View Full Version : Gay marriage.
I think it is a good thing this is going to happen. It's the only fair thing the tories have done since 2010.
( Still, it's funny to watch the Nasty Party's grassroots blue-rinse brigade crying that it 'wasn't in the manifesto' at the last election. Well neither was the wholesale destruction of the NHS and all out ideological war on the poor.)
All-out war would involve nuclear missiles. "The poor" ain't gonna like that.
I don't know why anyone not directly involved, objects to gay marriage. Also don't know why tax breaks for married couples would alter their objections.
How true, if wants to marry the same sex it is their perogative or whatever, however who are the "poor"? Nobody poor with all the handouts this government doles out..
[lol]
How true, if wants to marry the same sex it is their perogative or whatever, however who are the "poor"? Nobody poor with all the handouts this government doles out..
[lol]
May I ask what your definition of "poor" is?
May I ask what your definition of "poor" is?
Only having five TV channels.
Only having five TV channels.
Well... by that deffinition then, nobody is poor....
With the digital switchover everybody has more than 5 channels.
I don't have any TV's!
That's bourgeois intellectual, not poor.
EXCUSE me Wholesale Destruction was invented by Genghis Cohen and has nothing to do with The Conservative Party!
secrets in symmetry
05-Feb-13, 00:39
EXCUSE me Wholesale Destruction was invented by Genghis Cohen and has nothing to do with The Conservative Party!Noah and his ark might disagree. :cool:
Anyway... Back to gay marriage, any opinions on that? Considering that's the thread topic.
MerlinScot
05-Feb-13, 09:49
Anyway... Back to gay marriage, any opinions on that? Considering that's the thread topic.I don't see any problems why it shouldn't be legal. I think it is only a problem if you're religious.
I don't have any TV's!
What does your furniture point at? :eek:
EXCUSE me Wholesale Destruction was invented by Genghis Cohen and has nothing to do with The Conservative Party!
Is that the "resherpies for shoup" guy?
What does your furniture point at? :eek:The telly! ;)
The closet Tory boys trying to stop this are actually right, for the wrong reasons.
There are actually other peoples rights that need protecting in this. Again there is a rush to hand out 'rights' to suit a political purpose, rather than deliver balanced legislation.
I think it is a good thing this is going to happen. It's the only fair thing the tories have done since 2010.
( Still, it's funny to watch the Nasty Party's grassroots blue-rinse brigade crying that it 'wasn't in the manifesto' at the last election. Well neither was the wholesale destruction of the NHS and all out ideological war on the poor.)
My concern is that the ‘gay marriage’ debate hasn’t been fully discussed/debated and there will be anomalies that will create greater inequality. For instance, currently “adultery” can only take place between a man and a woman. This means that a homosexual couple in a ‘marriage’ cannot obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery if one spouse has an affair with a person of the same sex. In the rush for equality there might well be more anomalies which make a mockery of this equality.
While I support equality IMO more time should have been given to ironing out these kind of inconsistencies.
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 11:23
My personal thoughts are it shouldn't happen, the Oxford dictionary says http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/marriage , what is wrong with just being satisfied with "civil partnerships" and leaving the marriage to male and female, the obvious difference being the nature of reproduction.
changilass
05-Feb-13, 11:37
If you are using your 'obvious difference of reproduction', does this mean that all couples should be tested for fertility, and only those fertile be allowed to marry?
Many gay people have children, either by adoption or suragacy?, just the same as infertile couples.
Its worth asking the question why shouldn't it happen? There is absolutely no secular reason at all why gay couples shouldn't get married. It never made sense to me when Civil Partnerships were introduced as to why they werent called "marriage". If two people love each other - they get married - they ARE married, its a state of being in a way - I am married! You cant be "civil partnershiped" - I am civil partnershipped. There is a difference It quite clearly matters to people who want to marry other people of the same sex. So why shouldnt it happen?
My personal thoughts are it shouldn't happen, the Oxford dictionary says http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/marriage , what is wrong with just being satisfied with "civil partnerships" and leaving the marriage to male and female, the obvious difference being the nature of reproduction.
