It's another case of the minority dictating to the majority, and woah betide anyone showing justifiable opposition. It should have been put to the public vote, not just a bunch of over paid corrupt ****s who think they know how we want the country run. Rather than giving the green light for ****s to get all mincy down the aisle, they should have just ****ing outlawed marriage, it's no longer constructive to the world we live in today. The way it's going, in a few years it will probably be compulsory to be a mincer.
It all comes down to money. This is being done in the name of fairness and equality but the upshot is going to allow homosexuals the right to launch claims against our financial and religious institutions. No doubt they will be with back dated compensation claims for the right to pension entitlement, tax breaks, etc. Neil and Bob will be down the Citizen's Advice before you can say vaseline to make a claim against any institution that refuses to allow them to get married and if Cameron thinks the "quadruple lock" to allow churches, mosques, synagogues etc the right to veto same sex marriage services he is most mistaken. Once this is in UK law the bufties will be able to challenge it in Europe and, as we all know, our government will capitulate to any edict thrown out by the ECOHR. I predict a crisis in the pension and insurance industry in years to come when gay men and women start to challenge widows/widowers pension rights. It will start with gay men and women and before you know it the other freaks like Transexual & Transgender misfits will all be on the band wagon. You can introduce a law to say same sex marriages are legal, you can uphold current laws to protect individuals right to be what ever sexuality they want and you can promote equality as much as you like but you can't stop the vast majority of people thinking a man shoving his cock up another man's pooper is anything but an abomination. A **** covered cock is no stable basis for a relationship.
What a load of Daily Mail-inspred bullshit. And another thing: as someone asked the other day, it's okay for the church to marry Katie Price every other week but they think it's a sin to marry someone because they're gay? Load of ****ing nonsense.
What a load of Guardian inspired spelling. My boy might come home with another bloke and say "Dad, this is Arthur, we are both in love and want to get married" Because I love my son I will have to put a brave face on it, do the whole farce of seeing them off down the aisle (if that's what they want) and try to be happy as they jet off to San Francisco for their honeymoon. Inside, part of me will be dead. Do you honestly believe the "as long as my kids are happy I'm happy" ****? I won't lie, if my boy turns out to be queer I will be utterly pissed. If you are cool with that then all credit to you. If my daughter brings home another woman and says "Dad, this is Martha, we are both in love and want to get married" I will probably ask if I can take Martha out to shop for honeymoon underwear. Double standard? Probably. I will still be utterly pissed. I don't need the Daily Fail for an opinion.
This is an entirely different point from the one you made above. I've no interest in how you feel about your kids being gay. I was commenting on your views about gays seeking financial compensation and their right to get married. Weirdo.
if i promised to be with someone for life and it didn't work out the first time, don't think i'd be going and doing it all again - there's your mistake gas
I think it`s about time we lowered the age of bumhole tampering to say 12 or 13 ..... I know lot`s of 13 yer old boys that would love a middle aged man pounding their sweet sweet asses..... please log in to view this image
Why do they want to get married in a church that hates them anyway? Surely civil partnership is good enough? Is there any real point in new legislation? Will I ever stop asking questions?
