the 4 groups of people who care about gay marriage ...

e)larrence

larrence is the biggest bender going (lovely bloke though - and well done to his beloved crystal palace today .... )

sorry

The way of the world.......................Ugly as sh!t.

bottom bumping is not exactly natural though is it!!!

Puts you off doesn't it?..................

f) conservatives (small c)

and they form the majority of the opposition rather than b)

g) wedding paraphernalia salesmen

h. divorce lawyers

Hoteliers who find they're getting a lot of gays spending their honeymoons at their establishments.

Once they get a reputation for being a gays hotel they'll lose an awful lot of their other customers.

By law they have to accept gays now regardless of whether they're welcome or not.

i) people on forums

i) Members of the Betfair Chit-Chat forum.... Managed to get 2 threads on the topic in the top five threads.

If you give extra rights to one group, you will have to take other rights from another.

Everybody should be concerned when that happens. Because it might be your rights they take away next.

Mar 30, 2014 -- 8:32AM, Dr Crippen wrote:

If you give extra rights to one group, you will have to take other rights from another.Everybody should be concerned when that happens. Because it might be your rights they take away next.

agree

i dont agree. but anyway, why are the gayers a group? theyre human peoples not aliens. all the peoples should have the same rights. theyre only a group cos other people say they are. nobody ever protests for foot fetishists, swingers or s&m freaks to have equal rights, cos they arent singled out as a "group" by the rest of society. if you stop marginalising people cos theyre "different" then it never becomes an issue in the first place.

why are the gayers a group?

Because the law says they are and they shouldn't be discriminated against.


If I run an establishment why should I be made to do business with people that I might not want to do business with?

You are effectively banning people with strong religious convictions from running a business lawfully.

That's taking away people's rights.

So we have...

A flight of birds
A herd of antelopes
A colony of beavers
A deck of cards
A library of books
A group of gays

How about - a bottom of gays?

Hold on I may be able to improve on that...

A buggery of gays.

Mar 30, 2014 -- 8:53AM, Dr Crippen wrote:

why are the gayers a group? Because the law says they are and they shouldn't be discriminated against.If I run an establishment why should I be made to do business with people that I might not want to do business with?You are effectively banning people with strong religious convictions from running a business lawfully.That's taking away people's rights.

right again Dr Crippen

a gaggle of gays..oh no I think it is a gaggle of geese, in use already

a) gay people
b) homophobics
c) religious people
d) do-good liberals

Throw in 'people like yourself who make this an issue' and that covers pretty much everyone.

If I ran a hotel or B&B (come on everyone, that's got to be worth a 'tee-hee', shurely!) and my religious conviction was that strong that I coldn't countenance two homosexuals staying, but was forced to by the law of the land, then they would be wearing their breakfast, have the sh1ttest room going and I'd stay just this side of law to make their stay as uncomfortable as possible.

If I were gay and it was manifestly obvious that a landlord was homophobic, would I actively choose to stay in said establishment. Well I might if I were Peter Tatchell determined to make a big song and dance about it but for 99% of the population, you go out for a night with your partner with the desire to have a pleasant and relaxing time. For the proprietor of a hotel, you want to give a good service so that customers return and it's no business of yours where they choose to stick it when they close the bedroom doors.

This is such an entry level issue (come on Chit Chatters, I'm really trying to make this work for the Finbar Saunders out there!) that trips everyone up time and time again, it's truly pathetic the amount of time that's given to this non subject.

to ''Roger'' the butler ....

...... me simply lazily or even provocotively (to some) making an observation that it seems to be an issue to some does not mean i'm making it an issue. Clearly and obviously.

If you want to say that my issue is that its a tedious topic then i agree ...

the amount of time given to it

suggests it is not a non subject Roger

I agree with you about restaurants and hotels, gays will stick to the gay friendly ones

I suspect hotels and restaurants only make an issue of it, when gays go out of their way to advertise their gayness if the truth be told

Hotels ad Restaurant will not enquire too closely about their customers, they need their business

it is only if they see people disturbing other patrons they start worrying, loss of business imo

sadly I am b

I was only ever reluctantly tolerant tbh on the grounds of fairness

but when I see them upsetting lots of other people, I am now a definite b

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone gets upto, as longs as they don't

..frighten the horses I'm completely indifferent.

I really need to buy a new laptop, this one keeps freaking out on me

If I were gay and it was manifestly obvious that a landlord was homophobic, would I actively choose to stay in said establishment

Well two gays did and after being put in separate rooms they took the hotel owners to court and won damages.

disgusting, compensation is all a ramp nowadays anyway

at least you made your point Slippy

seven times actually

What's next? I'd make polygamy my Nap.

The Govt has made it clear that gays, straight and bisexuals are all the same, so shirley bisexuals who love 2 people (or more???!) should be allowed to marry more than one person..

