You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[Galaxiom]

Since all of our forms no longer talk of spouses but partners I don't see the problem

The forms are fine.

However I know you frequently referred to your partner as your "wife" on this board. Why did you not use the word "partner"?

 

[Brianwarnock]

Shortsight is not rare but I have never considered my eyes to be normal, and for what it's worth redheaded is normal in my family , infact I had more red headed aunts and uncles than the rest put together, and one of my two daughters is red headed, the other auburn . Obviously this discussion has become stupid so I quit

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

The forms are fine.

However I know you frequently referred to your partner as your "wife" on this board. Why did you not use the word "partner"?

Ok one last question , if married how will 2 lesbians refer to their partner, I'm just curious.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

... redheaded is normal in my family , infact I had more red headed aunts and uncles than the rest put together, and one of my two daughters is red headed, the other auburn .

On a global basis your family is highly abnormal. Should we avoid mentioning redheads to children lest they think it part of the normal range of humanity?

Perhaps you might then understand what it would be like to be homosexual and have the world deny you are a normal person.

(BTW. My granddaughter has a beautiful head of red hair.)

Obviously this discussion has become stupid so I quit

No Brian. You quit because your arguments are demolished.

 

[Galaxiom]

Ok one last question , if married how will 2 lesbians refer to their partner, I'm just curious.

However they wish.

I met a gay man who referred to his partner as his husband. I don't see a problem. Why do you see such an obstacle in terminology?

 

[RainLover]

Which "special rights at your expense" would you be referring to?

First of all you have to acknowledge that the law does not discriminate against you because you bat for the other team. These people have the same rights as I do.

Therefore any law that is passed to their exclusive advantage is a special right.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I quit because you are selective in which questions you answer, and that you read into posts what you want. I do not see any problem in how married homosexuals might refer to each other, I said that I was just curious, but you want to pretend that I would see it as a problem.

You never did say in what way I am a bigot, probably because you made it up.

Cheers

Brian

 

[rodmc]

TBF to Brian, Civil Unions/Partnerships in the UK grants all legal rights that come with Marriage. The key point in the UK is that they can now get married in a church if that church agrees to marry them. If it is against the churches beliefs they cannot be forced into marrying a gay couple.
I dont want to speak for Brian but it seems there is a lot of money and effort being wasted for very little change as such. His extremest comment probably refers to certain organisations who would like to force all churches to perform the ceremonies even if it goes against there beliefs.

 

[RainLover]

So you and your Mum happily discuss what you do sexually with your wife?

No I don't.

But I have been in a group discussion where you are cut short if you do. From both men and women. I have seen on some occasions where some people have almost thrown up when details are mentioned.

This reaction often comes from women who say that they have lots of friends that are Gay. Bull S....

 

[Galaxiom]

First of all you have to acknowledge that the law does not discriminate against you because you bat for the other team. These people have the same rights as I do.

Therefore any law that is passed to their exclusive advantage is a special right.

Men and women can marry. How does affording the same right to same sex couples constitute a "special right"?

 

[Galaxiom]

[Brian's] extremest comment probably refers to certain organisations who would like to force all churches to perform the ceremonies even if it goes against there beliefs.

I am against this. If someone wants to belong to a stupid club then they play by the rules of the stupid club.

But public policy should be non-discriminatory.

 

[Galaxiom]

You never did say in what way I am a bigot, probably because you made it up.

You are a bigot because you stick to you prejudices even though you pretend you are OK with other people minding their own business.

 

[Galaxiom]

No I don't.

But I have been in a group discussion where you are cut short if you do. From both men and women. I have seen on some occasions where some people have almost thrown up when details are mentioned.

This reaction often comes from women who say that they have lots of friends that are Gay. Bull S....

Discussion of heterosexual behaviour makes some people want to throw up. Therefore heterosexual behaviour should not be acceptable?

 

[Brianwarnock]

You are a bigot because you stick to you prejudices even though you pretend you are OK with other people minding their own business.

As I said you read into posts what you want and if you can't you make it up.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

As I said you read into posts what you want and if you can't you make it up.

That is an unsubstantiated claim.

You do pretend to be OK with homosexuality while you argue that it is only alright if we pretend it dosn't exist.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I am against this. If someone wants to belong to a stupid club then they play by the rules of the stupid club.

But public policy should be non-discriminatory.

So you condemn as stupid all regions and thus all who believe just because you don't , what was that about bigotry?

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

That is an unsubstantiated claim.

You do pretend to be OK with homosexuality while you argue that it is only alright if we pretend it dosn't exist.

Just where did I say that, where did I even hint at that, I did suggest that we should redefine marriage to remove all obstacles that might exist to them being married, how does that fit in with yourmadness.

Go and read the posts again this time without you preconceived ideas.


Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Religion is objectively stupid.

But l's get back to the real subject. Tell me how you are accepting of homosexuality so long as we don't accept it as part of normal humanity.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Religion is objectively stupid.

But l's get back to the real subject. Tell me how you are accepting of homosexuality so long as we don't accept it as part of normal humanity.

Thank you for proving my point, I said it was not the norm, but I also said that it was natural, I realise that is difficult for you to grasp but try.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Just where did I say that, where did I even hint at that, I did suggest that we should redefine marriage to remove all obstacles that might exist to them being married, how does that fit in with you madness

You clearly stated that homosexuality should not be discussed as part of "the norm". That is, it is OK but don't mention it.

I will acknowledge you are broadminded compared to Rainlover.