egg

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 You're saying that outdated intolerance should be allowed to stand in the way.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.

They have marriage. If gay people get proper marriage they will lose civil partnership. Same for all.

Meaning? If you're referring to straight people not being able to enter civil partnership, please remember that civil partnership was not introduced as an alternative to marriage, but a slightly different version for gay people.

It goes to how the law views the relationship. In a civil partnership the words "to the exclusion of all others" or similar are prohibited. That's nuts.

Gay people and straight people should all be able to marry in the same way and same venues. The law currently says gay people do not have the same choices. Hope that's clear.

The dvorce document does not say why a couple divorce. The details are only shared if people choose to share. On adultery, you don't get that the law (and church) feel that gay people who commit in the highest recognised way in law to their partner, do not deserve the right to exclusivity in the same way as straight people. Yes gay people can get their through the back door (no pun intended) but I think there's a stronger argument for equality than inequality.

Valid questions but it's a matter for individuals to choose. The state and church shouldn't choose for them.

Oh dear. You don't get it. Yes, unreasonable behaviour is a way out. The point is that there should be equality. The fundamental problem is that adultery, as a concept, doesn't apply in civil partnerships. Its absence is at the insiste of the church who felt that exclusivity should only apply to straight couples. Again, there should be equality. The dissolution point isn't lost on me. I'm a divorce lawyer. My gay clients should be able to divorce in the same way and in the same court as my straight clients.

Clearly you think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights and status as straight people. We'll agree to differ on that.