SDLP and Sinn Fein endorse gay marriage.

[ziggysego]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

Are you serious? that is patent bigoted offensive nonsense if you are, nature determines whether or not people are gay, what about childless couples is that unnatural too?

IVF treatment must be the work of the devil..... 

[gallsman]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

Are you serious? that is patent bigoted offensive nonsense if you are, nature determines whether or not people are gay, what about childless couples is that unnatural too?

What's bigoted about stating a fact?

Would you say paedophilia is natural?  Would you advocate equal rights for paedophiles too then?

Equates gays with paedophiles yet expresses mock outrage when called homophobic.

[BennyCake]

I'm equating nothing. It's a separate question. Obviously one you can't answer.

[Applesisapples]

I'm equating nothing. It's a separate question. Obviously one you can't answer.

There is quite a difference between consenting adults and abusing children. I find your views offensive in the extreme are you Jim Wells?

[BennyCake]

I'm equating nothing. It's a separate question. Obviously one you can't answer.

There is quite a difference between consenting adults and abusing children. I find your views offensive in the extreme are you Jim Wells?

Well, Technically a Paedophile doesn't necessarily need to have ever acted on his/her urges, but children are their preference. In the same way that males are gay males preference. So if being gay is indeed natural, then isn't paedophilia?

[ziggysego]

I'm equating nothing. It's a separate question. Obviously one you can't answer.

There is quite a difference between consenting adults and abusing children. I find your views offensive in the extreme are you Jim Wells?

Well, Technically a Paedophile doesn't necessarily need to have ever acted on his/her urges, but children are their preference. In the same way that males are gay males preference. So if being gay is indeed natural, then isn't paedophilia?

You don't need to act on your urges with MrsBennyCake

[J70]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

Are you serious? that is patent bigoted offensive nonsense if you are, nature determines whether or not people are gay, what about childless couples is that unnatural too?

What's bigoted about stating a fact?

Would you say paedophilia is natural?  Would you advocate equal rights for paedophiles too then?

It may be natural. As may any number of psychoses. So what?

Sometimes the greater good justifiably trump's individual  rights or urges.

[MoChara]

Pedophilia is natural as in the person doesn't have a choice in their attraction, but when acted upon pedophilia is abusive and grotesquely destructive to health and mental well being of a child for the sexual gratification of an adult.

Gay Marriage is two consenting adults expressing love for each other in a way that supports them and lays foundations of stability for a life together.

To compare the two is grasping at straws and is the death throes of a lost argument.

[smelmoth]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

[smelmoth]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

An argument that marriage should not be allowed between gays because they cant have kids but is allowed between hetrosexuals who cannot have kids or have no intention of kids is definitively homophobic

[smelmoth]

I wonder how some of the compassionate people on this react would react if unfounded rumours started spreading that they were homosexual?

Probably the same way as they would react to any other unfounded roumour. Wouldn't get particularly excited about this rumour.

They key is that as a society we tackle the cnutish behaviour that seeks to propigate homophobia

[smelmoth]

I think most would go apeshit

Yes but you don't exactly think like normal people. Run for election and see how many share your thoughts

[seafoid]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

[smelmoth]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

Are you serious? that is patent bigoted offensive nonsense if you are, nature determines whether or not people are gay, what about childless couples is that unnatural too?

What's bigoted about stating a fact?

Would you say paedophilia is natural?  Would you advocate equal rights for paedophiles too then?

Paedophilia is natural.

Non consenual and abusive sexual acts are however illegal

[BennyCake]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

An argument that marriage should not be allowed between gays because they cant have kids but is allowed between hetrosexuals who cannot have kids or have no intention of kids is definitively homophobic

Unable to bear children naturally is not the only reason that I disagree with gay marriage. As I said before, let them sign a form that gives their partner the house, car, etc after their death. I've no problem with that, but marriage, no.