Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Page 6 of 28 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 2.38pm
You know exactly what I mean by wrong. Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!? All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 24 May 15 2.38pm

You know exactly what I mean by wrong.
Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!?

All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.

Alert a moderator to this post

coulsdoneagle London 24 May 15 2.43pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm You know exactly what I mean by wrong. Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!? All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok. Actually no I don't know what you mean by wrong, thats why you were asked, what is wrong with it exactly and why? I think being gay should be deemed as acceptable, I hope for a time when there is no need for PRIDE or any festivals like that, people shouldn't have to celebrate normality, but they do because of attitudes like yours. Because their normality is different to yours you have a problem with that, why?
Alert a moderator to this post

coulsdoneagle

London 24 May 15 2.43pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm

All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.

Actually no I don't know what you mean by wrong, thats why you were asked, what is wrong with it exactly and why? I think being gay should be deemed as acceptable, I hope for a time when there is no need for PRIDE or any festivals like that, people shouldn't have to celebrate normality, but they do because of attitudes like yours. Because their normality is different to yours you have a problem with that, why?

Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 24 May 15 2.48pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm You know exactly what I mean by wrong. Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!? All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok. You think it s wrong that's your prerogative Millions don't that's there's You appear to believe in organised religion Millions don't. You base your moral code on a series of books that is your prerogative Guess what millions don't. You are neither right or wrong, just that in Ireland more disagree than agree with you. the dignified don't even enter in the game
Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 24 May 15 2.48pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm

All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.

You think it s wrong that's your prerogative
Millions don't that's there's
You appear to believe in organised religion
Millions don't.
You base your moral code on a series of books that is your prerogative
Guess what millions don't.
You are neither right or wrong, just that in Ireland more disagree than agree with you.

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 2.49pm
Ok, your saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion, or say something is wrong. Yet you are allowed to have an opinion on me, and say I'm in the wrong. How does that work??
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 24 May 15 2.49pm

Ok, your saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion, or say something is wrong.
Yet you are allowed to have an opinion on me, and say I'm in the wrong.
How does that work??

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 3.06pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 24 May 2015 2.48pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm You know exactly what I mean by wrong. Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!? All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok. You think it s wrong that's your prerogative Millions don't that's there's You appear to believe in organised religion Millions don't. You base your moral code on a series of books that is your prerogative Guess what millions don't. You are neither right or wrong, just that in Ireland more disagree than agree with you. Gee wiz, you must have missed my first post. I am not religious. If you ask me all religion does is cause wars. I just think it is wrong to tell religious people what they should have to accept. Most people don't like them doing it to others/ non believers, so why is it ok to force things on them. What the feck is organized religion anyway!? What series of books are you assuming I base my moral code on (my mother would be proud to think I even had one) The only series I'm taking in at the minute is breaking bad, the whole concept of that program is wrong. But I do enjoy watching it. So..... I don't smoke crystal meth, but there's a sh!te load of people who do. I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm voicing my opinion that gay marriage is wrong.
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 24 May 15 3.06pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 24 May 2015 2.48pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm

All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.

Gee wiz, you must have missed my first post. I am not religious. If you ask me all religion does is cause wars.
I just think it is wrong to tell religious people what they should have to accept. Most people don't like them doing it to others/ non believers, so why is it ok to force things on them.
What the feck is organized religion anyway!?
What series of books are you assuming I base my moral code on (my mother would be proud to think I even had one) The only series I'm taking in at the minute is breaking bad, the whole concept of that program is wrong. But I do enjoy watching it.
So..... I don't smoke crystal meth, but there's a sh!te load of people who do.

