harvey19 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 harvey19 seems to be applying the same logic as an Islamic state would in denying a woman from taking part in sports. Women are not as physically strong as men, they are different in this respect, so they should not take part in any sports. What has this got to do with a man and woman being able to indulge in sexual intercourse that can produce new life that an homosexual couple cannot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No you made the mistake in referring to other posters as homophobes and discriminating in their views. Although others have wrongly made these claims they are wrong and reasons have been given. No we haven't, the position you continue to defend is a perfect example of discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So marriage for you equates to procreation, nothing more nothing less. I mentioned this in a much earlier post on this thread. In that case, all couples past reproductive age, those who are infertile and those who do not wish to have children should not be eligible to tie the knot, if that argument is to be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Of course it's discriminatory, the word specifically means treating people differently due to some innate difference. It's supposition that it's based on homophobia, but there's certainly no rational reason to support any kind of discrimination based on sexuality. No matter how many times you repeat yourself it does not change the fact you are not comparing like with like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Completely wrong. Please read my earlier reasons. In short I am all for homosexuals joining together in a lifelong legal union the same as hetrosexuals. But a man and woman relationship, because they are different genders is different to an homosexual union between 2 people of the same gender. The hetrosexual couple can reproduce whilst the homosexual one cannot. Therefore different unions are appropriate for different types of couples. It has nothing to do with sexual preferences but the gender differences and consequences of this. There is no need to distinguish between the unions, they are both unions and in law should have the same name and status. The ability to procreate is nothing to do with the legal state. Your desire to force gay couples to have their union called by a different name is discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Your following quote gives the answer. What, you despair because I refuse to accept your excuses for discrimination. You'll be despairing for quite some time then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Attempts to justify why people should be treat differently doesn't alter anything, treating them differently is discrimination. Why is this simple concept vociferously argued against unless no concept of the understanding of discrimination, or simply chose to ignore based on ignorance or something more sinister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No matter how many times you repeat yourself it does not change the fact you are not comparing like with like. Clearly I am, both are the union of two people who are making a public declaration that they are in a permanent exclusive relationship. It doesn't get much more simple does it. Your futile attempt to pretend that a marriage must include the ability to procreate is both transparent and obviously flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I mentioned this in a much earlier post on this thread. In that case, all couples past reproductive age, those who are infertile and those who do not wish to have children should not be eligible to tie the knot, if that argument is to be applied. Exactly, the 'obvious' flaws to which I refer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I've been despairing at yours for some time. It's like arguing with my niece, she just sticks her fingers in her ears and states what she believes more loudly. So even your neice despairs at what you say ! An unexpected admission. Respect though is something that has to be earned, and I'm afraid that I have little respect for religion or the religious and non at all for the position you are trying to defend. I respect your different views but in all sincerity believe that I am right in what I am arguing for the arguments given. As regards to religion I believe there is a God for the simple reason that I cannot believe there is any other way we came into being without creation, this is after objective thought as I do not follow religion even though I am cofe. The belief in God does not necessarily, in my view necessitate a blind faith in anything written by man although I respect the views of others who think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.