My Next Best would be incest, especially gay incest so no chance of procreation.

Outsider of 3 is of course beastiality. We're told we're animals, evolved etc so basically we're just advanced dogs so why not a marriage between me and Mutley next door. Seems like a decent chap....

38 posts in about how much no one cares about this subject - padded out with the usual 'I'm a clean nobbed old hetero' nudge-nudgery admittedly - but good for another 38 more at least I'd say.

you have to add 197 posts from other thread Roger

although most of them are mine

so perhaps you have a point

although you are attacking posters not their posts

The main argument for gay marriage was equality, straights have marriage so why not gays, Roger

and this is a very strong argument


My objection to this is, can you actually equalise marriage

It has a very specific meaning and function for us. It is not just about love.

It is to bring men and women together to have children, and raise them in a safe, balanced and secure environment,

(although children are not compulsory), you could argue it is a sense of duty. There is a sense of decent family values.

It is also a very basic framework of our society. People feel safe with this definition.

This is a reasonable defence, perhaps other things.


I am not sure gay sex fits in here.

I don't actually blame gays in this, as they are interested in all things gay, reasonable.

I think government is at fault for making a very poor decision.

ebulG

If I was attacking posts rather than posters I'd be here all day!

This started out with a basic premise of no one cares about gay marriage (they clearly do), sauntered off into how the vociferous and mighty Christian hoteliers pressure group would square their consciences as well as their bank balences and, by way of the usual purile 'jokes' whenever this subject crops up, onto your (and I'm not being patronising here) measured and thought provoking contribution.

Marriage for me means two people saying 'I'm sticking with you'. Your t1ts fall off - I'm sticking with you. You end up having to be fed through a straw - I'm sticking with you. They have to start hacking melanomas off your face - I'm sticking with you because I love you for better or worse - we all know how the rap goes.

I don't ascribe anything more to it than that. I don't know what the tax breaks are and in 21st Century Britain, with three stepdaughters who I think the world of, one of my own (ditto), my wife's ex-husband, hisa new wife I don't have a clue about 'traditional' family values. I like to think however my values are decent.

I agree peoploe feel safe with a traditional view of the family but, as per my last paragraph, the times are changing. I'd like to think noble and worthy ideals like love, integrity, truth, duty will never be compromised (even if they are unfashionable) and certainly not by gay marriage - I'd like to think this would actually enhance and legitimise those ideals.

I guess time will tell.

I accept your ideas...reasonable

but it is too threatening, it is as simple as that

Roger

I see a threat to the social cohesiveness of our society..because it is built around the man woman thing.

there is a deeper threat but then it becomes complicated..I will leave that.

I admit I am prejudiced, but not because I fear for my own sexuality as some suggest

But because I am older and long for the values we once had, they are familiar to me, and they did not include gay marriage

I have tried to voice a coherent argument, so people who are not happy with it

do not simply be dismissed as homophobic bigots

In the end the young will decide this

as you say

I guess time will tell

As Do wah Diddy posted the rules have changed

This makes it very complicated and confusing to those of us who were brought up under the old rules

I am too old to change, so I stick to the old ones

You see, there is no guarantee, the new rules are any better than the old,

When I was younger, I never inflicted violence on gays, discriminating against gays

or gave them verbal abuse

I ignored them, and they ignored me, which seemed  reasonable to me, as we lived in different worlds

But the world we live in now, they don't seem to want to ignore the rest of us, I am being confronted

with them, when in fact I do not want it..not personally, but through our media and laws

Gay marriage, bit of an intrusion into our world I think personally

neither will it stop here

gay couples will seek children, artificial insemination etc, to make the complete family

I think we are taking a big chance here myself

we have absolutely no idea where this will lead do we???????

as usual of course

being older I fear change

so there may well be very few of these type of marriages

I thought it was worth arguing over though

the amount of hateful bigots on this forum is amazing. gay people simply want the same rights as everyone else.............if your not gay it wont effect you, so why do u sling such hatred in their direction.

the trouble with you brain dead jockey

you cannot distinguish between hateful bigots and debate

after your comments on Russia, you seem like someone who lives in a glass house  to me

I will put you down in favour of gay marriage, ok

the problem with u ebulgery is u dont understand logic...............gay marriage only effects people who are gay..................so whats your problem? please explain.

no it does not..we have redefined marriage

I don't understand your logic, that is indeed true

silence

ebul 2
brain dead 0



ps you need better arguments

if it makes you happy we will go back to 0 0
brain dead
good night

you have lost the debate my friends. gay marriage is happening on the UK and im all for it.

I can understand a fear of change and I think to a great extent it's something that affects us all. It's certainly easy to hark back to a time when things seemed simpler and safer and with better music and before I'm accused of being patronising, I can see much of that in myself.

