The ArgusFirst same-sex marriage couple for Brighton and Hove announced (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

First same-sex marriage couple for Brighton and Hove announced

The Argus: First same-sex marriage couple for Brighton and Hove announced First same-sex marriage couple for Brighton and Hove announced

A dramatist and a guesthouse owner will make history after being named as the first same-sex couple to get married in Brighton and Hove.

Andrew Wale and Neil Allard have been selected by a panel for the honour of being married at one minute past midnight on Saturday March 29.

The wedding will be held at the earliest moment that the law allows and means the couple will be one of the first gay marriages in the country.

In another first, the pair will be married in the Music Room of the Royal Pavilion.

For full details see tomorrow’s Argus.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:53pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

straightasadye wrote:
Was enjoying my lunch until I read this. Feel quite sick now.
Then why read it. Don't take rocket science to work out what the headline means.
[quote][p][bold]straightasadye[/bold] wrote: Was enjoying my lunch until I read this. Feel quite sick now.[/p][/quote]Then why read it. Don't take rocket science to work out what the headline means. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 20

12:56pm Fri 14 Feb 14

oooiee says...

Oh how absolutely marvellous.They just don't get it do they NOBODY CARES!!!
Oh how absolutely marvellous.They just don't get it do they NOBODY CARES!!! oooiee
  • Score: -2

1:33pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

straightasadye wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
straightasadye wrote:
Was enjoying my lunch until I read this. Feel quite sick now.
Then why read it. Don't take rocket science to work out what the headline means.
You clearly know nothing about rocket science - how about
pheasant plucking?
Just stating the obvious. I can't stand football. So Therefore I wouldn't then click on a footie story, read it, then complained it made me feel quite sick.
[quote][p][bold]straightasadye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]straightasadye[/bold] wrote: Was enjoying my lunch until I read this. Feel quite sick now.[/p][/quote]Then why read it. Don't take rocket science to work out what the headline means.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about rocket science - how about pheasant plucking?[/p][/quote]Just stating the obvious. I can't stand football. So Therefore I wouldn't then click on a footie story, read it, then complained it made me feel quite sick. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 16

1:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

BlackRocker says...

straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.
straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon. BlackRocker
  • Score: 11

1:48pm Fri 14 Feb 14

wendy-uk says...

Good for them, may their marriage be a long and happy one.
Good for them, may their marriage be a long and happy one. wendy-uk
  • Score: 10

1:50pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DC78 says...

Good luck to them, and it's not before time for marriage equality.

Just a shame that the Argus got Andrew's surname wrong. Maybe that's the 'full details in tomorrow's Argus'. It's Wale not Wade.
Good luck to them, and it's not before time for marriage equality. Just a shame that the Argus got Andrew's surname wrong. Maybe that's the 'full details in tomorrow's Argus'. It's Wale not Wade. DC78
  • Score: 8

1:57pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DC78 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was. DC78
  • Score: 10

2:10pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: -7

2:22pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DC78 says...

Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages.

Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity.

Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,
[quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages. Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity. Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief, DC78
  • Score: 17

2:26pm Fri 14 Feb 14

power_ranger says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
Nice one lads. Congrats!

Hope you have a brill day.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]Nice one lads. Congrats! Hope you have a brill day. power_ranger
  • Score: 7

2:35pm Fri 14 Feb 14

winewomenandsong says...

BlackRocker wrote:
straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.
Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you.
[quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.[/p][/quote]Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you. winewomenandsong
  • Score: 12

2:37pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages.

Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity.

Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,
Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages. Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity. Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,[/p][/quote]Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: -1

2:54pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DC78 says...

Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages.

Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity.

Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,
Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.
I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages.

You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it.
[quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages. Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity. Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,[/p][/quote]Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.[/p][/quote]I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages. You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it. DC78
  • Score: 5

2:55pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Oh bloddie hell! More rain and floods then!

No ,seriously Good Luck!
Oh bloddie hell! More rain and floods then! No ,seriously Good Luck! Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 11

3:01pm Fri 14 Feb 14

BlackRocker says...

winewomenandsong wrote:
BlackRocker wrote:
straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.
Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you.
Would you think me a pedant if I pointed out that what you mean is 'dearie' and 'you're'?
[quote][p][bold]winewomenandsong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.[/p][/quote]Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you.[/p][/quote]Would you think me a pedant if I pointed out that what you mean is 'dearie' and 'you're'? BlackRocker
  • Score: 7

3:02pm Fri 14 Feb 14

straightasadye says...

