The faster the NWO decides to move ,

the faster the boat will sink.

yeah marriage equality is definitely right and anyone who doesn't think so is a knob :0) i could probably say that better,, or maybe not. People whinge and moan about us being so called immoral and promiscuous yet when we say we want to fit in with society and do the same as everyone else disgusting people rush to the streets with placards. we are all equal no matter how other people will try to twist it and our mariage will have no effect on the rest of society. People should be ashamed of their closed minded bigoted beliefs not their sexuality and far too many people have only realised this after their gay offspring have killed themselves or been beaten to death on the street for being different.

As for the bed and breakfast story mentioned nobody in britain providing services to the public is allowed to discriminate against any group, should they be allowed to ban black people, disabled people, what about if gay business owners refuse to serve christians there would be quite a hoo ha over that and remember we're everywhere :O). is it only hotels or can we do this everywhere in every business, if we decide that we have an objection to their lifestyle can we just refuse services to anybody we dislike, should be a fun world hospitals 'will be an adventure. i'm married to a man here in the Netherlands and funnily enough the sky didnt cave in yet and the heterosexual families didn't collapse into a puddle of nothing.

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Well it seems that gay people can be as unhappy as most married couples now and get married in church.
Some people are angry because this may lead to forcing various churches to allow same sex marriages in their church.

As far as I am aware, there's no 'forcing' involved. When the Coalition has talked about this previously, it's always been in the sense that churches could, if they wish, perform the marriage ceremony. The idea that is was going to be an option for the individual priests/churches was always enough in itself as there was enough priests/churches open to it that a gay couple could get married at least somewhere .

If people are angry that their local church will be marrying same sex couples, they don't have a good enough relationship with their local priest then. Not really a 'government' problem.

For me I am not against the idea of Gay "unions" between two people, but why do they have to forcibly take on the name "marriage" something created by the same churches that don't want to recognize them. leave the churches to have there religious "marriages" and let the homosexuals have there "unions"and have them be done where they are not going to offend those that consider a marriage a religious bond between too hetrosexual couples. Should it not be enough that two people care enough about eachother that the name or place of the occasion shouldn't matter unless they are actually out to ruffle feathers and get attention???

SaneThinking

Originally posted by SaneThinking
For me I am not against the idea of Gay "unions" between two people, but why do they have to forcibly take on the name "marriage" something created by the same churches that don't want to recognize them. leave the churches to have there religious "marriages" and let the homosexuals have there "unions"and have them be done where they are not going to offend those that consider a marriage a religious bond between too hetrosexual couples. Should it not be enough that two people care enough about eachother that the name or place of the occasion shouldn't matter unless they are actually out to ruffle feathers and get attention???

SaneThinking

What about the churches that DO want to recognize them? There are churches that are willing to marry gays, and to call their union a marriage. Should we force those churches to not call it a marriage?

I don't give a cack really, let them do whatever in churches that are happy to do it.

Why I do find interesting is this.

"But let me be absolutely 100% clear: if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it.

That is absolutely clear in the legislation'

Fair enough. But what happens when our Masters in Europe decide that churches can't discriminate and force them to do it?

Weasel words, and he's got an out built in.

Originally posted by SaneThinking
For me I am not against the idea of Gay "unions" between two people, but why do they have to forcibly take on the name "marriage" something created by the same churches that don't want to recognize them. leave the churches to have there religious "marriages" and let the homosexuals have there "unions"and have them be done where they are not going to offend those that consider a marriage a religious bond between too hetrosexual couples. Should it not be enough that two people care enough about eachother that the name or place of the occasion shouldn't matter unless they are actually out to ruffle feathers and get attention???

SaneThinking

A few things... there's no 'forc'e here. Churches aren't being forced. Many churches/priests actually want to be allowed to marry same sex couples and this is about allowing them to, not forcing them. Big distinction.

Also, the idea of a 'religious' bond is, pretty much bollocks as we near 2013. The vast majority of heterosexual couples who married in a church this year are only Christian in a vague sense. They might only ever attend church for weddings, christenings and funerals, without ever attending a proper service in between. Most couples I've ever known have wanted to get married in a church because of the actual aesthetic appeal of an old church as opposed to the utilitarian blandness of many registry offices. It's not because they think God will somehow turn up to a church wedding and not a registry office.

Similarly, this prompts the question: can gay people be religious? The evidence suggests they can be and therefore why shouldn't they want their union to be recognised as a religious ceremony?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Well it seems that gay people can be as unhappy as most married couples now and get married in church.
Some people are angry because this may lead to forcing various churches to allow same sex marriages in their church.

