Should gays be allowed to legally marry?

[Main Street]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?

I have not voted.

I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.

Fear works well
A fear that all those catholic gays are going to come forcing their way up the altar, is a form of bigotry.
Give the n'iggers the vote and access to university and the next thing they'll be after your daughter to marry her.

[Jonah]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?

I have not voted.

I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.

Well then start your own thread on the subject.
As for the poll then by saying the bit

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away

indicates to me that you do think gays should be allowed to be married legally.
It's irrelevant if you think it's a real marriage or not as legally(which means in the eyes of the law,in case you are confused what it means) it would be.

As a matter of interest then do you not believe J70 is really married?

[Main Street]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?

I have not voted.

I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.

Well then start your own thread on the subject.
As for the poll then by saying the bit

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away

indicates to me that you do think gays should be allowed to be married legally.
It's irrelevant if you think it's a real marriage or not as legally(which means in the eyes of the law,in case you are confused what it means) it would be.

As a matter of interest then do you not believe J70 is really married?

All the more reason why religious beliefs should have nothing to say in the legislative process.
More especially the bigoted beliefs.
But I'll give them the respect to have their own beliefs, if they keep them to themselves  and not to sully my constitutional space with them 

[ludermor]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

So to you a marriage is just the day in church not the rest of your life commitment to the person you love?

[J70]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?

[muppet]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?

I have not voted.

I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.

I am confused.

I thought you were a huge fan of Man United?

[seafoid]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/may/31/privatelives.familyandrelationships

His father may turn out to be like lots of other kind, supportive, loving but homophobic men, who manage to adjust drastically when someone close to them turns out to be gay.

[EC Unique]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?

Real as in a legal binding contract yes, real as in the eyes of the church no. What ever keeps you happy is most important.

All a matter of opinions. My wife is such because she took vows at an alter, not because she signed a piece of papervfrom the local council office.

[johnneycool]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

If the truth was told there'd be plenty of gays marrying, but they're the ones wearing the vestments at the minute.

[Hound]

I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.

Is that because you think being gay (and living your life that way) is a sin?
Because it says so in the Bible?
Would you take everything in Leviticus as being the "Word of God"?

Personally I agree with you about being married in a church is important. But I wouldnt object to gays marrying in a church. But then for me some parts of the Bible are worth reading and other parts (like a lot of Leviticus) is pure nonsense.

Just like someone in the past decided the Bible is wrong about lending money at interest being a sin (for one thing) I think in the future an elightened church might change its mind about homosexuality. (They also might change their mind again about banks and interest!!)

[J70]

A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''

Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.

I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?

Real as in a legal binding contract yes, real as in the eyes of the church no. What ever keeps you happy is most important.

All a matter of opinions. My wife is such because she took vows at an alter, not because she signed a piece of papervfrom the local council office.

"The church"? Which church? It probably won't be too many years before the official Anglican Communion allows it. And if its the general Christian churches you're talking about, what about all those Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and so on marriages across the globe? Are they "real" in your eyes?

Regardless, I'm "really" married because myself and my wife took vows to each other, not because of the place in which we took them or the fact that some alleged being gave us a supposed seal of approval.

[ziggysego]

This makes as much sense, as some of the gay couples adopting babies arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy2xEyInqIE

[deiseach]

Regardless, I'm "really" married because myself and my wife took vows to each other, not because of the place in which we took them or the fact that some alleged being gave us a supposed seal of approval.

You make it sound as if a church marriage isn't the real thi . . . oh, I see what you did there!

[Eamonnca1]

Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman?  Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed.  If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union?  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Translation: "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman." AKA a circular argument.

[muppet]

Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman?  Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed.  If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union?  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Translation: "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman." AKA a circular argument.

Until a couple of centuries ago the maximum safe speed for man was thought to be that of a horse.