Eh? Why would being homosexual mean that a person wouldn't want to get married?

Marriage is only for couples of the opposite sex because we haven't yet legalised it for couples of the same sex. There are no good reasons for us not to do this, and hopefully it won't be much longer until the law is enacted.

As far as civil partnerships go, why should homosexual people have to call their union by a different name to heterosexual couples as though it's somehow a lesser union? If two people love each other and want to spend their lives together, they should have the right to be married, regardless of their gender.

Excellent riposte. You are trying to compare two things that aren't remotely comparable in a bid to justify your bigotry.

It's an attempt to muddy the waters, and a poor one at that. The reasons for incest being illegal are so staggeringly obvious that only a total idiot wouldn't recognise them. Conversely, there isn't a single logical reason for same sex marriage to remain illegal.

I bring it in to demonstrate the subjective and judgemental nature of these issues and their underlying "morality. Alot of people on here seem to think they are morally superior because they support gay marriage.

The other matter of course is the time in which the argument is framed. I suspect that many the non-gay, pro-gay marriage 'bigots' would have been the most anti-homosexual 'bigots' in times when homosexuality was illegal and severely frowned upon. There is nothing more dangerous in humanity than 'group thinking.'

Yes, but as I pointed out marrying a cousin is not considered incestuous in law but can still have tragic consequences. As I keep saying where do you draw these lines and what makes you feel your view is superior to others? Was it you that took Gordon Brown's moral compass? At present it's looking as though you lost it too if you took it.

a) Aside from it being illegal you mean?
b) You what?

No you don't, you did it to scare monger or , as Rock God said, muddy the waters.

The rest is pure guess work.

Are you really as thick as you're going to great lengths to make out you are? Of course a line has to be drawn with what degree of relatedness should prevent two people from being able to marry. The reasons for that are obvious and where the line is drawn is open to debate.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the same sex marriage debate. There will be a 0% birth defect rate as a result of same sex marriages, so it's not a factor worth considering when deciding whether or not to legalise it.

To bring it into the debate shows either breathtaking stupidity, or deliberate disingenuousness.

I think he believes marridge to be a religious thing.

But you don't see or accept that some people draw a line on the marriage issue in a different place to you? Some people clearly draw a line in the metaphorical sand somewhere between heterosexuals and homosexuals. You seem to draw a line elsewhere but not in a place that allows anyone to marry anyone else they may love.

I think he's saying that gay people can get married just to somebody of the opposite sex, therefore there is nothing discriminatory about the present laws, however given that there is no evidence that a person can choose their sexuality then this does not refute the claim that the present laws are discriminatory.

Obviously you are that thick.

If two homosexual people choose to get married, no one stands to be harmed. There are no logical reasons for same sex marriage to remain illegal. The same cannot be said of incest. Your argument is utterly ridiculous.

Why would two consenting members of the family using contraception cause each other harm? Your argument is farcical. The issue comes down to one of morality (whatever that is) and you do not have a monopoly on that. Indeed, based on human history I would say your view would be considered morally regugnant in most socities in most eras. Just accept that.

FFS. Do you know of a form of contraception that's 100% effective? If you do, get it to market immediately - you'll be a very rich man. It's quite obviously not themselves they'll harm, you blithering idiot, it's any potential offspring. Making incest illegal prevents even the possibility of the sort of birth defects such a pairing might lead to.

As for your argument about morality, this just highlights your bigotry. If two people love each other, there's nothing remotely immoral about them marrying one another. Slavery was also fairly commonplace in the past, but that doesn't make it right.

'blithering idiot'.

It was worth reading over the entrenched forces just to read that phrase.

Thank you.