BlackRocker wrote:
straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.
Oh I see! Thanks for pointing that out.
Pricked a nerve have I?
[quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.[/p][/quote]Oh I see! Thanks for pointing that out. Pricked a nerve have I? straightasadye
  • Score: -5

3:05pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Handbags at dawn! (commenters above)
Handbags at dawn! (commenters above) Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 11

3:11pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DC78 says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Handbags at dawn! (commenters above)
I know, I'm stepping away from this one now. I'm off to see if the Co-Op has some reduced carnations and a bottle of Cava for my better half. Happy Valentines day everyone! (including same-sex couples!)
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: Handbags at dawn! (commenters above)[/p][/quote]I know, I'm stepping away from this one now. I'm off to see if the Co-Op has some reduced carnations and a bottle of Cava for my better half. Happy Valentines day everyone! (including same-sex couples!) DC78
  • Score: 12

3:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

I didn't say marriage only takes place between 2 people in a church. Your twisting my words. Marriage can take place in any venue that holds the correct licence as with civil partnerships. What I said was that if the church (in general ) doesn't agree with gay marriage then why should it profit from those choosing to conduct their ceremony in a church. This is my opion and view.
Again, we are all allowed our own points of view, that what puts us ahead and in a different class to many countries in the world. We don't yet live in a nanny state nor a dictatorship. we only have to look at what Russia is doing to the LGBT community at present. Watching recent programmes from Russia on how gays and lesbians are outed then beaten to a pulp to cure them of their so called illness is disgusting.. And the biggest problem over there is the view of the church which is then filtered down through the hiarachy to the common man who thinks it's his god given right to bait innocent gays and lesbians, beat them, out them, make them loose their jobs and convince us that they are ridding the world of mentally unstable people whom they try and convince us and themselves that all gays are peadophiles.
All I am saying it let people have their own view and choice and beg to differ. My views are not creating hatred, homophobia nor inciting a riot.
I think I am correct in saying that at present heterosexuals are NOT able to have a cilvil partnership, they are only permitted to have a wedding. I know of many straight couples whom given the choice would chosen a civil partnership and why not give them the choice.
I gave nothing against whether someone gets married or goes through a civil partnership. It's just my personal view and like yours you are entitled to it.
I didn't say marriage only takes place between 2 people in a church. Your twisting my words. Marriage can take place in any venue that holds the correct licence as with civil partnerships. What I said was that if the church (in general ) doesn't agree with gay marriage then why should it profit from those choosing to conduct their ceremony in a church. This is my opion and view. Again, we are all allowed our own points of view, that what puts us ahead and in a different class to many countries in the world. We don't yet live in a nanny state nor a dictatorship. we only have to look at what Russia is doing to the LGBT community at present. Watching recent programmes from Russia on how gays and lesbians are outed then beaten to a pulp to cure them of their so called illness is disgusting.. And the biggest problem over there is the view of the church which is then filtered down through the hiarachy to the common man who thinks it's his god given right to bait innocent gays and lesbians, beat them, out them, make them loose their jobs and convince us that they are ridding the world of mentally unstable people whom they try and convince us and themselves that all gays are peadophiles. All I am saying it let people have their own view and choice and beg to differ. My views are not creating hatred, homophobia nor inciting a riot. I think I am correct in saying that at present heterosexuals are NOT able to have a cilvil partnership, they are only permitted to have a wedding. I know of many straight couples whom given the choice would chosen a civil partnership and why not give them the choice. I gave nothing against whether someone gets married or goes through a civil partnership. It's just my personal view and like yours you are entitled to it. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Fri 14 Feb 14

winewomenandsong says...

BlackRocker wrote:
winewomenandsong wrote:
BlackRocker wrote:
straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.
Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you.
Would you think me a pedant if I pointed out that what you mean is 'dearie' and 'you're'?
Since you ask, yes, you do come across as being too concerned
with what are "thought" to be correct rules and details:
and of course far too articulate and pedantic to be rubbing shoulders
with the likes of the majority of posters on this site whom,
by and large, treat the site as a joke.
[quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winewomenandsong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlackRocker[/bold] wrote: straightasadye even exposes his ignorance in the spelling of his name which, as anyone educated or familiar with the expression will already know, should be 'straightasadie'. Unless, perhaps, he happens to be an employee of Dylon.[/p][/quote]Calm down deary, your letting straightasadye get to you.[/p][/quote]Would you think me a pedant if I pointed out that what you mean is 'dearie' and 'you're'?[/p][/quote]Since you ask, yes, you do come across as being too concerned with what are "thought" to be correct rules and details: and of course far too articulate and pedantic to be rubbing shoulders with the likes of the majority of posters on this site whom, by and large, treat the site as a joke. winewomenandsong
  • Score: 4

3:53pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Vox populi 2 says...