A definition can be changed to reflect current social and/or scientific trends, for example the word 'gay'. I think that homo and heterosexual couples, should they wish to enter a formal union, than that union should offer the same legal and social status as each other and therefore should be called the same thing. In my opinion that is marriage. I don't like it when people say that a homosexual couple should be satisfied with civil partnerships as it reminds me of the racial segregation in South Africa and the USA. To enter and exit building or into different rooms, there were two doors, on for blacks and the other for whites. Both door provided exactly the same function. There were separate water fountains. Again both provided the same function. We have fortunately moved on from this form of discrimination and it would be very nice if we stopped discriminating against gays too
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 12:00
If you are using your 'obvious difference of reproduction', does this mean that all couples should be tested for fertility, and only those fertile be allowed to marry?
Many gay people have children, either by adoption or suragacy?, just the same as infertile couples.
No is the answer.
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 12:08
A definition can be changed to reflect current social and/or scientific trends, for example the word 'gay'. I think that homo and heterosexual couples, should they wish to enter a formal union, than that union should offer the same legal and social status as each other and therefore should be called the same thing. In my opinion that is marriage. I don't like it when people say that a homosexual couple should be satisfied with civil partnerships as it reminds me of the racial segregation in South Africa and the USA. To enter and exit building or into different rooms, there were two doors, on for blacks and the other for whites. Both door provided exactly the same function. There were separate water fountains. Again both provided the same function. We have fortunately moved on from this form of discrimination and it would be very nice if we stopped discriminating against gays too
I certainly do not discriminate against gay folk, my own son is gay, but like most things in life a personal view can be misconstrued. Why should every one be uniform in thoughts or preference we were born different with individual personalities not off a one product production line, mind this could change in the near future.
I certainly do not discriminate against gay folk, my own son is gay, but like most things in life a personal view can be misconstrued. Why should every one be uniform in thoughts or preference we were born different with individual personalities not off a one product production line, mind this could change in the near future.
However, you deny him the right to enter a same sex marriage if he so wishes. Thats like a bus company in 1950's US saying "we don't discriminate, we allow blacks and white on our buses, but the blacks have to sit at the front in the rubbish seats." A same sex marriage does not affect you. It does not affect you marriage (assuming you are in one), it does not affect my marriage, the world will not end and the price of cheese won't be affected either. Denying a group, no matter how small, the same civil liberties that we enjoy either because that group offends us or our beliefs, or it goes against tradition is discrimination.
macadamia
05-Feb-13, 13:24
I am happy for gay people to marry each other. I am happy that they wish to call the commitment a gay marriage. I am happy for any one of any faith, or lack of any faith, to engage in gay marriage, or to conduct one. I will go to gay weddings, and congratulate bride and bride, or groom and groom with broad smiles and jolly hugs - and mean them. But I also reserve the right to think, in my heart of hearts, that this is not what centuries of understanding of the term "marriage" allude to. Not that it is better, or worse, more right, or more wrong - merely that it is not what I have always understood it to be.
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 13:32
However, you deny him the right to enter a same sex marriage if he so wishes. Thats like a bus company in 1950's US saying "we don't discriminate, we allow blacks and white on our buses, but the blacks have to sit at the front in the rubbish seats." A same sex marriage does not affect you. It does not affect you marriage (assuming you are in one), it does not affect my marriage, the world will not end and the price of cheese won't be affected either. Denying a group, no matter how small, the same civil liberties that we enjoy either because that group offends us or our beliefs, or it goes against tradition is discrimination.
No I have not denied or advocating anyone to deny anything, I put forward my personal view, nowt to do with colour of skin or cheese, buses or whatever you have or seem to have problems with, just a personal observation on gender, but evolution will not stop because of my personal view nor yours. The definition of marriage will probably change in the near future but that does not mean my view of marriage will and the up casting of race colour the extortionate price of cheese and the US wrongs of the past will not change it.
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 13:34
I am happy for gay people to marry each other. I am happy that they wish to call the commitment a gay marriage. I am happy for any one of any faith, or lack of any faith, to engage in gay marriage, or to conduct one. I will go to gay weddings, and congratulate bride and bride, or groom and groom with broad smiles and jolly hugs - and mean them. But I also reserve the right to think, in my heart of hearts, that this is not what centuries of understanding of the term "marriage" allude to. Not that it is better, or worse, more right, or more wrong - merely that it is not what I have always understood it to be.
