barleycorn 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's so circular it's making me dizzy. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 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." Exactamundo. Google Cardinal Keith O' Brien, and restrict the results to the time period 2004/2005, and you will find him making the same apocalyptic predictions about civil partnerships then, what he is making about gay marriage today. Yet now, he has the gall to claiming he is okay with civil partnerships, it's just gay marriage that warrants the apocalyptic warnings apparently. Of course he now claims to accept civil partnerships only because they have quickly become entirely unremarkable and acceptable. It is hard to believe the same will not be true of gay marriage, and his rants against it will be forgotten by even him in future as the next target of his prejudice is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 You have misunderstood.no, I believe your explanation was perfectly understandable you stated Gender is what is constantly different, because of different gender the couple can create new life. The point is very simple to understand by anyone who wishes to understand it. i.e. creating new life is the point so marriage is for procreation and nothing else ergo if you cannot procreate then you cannot marry these are the grounds on which you are denying gay people the right to marry. unfortunately this rule on it's own also affects other groups of people unfairly so if you have other more compelling grounds for denying gay people the right to marry, which does not affect other groups unfairly and cannot be construed as bigotry, then please state them so that I can understand your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 By which we reach the conclusion that the same sex couple do not create life; one of the same sex couple in conjunction with a person of the required gender are what create life. The same sex couple merely raise somebody else's child. The same can be said of a lot of straight couples, as well as those who adopt. Besides, in the majority of cases where assisted conception/surrogacy is used, the child will be genetically related to one of the same sex parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The same can be said of a lot of straight couples, as well as those who adopt. Besides, in the majority of cases where assisted conception/surrogacy is used, the child will be genetically related to one of the same sex parents. To extend the illogical thinking further, does it mean that an affair with a post-menopausal woman is not adultery? Or an affair with a man who has had a vasectomy? Perhaps a marriage where it turns out that one couple is infertile should be annulled? On the one hand we have people that moan about the falling rates of marriage, and it's probably the same people that hold such a restrictive view of marriage that it excludes half the population in a stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 To extend the illogical thinking further, does it mean that an affair with a post-menopausal woman is not adultery? Or an affair with a man who has had a vasectomy? Perhaps a marriage where it turns out that one couple is infertile should be annulled? On the one hand we have people that moan about the falling rates of marriage, and it's probably the same people that hold such a restrictive view of marriage that it excludes half the population in a stroke. I quickly read that as Stoke..was about to say why Stoke was so unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 harvey, The thread is titled is gay marriage shameful. Is gay marriage shameful? If so, why? Irrelevant of who can do what with who! The union between homosexuals is not shamefull. I think marriage is inappropriate for reasons given. There should be a union equal and equally respected as there is between hetrosexuals. I appreciate the debate has strayed far from the original question but don't think anyone has expressed the view that the reasons for arging is because of shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 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". Wrong on all points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 . I think marriage is inappropriate for reasons given. There should be a union equal and equally respected as there is between hetrosexuals. So they should be allowed to marry then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 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! Wrong again. It is a union between 2 peoples who because of their differences can reproduce. Whether they decide to is up to them or medical factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.