Civil Unions

georgeingozo wrote:

The issue brought up here was the opinion that being gay was a choice. As for gay partnership,  what is the moral case for not agreeing with it?

The moral case (for some ) is that its not "natural" or its against the teachings of some religions.
Being "gay " is a choice!
The argument is about whether you  can you be born  a homosexual or lesbian is not proven either way.

Terry

Nobody is forcing anyone else into a civil partnership. Gays will live together whether some people like it or not. Would the same morals mean gays should be banned from living together ?

tearnet wrote:

The argument is about whether you  can you be born  a homosexual or lesbian is not proven either way.

my sister was

tearnet wrote:

this discussion has raised an issue that has me troubled. If someone disagrees with the gay partnership issue and say so then they are at best labelled as intolerant and at worst called a gay basher and bigot.
Do they have to conform to  a minority group that insist they are correct at the risk of loosing there own morality?
Someone who speaks up for what they believe should have that right ,shouldn't they?
Making a climate of fear around standing up for what you believe, Isn't this how the Nazis got to power?
A minority group that blamed Jews, disabled, gays etc for the countries troubles and the majority were frightened to say " hold on you have gone too far"
Being fair does not mean that minorities should hold sway over what the majority in a country believe in but are discouraged from saying so.
It troubles me that people think being fair means being unfair to anyone who holds a different view.

How long before paedophilia becomes the norm ?

Terry

What that man said.........

I have never suggested that I have anything against gays, i have friends that engage in this behaviour. What they do is their business. What I did say is, that I wouldn't be happy if my sons were convinced by some homosexual guy that they were born that way.

Just because the government says it legal, doesn't in my opinion make it OK. You can't legislate acceptance. It would appear that marijuana is too set to become legalised, but I would not want my sons to engage in the use of drugs. Furthermore, in Islamic culture, once a young girl menstruates, they can be married off. Do I agree with that also. NO.

The common thread of these three otherwise unrelated things is that they are all considered legally acceptable, but are morally wrong in my opinion. I am concerned for the future of my kids and my future grandchildren.

I would also like add, is that governments pass this legislation knowing full well that it will be a political win for them. And in my experience here in Australia is that most politicians engage in this behaviour also.

Strong lifestyle 'phobic protestations are frequently indicative of underlying insecurity and grazed knuckles.

danno wrote:

I don't believe there is such thing as being gay. I believe it's sexual preference.

lol what planet you living on?

I can tell you (as a gay man who has been married to a guy, but later divorced and now plan to marry again later this year) it is NOT a choice. DO you think I'd marry a man if I felt attracted to women? Of course I wouldn't. Why would I deny myself the chance of a family and children? I'd love nothing more than to have a family (which I may well have one day, if I am allowed to adopt) I just hope there isn't anyone like you on the adoption panel passing judgement on people like me!

Heaven forbid, if I could choose to be 'normal' like the idea in your mind, do you think I'd pick to be an outcast in society and always be considered 'a sexual preference' ? ermm, No. I'd be straight, with a woman and a family of my own. So my parents could also have grandchildren...it isn't as simple as a sexual preference and I hope (for their sake) your boys don't turn out to be gay, as I fear you would not love them any more (as my mum no longer loves me now - even 12 years on after coming out) and that would be a great shame for your children, to lose their role model, their dad. Do you have any idea how heartbreaking it is to feel unloved by your own mum or dad because you are something you have no control over? No, I guess you don't.....nor will you ever. I can tell you, it's an awful feeling and it's so soul-destroying! Just because (in your mind) you deem it unsuitable, it doesn't mean it is wrong or that it isn't how your child may feel deep inside.

Just love them for who they are and be happy and proud of them.

As to the issue in the thread, well done Malta for passing this. I think equality for all is only a good thing and people can be happy in whatever way is right for them. Now they are protected legally and have the same rights as straight couples, I'd say it is indeed a very proud day for Malta and the Maltese people

Edit: Took a lot out as it's not directly relevant to the issue at hand. (as rather angry when reading the comment).

kamio27 wrote:

danno wrote:

I don't believe there is such thing as being gay. I believe it's sexual preference.

lol what planet you living on?

I can tell you (as a gay man who has been married to a guy, but later divorced and now plan to marry again later this year) it is NOT a choice. DO you think I'd marry a man if I felt attracted to women? Of course I wouldn't. Why would I deny myself the chance of a family and children? I'd love nothing more than to have a family (which I may well have one day, if I am allowed to adopt) I just hope there isn't anyone like you on the adoption panel passing judgement on people like me!