As far as I am aware, there's no 'forcing' involved. When the Coalition has talked about this previously, it's always been in the sense that churches could, if they wish, perform the marriage ceremony. The idea that is was going to be an option for the individual priests/churches was always enough in itself as there was enough priests/churches open to it that a gay couple could get married at least somewhere .

If people are angry that their local church will be marrying same sex couples, they don't have a good enough relationship with their local priest then. Not really a 'government' problem.

It will not remain an option however. The entire goal is to force Christian churches to perform gay marriages under a new definition of marriage which currently stands defined as between a man and a woman. Equality laws have been set in concrete. There are only two steps left - removing the current restriction that Civil Partnerships cannot contain a religious component to the ceremony and the current legal definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Cameron is pushing to remove the easiest - the prohibition in the Civil Partnership Act against a religious ceremony. The next will be the definition of marriage itself. Analysts are already stating that "we could see the redefinition of marriage spee through the Commons before the summer." It will happen because our leaders reject Christ, Creation and anything that reminds them of the God of Heaven and Earth. We are witnessing the removal of the terms "husband", "wife", "father" and "mother" for the very same reason. If you don't understand that the powers of the world highly regard the ideal as 'androgynous", neither male nor female, you'll never understand that this has zero to do with equality and everything to do with THEIR RELIGIOUS IDEALS being the law of the land. The theme in the occult is the feminized homosexual male as priest. Their "primordial man" is neither gender. Don't believe me? Look it up.

The idea of two people being married to each other derives from the fact that there are exactly two biological sexes. If we had three sexes (as was the case with some race in one of Star Trek episodes), marriage would be a union of three people. So once you exclude the notion of biological sex from marriage, but still leave the number two there, it just adds to the idiocy of the whole affair. Why would exactly two people be "married" to each other? What does it mean? Why not 12 or 100 people?

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Well it seems that gay people can be as unhappy as most married couples now and get married in church.
Some people are angry because this may lead to forcing various churches to allow same sex marriages in their church.

As far as I am aware, there's no 'forcing' involved. When the Coalition has talked about this previously, it's always been in the sense that churches could, if they wish, perform the marriage ceremony. The idea that is was going to be an option for the individual priests/churches was always enough in itself as there was enough priests/churches open to it that a gay couple could get married at least somewhere .

If people are angry that their local church will be marrying same sex couples, they don't have a good enough relationship with their local priest then. Not really a 'government' problem.

It will not remain an option however. The entire goal is to force Christian churches to perform gay marriages under a new definition of marriage which currently stands defined as between a man and a woman. Equality laws have been set in concrete. There are only two steps left - removing the current restriction that Civil Partnerships cannot contain a religious component to the ceremony and the current legal definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Cameron is pushing to remove the easiest - the prohibition in the Civil Partnership Act against a religious ceremony. The next will be the definition of marriage itself. Analysts are already stating that "we could see the redefinition of marriage spee through the Commons before the summer." It will happen because our leaders reject Christ, Creation and anything that reminds them of the God of Heaven and Earth. We are witnessing the removal of the terms "husband", "wife", "father" and "mother" for the very same reason. If you don't understand that the powers of the world highly regard the ideal as 'androgynous", neither male nor female, you'll never understand that this has zero to do with equality and everything to do with THEIR RELIGIOUS IDEALS being the law of the land. The theme in the occult is the feminized homosexual male as priest. Their "primordial man" is neither gender. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Who are these analysts? Are they Christians, by any chance? Christians who oppose same sex marriage? Or maybe even Tories who equate same sex marriage with marrying animals or opening the door for legitimised paedophilic relationships?

Family, traditional roles, husbands and wives and so on are the bread and butter of the Tory party. They actually platform on this and feed on hating single mothers and the like. They go as far as wanting tax breaks for married families and so on. I call bollocks on this, I'm afraid.

First I feel homosexuals should have the right to get married if they so choose. People try to say marriage is a religious and christian institution so since christianity in general opposes homosexuality then they should not be required to allow them to marry. However when I was married, it was not done at a church, there were no clergy present, and we asked for the word god to not be used, we just wanted a ceremony to affirm in front of our friends and family that we were commiting to each other for life...the church was totally removed from it. Well guess what? It was still called a marriage, we were still issued a marriage license, we are legally married and everyone refers to us as married, yet we purposely removed any and all church related elements from the wedding. If a hetero couple can do that and everyone still see them (even the law) as married, the same should be true for homosexuals. If there are churches who want to allow gays to marry in them, then they should have the freedom under the law to allow that. Using a god not everyone believes in or follows as the reason to deny people the right to marry is bigoted and sickening