California bans same-sex marriage - ban overturned

[mj.scuba]

Trying to insult me by calling that sentiment childish doesn't bother me in the slightest. It only makes you look silly for saying so.

 

Saying "prove it or your (sic) wrong" is not childish, it is sensible. Children will believe pretty much anything you tell them and do not require proof.

 

I do not know what the origins of marriage are, and am entirely comfortable with that.

 

But what I do know, is that that which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Then please do dismiss it, I never expect any forummer to take as fact anything any other forummer writes, including anything I write.

You admit you do not know the origin of marriage yourself, so please do not expect me to retract what I have put when you do not know yourself.

[plekhanov]

Regardless of mj.scuba's complete inability to back up their assertions about marriages origins their argument is still fatally flawed.

 

In post 438 mj.scuba conceded that marriages' supposed religious origin should not prohibit secular marriage. Thus demolishing the logical basis of their argument that marriages supposed origins should determine what marriage is today.

[mj.scuba]

Regardless of mj.scuba's complete inability to back up their assertions about marriages origins their argument is still fatally flawed.

 

In post 438 mj.scuba conceded that marriages' supposed religious origin should not prohibit secular marriage. Thus demolishing the logical basis of their argument that marriages supposed origins should determine what marriage is today.

 

Go on then you tell us where you think it originated. At least I have put my head above the parapit and stated my views. None of you have engaged in debate at all. None of you have put an alternative forward at all. That is not debate. Simply insisting one forummer backs up their assertion with conclusive links is not debate.

[flamingjimmy]

Go on then you tell us where you think it originated. At least I have put my head above the parapit and stated my views. None of you have engaged in debate at all. None of you have put an alternative forward at all. That is not debate. Simply insisting one forummer backs up their assertion with conclusive links is not debate.

Actually yes it is, you clearly don't understand debate, you have put forward a motion, we are opposed to the motion, we are debating that motion. There doesn't have to be some alternate motion that we are arguing for, we can just argue against you and it is still debate.

[mj.scuba]

I think you will find that i have...see my post at 16.00

 

Yes you did, which I was happy to reply to.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Cease and desist with personal attacks, discuss the topic by all means but if you feel the urge to have a dig at a particular user I recommend you take a few calming breaths, perhaps go for a walk, calm down and reconsider.

 

Any more personal insults that are reported may result in the perpetrator(s) having their access to the site being restricted

 

And that includes those that rise to the bait as well as the baiters

 

Now please continue with your discussion

[plekhanov]

Go on then you tell us where you think it originated. At least I have put my head above the parapit and stated my views. None of you have engaged in debate at all. None of you have put an alternative forward at all. That is not debate. Simply insisting one forummer backs up their assertion with conclusive links is not debate.

I don't know when, where, how or in what form marriage originated, furthermore I don't think anybody does as so far as I'm aware marriage was around before there was any kind of even vaguely reliable historical record. As such we will in all likelihood never know the origins of marriage.

 

Once again though you are ignoring the fact that by your own logic the supposed origins of marriage are irrelevant as you have already conceded that you don't think the supposed religious origins prohibit secular marriage. As such by your own logic there is no reason whatsoever that the supposed opposite sex only origins of marriage should prohibit same sex marriage.

[mj.scuba]

Actually yes it is, you clearly don't understand debate, you have put forward a motion, we are opposed to the motion, we are debating that motion. There doesn't have to be some alternate motion that we are arguing for, we can just argue against you and it is still debate.

 

But oppose it with what? Nothing? No alternative? As I say I don't expect you to believe it if you don't want to, my assertion was not based on historical texts or manuscripts, just my view of the world. Leave me to believe what I believe.

We now appear to be debating the debate and I think we should get back on topic.

 

My belief: Marriage = man + woman. That is fact for the UK at least. Other countries like the USA may be different.

 

I've nothing against same sex couples making the life long comittment to one another and I have always advocated equality in law. For me it's just the name "marriage" and to me what that defines.

 

If you bake bread all the time, and then change the ingredients and it becomes a cake, call it bread all you like it is not bread.

[mj.scuba]

But, those religions might have (and probably did) had a very different idea of what was "moral" to what we see today, so it doesn't relate to today at all.

 

In fact, one major school of thought is that when marriage began it was actually an alliance between clans - in essence marriage could owe its origins to the non-moral prevalence of war.

 

Ahem - not that one you didn't

 

Ah sorry Auto I missed that one. That is interesting and one I am prepared to accept, marriage as a way of making civil arrangements, joining families, settling land rights and livestock grazing ground, trade etc. I complement you sir, at least you actually challange it with an alternative. I will certainly look into it further I don't expect you to prove it beyond doubt

[flamingjimmy]

But oppose it with what? Nothing? No alternative?

You don't get it, we don't need an alternative to oppose something, that's not necessary to engage in debate. Have you ever been to/taken part in a proper debate?

 

As I say I don't expect you to believe it if you don't want to, my assertion was not based on historical texts or manuscripts, just my view of the world. Leave me to believe what I believe.

Indeed, you can believe what you want to believe and I would dream of trying to stop you. However if you are going to espouse that belief on a public forum then don't complain when you are challenged.

 

My belief: Marriage = man + woman. That is fact for the UK at least. Other countries like the USA may be different.

 

I've nothing against same sex couples making the life long comittment to one another and I have always advocated equality in law. For me it's just the name "marriage" and to me what that defines.

 

So your objection is purely based on semantics?

 

really? You've been arguing on this thread about this for ages purely because of semantics?

 

And I thought I was a pedant!

 

So you'd be willing to accept that the bond between two gay people who have made a lifelong commitment to each other is just as real, just as important, just as loving, etc. as the bond between two straight people (of different genders) who have made a lifelong commitment to each other?