Heaven forbid, if I could choose to be 'normal' like the idea in your mind, do you think I'd pick to be an outcast in society and always be considered 'a sexual preference' ? ermm, No. I'd be straight, with a woman and a family of my own. So my parents could also have grandchildren...it isn't as simple as a sexual preference and I hope (for their sake) your boys don't turn out to be gay, as I fear you would not love them any more (as my mum no longer loves me now - even 12 years on after coming out) and that would be a great shame for your children, to lose their role model, their dad. Do you have any idea how heartbreaking it is to feel unloved by your own mum or dad because you are something you have no control over? No, I guess you don't.....nor will you ever. I can tell you, it's an awful feeling and it's so soul-destroying! Just because (in your mind) you deem it unsuitable, it doesn't mean it is wrong or that it isn't how your child may feel deep inside.

Just love them for who they are and be happy and proud of them.

As to the issue in the thread, well done Malta for passing this. I think equality for all is only a good thing and people can be happy in whatever way is right for them. Now they are protected legally and have the same rights as straight couples, I'd say it is indeed a very proud day for Malta and the Maltese people

Edit: Took a lot out as it's not directly relevant to the issue at hand. (as rather angry when reading the comment).

As I said in my posting my worry is that everything that used to be held as being outside of accepted society is now becoming "normal".
Is this progress or just a lack of morality within society because we are paranoid about upsetting "minority groups" as these groups now seem to be setting the agenda and not the silent majority.
History is full of examples where society's have collapsed because of this slow acceptance or blurring of boundaries,
is it progress or a slow chipping away at the fabric of society ?
Everyone needs boundaries and "lines in the sand" that its not acceptable to cross.


Terry

I'm sure similar concerns were expressed when slavery was abolished and women were given the vote.

I don't see your point to be honest. How would being gay cross a 'line' the sky won't fall it to let two men or two women make a commitment to each other and have equal rights. Should we (gay/lesbian people) stop paying taxes and NI because we don't get equal rights? No, we'd be thrown in jail....I don't see how something (which has no affect on anyone else) could contribute to a 'slipping society' I mean, the only argument to it (aside from the organised schizophrenia i.e the church) would be population not increasing or dying out. As you straight folks are popping them out at a rate which the world will struggle to 'house' in the very near future, I fail to see how this is an issue.

Kamio

I would like to say more on this topic, but I have come to the conclusion that I best bite my tongue for fear of getting banned.

Roger Rabat wrote:

Strong lifestyle 'phobic protestations are frequently indicative of underlying insecurity and grazed knuckles.

Grow up Roger whatever, and argue your corner instead of writing cliche ridden rhetoric. This seems to be a common response when nothing is to be added. If you are against what danno said then elaborate please.

georgeingozo wrote:

I'm sure similar concerns were expressed when slavery was abolished and women were given the vote.

That is a very, very poor analogy sir, and you know it. First of all you cannot be sure these concerns were ever voiced in the populous and secondly, in my opinion, I don't see the corroboration with morality.

kamio27 wrote:

I don't see your point to be honest. How would being gay cross a 'line' the sky won't fall it to let two men or two women make a commitment to each other and have equal rights. Should we (gay/lesbian people) stop paying taxes and NI because we don't get equal rights? No, we'd be thrown in jail....I don't see how something (which has no affect on anyone else) could contribute to a 'slipping society' I mean, the only argument to it (aside from the organised schizophrenia i.e the church) would be population not increasing or dying out. As you straight folks are popping them out at a rate which the world will struggle to 'house' in the very near future, I fail to see how this is an issue.

Kamio

You don't see the 'point' because, as Terry says, you are a vocal minority wanting change to happen at the expense of the (extremely massive) silent majority - indeed I would venture that you are too blinkered to even care as long it satisfies your personal agenda. Further, did you see what you did there with your distasteful, disrespectful, though not surprising dig at 'the Church'. There are 2.2 billion Christians on this planet of which there are a reported 1.2 billion Roman Catholic (the silent majority), but hey - you carry on with your agenda. Also Malta is 98% Catholic so you insult those in your chosen host country - I bet you wouldn't have a dig at Islam if you lived in a Muslim state. It is exactly as Terry says, it's just that you don't seem to think that tolerance works both ways. And before you jump on my argument, I refer not only to your situation but that of other minority groups (who may or may not offend personal moral views) who feel that the world should stop and not only accept them but elevate them in society. It is not about equality, per se, it's about wanting more. The number of times I have seen people play the (insert: racist, immigrant, gay, muslim, human rights because I have a cat called Harold) card in order to get something before entitled people, beggars belief. Tolerance is one thing, but the people who 'preach' it, in my view, are self-righteous, pompous twerps.  (By the way did you see earlier that I started a sentence with a conjunction - I am in the grammatical minority but I don't lobby purists to accept my usage).

danno wrote:

I would like to say more on this topic, but I have come to the conclusion that I best bite my tongue for fear of getting banned.

