RootsBooster Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I can see two threads getting merged here...........although I would implore the mods not to, they are two different subjects and the subtleties would be lost if they got merged. Yes, they are completely different topics and threads, the only similarity is that they both have the word "gay" in the title. Don't do it mods! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 An utterly ridiculous comparison conjured randomly from the ether while blatantly ignoring other salient points (presumably because they don't suit your argument). There are plenty of other things that can be achieved by a same-sex couple (and plenty of other differences), but none of those things should impact on whether a pairing should be able to marry. Edit: Ultimately, it all boils down to prejudice and whether you instinctively feel same-sex marriage is "wrong". ...like the inability of heterosexual couples to procreate for genetic reasons which the church is prepared to ignore and allow marriage. Although a minority the numbers are significant. In a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'll echo Chris's sentiment. What has the above twaddle got to do with marriage? I believe Harvey has already stated that in his/her view Marriage is solely for the union of a man and a woman in order to procreate. I'll see if I can find the post and quote it. I may be some time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 ...like the inability of heterosexual couples to procreate for genetic reasons which the church is prepared to ignore and allow marriage. Although a minority the numbers are significant. In a nutshell. Yep. That's pretty much where I was going as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Children might be a side effect (lol) of "straight marriage", but it's by no means necessary, or mandatory. The main purpose imo for marriage is that two consenting adults, who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other as partners ... can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Marriage is an established form of union for men and women. Marriage is for opposite sex partners. How clearer can I put it that the criteria for marriage is a man and woman joining together. ...Because the institution of marriage was created for opposite sex couples who because of their biological differences could reproduce. That the general basis for a couple who love each other and want to make a commitment by marriage is to produce a child if they so desire. An homosexual couple do not have this biological ability naturally. So I believe that Harvey's argument is that in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed because in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Children might be a side effect (lol) of "straight marriage", but it's by no means necessary, or mandatory. The main purpose imo for marriage is that two consenting adults, who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other as partners ... can! We went to see the comedian Richard Herring recently, and he referred to children as sexcrement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 So I believe that Harvey's argument is that in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed because in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed. That was the same argument used against civil partnerships, and the same argument used against legalising homosexuality at all, and basically the same argument that has always been used against every case of unfair treatment towards any group of human beings in history - "it's wrong because it's wrong, which proves it's wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 it's wrong because it's wrong, which proves it's wrong. Indeed, it is a classic example of Circular Reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 So I believe that Harvey's argument is that in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed because in their belief Marriage is an insitution for opposite sex couples, and should not be changed. Basically yes, although any time this is mentioned to him he either declares "I have already explained my reasoning in detail previously" In reality, all that keeps happening is this... Harvey19: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have sex like straight couples and they can't make babies Rational being: What? Marriage isn't about sex or making babies, where did you get that from? Harvey19: Marriage is for a man and a woman, that's how it should stay Rational being: That's not a reason or an argument, it's just stating how things currently are. Why do you think it shouldn't change? Harvey19: They are different and so should have a different ceremony/legal status. This isn't discrimination, it's just different! Rational being: That's called discrimination, forbidding people the same rights as others on the grounds of their difference is inequality and discriminating. By your "logic", heterosexual couples with differences to other straight couples should not be allowed a marriage, is that what you believe? Harvey19: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have sex like straight couples and they can't make babies Rational being: *sighs* here we go again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.