Post by: loulou on December 04, 2006, 11:59:14 pm
There were 15,672 partnerships between December 2005 and September 2006, the Office for National Statistics said.
There were 14,084 partnerships in England, 537 in Wales, 942 in Scotland and 109 in Northern Ireland.
Post by: smurfboy on December 05, 2006, 12:02:55 am
Post by: loulou on December 05, 2006, 12:04:23 am
Post by: on December 05, 2006, 07:29:31 am
Post by: loulou on December 05, 2006, 09:10:12 am
Post by: smurfboy on December 05, 2006, 10:52:59 pm
But then I am an old stick in the mud, who has irrelevant, old fashioned values that have no place in a modern world.
Bounty says something sensible shocker!
Post by: kevvosa on December 05, 2006, 11:24:31 pm
Post by: loulou on December 05, 2006, 11:47:12 pm
Post by: on December 06, 2006, 08:42:19 am
Quote from: bounty hunterBut then I am an old stick in the mud, who has irrelevant, old fashioned values that have no place in a modern world.Bounty says something sensible shocker!
Lou, can we have a 'slaps hand on forehead' emoticon?
Post by: kevvosa on December 06, 2006, 01:30:14 pm
Post by: goldencup on December 06, 2006, 05:11:04 pm
Back to topic...has anyone been to a gay wedding?
Yes, I did the music for one. And very nice it was too (the ceremony, not necessarily the music!).
Post by: kevvosa on December 06, 2006, 05:49:52 pm
Post by: oldspice on December 06, 2006, 08:55:41 pm
I am a great Archers fan and will be listening in at the weekend.
I don't think it matters what you call the ceremony or arrangement that joins two people together. Whether they are gay or straight, if they are making a committment to each other, if such a thing as God exists, he/she will smile on them.
Where there are those gathered together in my name - there is love.
Post by: goldencup on December 07, 2006, 11:36:22 am
Post by: kevvosa on December 07, 2006, 12:16:05 pm
Post by: loulou on December 07, 2006, 06:29:26 pm
Post by: oldspice on December 07, 2006, 06:31:22 pm
Where there are those gathered together in my name - there is love.
Jesus' words - not mine!
Post by: loulou on December 07, 2006, 06:36:04 pm
Post by: kevvosa on December 07, 2006, 06:37:11 pm
Post by: loulou on December 07, 2006, 06:45:22 pm
Post by: oldspice on December 07, 2006, 07:24:57 pm
Post by: loulou on December 18, 2006, 12:56:23 am
Guests at the service in London included Lucas' comedy partner David Walliams and presenter Dale Winton.
The ceremony was kept fairly formal, with male guests wearing suits.
But the reception was a more outrageous affair as guests such as Elton John and Jonathan Ross took the opportunity to dress in pantomime costumes.
Post by: oldspice on December 18, 2006, 06:59:26 am
I hope they'll be very happy. 
Post by: kevvosa on December 18, 2006, 08:29:22 am
Post by: Forth Bridges on December 18, 2006, 07:26:52 pm
Are both little britain star guy: I;m sure David Walliams puts it on has it off with some high LAdy -
Emily Scott
also No I have never been to a gay civel marrgide but there still tiem if my freinds bother goes for it
Post by: smurfboy on December 18, 2006, 11:32:17 pm
David Walliams describes himself as '70% heterosexual'.
Post by: Forth Bridges on December 19, 2006, 09:22:58 pm
Post by: kevvosa on December 19, 2006, 10:45:05 pm
Post by: on December 20, 2006, 12:02:58 am
I don't know what David Walliams means by being 70% heterosexual. If he is 30% homosexual then he is gay, he cannot be both as the two are mutually exclusive. I would suggest he is eith confused, in denial or has 'gender issues'. My opinions are contraversial I know.
Post by: kevvosa on December 20, 2006, 12:17:16 am
Post by: oldspice on December 20, 2006, 07:21:37 am
Bounty wrote:
I don't know what David Walliams means by being 70% heterosexual. If he is 30% homosexual then he is gay, he cannot be both as the two are mutually exclusive. I would suggest he is eith confused, in denial or has 'gender issues'. My opinions are contraversial I know.
I am sure he knows his own mind and body better than you do. If you dislike men completely, even in a platonic and social sense, I think it is YOU that have some confusion to work through.
Post by: Forth Bridges on December 20, 2006, 07:53:56 am
Post by: on December 20, 2006, 08:43:30 am
Post by: kevvosa on December 20, 2006, 08:56:47 am
I don't know what David Walliams means by being 70% heterosexual. If he is 30% homosexual then he is gay, he cannot be both as the two are mutually exclusive.
How does being 30% homosexual make him gay when he's 70% heterosexual? Like I said it makes him bisexual. You didn't say if you have knowledge on this so we'll assume it's your out-of-date ideas and opinions that make you think this.
Post by: smurfboy on December 20, 2006, 08:10:52 pm
Oldspice - Whatever
I know you like teenage girls - I didn't realise you'd become one.
Post by: loulou on December 21, 2006, 12:08:44 am
Post by: kevvosa on December 21, 2006, 08:23:07 am
Post by: goldencup on December 21, 2006, 04:09:15 pm
Time this thread was locked methinks.
Post by: Forth Bridges on December 21, 2006, 04:17:08 pm
Post by: goldencup on December 21, 2006, 05:15:43 pm
or even mored to the adlut sectioned!
I don't think some of the conversation qualifies.
Post by: Forth Bridges on December 21, 2006, 05:32:37 pm
Post by: loulou on December 21, 2006, 05:53:10 pm
When I was shopping today I seen the most beautiful mens pink shoes. They were a loafer style with different shades of pink and I fell in love with them. I was tempted to buy them for my friend for Christmas but after seeing they were £150 I decided I would tell him about them instead and suggest he buys them to wear to a summer wedding we are going to.
Post by: kevvosa on December 21, 2006, 06:25:25 pm
Post by: smurfboy on December 21, 2006, 07:15:34 pm
Lou's friend? 
I don't think the thread needs locking - if we did that to every thread Bounty spouted drivel in, we'd have none left.
Post by: loulou on December 21, 2006, 11:47:24 pm
Who would pay 150 quid for shoes?!
Me if I had it and I thought I'd get plenty of wear from them.
Post by: on December 22, 2006, 07:33:17 am
Lou's friend?
I don't think the thread needs locking - if we did that to every thread Bounty spouted drivel in, we'd have none left.
Yes, locking a thread because it becomes offensive or abusive is one thing but stifle free speech would be wrong.
Post by: loulou on December 22, 2006, 11:49:56 am
Post by: goldencup on December 22, 2006, 04:39:40 pm
There is no need to lock this thread. I have my finger on the delete and edit button.