Just choose your words carefully, the moderators should moderate, not act as censors to free speech. As long as there is no 'abuse', as described in the forum code of conduct, then this should be allowed to be debated. If someone is trying to 'ram their opinion' down your throat then you have the right of response..................democracy.

Edit: I had to correct a spelling mistake before the society of grammatical correctness (a small group in Oxford) pilloried me.

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Roger Rabat wrote:

Strong lifestyle 'phobic protestations are frequently indicative of underlying insecurity and grazed knuckles.

Grow up Roger whatever, and argue your corner instead of writing cliche ridden rhetoric. This seems to be a common response when nothing is to be added. If you are against what danno said then elaborate please.

I'm seventy years of age and gay and have spent all of my lifetime listening to neanderthals like some surfacing in this blog.  I'm tired - but I'm glad to be leaving a world that is so much better because my own generation has fought for fairness and equality.  My own partnership will see it's forty-fifth anniversary reached this summer.

I'm sick of arguing with fools but grateful to see that the younger generation is more supportive despite the efforts of the knuckle draggers. I'll stick with my rhetoric for my remaining time, thank you.

I didn't bother reading your post (only skimmed it as I saw your user name on another forum earlier spouting hate about gay parents, so I can't be bothered to read what you have to say).

I did write a big reply addressing some of the things you've just said in your last post, but deleted it as I can see there is no point arguing with people like you and I have better things to do....so the only thing I will say is to you (and Terry and others who have a problem with living in an equal democracy) your opinions and personal thoughts are now as irrelevant as they were formerly inconvenient. Law has been passed, gays have rights....nothing you think or say will change that...so forgive me while I take a moment to be extremely childish and say Ner Ner Ner Ner Ner!

I do hope my big (over the top and pink coronation style wedding) makes your blood boil. Further enraging you when you see me and my husband adopting children and living a happy family life. I'm way beyond homophobes and their bitter opinions, which is basically all they are these days. The law dictates otherwise

All the very best to you Mike *big hugs and kisses* mwhaaaaaaaaaaa xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Roger Rabat wrote:

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Roger Rabat wrote:

Strong lifestyle 'phobic protestations are frequently indicative of underlying insecurity and grazed knuckles.

Grow up Roger whatever, and argue your corner instead of writing cliche ridden rhetoric. This seems to be a common response when nothing is to be added. If you are against what danno said then elaborate please.

I'm seventy years of age and gay and have spent all of my lifetime listening to neanderthals like some surfacing in this blog.  I'm tired - but I'm glad to be leaving a world that is so much better because my own generation has fought for fairness and equality.  My own partnership will see it's forty-fifth anniversary reached this summer.

I'm sick of arguing with fools but grateful to see that the younger generation is more supportive despite the efforts of the knuckle draggers. I'll stick with my rhetoric for my remaining time, thank you.

Your personal standing is of no interest to me Roger, it has never been about that, however, I did ask that you have the courtesy to respond to danno's remarks rather than just stereotyping him for his views. Oh! and by the way, please don't think that 'your generation' has a monopoly on fighting for fairness and equality, at 70 you were born in 1944, too young to have featured in the Second World conflict, you may have been involved in others (Aden perhaps), but then you may not have even 'taken to arms'. Me, however, have served my county (28 years) and in conflict for the "better good"............ we were told, but don't use it as an example of my being. All I asked was for your reasoning to his post.

kamio27 wrote:

I didn't bother reading your post (only skimmed it as I saw your user name on another forum earlier spouting hate about gay parents, so I can't be bothered to read what you have to say).

I did write a big reply addressing some of the things you've just said in your last post, but deleted it as I can see there is no point arguing with people like you and I have better things to do....so the only thing I will say is to you (and Terry and others who have a problem with living in an equal democracy) your opinions and personal thoughts are now as irrelevant as they were formerly inconvenient. Law has been passed, gays have rights....nothing you think or say will change that...so forgive me while I take a moment to be extremely childish and say Ner Ner Ner Ner Ner!

