Gay Wedding's Legal in Britain
Archived31 replies · 775 views
digital mike binoche wrote: What do you think ?
Could someone please pass a bucket? Quickly? Please? NOW!
Steve Campbell wrote: couldn't give a toss leave em to it whatever makes em happy no skin off my nose etc
Seems like the UK has more sense than the US. Gay marriage really doesn't affect anyone, aside from those who are gay and want to get married, so I don't see why most of the US seems against it.
This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote: Seems like the UK has more sense than the US. Gay marriage really doesn't affect anyone, aside from those who are gay and want to get married, so I don't see why most of the US seems against it.
letting two men marry (or two women)...what the fook...next thing you know, you will suggest that we allow women and blacks to vote...
oh the horror!!!
digital mike binoche wrote: What do you think ?
The only positive thing Blair has managed to implement since Iraq began.
If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
There was "civil union" in Quebec for almost 2 years, Canada approved the "wedding" term and legalized it for all the country last summer, I think 1 day after Spain did it.
To be honest, it's up to them, if they want to do it, why not... only problem I see is that my wedding ring doesn't proove I'm not gay anymore 
Oh well ;)
The only problem I see is adoption, and believe it or not, it's coming... and I'm totally against it... obviously, can't do much about it if one of the parent is a natural parent, then that's ok.. but come on, if you want to fook up somebody for life, leave him to be adopted by 2 gay men... if this person survives high school, he'll be lucky!!
It's already tough to survive high school when you are not "normal", imagine this!
Oh, btw, swingers' private clubs are LEGAL in Canada since yesterday, so we're kind of "do whatever you want" right now ;)
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Does the new law specifically state you have be a chutney ferret or minge muncher to qualify? If not, then long term hetero couples who do the same thing will no doubt get the same rights....oh and BTW...they've had the whole "common law" thing anyway.
Steve Campbell wrote:
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Does the new law specifically state you have be a chutney ferret or minge muncher to qualify? If not, then long term hetero couples who do the same thing will no doubt get the same rights....oh and BTW...they've had the whole "common law" thing anyway.
I doubt it Steve.
Just imagine this scene... you're living with a coed to split the rent, you've been together for 10 years, but obviously, you're not gay.
You suddently die, he would try to claim your stuff by saying you were a couple? Now come on.. at least when you're married, you know what you're doing and nobody can deny what you did.
The funny thing is, now anybody can marry anybody for any reason... nothing will stop you to marry your long time male friend who is dying of a cancer because his pension plan is better than yours!!
Note that Anna Nicole Smith has been doing this for ages, but this opens new doors to a whole new kind of golddiggers...
Steve Campbell wrote:
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Does the new law specifically state you have be a chutney ferret or minge muncher to qualify? If not, then long term hetero couples who do the same thing will no doubt get the same rights....oh and BTW...they've had the whole "common law" thing anyway.
Too many rules- carn't be arsed finding out where me & our lass stand so gonna get hitched next year to make sure
Steve Campbell wrote: That's been legal for years in at least 3 states :D
No, it hasn't. Vermont let gays have civil unions - same benefits as marriage, but a different name - roughly three years ago, but that's not the same as marriage. Not all fifty US states recognize a civil union, and the benefits that a gay couple could get in Vermont - pension, health care... - wouldn't apply to them if they found themselves in Utah or Kansas. Massachusetts has been going back and forth on the gay marriage issue and gay couples have gotten married in that state, but because, unlike the UK, it is not national, their marriage exists only in Massachusetts and no where else in the country.
I think it's fine. Why not give homosexuals the same rights? Never understood the hysteria over gay rights, surely there are more important things to worry about.
sweetness wrote: I think it's fine. Why not give homosexuals the same rights? Never understood the hysteria over gay rights, surely there are more important things to worry about.
I can't see why anyone would give a monkeys about anything short of gaymen being given the mandatory right to bum-shag straight geezers. Wake me up if that's on the cards...I'll have a valid opinion on it.
twist wrote: I wanna marry my dog.
And that is the point of this discussion. Love is the most important thing. Amen. :)
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Which is the problem with this 'civil partnership' compromise. Would have been better to have just let gays get married on the same basis as heteros and have done with it, then the above complaint wouldn't arise.
sweetness wrote: I think it's fine. Why not give homosexuals the same rights? Never understood the hysteria over gay rights, surely there are more important things to worry about.
Yepp...
404 error wrote:
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Which is the problem with this 'civil partnership' compromise. Would have been better to have just let gays get married on the same basis as heteros and have done with it, then the above complaint wouldn't arise.
That is an issue, but another is, that civil-partnerships are not recognized in every US state and that a civil-partnership is almost like second-class marriage. What's so wrong with having homosexuals marry? Really, aside from those getting married, it's no one's business, and it sure as heck isn't some Christan Fundamental group's business about who gets married or not. Then again, some Christian fundamentalists are trying to change, at least in some districts, what gets taught as the creation of man in a biology class.
This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:
404 error wrote:
Andrew Sayer wrote: If gays are allowed all these 'rights' (pension/on death ec..)how come long-term hereosexual couples dont' have these 'rights' if for one reason or another they don't want to marry. Seems a tad unfair
Which is the problem with this 'civil partnership' compromise. Would have been better to have just let gays get married on the same basis as heteros and have done with it, then the above complaint wouldn't arise.
That is an issue, but another is, that civil-partnerships are not recognized in every US state and that a civil-partnership is almost like second-class marriage. What's so wrong with having homosexuals marry? Really, aside from those getting married, it's no one's business, and it sure as heck isn't some Christan Fundamental group's business about who gets married or not. Then again, some Christian fundamentalists are trying to change, at least in some districts, what gets taught as the creation of man in a biology class.
i don't see why christians should have a problem with this. it is not as though these will be chuch weddings. then again in some denominations anything is possible.
i can see a problem when they demand to be married in church and then claim discrimination, as christians see the male/female relationship as having been instituted by god since adam and eve. anyway i don't really want this to turn into another religious debate, so i'll stop here.