Hear hear.
MerlinScot
05-Feb-13, 14:19
Its worth asking the question why shouldn't it happen? There is absolutely no secular reason at all why gay couples shouldn't get married. It never made sense to me when Civil Partnerships were introduced as to why they werent called "marriage". If two people love each other - they get married - they ARE married, its a state of being in a way - I am married! You cant be "civil partnershiped" - I am civil partnershipped. There is a difference It quite clearly matters to people who want to marry other people of the same sex. So why shouldnt it happen?
Completely agree, squidge.
No I have not denied or advocating anyone to deny anything, I put forward my personal view, nowt to do with colour of skin or cheese, buses or whatever you have or seem to have problems with, just a personal observation on gender, but evolution will not stop because of my personal view nor yours. The definition of marriage will probably change in the near future but that does not mean my view of marriage will and the up casting of race colour the extortionate price of cheese and the US wrongs of the past will not change it.
You think that gay couples should be content with civil partnerships and therefore marriage should reserved for hetrosexuals, but you don't deny gay people the right to marry?
M Swanson
05-Feb-13, 14:46
Well, I don't care either way. If two people want to marry, then that's their choice. It's nothing to do with me, if this becomes possible in law....... I won't be raising any objection. But for myself, I guess I'm a sweet, old-fashioned soul. Marriage for me, is the union of a man and a woman. Each to their own. I hope there's enough references to what amounts to 'imo's.' :cool: 10, 9, 8 .........................! :D
tonkatojo
05-Feb-13, 16:08
You think that gay couples should be content with civil partnerships and therefore marriage should reserved for hetrosexuals, but you don't deny gay people the right to marry?
Spot on the first part, that is my personal view, but I do not advocate it to be imposed on anyone.
therealducati
08-Feb-13, 16:12
I found it quite amusing that several groups/individuals trotted out the "marriage is for reproduction" point of view. Ducati and I knew before we married that we had no intention of having kids. As devout and practising atheists (and let's not start the "atheism is a religon" discussion again-it's only a turn of phrase!) we were also not at all interested in the religious aspect and got married in the salubrious surroundings of Warrington registry office (no opportunity to marry anywhere other than the registry office or the church in 1984). Does all this mean that some would say that we should have been restricted to a civil partnership (not that we would have minded- we would have married by post if we could!)?
tonkatojo
08-Feb-13, 17:46
I found it quite amusing that several groups/individuals trotted out the "marriage is for reproduction" point of view. Ducati and I knew before we married that we had no intention of having kids. As devout and practising atheists (and let's not start the "atheism is a religon" discussion again-it's only a turn of phrase!) we were also not at all interested in the religious aspect and got married in the salubrious surroundings of Warrington registry office (no opportunity to marry anywhere other than the registry office or the church in 1984). Does all this mean that some would say that we should have been restricted to a civil partnership (not that we would have minded- we would have married by post if we could!)?
It is a shame some people cannot "trot out" their own opinion and interpretation of words and there meaning without amusing atheists, and yes I think you should have been restricted to civil partnership if that is your case, the reason being "marriage" means according to the dictionary what I previously pointed out. Both marriage and civil partnerships have the same rights in law so I personally do not see a problem differentiating between gay and heterosexual orientation with the words marriage and civil partnership, if there is a difference between being gay or "straight" why not. But religion should not discriminate by refusing blessing civil partnerships, but that is just my opinion. I also got wed in a registry office in 1970 and felt no different as if it had been in a church except my wallet did not get as empty.
Whether you choose to cement your love in a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony should be entirely up to you. If you love and commit to another person then it is marriage - why call it a "civil partnership"? The only reason it wasnt called marriage in the first place was to appease those religions who believe they have the only "right" way of living and goes along with no sex outside marriage, no divorce, no drinking, no eating pork, no contraception, no abortion - they want you to do it their way. There are however religions where they accept that gay people in a relationship are married like everyone else and they should be free to carry out those marriages.