I do hope my big (over the top and pink coronation style wedding) makes your blood boil. Further enraging you when you see me and my husband adopting children and living a happy family life. I'm way beyond homophobes and their bitter opinions, which is basically all they are these days. The law dictates otherwise

All the very best to you Mike *big hugs and kisses* mwhaaaaaaaaaaa xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You didn't read my post, however, felt the need to respond? How very rude. You see, you still don't get it do you. It's not about you, it's not about your big pink wedding, it's not about being gay, it's not about enraging me (listen you only have to walk down North Shore in Blackpool at night to see the openly gay community - I'm not enraged about that) did I mention it's not about you. You see we don't have a problem living in an equal and demoncratic world, we just abhor the fact that their are certain groups (and had you had the courtesy of reading my post you would see what I mean) who feel they are special among others (All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others). Yes it is the law, however, like most things you will be demanding more and more in the future until, as Terry said, the fabric of society becomes undermined. I'm not a bigot, I'm an equal opportunist realist.

Finally, your attempt at 'gay' humour was lost in the intellectual debate..........I sincerely hope your friends don't ridicule you for it.

Regards

Mike

How is giving gays the same rights as non-gays, treating them as a special case ?

georgeingozo wrote:

How is giving gays the same rights as non-gays, treating them as a special case ?

George, please don't fall into the trap of being another to 'not read' what I and others have said. I believe in a democratic world with equality for all, it's the 'creep' and demand culture that is undermining society by wanting more - you seem, like others, to be fixated on the 'gay' question - it's a bigger subject. Not once have I said that I disagreed with the change to the law - indeed I back you up earlier by stating the 'almost' full turnout for the last election supported the parties who supported this change. Twisting words or statements doesn't help.

sorry, you are quite right, you never said you are against gays being allowed to "marry"

MikeInPoulton wrote:

but then you may not have even 'taken to arms'. Me, however, have served my county (28 years) and in conflict for the "better good".............

Whoopee! We've found another 'badge' man.  The third to emerge in this blog recently and tell me that they 'served their country' although in your case it must have been a smaller war as you seem only to have served only your 'county'.
You were doing a job for God's sake.
My father and others of his generation never talked of their conscripted  war service regardless of the terrors and hardship they experienced.  Like them, I would have 'taken to arms' if required but I wouldn't have referred to  my duties as 'service' or used it as an excuse to impose constraints on others.
"but then you may not even have 'taken to arms'........" is a deliberate slur against homosexuals and you should be removed from this blog because of it. 
You are a silly,sad man trying to make the rest of us march up and down to your tuneless whingeing about your long gone career.

Roger Rabat wrote:

MikeInPoulton wrote:

but then you may not have even 'taken to arms'. Me, however, have served my county (28 years) and in conflict for the "better good".............

Whoopee! We've found another 'badge' man.  The third to emerge in this blog recently and tell me that they 'served their country' although in your case it must have been a smaller war as you seem only to have served only your 'county'.
You were doing a job for God's sake.
My father and others of his generation never talked of their conscripted  war service regardless of the terrors and hardship they experienced.  Like them, I would have 'taken to arms' if required but I wouldn't have referred to  my duties as 'service' or used it as an excuse to impose constraints on others.
"but then you may not even have 'taken to arms'........" is a deliberate slur against homosexuals and you should be removed from this blog because of it. 
You are a silly,sad man trying to make the rest of us march up and down to your tuneless whingeing about your long gone career.

Hussar for the badgemen......nice of you to focus on a 'typo' rather than the subject in hand, but hey, I've come to expect that from someone who has nothing to offer the debate. Change the subject to another topic (you appear to so despise so much) as smoke and mirrors to hide your own prejudices, is this, perhaps, because you have a history of rejection. You say I was 'doing a job for Gods sake', rightly so because I have a belief in what I was doing, had I not then I had the choice to leave - can you not see that. You Roger, on the other hand, are fixated with ex-service personnel and the vision that we crave an ordered and 'marching' society like "days gone by". I have a a fabulous 'second career' in education working with challenging students, their (sometimes very poor) families, charities and safe-guarding issues. But don't let the fact you detest what we have achieved and added to society as a whole afterwards detract from your bitterness. You see, Roger, this is just a forum..........you don't know anybody.

And finally, this fantastic little snippet:

"but then you may not even have 'taken to arms'........" is a deliberate slur against homosexuals and you should be removed from this blog because of it.  "

No way represents what I said, nor what I meant, nor was it a deliberate slur against anyone.....but shows you up for the type of person you have become by wanting someone removed from this forum because they do not agree with you, your life choice or your ethics. No more questions m'lud.


