The case against gay marriage...
Discussion
HungryHorace said:
Mr Snap said:
What other mind numbing horrors do PHers fear from gay marriage?
We'll end up with a nation that thinks man on man bummage is natural.I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Mr Snap said:
Explain how it's an unnatural act, please? (Without referring to sky fairies)
I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Would you drive your car down a one way street the wrong way?I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Guam said:
Mr Snap said:
Explain how it's an unnatural act, please? (Without referring to sky fairies)
I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
MMM would that make anyone doing his wife or girlfriend up the Oxo tower Gay then I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Still, I'm confident that no member of PH would ever contemplate such an act...
HungryHorace said:
Mr Snap said:
Explain how it's an unnatural act, please? (Without referring to sky fairies)
I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Would you drive your car down a one way street the wrong way?I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
king weird analogy (!).Show me - without referring to sky fairies - where it says that sticking things up your bottom is wrong.
You really are thinking too much about what other people do in private.
More importantly this issue shows everyone that through sacrifice, determination, going about things through due process, standing up to those that would physically attack and demean you, if your cause if valid eventually society will wake up and stand beside you.
Besides, as was pointed out by Chris Rock, "gay people have as much right to be as miserable as everyone else".
Besides, as was pointed out by Chris Rock, "gay people have as much right to be as miserable as everyone else".
Mr Snap said:
HungryHorace said:
Mr Snap said:
Explain how it's an unnatural act, please? (Without referring to sky fairies)
I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Would you drive your car down a one way street the wrong way?I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
king weird analogy (!).Show me - without referring to sky fairies - where it says that sticking things up your bottom is wrong.
You really are thinking too much about what other people do in private.
tting out of, not sticking your cock up. Disregard 'sky fairies' completely, whilst it may not be 'wrong' it certainly isn't right.Dusty964 said:
It's for stting out of, not sticking your cock up. Disregard 'sky fairies' completely, whilst it may not be 'wrong' it certainly isn't right.
So blow jobs are also unnatural? After all, a mouth is for breathing, eating and talking, so it can't possible be for sticking your cock into.tting out of, not sticking your cock up. Disregard 'sky fairies' completely, whilst it may not be 'wrong' it certainly isn't right.mattmurdock said:
Dusty964 said:
It's for stting out of, not sticking your cock up. Disregard 'sky fairies' completely, whilst it may not be 'wrong' it certainly isn't right.
So blow jobs are also unnatural? After all, a mouth is for breathing, eating and talking, so it can't possible be for sticking your cock into.tting out of, not sticking your cock up. Disregard 'sky fairies' completely, whilst it may not be 'wrong' it certainly isn't right.
Dusty964 said:
Who mentioned unnatural?
Sorry, just assumed you were defending the previous poster who called it unnatural. Unless you are aiming purely for procreation, and both parties are fully consenting, I'm not sure there is a right or wrong in sticking your cock pretty much anywhere .HungryHorace said:
Would you drive your car down a one way street the wrong way?
If I enjoyed it, and it wasn't to the detriment of anyone else, then why wouldn't I.But unlike gay sex, driving a car down a one way street has an adverse effect on other people. So that's what would make it wrong.
So in short, it's a bloody idiotic analogy.
Next....
Mr Snap said:
HungryHorace said:
Mr Snap said:
Explain how it's an unnatural act, please? (Without referring to sky fairies)
I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
Would you drive your car down a one way street the wrong way?I can accept that a chap rogering a male ghost might be unnatural - although it could never happen.
However, male human beings are natural things, bottoms are natural things and penis' are natural, too.
How do they suddenly become weirdly unnatural when placed in conjunction with each other?
According to your logic, it's also "unnatural" when my doctor sticks his finger up my bum (I wish he wouldn't but he does insist).
Maybe you've just spent too much time thinking about unnatural acts..?
king weird analogy (!).Show me - without referring to sky fairies - where it says that sticking things up your bottom is wrong.
You really are thinking too much about what other people do in private.
Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
HungryHorace said:
Aaaah a biker.
Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
The Churches are NOT being forced to do anything. The change is a change to the Civil Marriage law and has nothing whatsoever to do with religions. They are free to discriminate as they currently do (be it against atheists, women, homosexuals, divorcees etc).Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
This isn't about political correctness either IMO. It's about the changes in society being reflected in law. Modern society accepts that some people are homosexual and realises that this is irrelevant to anything else, so why discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals in law?
