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"?
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"?
... 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 .
No Brian. You quit because your arguments are demolished.Obviously this discussion has become stupid so I quit
Ok one last question , if married how will 2 lesbians refer to their partner, I'm just curious.
Which "special rights at your expense" would you be referring to?
So you and your Mum happily discuss what you do sexually with your wife?
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.
[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.
You never did say in what way I am a bigot, probably because you made it up.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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