I like to think my inate conservatism (small 'c') is grounded in the sort of values I outlined above and that have stood mankind well over time. Any new development / legislation / modus operandi that society adopts I measure agaist whether it will enhance those values and I guess this is where eG and I part company.

I see two people making a committment to each other as being only a good thing. However, my support for gay marriage' isn't a blank cheque and certainly does not extend to the support for militant, humourless drones such as Peter Tatchell and his like, who seem to view the homophobic consequences of opening a fridge door before going to get some milk.

People like him are the opposite side of the same coin occipied by homophobic bigots - both need each other and both can go hang as far as I'm concerned.

I think that the media etc. pushing us into trying to make us less homophobic is making things worse, cos it just makes a lot of people more rebellious etc.

From my experience from knowing and working with a lot of gays over the years. Most people haven't got a problem with them.

If they have, it's got they're an **** (no pun intended!) with a chip on their shoulder, not cos they're gay.

If you're fat and disliked then you're a fat bastard. But, if you're a decent guy you'll only jokingly get called fat.

I really feel the need to put a banner outside my house saying "I'm straight" just to get back at the people that are trying to force me to like gay people.

Must go, I've got 10 birds waiting for me!

l mentioned earlier that giving extra rights to minority groups leads to these groups being shunned by the majority of people who are outside of these groups. Especially if you run a certain type of business or employ people.

If you have to guard what you say when they're around for fear of litigation, you simply avoid mixing with them.   

It's got nothing to do with being homophobic or racist. It's just common sense.

IF YOU LIVED IN SAUDEE ARABIA AND YOU WAS GAY THEY WOULD CUT YOUR WILLY OFF
US IN ENGLAND JUST WANT YOU TO HAVE A CIVIL CEROMANY AND YOUR STILL NOT HAPPY

I can never figure out A) why gay people want to get married, or B) why straight people care, but if it pisses off the right wing tools on here, and elsewhere, it has to be a good idea.

I'm so not bothered about it I'll think I'll start a thread telling everyone how not bothered I am.

I think it's more of a debate than people actually being that bothered about it???

In the scope of things who gives a toss, but with it being all over the news it's hard to ignore.

What I don't like about gays is giving the police an excuse to lock up a god botherer preacher!!!

Apart from that as long as the gay activists don't shove it down my throat I am quite happy to have gays around!!

Did I just type that!!!???   'shoving it down etc'!!!!

Marriage has been redefined.

The terms husband and wife have been redefined.

'Husband' can now mean a man or woman who is married.

'Widow' and 'widower' have been redefined to be non gender specific. In time the terms man and woman could be redefined along with 'he' and 'she'. Gay men for example will often refer to each other as 'she'.

The govt have had to quickly stae that 'king', 'queen'  and other titles such as duke, duchess and Lord/Lady remain gender exclusive. What a muddle...

The use of the word equality baffles me. A gay marriage can never be equal to straight marriage. They're completely different. A bit like a car and a bus. They're not the same.

Men and women differ in countless ways emotionally and physically as well as in the way they think and act in various situations.

Those differences are why the union between 2 people of opposite sex is an extraordinary and unique bond. Totally different to a gay marriage.

HERE HERE

mikael d'hag............gay marriage can allow people from diff countries who fall in love to be with eachother................not everyone has the skills to get a work visa for foreign countries etc.

here here as well Do wah Diddy

What is sex for? For reproduction, not love, so there must be a man and a women

Gay sex has a function, or it would not exist, but whatever function it serves

it is not as an alternative to reproductive sex

since it cannot produce offspring.


I thought it was right we kept a line between reproductive sex and gay sex myself

although it may be safe to remove the distinction...I don't know?

You see our social structure is built around the man woman thing as well, the gay thing is something

in the background, we know it is there but it is not there, if you see my meaning, I think that is the best place for it

So this subject is much deeper than you think, because we are still not sure what function gay sex serves as yet?

plus it has completely confused us old ones

ps

I feel it needed considerably more general debate than our government and media gave it

Mar 31, 2014 -- 12:41PM, brain dead jockeys wrote:

mikael d'hag............gay marriage can allow people from diff countries who fall in love to be with eachother................not everyone has the skills to get a work visa for foreign countries etc.

I sincerely hope Gay marriage is not some scam to get round our immigration controls!!!!!!!!

although it is being used for that, we import gay refugees

I am not saying it is brain dead, but I can see it being used for that

At some point in the debate it will be stated that 'gay sex' IS NOT sexual intercourse.

Sadly, no media outlet have the intelligence, common sense nor the bravery to say this.

With no sexual intercourse possible, the Govt has declined to say what 'consummation' is in a gay marriage.

