When faced with the insane arguments you have been trying to put forward what do you expect? The bigots have been equating homosexuality with illegal acts for years.

one does have to wonder what your poor disabled daughter and mentally frail wife are doing whilst you're promoting homophobic bigotry 24/7, not to mention that tourtoured soul son, answering all those calls from nasty Personal Injury Solicitors touting for business.

I don't think I know of any other family that has fallen on such bad luck.

maybe God doesn't love you?

Good.


No, not "simplistic", the word is "simple".
The real argument is very simple ... should people who can have sex legally, marry legally?
In all these pages you have not put forward a single point other than you have a moral objection but, apart from comparisons with illegal acts, you have utterly failed to articulate that moral objection.


You brought that on yourself by your incessant anti-gay posts.


It does seem so.

I see Dally hasn't got a retort, maybe he's busy cutting eye holes in pillowcases?

Equal marriage and adoption now passed in France.

Well done the French.

Not quite.

Homosexuality between males when in private was made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and in Northern Ireland in 1982 (and is still illegal in 70 countries in the world). The age of consent for gays was brought into line with straights in 1997 - however, no 'minor persons' could be present.

So to leap from illegality to gay marriage in [iat most a generation[/i is a big ask and really it shouldn't surprise anyone that the leap cannot be made by everyone.

And the French have the right separation of church and state, quelle surprise.

When was it made illegal and how did people adjust?

Its not really such a big ask, we made the leap from signs in boarding house windows stating "no blacks" to having a black Archbishop of York (and they STILL won't support women in their gang) in one generation, gay marriage is a small step really especially as its not going to affect the religious at all.

Do you still defend the right of a husband to rape his wife, since rape cannot exist in marriage? The old 'conjugal rights', eh?

After all, that's only really been tackled in very recent years. Is it a bit modern for you?

It does surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would have an issue with it. It doesn't affect me yet I can see that it will benefit a large number of people, and cannot harm anyone.

My lack of understanding is why people would be against it. I can't believe that people are still so averse to accepting same sex couples, times have changed! You now have a mobile phone and the internet - would you prefer to go back to paper and ink and carrier pigeons?

It may seem a minor issue but it was the sexual activity between men that was illegal before 1967 NOT the homosexuality of those men.
Let's be accurate please.

OK, let's be accutate, what was the nature of the"sexual activity" between men that was illegal? What reasons were given for treating it as illegal?