What on earth does it matter? There is lots of mutterings about definition but for those people who believe that marriage is for the procreation of children then would you prevent people having babies outside wedlock? For those who believe that marriage is for life then would we prevent people getting a divorce. How many of you would go back to those days. Marriage is about two people who love each other. It seems that those who would oppose same sex marriage think that there is something greater or purer in the love of heterosexual couples which is more special than same sex couples and thats just rot. We should celebrate that people are getting married and wanting to commit to each other and just be glad.
I am all for it. Basically I don't give a hoot about whether gay marriage is right or wrong according to some book written thousands of years ago, if it makes you happy and you aren't hurting anyone then its your life and none of my or anyone else's buisness. Plus the divorces should be fun, having been through a divorce where the vindictive harpy took everything but my self respect and dignity I cant wait to see the Judge getting his head is a spin working out which woman is the one that is going to have to pay for the other !!
ALL men should be for it. There is no down side, every two men that marry is two less competitors for those luscious mysterious and engaging creatures that women are. And while two women marrying means two less women for us hetero's I say if you haven't sat in a nightclub with your eyes set to record while two good looking women kiss enthusiastically then you haven't lived. So win win as I see it.
What I don't agree with is people like, say B+B owners, not having the choice to decide whether they want to allow same sex couples to stay under their roof but that's a different argument.
Whether you choose to cement your love in a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony should be entirely up to you. If you love and commit to another person then it is marriage - why call it a "civil partnership"? The only reason it wasnt called marriage in the first place was to appease those religions who believe they have the only "right" way of living and goes along with no sex outside marriage, no divorce, no drinking, no eating pork, no contraception, no abortion - they want you to do it their way. There are however religions where they accept that gay people in a relationship are married like everyone else and they should be free to carry out those marriages.
What on earth does it matter? There is lots of mutterings about definition but for those people who believe that marriage is for the procreation of children then would you prevent people having babies outside wedlock? For those who believe that marriage is for life then would we prevent people getting a divorce. How many of you would go back to those days. Marriage is about two people who love each other. It seems that those who would oppose same sex marriage think that there is something greater or purer in the love of heterosexual couples which is more special than same sex couples and thats just rot. We should celebrate that people are getting married and wanting to commit to each other and just be glad.
Marriage is for life? :eek:
tonkatojo
08-Feb-13, 18:27
Whether you choose to cement your love in a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony should be entirely up to you. If you love and commit to another person then it is marriage - why call it a "civil partnership"? The only reason it wasnt called marriage in the first place was to appease those religions who believe they have the only "right" way of living and goes along with no sex outside marriage, no divorce, no drinking, no eating pork, no contraception, no abortion - they want you to do it their way. There are however religions where they accept that gay people in a relationship are married like everyone else and they should be free to carry out those marriages.
What on earth does it matter? There is lots of mutterings about definition but for those people who believe that marriage is for the procreation of children then would you prevent people having babies outside wedlock? For those who believe that marriage is for life then would we prevent people getting a divorce. How many of you would go back to those days. Marriage is about two people who love each other. It seems that those who would oppose same sex marriage think that there is something greater or purer in the love of heterosexual couples which is more special than same sex couples and thats just rot. We should celebrate that people are getting married and wanting to commit to each other and just be glad.
What is the point of different words in the English language if not to have "muterrings" of different meanings/definitions, your bringing other debates into this thread by mentioning "preventing divorce, babies out of wedlock, no sex outside marriage, no divorce, no drinking, no eating pork, no contraception, no abortion are not relevant to this other than bringing in further conflict.
tonkatojo
08-Feb-13, 18:31
Marriage is for life? :eek:
As should be civil partnerships. :roll:
What is the point of different words in the English language if not to have "muterrings" of different meanings/definitions, your bringing other debates into this thread by mentioning "preventing divorce, babies out of wedlock, no sex outside marriage, no divorce, no drinking, no eating pork, no contraception, no abortion are not relevant to this other than bringing in further conflict. They are relevant as examples of how various religions try to control the lives of people and believe that their rules are the right rules and their way the right way. It is the same with Gay marriage...thats all.
I wonder how many people opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, or claiming it will somehow 'diminish' marriage, are on their second or third marriages...
For the individual it's the religious element that may not have had enough thought, also as already mentioned, is there also enough considerations to adultery etc.