No consummation = no marriage. No definition of consummation= no grounds for an annulment.

It can be argued that without legal definitions of consumation in a gay context, no gay marriages are actual marriages....

It will be no surprise that the gay lobby groups have picked up on this so watch this space.....

ebukgery...........there are 10,000 scams which exist to get people into other countries...........but it is far less likely that a man will marry another man for scam reasons than a heterosexual marriage for an immigration scam..........think about it.

true brain dead

heterosexual marriage is also used for this

it is just when you said it is a good way of people getting into this country I got alarmed

Although we now take people on a refugee basis simply because they are gay

despite the fact that this frankly ludicrous,

this will also be used as a scam

you see in some countries, things are so bad, they will do, or claim, just about anything to get here

It gets trickier and trickier Injera

I don't know why we did not just give gays civil union, calling it marriage makes no absolutely no difference to them

in any practical way????????????????????????

I think what is happening here, is we wish to create a society where gay sex is seen exactly the same way

as straight sex, so there will no longer be any gay discrimination, so problem solved.....


I have severe doubts that this will ever work personally

certainly not convinced us old guys


Considering all the other problems we have in this world at the moment,

I really don.t think we should be doing this tbh

Turning a blind eye, tolerance is surely enough

I look at people that successfully live their lives bearing some kind of disability or physical handicap - generally  with great dignity and humility - an inspiration to us all.  What's happened?

you scream the loudest you get the most

you scream the loudest you get the most

Are we still talking gay marriage or homosexuality in general?

Mar 31, 2014 -- 3:11PM, ebulGery wrote:

I think what is happening here, is we wish to create a society where gay sex is seen exactly the same wayas straight sex, so there will no longer be any gay discrimination, so problem solved.....I have severe doubts that this will ever work personallycertainly not convinced us old guysConsidering all the other problems we have in this world at the moment,I really don.t think we should be doing this tbhTurning a blind eye, tolerance is surely enough

there are lots of gay people and gay couples who have sex without it going in the wrong hole male and female

there are also lots of heterosexual people and  couples who also dont use the wrong hole

so that kind of straight sex is ok but the other unnatural sex is a no no whether you are straight or gay who knows who cares

Polygamy is OK  here if you already had more than one wife
when you came to the U.K.

ebulgery 6 posts in a row on the 30th March, is that a record for you?

I have just noticed that your joining date is the 8th May 2010.

That was the time of the marked emergence of SEEDS.

Iz you or aint you?

You've called that wrong cmat, not a seed at all. He was BlueGrey originally and was posting on the greyhound forum for many years with that moniker.

I have been sussed..yes my name is a poor anagram

I object to gay marriage on the grounds, that marriage itself is an important institution to us
and should not be degraded like this

I do accept people do like a bit of the kinky stuff, and if they want to do full time kinky that
is ok with me

But never call it marriage


I predict this will have long term harmful consequences
I thought Civil Union was enough

Balding lied when she said she needed marriage in order to leave her money to her partner, civil union catered for that

We are already going further, a sperm bank is being set up to enable gay women to have children
to pretend they are like us

We do have two sexes to do this already...they are called MEN and WOMEN
I predict further long term harm will come of us

that is only two posts, now three, not six, perhaps my well known homophobia is weakening

It is only the word MARRIAGE I object to, it may not seem a lot, but I believe more rests on this than we think

ebulgery you r a hateful homophobia bigot................................................don't try and hide behind the word DEBATE

ebulgery is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and kind posters on here...although a
little eccentric :-).

ta lfc1971

well I may be that logroller
...but we do need to debate these things if we have any sense, even though scarce debate was ever allowed on this subject
not much democracy either...where was the referendum????????

We have redefined marriage, I think this will harm us, a fair opinion
Although I do not know this, although I think I am already seeing an adverse affect at international level
But this is the real problem is it not? We have no idea where this will lead do we?????
which is why debate was needed

I thought gays were well catered for, I thought civil union was a good idea

just my own opinion

Homophobic and proud

Really is some hateful, spiteful people on here. I guess it's that kind that keeps the Daily Mail in business

I fit into none of the 4 categories mentioned, I'm just an average, reasonable, married middle-aged bloke.
If two men or two women love each other enough to get married, let them. It doesn't affect me. It makes no difference to me. It neither enriches or diminishes my quality of life, however it would certainly appear to enhance theirs.

I have 2 children, but according to some logic on here, if I or my wife wasn't able to have kids, we shouldn't be able to get married - as that is the *sole* reason to be married.

And I dont think gay people (cos guess what, they are people, shocking I know) are asking for any extra rights, just equal rights.

Grow up and stop begrudging other consenting adults happiness because it doesn't fit into your narrow-minded, outdated worldview.

well said harry sack