I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm voicing my opinion that gay marriage is wrong.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pikester Worthing 24 May 15 3.19pm
Quote sprites at 23 May 2015 11.47pm Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 11.41pm Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2015 11.26pm I don't regard all marriages as equal......I can see the sense in the law regarding them that way.....But I don't personally view them that way. If the majority wish for that to be the case though that's fine and how it should be. Religious or not the point of marriage in my book is to provide a secure and stable base for children later on.....I know not all people view it like that but to me that's the point. If older people get married or people who can't have children get married that's fine and dandy and an event worthy of celebration but it doesn't really chime in the same way with me. Same sex couples now get to describe their unions as 'marriage'. Well, I grew up with that meaning a union between a man and a woman. Just another example of the gradual creeping feminisation of British and now Irish society in my book. Feel free to see others as inferior. If your kids wind up being gay be sure to look them in the eye and tell them their their love and that their efforts to raise a family are second rate. There is nothing insecure and unstable about a gay family, unless you make it that way of course, which seems to be your intention. Who cares how it 'chimes' with you. Just because you would not view your own gay child's wedding ceremony wouldn't be in your eyes a 'marriage', it doesn't mean others aren't happy for them. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 11.45pm) Can't agree with that. There are certain things that a 'mother' and 'father' bring to a child invidivdually...that two of one of the other just cannot give. It's simply not fair on the kid. Man was made for woman. But in this day and age, that ship has sailed. I now think if you want to be married to someone of the same sex...go for it. But don't involve kids. Getting my helmet ready...but that's just what i reckon. I agree with you Sprites. Having masculine and feminine views on situations I believe helps children grow up more well rounded. But a "My 2 Dads" scenario doesn't sit right with me. The kid knows he's not in a 'normal' situation and will be forever seeking answers as to where his mum is. The Civil Ceremony was ok - this is a step too far for me. Call me old fashioned. You fed me, you bred me, I'll remember your name.
Alert a moderator to this post

Pikester

Worthing 24 May 15 3.19pm

Quote sprites at 23 May 2015 11.47pm

Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 11.41pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 May 2015 11.26pm

I don't regard all marriages as equal......I can see the sense in the law regarding them that way.....But I don't personally view them that way.

If the majority wish for that to be the case though that's fine and how it should be.

Religious or not the point of marriage in my book is to provide a secure and stable base for children later on.....I know not all people view it like that but to me that's the point.

If older people get married or people who can't have children get married that's fine and dandy and an event worthy of celebration but it doesn't really chime in the same way with me.

Same sex couples now get to describe their unions as 'marriage'. Well, I grew up with that meaning a union between a man and a woman.

Just another example of the gradual creeping feminisation of British and now Irish society in my book.

Feel free to see others as inferior. If your kids wind up being gay be sure to look them in the eye and tell them their their love and that their efforts to raise a family are second rate. There is nothing insecure and unstable about a gay family, unless you make it that way of course, which seems to be your intention. Who cares how it 'chimes' with you.

Just because you would not view your own gay child's wedding ceremony wouldn't be in your eyes a 'marriage', it doesn't mean others aren't happy for them.

Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 11.45pm)

Can't agree with that. There are certain things that a 'mother' and 'father' bring to a child invidivdually...that two of one of the other just cannot give. It's simply not fair on the kid.

Man was made for woman. But in this day and age, that ship has sailed. I now think if you want to be married to someone of the same sex...go for it. But don't involve kids.

Getting my helmet ready...but that's just what i reckon.

I agree with you Sprites.
Having masculine and feminine views on situations I believe helps children grow up more well rounded.

But a "My 2 Dads" scenario doesn't sit right with me. The kid knows he's not in a 'normal' situation and will be forever seeking answers as to where his mum is.

The Civil Ceremony was ok - this is a step too far for me.

Call me old fashioned.

You fed me, you bred me, I'll remember your name.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 24 May 15 3.31pm
Do gay couples use sat-nav? Don't they get offended when a female voice tells them to 'go straight'.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

24 May 15 3.31pm

Do gay couples use sat-nav? Don't they get offended when a female voice tells them to 'go straight'.

