harvey19 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 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! Save you time searching. Read my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 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. Yes and what is wrong with that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 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. That's a definition you've chosen specifically to exclude a group of people, there's no reason that procreation should be anything to do with the definition of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 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." Not wrong but different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yes and what is wrong with that ? It's circular and so not a reason at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yes and what is wrong with that ? It's circular and so not a reason at all. Beat me to it Cyclone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 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. You do realise we have already explained, rationally and at length, multiple times, earlier in this thread why your premise is utter cobblers, don't you? I and my ex husband married. We were, funnily enough of opposite sexes. We found that we couldn't reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 no, I believe your explanation was perfectly understandable you statedi.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 You are twisting things to suit your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Here you are, harvey:- I've corrected that statement for you. It is a union between 2 people, who can. Whether they decide to is up to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 So they should be allowed to marry then? How many times must it be explained. A form of union equal and equaly respected different for hetrosexual and homosexual couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.