Gays don't need the word 'Marriage'.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ried-says-gay-MP.html

There have been many arguments for and against the need for gays to get 'married', but according to this gay MP homosexual marriage is just "pure politics", and they don't need to get married.

/// homosexuals had already won equal rights with the introduction of civil partnerships and had "never needed the word
'marriage' ". ///

[mccfluffy]

Thankfully you can't link to my brain or we'd all be in trouble

Personally i think marriage is a load of rubbish, but if you want to then why should someone have the right to tell you, you can't

[Kromovaracun]

^ Links are about the only way that we can present evidence supporting our arguments online, unfortunately. I realise it seems a little tit-for-tat, but it's hard to see how else we can go through a debate.

[ChuckFickens]

My comment was directed at rov's link BTW.

If I was to go looking I could no doubt find links that would support all sorts of out dated, offensive, illegal or down right stupid views but just because there is a person in the world that has those views and has "published" them on the internet doesn't mean those views are correct.

[emmie]

that would according to you, there are people who's opinion differs, and who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

[Kromovaracun]

" who is to say who is right and who is wrong."

The evidence, I would argue.

Having an opinion in favour of conversion therapy is quite simply unequal to an opinion which is skeptical toward it. Why? Because of the evidence. It's on a similar level to believing in UFOs or faith healing - both of which have people with 'PhD' on the end of their name willing to sing their praises. What matters is the amount of supporting evidence, and whether those claims stand up to peer review by other qualified people in the field. In the case of conversion therapy, it just doesn't. If you believe in it, the evidence is just overwhelmingly against you - that's how we determine which opinions are better than others. It's important for us as a society to do that.

[whiskeryron]

//
jackthehat
Spouse.

And I have been in a monogamous relationship for 22 years. I should think it unlikely that I'll ever be able to attain 36 years married, because as the law presently stands, I am unable to actually get married. //

JTH. It has taken me a long long time to reach a conclusion that all along I have been very wrong in my thinking about Gay people as a whole.I was deeply in love with my darling wife for 58 years & although she has passed away I love her still, I can see that real love between two people whoever they are is a universal love & there cannot be a difference as to what gender they are & as I can now appreciate how much you love your partner & I think that it is time that you are able to show your feelings in the most tangible way possible so I support you wholeheartedly in your desire to get the law altered in favour of marriage for all devoted couples.
Will you please accept my humble apology for anything I have said in the past that may have brought you pain.

W Ron.

[naomi24]

Ron, that was lovely and I admire your honesty - I truly do. Very well said!

[ladybirder]

Wow Ron, well said. X

[ummmm]

Awww :-) x

[ChuckFickens]

It takes a big person to admit a view they've held for a long time is wrong, Nice one Ron, I wish there were more like you, it would make the world a better place.

[rockyracoon]

Aww Ron, that just made me well up :)

[NOX]

Ron, that was one of the worthiest posts I have ever seen on here, I am full of admiration:)

[jackthehat]

Dear Ron,

Thankyou. I'm almost lost for words.........almost......LoL

[anotheoldgit]

It is Incredible how some people's attitudes change when a person changes one's views so as to fit in with their views.

I wonder what those posters responses would have been had Ron had disagreed with them?

[Carakeel]

In a way perhaps it would be better if non-religious "marriages" were to be called just that ... a "civil partnership", regardless of whether the couple are gay, lesbian or heterosexual. Perhaps only the religious joining of two people should be called "marriage". That would make things a bit more equal for everyone!

[anotheoldgit]

Carakeel

A very good idea, but that would be regarded as a compromise, and some groups are not prepared to do that.

[Davethedog]

I don't see why any person, should not be offered the conventions of society.
One person no matter whom cannot speak for a whole section of society.

[Zeuhl]

<<how some people's attitudes change when a person changes one's views so as to fit in with their views.>>

Old Git

that is an incredibly offensive thing to write about Ron

Without any evidence to the contrary it would be more respectful of you to accept he changed his views because he had considered the issues and amended his belies and attitudes because that was the right thing to do in his mind

Not "so as to fit in" with others.

Perhaps the sincerity and nobility of Ron's post unsettled you, but regardless of that;

I think you owe Ron an apology
.

[Kromovaracun]

I think it's very telling that you seem to view changing one's mind on an issue as some sort of spineless cave-in, AOG. For someone who prides themselves on being such a lone wolf, you're quite predictable.

[Kromovaracun]

" very good idea, but that would be regarded as a compromise, and some groups are not prepared to do that."

For Carakeel's suggestion to work, gay marriage would have to be legalised as there are some churches (like the Unitarians) which are in favour of gay marriage. So to have all religious unions called marriage and everything else as 'civil partnership', you would still have to allow gay marriage to be completely fair.