Blimey, this argument has become very contorted.
All we are seeing is a bill which will allow marriage between those who can legally have sex.
Simple as that.

If sex between consenting adult brothers were legal, I personally would have no objections to them marrying, if they so wished.
Why? Because I don't see who would be harmed by it.
If someone can point out where the harm is, I might change my mind.

I must say though, it is great fun reading Dally and Kirkstaller' s increasingly convoluted "what if"s.

Just to annoy them, I'll add a couple more views which are off-topic really but, as the two if them seem somewhat fixated with what other people do with their genitals, here goes ...

Polygamy, hmmm , depends if you can sort out the issues and legalities around consent from all parties involved and inheritance.
Bestiality, nope, most animals cannot be considered to be sentient consenting adults plus there may well be genuine health issues.

Could this not be challenged if it could be proven that as tax payers we contributed to the up keep of the buildings?

Not to mention how the church made their money in the first place.

Absolutely, although I suspect that they'd argue that they are public buildings providing a public service - use it or not you can still walk into any church and have a look around or even, if you so desire, go ask for help.

I don't think much (if any) public money is actually spent on church buildings, although IIRC there are VAT exemptions on building work to places of worship.
Plus, of course, Gift Aid tax relief on donations.

It would be interesting to see the uk's tax exemptions to religion.

Max Wallace detailed Australia's "give away" in the Purple Economy and a professor at the university of Tampa found the religious gained $71 BILLION a year.

Seen as I must have written in invisible ink last time, I'll have another go at trying to understand your logic.

I will warn you though, the more you type, the worse it gets. I think with this last post, you have edged out of bigoted waters and into the deep waters of homophobia.

Other than your obvious distaste for persons of homosexual orientation, what valid reason can you give against homosexual marriage?

As people keep reminding you, this debate has nothing to do with other forms of illegal relationships.

And it's absolutely standard homophobic practice to do what Dally is doing, in continuing to attempt to link homosexuality with illegal practices.

read your pm, if you would be so kind....

As I keep trying to say to you the debate should be about principle. I should remind you quite recently homosexuality was illegal here and still is in many places. I cannot think of a time when heterosexuality was. I am afraid it you and the other apologists for gay marriage who are failing to debate the issue properly.

See above. You will also note that I (so far as I recall) have only ever tried to debate the concept / principle on this thread. Others have ranted that I, and others, are "homophobic" simply for having the temerity to look at things from an alternative and one might argue superior moral perspective.

No dear. You are 'arguing' from a standard, homophobic approach.

Really, why don't you just start a Homophobe Pride group somewhere? You could have a black and white rainbow as your badge.

Has this been sorted yet?

Is it legal to take your boyfriend up the aisle or not?

Apologists?
Listen Dally, listen hard ... can you hear anyone apologising?
Not to you they're not and not to your fellow "principled" homophobes.

You are quite wrong that homosexuality was illegal here "quite recently".
It was sex between two men that was illegal, not their homosexuality (and, between women, sexual acts were never illegal anyway).

However, it no longer is illegal.
Deal with it.

What principle is it that should stop homosexual marriage? Homosexuality is not illegal anymore, and hasn't been for generations.

If you want a proper debate, we shall have oneI propose that the motion carried in the house of commons last week on the concerning the bill to allow same sex marriage should be passed. My reason for this is that I see no valid reason that same sex couples should not have the same rights that heterosexual couples have.[/i

It is at this point that you respond in full to my proposition and offer a counter argument. Please, feel free.

I am not going to repeat the last n pages again. Read them if you want. I am thoroughly bored with this now. None of the pro- brigade ever make any serious comment beyond the ridiculously simplistic. Either that or silly "homophobe" comments. You can have your opinion I will have mine and seemingly never the twain shall meet.