I fully support equal rights and those of same sex marriage, it does make me wonder though why it has taken this long, it should have been resolved at the time of the civil partnerships (or instead of).
Without sounding flippant I don't give a hoot if same sex couples want to get married, go for it, I don't see the issue.
What needs to be considered carefully is how this works with the religious community and those holding particular views on marriage and their opinion on the sanctity of it.
Our society has long been founded on religious views and laws also based on a religious view point, and so this impacts on the upbringing of generations of our society and the views held. I'm not religious, I think it is a load of cobblers but I do respect those individuals and their beliefs. (I have issue with the organisations of churches and how they operate i.e. a front to child abuse but that is a different thread).
We cannot overnight dictate to a large proportion of society that their view is wrong and they must comply. Even those that are not strictly religious may not easily accept same sex marriage and whilst we must give rights to those that want them we cannot take rights away from others at the same time. Whilst this bill protects the Church of England it doesn't protect all other denominations nor those of the individual and could potentially lead to people being disciplined in their jobs or sued for holding a religious view.
For the individual it's the religious element that may not have had enough thought, also as already mentioned, is there also enough considerations to adultery etc.
I fully support equal rights and those of same sex marriage, it does make me wonder though why it has taken this long, it should have been resolved at the time of the civil partnerships (or instead of).
Without sounding flippant I don't give a hoot if same sex couples want to get married, go for it, I don't see the issue.
What needs to be considered carefully is how this works with the religious community and those holding particular views on marriage and their opinion on the sanctity of it.
Our society has long been founded on religious views and laws also based on a religious view point, and so this impacts on the upbringing of generations of our society and the views held. I'm not religious, I think it is a load of cobblers but I do respect those individuals and their beliefs. (I have issue with the organisations of churches and how they operate i.e. a front to child abuse but that is a different thread).
We cannot overnight dictate to a large proportion of society that their view is wrong and they must comply. Even those that are not strictly religious may not easily accept same sex marriage and whilst we must give rights to those that want them we cannot take rights away from others at the same time. Whilst this bill protects the Church of England it doesn't protect all other denominations nor those of the individual and could potentially lead to people being disciplined in their jobs or sued for holding a religious view.
The issue of gay marriage, and the arguments I've seen espoused against it from people on 'religious grounds', has only served to reinforce my view that church and state should be completely separated. If people want to be religious that's fine, but do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, don't bring it into schools, don't bring it into politics, and don't bring it into government, because all it does is create division, resentment, and discrimination.
The issue of gay marriage, and the arguments I've seen espoused against it from people on 'religious grounds', has only served to reinforce my view that church and state should be completely separated. If people want to be religious that's fine, but do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, don't bring it into schools, don't bring it into politics, and don't bring it into government, because all it does is create division, resentment, and discrimination.
So just as you are seeking toleration for gays you’re going to deny it to people who have particular religious beliefs? Your going to use political correctness to repress the beliefs and teachings of some of the world's major religions.
All sorts of things cause division, resentment, and discrimination not just religion. You only have to look at politics over the last 30 years.
So just as you are seeking toleration for gays you’re going to deny it to people who have particular religious beliefs? Your going to use political correctness to repress the beliefs and teachings of some of the world's major religions.
All sorts of things cause division, resentment, and discrimination not just religion. You only have to look at politics over the last 30 years.
Please read my post again, particularly the second sentence.
No Flynn, I think Gronnuck is right. We can't be giving rights to one group of individuals by taking rights from others.
I agree with your statement about separation of church and state. But we can't just overnight force people in their existing jobs / roles to do things that conflict with their beliefs, its correct that they shouldn't be airing their personal beliefs and opinions but something else to force issues on them.
tonkatojo
09-Feb-13, 14:30
No Flynn, I think Gronnuck is right. We can't be giving rights to one group of individuals by taking rights from others.
I agree with your statement about separation of church and state. But we can't just overnight force people in their existing jobs / roles to do things that conflict with their beliefs, its correct that they shouldn't be airing their personal beliefs and opinions but something else to force issues on them.
I totally agree hence the different meanings of "marriage" and "civil partnership".
If people want to be religious that's fine, but do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, don't bring it into schools, don't bring it into politics, and don't bring it into government, because all it does is create division, resentment, and discrimination.
Please read my post again, particularly the second sentence.
I see, so in your politically correct world gay men and women can celebrate their gayness in their Gay Pride marches but you would forbid Muslims from celebrating Eid (the end of Ramadan), or Hindus from celebrating Diwali, or Christians from singing Christmas carols in the street.
I have friends in all of these communities and we all get along fine. Until, that is, someone somewhere makes and attempts to enforce a rule. So IMO we should remember the old adage, "Rules are for the adherance of fools and the guidance of wise men."
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 17:40
England may have a state church, but the Church (in the form of the Kirk) and the State are separate in Scotland.
I see, so in your politically correct world gay men and women can celebrate their gayness in their Gay Pride marches but you would forbid Muslims from celebrating Eid (the end of Ramadan), or Hindus from celebrating Diwali, or Christians from singing Christmas carols in the street....
Are you equating homosexuality to superstitious claptrap?
Superstitious claptrap it may be, but are we risking saying homosexuals can now do this but superstitious claptrapers can't do that.I quite agree religion is a load of cobblers but if an individual wants to believe an interpretation of a book about a guy nailed to a bit of tree they should have that right.
Live and let live, gay people can offer sometimes a more homily family enviroment that a single mum struggling to get by. For those against whats the difference between the love of a hetrosexual to a homosexual. love is love in all forms
I see, so in your politically correct world gay men and women can celebrate their gayness in their Gay Pride marches but you would forbid Muslims from celebrating Eid (the end of Ramadan), or Hindus from celebrating Diwali, or Christians from singing Christmas carols in the street.
I have friends in all of these communities and we all get along fine. Until, that is, someone somewhere makes and attempts to enforce a rule. So IMO we should remember the old adage, "Rules are for the adherance of fools and the guidance of wise men."
Homosexuality is not a religion.
Homosexuality is not a religion.
OK - so what is it?
OK - so what is it?
It's a sexuality. The clue is in the name homosexuality.
It's a sexuality. The clue is in the name homosexuality.
I haven’t got the time or patience to enter a sociological discourse on the subject. I recognise that homosexuality is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel a romantic or a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This tendency is accepted by many and abhorred by some.
The validity of this feeling/tendency/inclination is just as legitimate as that of someone who for whatever reason wishes to believe in an omnipotent deity and dedicate their life to living according to their religious teachings.
All the strife in the world is caused by people who argue that their feelings or beliefs are more important, more valid than anyone else’s. As I said in an earlier post I have friends in all of these communities and we all get along just fine. We respect each others’ feelings and celebrate our diversity, it's a pity the wider community couldn't do the same.
I haven’t got the time or patience to enter a sociological discourse on the subject. I recognise that homosexuality is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel a romantic or a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This tendency is accepted by many and abhorred by some.
The validity of this feeling/tendency/inclination is just as legitimate as that of someone who for whatever reason wishes to believe in an omnipotent deity and dedicate their life to living according to their religious teachings.
All the strife in the world is caused by people who argue that their feelings or beliefs are more important, more valid than anyone else’s. As I said in an earlier post I have friends in all of these communities and we all get along just fine. We respect each others’ feelings and celebrate our diversity, it's a pity the wider community couldn't do the same.
The big difference between sexuality and religion is that we are born with our sexuality. Religion is enforced or learned. Religion is a choice, sexuality is not.
The issue of gay marriage, and the arguments I've seen espoused against it from people on 'religious grounds', has only served to reinforce my view that church and state should be completely separated. If people want to be religious that's fine, but do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, don't bring it into schools, don't bring it into politics, and don't bring it into government, because all it does is create division, resentment, and discrimination.
If people want to be Homosexual, Teachers, Bigots, Atheists or Politicians that's fine they should do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, schools or government, because all it does is creates division, resentment and discrimination.
If people want to be Homosexual, Teachers, Bigots, Atheists or Politicians that's fine they should do it in their own time, don't bring it into the workplace, schools or government, because all it does is creates division, resentment and discrimination.
You missed out heterosexual.
Religion is a choice, sexuality is not.
What choice do the kids have who are indoctrinated from birth? No choice.
You missed out heterosexual.funny auld thing that, so did you!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.