PS. George........nice try mate

@ Mike.

You wind-up beautifully

Roger Rabat wrote:

@ Mike.

You wind-up beautifully

If this is true and indeed your intention, then I doff my beret.

MikeInPoulton wrote:

PS. George........nice try mate

I wasn't trying it on, just couldnt think of the verb for civil partnership - so opted for a neutral "marriage" rather than say something like to civil partner or partner up civilly. Anyone know what the verb is ?

Just out of interest but if a couple (same sex) are in a civil partnership and one of them decides that he would like to have a civil partnership with another (of the same sex) would this make ( him or her) a bigamist?
Or is a civil partnership not a legal thing?

Terry

it has a legal status the same as marriage, thats my understanding

So it would require a divorce to end the partnership?

Terry

thats my understanding - it has the same rights and legal obligations as a civil marriage (or even an uncivil one)

Hi Kamio27. Yes you are right in saying, that if my boys engaged in this behaviour i would disown them , but i would disown them for many other reasons also. And you are also right in saying that i am their role model. I don't sleep with men so i expect the same from them. And in my opinion it's a sad day for Malta.

danno wrote:

Hi Kamio27. Yes you are right in saying, that if my boys engaged in this behaviour i would disown them , but i would disown them for many other reasons also. And you are also right in saying that i am their role model. I don't sleep with men so i expect the same from them. And in my opinion it's a sad day for Malta.

Hey Danno,

I stopped replying to this thread, as it was just turning into a bit of a flaming war. But as you've aimed your response at me directly, in a civil manner, I will reply.

All I can honestly say to that is I'm really sad. I'm sad for your kids and I'm sad for you that you would feel that way if one of them were gay It's not just about 'having sex with other men' as you say or might think, it's about love. If one of your lads were gay when they were older or whatever (not sure how old they are now) but assuming they are kids and turn out gay when they are 16/18 whatever, find someone who understands them and loves them, and they return this love, that's a really special thing whether straight or gay. I'm sorry if you don't think so or think it's disgusting etc but love is love. I'm sure your son (assuming he is gay of course, which he probably won't be in terms of statistics etc) would rather have his dad in his life than disown him because he falls in love with another guy.

At the end of the day, surely you wanna see your sons beam and be happy (even if their partner choices aren't your own)? I struggle to believe any parent would disown their own son or daughter because they were in a situation they had no control over.

May I PM you? There is something I wanna share with you (which I don't wanna say publically, as It's rather personal to my partner's circumstances)

Thanks

Kamio

Edit: Name Error.

danno wrote:

I have never suggested that I have anything against gays, i have friends that engage in this behaviour. What they do is their business. What I did say is, that I wouldn't be happy if my sons were convinced by some homosexual guy that they were born that way.

Just because the government says it legal, doesn't in my opinion make it OK. You can't legislate acceptance. It would appear that marijuana is too set to become legalised, but I would not want my sons to engage in the use of drugs. Furthermore, in Islamic culture, once a young girl menstruates, they can be married off. Do I agree with that also. NO.

The common thread of these three otherwise unrelated things is that they are all considered legally acceptable, but are morally wrong in my opinion. I am concerned for the future of my kids and my future grandchildren.

I am gay , i never needed to be convinced by anyone , i have known since i was 5 (my earliest memories) that i liked boys.. and i was born in the 80s and being gay in the UK was stil very much a taboo.. there was section 28 , very few gay people on tv and yet somehow i ended up being gay  , if i wasnt born this way then something happened in those first 5 years  and it wasnt from meeting other homosexuals as i didnt meet any of those untill i was 18 and as i say i already knew i was gay .. You are of course entiltled to your opinion however your worry that your sons will be targeted by predatory homosexuals that will somehow convince them they are gay is pure fantasy and far fetched

Take care on this Forum Rob...........there are bigots abroad.

Roger Rabat wrote:

Take care on this Forum Rob...........there are bigots abroad.

I don't need protecting and not everyone with an issue is a bigot , the person I quoted is just clearly misinformed - besides plenty of bigots and misinformed people in the uk ,

............and more than a fair share living here

Thank goodness the locals are more laid back and accepting

Hi Rob im not misinformed at all. I clearly understand that their is a lot of competition out there to bed  a woman, so you have no choice but to opt for the next best thing. Anyhow the problem with some of you people is that whenever we state our opinion regarding this subject you label us bigots. Im not a bigot at all. All I stated was that I wouldn't be happy if my sons slept with guys.