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 24 May 15 3.42pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 10.05am Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 2.02am Oh so no answer, you're not even married? If marriage is such a valuable environment for kids why shun it yourself and demote gay peoples marriage's and child rearing in the process. If marriage is to provide a secure and stable environment for children, how exactly is a child of gay parents more secure and stable without his parents being married than with? You should surely favour it? It's not an argument that makes any sense. None the less, of course, no-one needs a qualification to become a parent, nor should they need one to get a marriage. From the prejudiced to the gay families, they all get a shot now and that to me is a step forward. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 3.22am) Hmmmmm....Like I said....I was fed up of answering you when you don't really address points in posts yourself..Plus I wanted to get to the land of Nod....But it's a fresh morning and I have some spare time so I'll answer you. Yes, I'm not married and I have a young son....Seeing how you appear to wish to personalise this argument. Marriage is the 'ideal' situation for children to be raised in but I'm not living the ideal because of several personal circumstances. However the boy has a mother and father. You see Bored, I'm smart enough to realise that there's a difference between an ideal and what some people are prepared for in life. That's ok, not everyone can live the 'ideal'. However, marriage is essentially a contract between two people. A contract that is often torn up. It isn't the most important aspect.....That is the commitment between the parties. Just because that isn't the 'ideal' it does not mean that it isn't the best possible realistic outcome in the circumstances. One that can produce healthy, self assured and happy minds....It just isn't the ideal....This is the reality for many people today.....It doesn't need a series of warm words to make people feel more valued....Though many people are there to provide them...It is what it is and it is reality. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.08am) You declare a form of child rearing superior then don't enter into it despite having that privilege. Then you state that others, who actively fought for the right to marry, aren't 'really' married in your eyes and display some displeasure at their access to what you declare a more stable form of union, an ideal. If a single man and woman are a less secure and stable unit than one in wedlock it naturally follows that the same applies to a gay couple, but you are unhappy with this development. How does that help kids, yours or anyone elses? Or couples. You expect others to relate to you on a personal level because not being the 'ideal' is 'okay', but at the same time you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale, telling them that despite their legal right, their union means less to you personally. You are then affronted when criticised. Their lives are just as complex and hopes just as real as yours and they too deserve to be viewed on those terms. This change takes nothing away from yours or anyone elses relationship and it strengthens theirs according to even your own beliefs. You're apparently incapable of seeing that, whereas the Republic of Ireland examined their collective conscious and made the realisation that they are. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 24 May 15 3.42pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 10.05am

Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 2.02am

Oh so no answer, you're not even married? If marriage is such a valuable environment for kids why shun it yourself and demote gay peoples marriage's and child rearing in the process.

If marriage is to provide a secure and stable environment for children, how exactly is a child of gay parents more secure and stable without his parents being married than with? You should surely favour it? It's not an argument that makes any sense.

None the less, of course, no-one needs a qualification to become a parent, nor should they need one to get a marriage. From the prejudiced to the gay families, they all get a shot now and that to me is a step forward.

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 3.22am)

Hmmmmm....Like I said....I was fed up of answering you when you don't really address points in posts yourself..Plus I wanted to get to the land of Nod....But it's a fresh morning and I have some spare time so I'll answer you.

Yes, I'm not married and I have a young son....Seeing how you appear to wish to personalise this argument.

Marriage is the 'ideal' situation for children to be raised in but I'm not living the ideal because of several personal circumstances. However the boy has a mother and father.

You see Bored, I'm smart enough to realise that there's a difference between an ideal and what some people are prepared for in life. That's ok, not everyone can live the 'ideal'.

However, marriage is essentially a contract between two people. A contract that is often torn up. It isn't the most important aspect.....That is the commitment between the parties.

Just because that isn't the 'ideal' it does not mean that it isn't the best possible realistic outcome in the circumstances. One that can produce healthy, self assured and happy minds....It just isn't the ideal....This is the reality for many people today.....It doesn't need a series of warm words to make people feel more valued....Though many people are there to provide them...It is what it is and it is reality.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.08am)

You declare a form of child rearing superior then don't enter into it despite having that privilege. Then you state that others, who actively fought for the right to marry, aren't 'really' married in your eyes and display some displeasure at their access to what you declare a more stable form of union, an ideal. If a single man and woman are a less secure and stable unit than one in wedlock it naturally follows that the same applies to a gay couple, but you are unhappy with this development. How does that help kids, yours or anyone elses? Or couples.

You expect others to relate to you on a personal level because not being the 'ideal' is 'okay', but at the same time you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale, telling them that despite their legal right, their union means less to you personally. You are then affronted when criticised. Their lives are just as complex and hopes just as real as yours and they too deserve to be viewed on those terms. This change takes nothing away from yours or anyone elses relationship and it strengthens theirs according to even your own beliefs. You're apparently incapable of seeing that, whereas the Republic of Ireland examined their collective conscious and made the realisation that they are.