Just noticed my post saying I won't be buying the Argus this Saturday and on Monday has been blackballed.
Saved me money. Won't be buying it for the rest of the month now.
Just noticed my post saying I won't be buying the Argus this Saturday and on Monday has been blackballed. Saved me money. Won't be buying it for the rest of the month now. Vox populi 2
  • Score: 2

4:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

tooned_in says...

Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads...
Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads... tooned_in
  • Score: 6

7:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

All 9 of me says...

tooned_in wrote:
Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads...
errrr..... birth of a sky fairy ? You fell for it ???
[quote][p][bold]tooned_in[/bold] wrote: Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads...[/p][/quote]errrr..... birth of a sky fairy ? You fell for it ??? All 9 of me
  • Score: -3

8:57pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

All 9 of me wrote:
tooned_in wrote:
Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads...
errrr..... birth of a sky fairy ? You fell for it ???
Another unnecessary homophobic remark. Oh joy.
Whom do you think gives birth to 'a sky fairy'? Normally it takes two heterosexuals and if you need it made clearer, a man and a woman to produce one.
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tooned_in[/bold] wrote: Homosexuals have been around since time began and long before the birth of Jesus Christ.....lets all just accept it and get on with our lives...best wishes lads...[/p][/quote]errrr..... birth of a sky fairy ? You fell for it ???[/p][/quote]Another unnecessary homophobic remark. Oh joy. Whom do you think gives birth to 'a sky fairy'? Normally it takes two heterosexuals and if you need it made clearer, a man and a woman to produce one. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 1

9:58pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages.

Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity.

Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,
Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.
I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages.

You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Spain for years and guess what? Nobody turns a blind eye or even considers it worth mentioning.
It is simply the marriage of two people and can be performed in any church in the country.
The difference is that Spain does not have a state religion the laws of which are enshrined in common law.
It also has a constitution the first words of which are 'The power of the state lies with the people'.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages. Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity. Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,[/p][/quote]Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.[/p][/quote]I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages. You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it.[/p][/quote]Same sex marriage has been legal in Spain for years and guess what? Nobody turns a blind eye or even considers it worth mentioning. It is simply the marriage of two people and can be performed in any church in the country. The difference is that Spain does not have a state religion the laws of which are enshrined in common law. It also has a constitution the first words of which are 'The power of the state lies with the people'. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 2

9:58pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages.

Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity.

Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,
Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.
I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages.

You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Spain for years and guess what? Nobody turns a blind eye or even considers it worth mentioning.
It is simply the marriage of two people and can be performed in any church in the country.
The difference is that Spain does not have a state religion the laws of which are enshrined in common law.
It also has a constitution the first words of which are 'The power of the state lies with the people'.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You're simply wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Increasing numbers of straight couples have non religious marriages. Marriage actually pre-dates many religions including Christianity. Your personal view that you don't believe in gay marriage is wrong too. Gay marriage is a fact. What you meant to say is that you don't agree with it and that is different from belief,[/p][/quote]Every one is allowed a personal view, doesn't mean we are right or wrong. I was merely expressing my view like you are doing. I am not trying to push my views onto anyone else just expressing them which is the point of these comments on here. Again the point is that everyone should have a CHOICE whether to have a civil ceremony or a wedding. It should not be dictated to us regardless of which part of society we come from.[/p][/quote]I was pointing out that you were factually wrong, when you said that marriage was a religious thing. That's not a difference of opinion. You are actually wrong to say that marriage only takes place between 2 people in churches. I can take you and show a non religious marriage in Brighton town hall this afternoon if you like, or at any number of secular buildings that have been licensed to commit marriages. You are also wrong to say that you don't 'believe in gay marriages'. They are real and they do happen. You can go to Sweden, Spain, Canada or in Brighton on the 29th March and see it actually being done in front of your own eyes. People who say they 'don't believe' in something, generally mean they disagree with it.[/p][/quote]Same sex marriage has been legal in Spain for years and guess what? Nobody turns a blind eye or even considers it worth mentioning. It is simply the marriage of two people and can be performed in any church in the country. The difference is that Spain does not have a state religion the laws of which are enshrined in common law. It also has a constitution the first words of which are 'The power of the state lies with the people'. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 1

9:59pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Nobleox says...

Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .
Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. . Nobleox
  • Score: -3

10:43pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Nobleox wrote:
Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .
ohmygawd. Ican'tbelieveyoujust
saidthat
[quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] wrote: Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .[/p][/quote]ohmygawd. Ican'tbelieveyoujust saidthat Take it Personally
  • Score: 2

10:51pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Nobleox wrote:
Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .
It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not .
I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals??
[quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] wrote: Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .[/p][/quote]It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not . I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals?? Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 1

11:08pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You "don't believe" in gay marriage? I think you'll find that all the available evidence points to it being an actual thing.
[quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You "don't believe" in gay marriage? I think you'll find that all the available evidence points to it being an actual thing. Andy R
  • Score: 2

11:11pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
Potlights all round, I say!
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]Potlights all round, I say! Andy R
  • Score: 2

11:25pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Andy R wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
DC78 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.
What's a potlight?

This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic).

I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.
My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.
You "don't believe" in gay marriage? I think you'll find that all the available evidence points to it being an actual thing.
I never once said that gay marriage doesn't exist nor that any person should be excempt from marriage. Merely that I personally don't believe it in. It's a choice thing. If gays can have marriage then therefore straights should be allowed civil partnerships.its about every one being treated equally and having the choice for themselves rather than having the choice made for them due to which group of society they fit in too.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Who gives a ****???????? Why should a homosexual couple be given any more of the potlight for getting married over a hetrosexual couple? Utterly pathetic nonsense.[/p][/quote]What's a potlight? This is news because marriage has until 29th March, been denied to gay couples and this couple will be one of the first in the country to take part in a marriage ceremony. That is why they are in the potlight (sic). I do agree though with your closing statement "Utterly pathetic nonsense". Your comment definitely was.[/p][/quote]My personal view Is that I don't believe in gay marriage, it's not because I'm against it or homophobic but in my eyes marriage is a religious ceremony between 2 people and also that the church does not agree with it so therefore why should they profit from it for when it's conducted in a church. I also believe that heterosexuals should have the same freedom as homosexuals and be allowed to have a cilvil ceremony ( or a no religious ceremony) if they so choose. Why not give every couple the choice.[/p][/quote]You "don't believe" in gay marriage? I think you'll find that all the available evidence points to it being an actual thing.[/p][/quote]I never once said that gay marriage doesn't exist nor that any person should be excempt from marriage. Merely that I personally don't believe it in. It's a choice thing. If gays can have marriage then therefore straights should be allowed civil partnerships.its about every one being treated equally and having the choice for themselves rather than having the choice made for them due to which group of society they fit in too. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 0

9:26am Sat 15 Feb 14

Nobleox says...

Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
Nobleox wrote:
Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .
It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not .
I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals??
Seems I've ruffled Pheasant pluckers feathers.
[quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] wrote: Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .[/p][/quote]It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not . I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals??[/p][/quote]Seems I've ruffled Pheasant pluckers feathers. Nobleox
  • Score: 3

9:45am Sat 15 Feb 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Nobleox wrote:
Pheasant pluckers son wrote:
Nobleox wrote:
Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .
It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not .
I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals??
Seems I've ruffled Pheasant pluckers feathers.
Not at all. Just that some people are very quick to comment on other peoples views/comments/opini
on and if they disagree with you then they must be in the wrong. There are other people whom will just be stupid comments towards a lot of stories of here either because they are ignorant or for shock value.
[quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pheasant pluckers son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] wrote: Just been reading the posts. Queer why those that come across as being homosexual are sensitive to a bit of light hearted banter and their opposites are not. .[/p][/quote]It depends on how you would define light hearted banter. There is a very fine line between having a joke about someone and coming across as offensive . In a different context would jokes/ comments on here that come across as racist or anti Semitic appear as a bit of light banter. Probably not . I don't see any comments on here insulting any other groups of society so why should it be open season on homosexuals??[/p][/quote]Seems I've ruffled Pheasant pluckers feathers.[/p][/quote]Not at all. Just that some people are very quick to comment on other peoples views/comments/opini on and if they disagree with you then they must be in the wrong. There are other people whom will just be stupid comments towards a lot of stories of here either because they are ignorant or for shock value. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree