AIBU to be increasingly infuriated by the issue of same sex marriage with BOTH sides?

[dopishe]

The whole thing is getting on my nerves now. And I mean both sides of the debate, too. The against who are saying it will wreck society-how exactly? Those who say that it will strengthen relationships of gay people=pull the other one!
As far as I am concerned, civil partnerships and marriage provide equality of financial and legal rights and, whichever a person has, it is up to THEM to make it (relationship) work and cp's and marriage are just titles. So just leave things as they are.

I am absolutely infuriated by The tory party using this issue as pure gesture politics when they do not give a stuff about people's lives and the REALLY important issues like the economy and jobs and things that really matter.

Not saying labour wouldn't be any different, but people, does it matter enough to alter the status quo?

quirrel, That's fine that you can reject something that you can't have. But some people want to embrace something they're not allowed.

It's a simple equality thing, for me, really.

Yeah, cos you're not coming across as a tiny bit judgmental, dopishe.

I don't have any issue with you calling me judgemental-as in having an opinion, LRD, that's fine.

quirrel It wouldn't matter to me if every last gay person in the country said they didn't want to be able to marry - I would still be pushing for a law change. It's the fact that gay people CAN'T make the same choice that straight couples makes that's really the issue - not necessarily whether they want to.

Equality is equality is equality. There are no degrees of it.

Sorry, can I just say:

Ha ha, hahahahaha, very funny

Talk about losing an argument and not knowing what to do next. I will give you a piece of advice: when you lose an argument, it is polite to say "ok, I accept my views are different from yours, I'll have a think about it", rather than calling everyone else names.

Tsk - grammar fail.

"...make the same choice that straight couples can...."

But on the other hand, when they call us names, it's much easier to spot them and report them, so I'm happy.

Oh, my goodness, while I was typing, dopishe posted, was deleted and posted again .

mnhq are on the ball.

LRD, watch her self-combust now, in the attempt to turn this into a bunfight and get the whole thread deleted

Can we all stay polite, so that won't happen please if you can possibly manage it . I'd like it to stay as evidence.

MNHQ are on the ball.

Sometimes they even ban persistent trolls, which is also lovely. Then we don't have to be polite.

Evidence of what, MaryZed? Go on do tell?

I think she means evidence of the remarks that broke MNHQs guidelines against personal attacks and/or homophobia, dopishe, which got you deleted within about 30 seconds.

I have NOT been homophobic here at all.

I think it's a waste of time too. So why don't we just support it, pass it and then everybody will be happy (except dopishe and the other homophobes)?

Evidence that what you have written in your posts make you sound very homophobic, dopishe. Next time one of these threads appears, I want to be able to link to this one and save everyone a lot of time .

Yes, insisting homosexuals should be treated differently because they're not 'natural' in their parenting is not homophobic at all.

Oh, wait ...

OK, let's go through what I've actually said here:

1, The current rule as applied to heterosexual married people whereby the husband is assumed to be the father of any child his wife gives birth to cannot possibly be applied to gay people. Extra evidence would be needed.

A reasonable comment.

2, The consequences of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are different because there is the possibility of pregnancy with heterosexuals.

Another perfectly reasonable comment.

But what has this got to do with equal marriage???????

We've read what you've said.

The current rule is based in bigoted crap, and could be junked, or we could just assume a child born to a couple is a child born to a couple.

You know, as opposed to discriminating against people on basis of their sexual orientation?

What's that called again?

Because equality means treating people exactly the same, doesn't it? When you say you want equal marriage, I take it that you want the same rules of marriage in a heterosexual marriage to apply the same way to you as they do heterosexual married couples. All I've done is point out that they can't be in certain aspects, that is all.

LRD The law is what it is and they are not going to junk it any time soon, it serves a very useful purpose.

No, and no one said it did, did they?

What you did was to point out the rules can't be applied if you are a homophobe.

Bollocks. Laws change all the time. This whole thread is about a much-discussed and possible legal change.

You really are quite ridiculous if you think that not being able to father a child entitles the government to deny me an equal marriage.

"1, The current rule as applied to heterosexual married people whereby the husband is assumed to be the father of any child his wife gives birth to cannot possibly be applied to gay people. Extra evidence would be needed."

If you kept the current wording it would be fine. There would either be two husbands or two wives. :)