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 15 4.50pm
Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm You declare a form of child rearing superior then don't enter into it despite having that privilege. Then you state that others, who actively fought for the right to marry, aren't 'really' married in your eyes and display some displeasure at their access to what you declare a more stable form of union, an ideal. If a single man and woman are a less secure and stable unit than one in wedlock it naturally follows that the same applies to a gay couple, but you are unhappy with this development. How does that help kids, yours or anyone elses? Or couples. You expect others to relate to you on a personal level because not being the 'ideal' is 'okay', but at the same time you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale, telling them that despite their legal right, their union means less to you personally. You are then affronted when criticised. Their lives are just as complex and hopes just as real as yours and they too deserve to be viewed on those terms. This change takes nothing away from yours or anyone elses relationship and it strengthens theirs according to even your own beliefs. You're apparently incapable of seeing that, whereas the Republic of Ireland examined their collective conscious and made the realisation that they are. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm) Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality. Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with. You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex. I had no issues and even supported 'same sex unions'. Anywy its quite ridiculous that you can't hold a sensible discussion where you don't type away like a zealot because up until the recent past same sex anything wasn't even allowed in the country.....That's been the norm and now you snap away like a child who has had their candy taken. For example...It's quite ridiculous, I don't 'expect people to relate to me on a personal level'......I don't give a monkey's what people think. Another ridiculous and emotionally over the top statement you make, 'you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale'.......Errrr....This is public forum. I have spoken about this subject generally. This is the very opposite of wading 'into others lives'...No one is forced to read my posts...Again, you're being quite ridiculous. It has been you who have chosen to personalise this topic by starting to talk about my son....Which if anything 'wades into my life'.....I haven't asked you questions about your life or anyone elses nor am I interested in it. These are opinions on an opinion forum.....Quite quite ridiculous. You then say 'You are then affronted when criticised'.....What I am is miffed that you are seemingly incapable of dealing with this discussion in a mature sensible way. I'm happy to discuss the issues but if you continue in the same vein I'll just stop replying to you. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 15 4.50pm

Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm)

Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality.

Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with.

You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex. I had no issues and even supported 'same sex unions'. Anywy its quite ridiculous that you can't hold a sensible discussion where you don't type away like a zealot because up until the recent past same sex anything wasn't even allowed in the country.....That's been the norm and now you snap away like a child who has had their candy taken.

For example...It's quite ridiculous, I don't 'expect people to relate to me on a personal level'......I don't give a monkey's what people think.

Another ridiculous and emotionally over the top statement you make, 'you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale'.......Errrr....This is public forum. I have spoken about this subject generally. This is the very opposite of wading 'into others lives'...No one is forced to read my posts...Again, you're being quite ridiculous.

It has been you who have chosen to personalise this topic by starting to talk about my son....Which if anything 'wades into my life'.....I haven't asked you questions about your life or anyone elses nor am I interested in it. These are opinions on an opinion forum.....Quite quite ridiculous.

You then say 'You are then affronted when criticised'.....What I am is miffed that you are seemingly incapable of dealing with this discussion in a mature sensible way.

I'm happy to discuss the issues but if you continue in the same vein I'll just stop replying to you.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 24 May 15 5.03pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 4.50pm Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm You declare a form of child rearing superior then don't enter into it despite having that privilege. Then you state that others, who actively fought for the right to marry, aren't 'really' married in your eyes and display some displeasure at their access to what you declare a more stable form of union, an ideal. If a single man and woman are a less secure and stable unit than one in wedlock it naturally follows that the same applies to a gay couple, but you are unhappy with this development. How does that help kids, yours or anyone elses? Or couples. You expect others to relate to you on a personal level because not being the 'ideal' is 'okay', but at the same time you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale, telling them that despite their legal right, their union means less to you personally. You are then affronted when criticised. Their lives are just as complex and hopes just as real as yours and they too deserve to be viewed on those terms. This change takes nothing away from yours or anyone elses relationship and it strengthens theirs according to even your own beliefs. You're apparently incapable of seeing that, whereas the Republic of Ireland examined their collective conscious and made the realisation that they are. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm) Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality. Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with. You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex. 'Hijacking' of the term? It's people of a nation wishing to add what you yourself admit is security and stability to their relationships and for their families. It is an agreed definition by the population of the Republican of Ireland, not somebody steering a plane into a tower block. Clearly if someone is gay this is an issue that is personal to them, whether or not you want to paint it as such. Don't worry yourself, this gay person will be knocking participation in General on the head. I'll stick to the rest of the site. How many gay members do we have here again? When you read some of the stuff written over the last couple of days in multiple threads that's explanation enough. Have fun everyone. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 5.04pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 24 May 15 5.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 4.50pm

Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm)

Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality.

Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with.

You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex.

'Hijacking' of the term? It's people of a nation wishing to add what you yourself admit is security and stability to their relationships and for their families. It is an agreed definition by the population of the Republican of Ireland, not somebody steering a plane into a tower block.

Clearly if someone is gay this is an issue that is personal to them, whether or not you want to paint it as such. Don't worry yourself, this gay person will be knocking participation in General on the head. I'll stick to the rest of the site. How many gay members do we have here again? When you read some of the stuff written over the last couple of days in multiple threads that's explanation enough.

Have fun everyone.

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 5.04pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 5.28pm
Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 5.03pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 4.50pm Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm You declare a form of child rearing superior then don't enter into it despite having that privilege. Then you state that others, who actively fought for the right to marry, aren't 'really' married in your eyes and display some displeasure at their access to what you declare a more stable form of union, an ideal. If a single man and woman are a less secure and stable unit than one in wedlock it naturally follows that the same applies to a gay couple, but you are unhappy with this development. How does that help kids, yours or anyone elses? Or couples. You expect others to relate to you on a personal level because not being the 'ideal' is 'okay', but at the same time you unnecessarily wade into others lives wholesale, telling them that despite their legal right, their union means less to you personally. You are then affronted when criticised. Their lives are just as complex and hopes just as real as yours and they too deserve to be viewed on those terms. This change takes nothing away from yours or anyone elses relationship and it strengthens theirs according to even your own beliefs. You're apparently incapable of seeing that, whereas the Republic of Ireland examined their collective conscious and made the realisation that they are. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm) Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality. Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with. You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex. 'Hijacking' of the term? It's people of a nation wishing to add what you yourself admit is security and stability to their relationships and for their families. It is an agreed definition by the population of the Republican of Ireland, not somebody steering a plane into a tower block. Clearly if someone is gay this is an issue that is personal to them, whether or not you want to paint it as such. Don't worry yourself, this gay person will be knocking participation in General on the head. I'll stick to the rest of the site. How many gay members do we have here again? When you read some of the stuff written over the last couple of days in multiple threads that's explanation enough. Have fun everyone. Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 5.04pm) Probably not as many as brighton!?
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 24 May 15 5.28pm

Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 4.50pm

Quote imbored at 24 May 2015 3.42pm

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 4.18pm)

Another post where you produce a narritive full of emotive value judgement language with little connection to reality.

Your first sentence is just about the only statement that I can agree with.

You say I have displeasure with gay people getting married....My problem is with the hijacking of the word, 'marriage' to now include same sex.

Clearly if someone is gay this is an issue that is personal to them, whether or not you want to paint it as such. Don't worry yourself, this gay person will be knocking participation in General on the head. I'll stick to the rest of the site. How many gay members do we have here again? When you read some of the stuff written over the last couple of days in multiple threads that's explanation enough.

Have fun everyone.

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 5.04pm)

Probably not as many as brighton!?

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 24 May 15 5.28pm
'Hijacking' of the term? is a reasonable description. It is the same with the word 'progressive'. The new lib/left politically correct establishment describe anything they want as 'progressive', when often what they are proposing is anything but.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

24 May 15 5.28pm

'Hijacking' of the term? is a reasonable description.
It is the same with the word 'progressive'. The new lib/left politically correct establishment describe anything they want as 'progressive', when often what they are proposing is anything but.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 28 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Site Map

Sponsors