(02-06-2013, 08:15 AM)Leanne Wrote: Of course that will happen, but if the marriage isn't recognised as legal in your own country I have to wonder, what's the point?then we'll just have a influx of people who stay after they get married. half of manchester is from dublin already

(02-06-2013, 08:35 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?i think it's about more than a word, i think it about security and love. call it anything you want if you don't want to call it marriage but allow two people the right to enter some kind of relationship-contract that says what they own is owned by both equally and that they openly profess their love for each other. i see nothing wrong with it being called a civil marriage. the church (all churches and religions ) have the right to refuse the religious ceremony but not a civil one.
No, I am not for it.
doesn't a divorce use names not gender, i'm sure the question could be asked but i can't yet remember ever asking any couple "are you man and wife"
and bollocks is often the best term i can use for some of the poetry i've read
