want in terms of equality for gay couples, their marriages will not be recognised by the majority of people in the world for a long, long time.

So basically you're in favour of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, providing it is officially-sanctioned discrimination?

The term marriage is not exclusively religious, and I doubt it ever has been. There are literally millions of heterosexual couples in this country alone who have had civil ceremonies, but are still able to declare themselves married.

You accept that religion is nonsense, yet you would be happy to deny equal rights to homosexual people based on religiously-sanctioned bigotry. That's just weird.

Finally, just because (some of) the rest of the world is lagging behind in the area of gay rights is not a reason for us to halt our progress in that area. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Your knowledge on the subject is unsurprisingly disgraceful, bow your head in shame you bigot.

Of course the various churches will express displeasure, which they will claim is God speaking through them of his displeasure

It's a dangerous tactic anyway. Remember that nutter who said Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing the people of New Orleans? We'd only need some coincidental extreme weather in the months following the test wedding and they'd all be creaming their kecks in righteous excitement.

Wasn't that the president?

I seem to remember it being some fundamentalist minister, but I wouldn't totally surprised if I was mistaken.

If memory serves me right he just sat on his till Brad Pitt got involved.

He did that, yes, but I'm not sure he openly stated that the devastation was God's will.

I'm ashamed that you're a Wiganer.

TBF there is widespread support in religions for the fatalistic notion that nothing, at all, ever happens unless god wills it.

Which, if later today I win a small fortune off the bookies at Cheltenham, and then go out and get totally wasted, is strangely pleasing.

Then there's the ones who attribute the good stuff that happens to God, and the bad stuff to Satan. I know who [ithey[/i would think was responsible for your decadent afternoon.

Marriage is older than monotheism, never mind the fscking church. Don't let them hijack the narrative with this "marriage belongs to us" bull. No. It. Doesn't.

It was Pat Robertson IIRC.

It may be true, I often have the devil's own job picking any winners

Pat Robertson ?

Aye, that's the chap. Seems he had similar observations to make after the Haiti earthquake.

Pat Robertson also own slaves. I kid you not.

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/14/anti-abortion-preachers-caught-on-film/The anti-abortion nutters have turned up outside a clinic now[/url

What is it with these religious freaks that makes them think any of us need saving?

They're not the first to picket a clinic that performs abortions or gives advice that includes advice on abortion.

And their mission, if you will, is less to save any of the women and more to 'save' the poor 'unborn children'.

The logical conclusion of this is the stance of the Catholic church, as seen in Nicaragua, where the government did the Vatican's bidding and banned all abortions for any reason – including life-saving, medical need. In other words, the life of a realised, full-grown woman is worth less in the eyes of the church than that of a possible (male) infant. They are entirely happy to sentence a woman to death rather than 'risk' the loss of a potential male infant.

Mind, the same people have used their clout to try to stop that parents of nine-year-old rape victims having a pregnancy caused by the rape terminated.

They are women-hating scum.

What you are missing is the fact that the sky pixie has waved a wand to give life to the foetuses and so by definition doesn't want them dead. Therefore the women carrying the foetuses should bloody well just get on with it, whatever the risks, who are they to argue with the Lord's will? Why, some of them may have been selected for a particularly gruesome and painful death in childbirth, surely they don't want to miss that opportunity to join the choir invisibule? Talk about lookin a gift horse in the mouth!