[Automatic Man]

misterj, on Jan 1 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

What if these "rights" are abhorent and wrong in the eyes of the majority of our society. Rights are only what we deem to be rights. What about Gary Glitters "rights" to have sex with innocent little kids.Think about it. If everybody has so called "rights" to do as they please, then society is gonna be fucked right up.

Many more people are gay than want to sleep with kids. The rights may be wrong in a few peoples eyes, but if it means that people that love each other can get married, enjoy their life with each other and to be honest, save money etc then why not? If I love someone I may well want to get married, I dont want it to be illegal for me to do so, therefore it is good for me. I also, to be completly honest think that anything that pisses off highly-religous people is usually good.

[misterj]

Making something legal doesn't make it right, and as I said in a previous post I don't care one way or the other, but where do we stop, who has the right to make these decisions. I thought that in a democracy the will of the majority held sway. How small a minority are we going to pander to [gays make up only 4% of the population], as most people I talk to either don't care, or are against gay weddings, there aren't many for it.

[Automatic Man]

misterj, on Jan 1 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

Making something legal doesn't make it right, and as I said in a previous post I don't care one way or the other, but where do we stop, who has the right to make these decisions. I thought that in a democracy the will of the majority held sway. How small a minority are we going to pander to [gays make up only 4% of the population], as most people I talk to either don't care, or are against gay weddings, there aren't many for it.

Most the people you talk to aren't everyone either. Being gay I am obviously for gay marriage and am very happy it has been legallised, and if most the people you talk to dont care about it then whats the problem?

[Helen SD]

i dont see a problem with it.

democracy is designed to do the best for the people. gay marriages dont have a bad effect on anyone, so why not legalise it?

[Gabriel Synthesis]

heroin only has a bad effect on users so why not legalise it?

[TheDissident]

I am completely against gay marriages, because I think the state and the society in general should only encourage and support biologically correct unions.

[misterj]

I'm niether for nor against it, but a democratic government should ideally reflect the will of the majority, is this not the case. The majority of people are against gay weddings, but the grinning jackass Tony Blair, with his liberal, couldn't give a shit, do as you please attitude, [also refer to immigration policy etc] legalises it. Democracy my jacksie.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Because it is bad for the users -> the law's for their own protection, and it does affect others in the form of drug-related crime

Also, wtf r u on about? The majority of people are FOR civil partnerships, just look at this thread, there are very few against it

This post has been edited by Forgone Conclusion: 01 January 2006 - 08:40 PM

[Gabriel Synthesis]

ok but having anal sex means that you firstly have an increased chance of catching AIDS off a contaminated person

also it means that you are never allowed to give blood which affects other people especially as the supplies of blood in this country are dwindling. surely encouraging gay marriages encourages homosexuality and therefore will decrease the number of people to give blood?

yes i am arguing jsut for the sake of it, i actually am indifferent to gay civil partnerships

[Forgone Conclusion]

Having anal sex has no affect on the liklehood of catching AIDS if you se the correct protection, and allowing gay men to marry would probably mean a drop in the transeferance of AIDS since they are more likely to stay faithful

[Gabriel Synthesis]

the same is true for straight people having sex, you won't catch AIDS if you use the correct protection, that's a rubbish point

also i think gay couples would have been just as faithful before they were allowed to marry as they are now they wouldn't have thought "i want to spend the rest of my life with you but seeing as we can't get married i'm going to cheat on you"

and you haven't answered the point about giving blood

it's a pointless arguement because it started after a flippant comment anyway

[paddys wink]

it is up to the poofs ,let them get on with it

[Forgone Conclusion]

ok, fine, having anal sex rather than 'conventional' sex has the same liklehood as transferring in AIDS in general, but even if t his weren't the case, shouldn't we ban buggery between a heterosexual couple too?

Also, as far as i'm aware, gay people are allowed to give blood, tho obv those with AIDS cant, a point i hve already adressed

I also think that marriage is more likely to keep people faithful

[Helen SD]

homosexuality is not something that be encouraged or discouraged. all the legalisation of gay marriages will do is allow them to be as happy as heterosexual couples.

[paddys wink]

Forgone Conclusion, on Jan 1 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

ok, fine, having anal sex rather than 'conventional' sex has the same liklehood as transferring in AIDS in general, but even if t his weren't the case, shouldn't we ban buggery between a heterosexual couple too?

Also, as far as i'm aware, gay people are allowed to give blood, tho obv those with AIDS cant, a point i hve already adressed

I also think that marriage is more likely to keep people faithful

i would not worry i gave a Finnish bird one up the arsre once and it nearly ripped me foreskin off, the irons can fucking keep it.mind you saying that if you get the chance go with a scandinavian bird bdo it,they go like the clappers

[Gabriel Synthesis]

Forgone Conclusion, on Jan 1 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

Also, as far as i'm aware, gay people are allowed to give blood, tho obv those with AIDS cant, a point i hve already adressed

only if they haven't had anal sex which they are more likely to do than a straight couple

[misterj]

FC, Most people on this site, going by other threads, have liberal / lefty leanings [apart from Paddy], and some are actualy gay, so of course they will be "for" gay wedding, But throught the general population most are against it. Another fact is that male gays are extremely promiscuous, and the chance of them settling down to a quiet married life because of new legeslation is unrealistic IMO.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Is that true? You can't give blood if you've had anal sex? I'm quite surprised at that really

[paddys wink]

couldnt you catch one mrj?

[misterj]

FC, suprised that men indulging in the single act most likely to spread AIDS, can't give blood. You'd better be jokeing,