Neither Arkaign or myself are turning it into a debate about human nature, or fictional boogie men.

Exactly. In your case, your marriage is just as legitimate as a married couple with kids or a non married couple with kids (same sex or otherwise). It's about giving everyone the equal right to choose as they wish.

@bold, Thats the words we voted in basically :) Had a lot of the No people trying to say that gay people already had civil partnerships so they should be happy with that and not want marriage because it was the same.... but when I asked what difference it would make in their eyes if a same sex couple could be married there was no reply.

Most basic way I looked at it was if you considered Marriage as Coke and Civil partnership as Pepsi, as a hetrosexual person being allowed to choose which brand you wanted but if a lgbt person was to ask for a coke they were handed a pepsi and told it was the same thing as coke so they should be happy with it, realistically at the end of the day allowing LGBT couples to enjoy the same choice of what relationship they enter with each other doesn't spoil the taste of my coke at all.  (and as a side note I had to correct the spelling of "coke" about 20 times while writing this paragraph.... because you don't just go up to someone and hand them your coc..... !)

I agree.  Instead of allowing this abomination against the almighty Allah, we should have traditional families like the prophet, blessed be he.  We should have a dozen wives, between the ages of 40 and 9.  We should also force girls to be engaged at 6 cause the prophet likes to pick em out when they're young.  You need some time to mold them, you know?  Just ask Muhammed... and Woody Allen.

You don't need to have heterosexual sex to have kids, all you need is sperm, an egg, and a uterus. IV can take care of that; it's already helping many straight couples with fertility problems to have children.
And then there's adoption; many orphaned kids are sorely in need of a family.

If you're so scared of "unnatural" things, you'd better get off your computer, cos I hate to break it to you, but computers and the internet aren't "natural" either by that logic.

The "against nature" argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Homosexuality occurs throughout humanity, across different cultures and epochs. It's a common trait in socially organized animals such as ourselves. "Human nature" is not limited to reproduction.

Frank, Frank, Frank.......

The capacity to have children is not a requisite for heterosexual marriage so suggesting it should be for homosexual marriage is a blatant double standard. The incidence of homosexuality is strikingly similar across all cultures which is a strong argument for it being part of human nature. Something does not have to be the majority attribute in order to be part of human nature. Furthermore, what marriage has to do with nature, when it's a relatively modern construct, is beyond me.

Hygiene and safety have no part in this discussion, homosexuals don't to my knowledge have a plan to destroy the human race (of which they are a part) and the 'principles' which brought around the origins of the universe had little 'thought' for humans, let alone gender orientation.

You really need to think long and hard about this train wreck of a post, particularly before calling others out for nonsense. Your position has everything to do with your prejudice, pure and simple, and nothing to do with nature or human nature, which you evidently have little understanding of.

Dude, it's the first country where the people voted for it, not by a courts decision.

And yet, in the US some states never legalized being gay or having a bi racial marriage. The courts had to force them to accept it. The whole "1993" thing is also nonsense. People were gay, that was that. The law just kind of stucvk around until Norris brought it up. Nobody was ever prosecuted and the antiquated law was just overlooked.

The vote was a good idea because it gave the majority a chance to stand up for the minority. IF they failed, then the courts would handle it. Would you prefer like in the US how the courts tell society how to live? It was in the constitution. People voted to change that. They didn't vote on civil rights. The people can only change the constitution. And to be honest, what you think doesn't matter. You live in a country riddled with racism, hate and war. Please try not to tell other people how their countries are flawed.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND, gay people already had equality. They could legally have a union. It's just that yonks ago, the constitution defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. LEGALLY.

I'll see your 7 goats and raise you 4 chickens. The woman is mine!! All praise hypnotoad.

Living under Islamic rule wouldn't be so bad. There would be sacrifices but at least there would be a new social order based on the natural state of things. Feminism would return to the principles of naturalism as intended. You would still be able to practice homosexuality but in the privacy of the home the way it was intended to all along. Don't ask, don't tell.