General Chat

Roger Gale was only repeating a suggestion made by someone else. It wasn't to condone incest.

The suggestion he repeated was to create a Contract aka Union between 2 adults regardless of their relationship – no bedroom intimacy involved. It would then give the (say) siblings equal rights as a partnered couple. Think of elderly sisters or brothers who live together. Their lives revolve around each other as closely as if they were in a legal partnership/marriage.

Anyway – the Bill has passed its first Reading. Things might be tweaked in the Lords but for all intents and purposes, same sex couples will be allowed to have a Civil Marriage.

I dont know Sue, but if we are talking of odd bods....there are one or two on here, ignorant and offensive too

Well I'm not going to RR Phyll's post nor John's but I am truly offended :-(

Zikes!!

:-S

Im appalled :-|

Phyll


'I'll probably get whooshed for this but'

So, considering your statement above, you are well aware of the offense that you have caused making your comments twice as shocking

oh tosh, the bloke wasn't suggested brothers and sisters marry for goodness sake READ what was said and understand...it was about legal ( as in contractual), rights to financial and other assets...like for example one of any 'mixed' couple having an automatic right to inherit...that is already done with Houses ( I never remember which term it is 'joint tenants' or 'tenants' in common) ...a legal agreement that for eg I would automatically own my mothers 'half' of our house bought together when she died, or vice versa had that been the case.

Yes, DET. I am not opposed to gay couples using the word "marriage" for a civil ceremony in exactly the same way that heterosexuals have been able to get married in a civil non-religious ceremony since 1836.

That is equal rights, equitable etc. Religious bodies and religious people will all have their individual opinions about whether it is right to have a sexual union between same sex couples. My attitude is that, even if that was a wrong act, I can ignore it unless it is in my face. And I don't tend to peep through curtains at night and assume "sisters" don't act like good sisters.

And once equal rights for homosexuals was established in law, there can be no turning back. I just think most religious people of many denominations can see clearly what the old books we live by say on these matters. And it makes us all exceedingly cautious and conservative.

Thanks Det, I was too stunned to find his comment.

I hope that offensive post is not RRd. Let al contributors to this thread read it and make their own minds up re the poster.

As for born gay, you can be born a lot of things which are outside the perceived norm. Sounds rather like all imperfect people should be shoved out of society's sight. Does that ring a bell from around the 1930s and 1940s in Europe?

I think Phyll has every right to express what she thinks no matter how it seems to the majority.

Bugger I went to edit but deleted sorry :-(

Sieg Heil

Sue :-0

ButtercupFields Report 7 Feb 2013 10:16
I think Phyll has every right to express what she thinks no matter how it seems to the majority.

So do I !

*I cannot believe that there are so many people born 'gay'. It seems to be a fashion trend and nothing more.*

In all likelihood, there have been more closet homo or transsexuals than we’ve realised in the past, especially when it was illegal. They’d try to conform to heterosexual expectations, marry a person of the opposite gender and live unhappy lives.

I don't have a problem with anyone giving their opinion - even if it's not a popular one. My gripe is the offensive tone to the posts.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but not at the cost of others and not when breaking the law

i agree with BC and Muffy
this is a debate
so everybody has the right to say what they think
nobody has to agree with whats was said
but they still have the right to say it

personally i think Cameron is just looking for votes
also to take the heat off the persecution of the sick and disabled in this country :-( :-(

Thankfully lots of odd balls were/are are playwrights, actors, scientists, surgeons, even, dare I say it, politicians. Plus let's not forget the thoroughly decent members of various churches.

Phyll may have the right to express her view but it would have been more palatable if the facts were right, that is what annoyed me!

John you didn't exactly help either.

can't think what to say - animals and humans marrying? what planet are you from John - why would anyone google for such a thing - depraved or what :-S :-S

I actually can't formulate a response that is not going to offend most of the people on here...I have tried, but no words will convey my disgust...