egg

Question 1. Yes, imo. Society has moved on. Others have a different view. That leads to Questions 2 and 3. I can't see how their can be compromise on the church issue. Civil partnership, outside of church, and without an assumption of an exclusive relationship, is a compromise too far imo. We ain't going to see eye to eye on this del. You've made your point and we'll have to agree to differ.

This has been answered. To answer, again, is that they should have the choice. It may be hypocritical, and perhaps unwise, but they should not be precluded the option.

Pretty much what saintandy says. I've dealt with your last two questions before and frankly we're going around in circles. You think that gay people can't be christians and shouldn't have the right to a proper and/or church wedding. I disagree. You think that because a church may disaprove of gay marriage, a gay couple shouldn't be given the choice to marry there. You confuse the ability to have a free choice with the wisdom of a particular decision. Your first question, well I can't disagree more. Assume for one moment that someone discovers faith before their sexuality. Must they then take a vow of celibacy? Should they give up their faith? Why should they give up either?

This one bothers me. A Christian can choose to follow the religion and believe in it entirely. He may be gay though, and has no choice about that. Clearly he's in conflict with a particular part of his faith but surely he can still be a practicing, christian. In that situation why should he precluded from marrying in a religious setting, and in a faith, that he believes in? I get the point that on a strict interpretation of his faith his sexuality will be looked down upon, but should he not be able to decide that he can tolerate the intolerance of others?

Religion, as you say, is a belief. It's a belief made by choice. Homosexuality is not a belief. Like gender, race, disability etc it's something that is not a belief or choice. In my opinion society should not discriminate against those who do not have a choice in favour of those who do.

Interesting. We need another defensive midfielder to ease the burden on cork and Morgan. 2mil for a 25 cap full international with plenty of top flight experience in France looks like excellent value.

Agteed. Disrespectful to the lads who got us this far as well.

Unless you can give a credible argument as to why a christian would want to marry in a mosque, your last point is a tad silly. I'm advocating parity for gays and straights, not something as random as christians marrying in mosques. On your main point, is the best you have "be gay, proud and different"? Marriage is an institution which the law should recognise equally for all. In determining the law, my personal opinion, is that the church shouldn't have a say. I've said my piece and have bored myself. Mr Turkish, reply away, have the last word etc.

I'm demanding only that gay people are treated the same as straight. You're saying that outdated intolerance should be allowed to stand in the way. We'll have to agree to differ.

You are tiresome mate. You are unable to comprehend the point. We have a legal position that fails to recognise that gay couples should be allowed to enter into a legally recognised union that is identical to that for straight people. There can be no place for such discrimination. Should we have slightly different voting rights for men and women and call it something different? Ditto for different races in, say, the ability to claim benefits? Bestowing different rights on different people is plain old discrimination. The argument should not be why there should be equality. That should be the presumption. You have not put forward one argument in favour of why straight couples and gay couples should be treated differently.

Your position is that in some areas of society it's ok to exclude others. That's discriminatory/intolerant. I don't see any possible argument that allowing gay marriage is intolerant to the beliefs of some.

I honestly believe that his tactics and possibly team selection earlier this season were influenced by others. We're now employing sensible tactics and team selection. Our shape recently has been superb. We thoroughly outclassed reading and looked a decent team. Credit to Adkins for turning it around. Aside of his obvious tactical sense, he hasn't panicked and has shown real dignity and class. We're lucky to have the man.

Your points have all been answered. You may not agree with the answers, but they've been answered.

So you're saying I'm dissaproving of some people by opposing discrimination and exclusion of gay couples? Interesting argument.

Lost two nil.

I do not disapprove of anyone. I am firmly in the proper marriage for all camp.

In a modern, all inclusive society, no.

You seem not to understand the concept of choice and equality. Just because it appears odd to you that someone may want to do something which appears hypocritical, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the choice. Some might think it odd but people can choose.

I've got deja vu. I've said that gay and people should have the same, ie proper marriage. In that situation civil partnership as it exists would go. Ffs

What a stupid post. Why would you want a civil partnership, ie a slightly diluted marriage with a different name when you can have the real thing? What is the argument for something different for two groups of people? The debate is not why straight people should be able to do something in addition to marriage, but why straight people should not have parity with straight people instead of what they've been given instead.

No, you can marry her. Gay people don't have that option, but wanted it. I repeat, gay and straight people should have the same status and be able to marry in the same way. Nobody is suggesting that gay people should have two legal options. Nor should straight people.

Choice. Equality. Rights. Gay people do believe in god. They may want pretty photos with a church in. Whatever, they should have the same choices as straight people. It really isn't difficult.

Semantics are important when different titles are given to different types of people in the same situation. It implies something different and in legal terms is slightly different. What is the argument for a different type of gay marriage and divorce to that for straight people? Please, please to answer without asking a question.

The voice of reason.

No, wording is irrelevant. Status and equality are. When gay marriage was discussed there was consultation. I'm a member of resolution, a body for family and divorce lawyers. We were part of the consultation. We proposed a simple amendment to the marriage act to allow gays is straights to marry in the same way. The signs were that would happen but the church vetoed it on the basis that monogamy and exclusivity should only apply to straight couples.