Equality is one law for all - equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
HungryHorace said:
Aaaah a biker.
Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
I find it amazing that still, despite this being a fairly long thread, as well as the other thread on this very issue, and despite the fact that the facts are laid out in the media, and in the political statements, that people STILL think the churches are being forced to do anything at all against their beliefs. Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
Again, and for the hard of reading, and hearing, this is a CIVIL issue, NOT a religious one. Despite the CoE and the Catholic big hat brigade coming out against Gay marriage, it will not make a difference to religious marriage ceremony, and they are free to discriminate as they see fit.
TheHeretic said:
HungryHorace said:
Aaaah a biker.
Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
I find it amazing that still, despite this being a fairly long thread, as well as the other thread on this very issue, and despite the fact that the facts are laid out in the media, and in the political statements, that people STILL think the churches are being forced to do anything at all against their beliefs. Actually I am not at all against gay sex or gay couples what I am against is the changing of a law (or a tradition if you will) to suit a politically correct motivation.
I am not religious in any way but I fail to see why the church should be forced to permit something that goes 100% against their scriptures to occur in their property.
The same as I am 100% against forced equality in the work place as all you end up with is a minority displacing the majority. People always think about the minority needing rights, what about the majority?
Again, and for the hard of reading, and hearing, this is a CIVIL issue, NOT a religious one. Despite the CoE and the Catholic big hat brigade coming out against Gay marriage, it will not make a difference to religious marriage ceremony, and they are free to discriminate as they see fit.
Anyway it also used to strike me as odd that prior to these civil weddings that a gay couple living together had more rights than a straight couple (although the straight couple could get married). If people want to be gay that's fine but some people, myself included, have a view and opinion that is against any further changes. This entire Law, which is backfiring on Dave, is nothing more than to try to gain a few extra votes at the risk of alienating another larger cross section.
Equality is for all? Or are some people more equal than others? Today I am legal in my beliefs but tomorrow I may not. Gays are a minority and yet again another minority is causing more disruption and cost in a disproportionate way to the majority.
People are entitled to a view but yet again if that view is not politically correct then it is the wrong view.
HungryHorace said:
So the churches are not under any pressure? The news I've seen must have been a dream then.
Anyway it also used to strike me as odd that prior to these civil weddings that a gay couple living together had more rights than a straight couple (although the straight couple could get married). If people want to be gay that's fine but some people, myself included, have a view and opinion that is against any further changes. This entire Law, which is backfiring on Dave, is nothing more than to try to gain a few extra votes at the risk of alienating another larger cross section.
Equality is for all? Or are some people more equal than others? Today I am legal in my beliefs but tomorrow I may not. Gays are a minority and yet again another minority is causing more disruption and cost in a disproportionate way to the majority.
People are entitled to a view but yet again if that view is not politically correct then it is the wrong view.
Have they been forced to have women priests? Have they been forced to marry divorcees? Have they been forced to marry people on another faith? Have they been forced to marry people not in their congregation? Have they been forced to allow gay priests? Have they been forced to allow married priests? Have they been forced to anything? What on earth makes you think that all of a sudden the church will be forced to give up one of their many, many prejudices? Anyway it also used to strike me as odd that prior to these civil weddings that a gay couple living together had more rights than a straight couple (although the straight couple could get married). If people want to be gay that's fine but some people, myself included, have a view and opinion that is against any further changes. This entire Law, which is backfiring on Dave, is nothing more than to try to gain a few extra votes at the risk of alienating another larger cross section.
Equality is for all? Or are some people more equal than others? Today I am legal in my beliefs but tomorrow I may not. Gays are a minority and yet again another minority is causing more disruption and cost in a disproportionate way to the majority.
People are entitled to a view but yet again if that view is not politically correct then it is the wrong view.
Both the CoE and the Catholic Church have been in the press about this, but you show me where the pressure is? The bill specifically excludes the church to do anything above and beyond their own belief system, so despite them having their say, it does not affect them, and again, 2/3rds as all weddings in the UK are outside a church setting, I couldn't care less what they thought.
It has nothing to do with politically correct or not.
Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 24th May 10:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff