Gay marriage - 'shameful'?

[HeadingNorth]

Probably? What evidence do you have to support that claim? Bizarre!

 

The word "probably" should indicate to you that it's an opinion, and as such, not backed by evidence. (Although, since gay couples are not allowed to marry, how could there be any evidence about the length of gay marriages?)

[Aleksandr]

They do and they can in the same way that many straight couples do. ...

Sorry, I must be missing something here. How can a same sex couple 'create' life? A 3rd party is required, who must be of the opposite sex. Your error appears to be based on the mistaken belief that sterile male-female couples can create life. They cannot without a 3rd party. (I'm not talking about partly sterile couples who need assistance like IVF, I'm talking about artificial insemination by donor and egg donation etc.)

[Aleksandr]

The word "probably" should indicate to you that it's an opinion, and as such, not backed by evidence. (Although, since gay couples are not allowed to marry, how could there be any evidence about the length of gay marriages?)

Thanks for the slightly pompous lecture on English language. A phrase like "I think" could denote an unsubstantiated opinion. The word "probably" would tend to denote an opinion justified by a statistic, i.e. evidence.

 

Gay marriage occurs elsewhere, and there are data from civil partnerships to consider.

[Aleksandr]

Which claim are you querying? That gay marriages would last longer - I don't think there's any valid reason to believe that, or that straight people have gay children which is undeniably true?

That gay marriages would last longer.

[esme]

Marriage is between man and woman. It's always been like this and hopefully will remain so.

 

The Cardinal speaks sense.

 

Marriage is for life, it's always been like this and hopefully will remain so.

 

Doubtless the Cardinal supported that as well.

 

So if your partner died or you got divorced you couldn't remarry as that would be bigamy.

 

Except that was judged to be unfair on the small number of people whose partner died or got divorced, so the law was changed in the interests of fairness.

 

Saying two consenting adults cannot marry because of their sex is also unfair to a small proportion of the population and the law should be changed to remove this unfairness.

 

After all if society decides to treat a certain group of law abiding people as second class in some way then society has no right to present those people with the same first class bill for being a member that all the other people get.

 

So either treat everyone the same or give those you aren't going to treat the same, a refund.

[HeadingNorth]

Sorry, I must be missing something here. How can a same sex couple 'create' life? A 3rd party is required, who must be of the opposite sex. Your error appears to be based on the mistaken belief that sterile male-female couples can create life. They cannot without a 3rd party.

 

And you are objecting to sterile male-female couples getting married, of course? Since they can no more have children than can male-male couples, without 3rd party assistance.

[Aleksandr]

No, procreational sex is about that.

 

Recreational sex is about a whole lot more.

Tell me about it baby!

[Aleksandr]

And you are objecting to sterile male-female couples getting married, of course? Since they can no more have children than can male-male couples, without 3rd party assistance.

What a bizarre interpretation! I'm not objecting to anyone getting married; I think I have made that perfectly clear. I'm objecting to the false claim that truly sterile couples, be they same-sex or mixed, can 'create' life. They cannot. That is the definition of 'sterile'. To believe otherwise is pure fantasy and nonsense. A same-sex couple might comprise two fertile adults, but as a couple, they are totally sterile. And of course, a mixed-sex sterile couple might have one fertile adult, but as a couple, they are sterile. Together, as couples, they cannot 'create' life without a 3rd party - end of. Which bit don't you understand?

[Blue Moon]

It's like being second rate. Good enough for a Civil Partnership, but not quite enough for married. What year are we living in?

[esme]

What a bizarre interpretation! I'm not objecting to anyone getting married; I think I have made that perfectly clear. I'm objecting to the false claim that truly sterile couples, be they same-sex or mixed, can 'create' life. They cannot. That is the definition of 'sterile'. To believe otherwise is pure fantasy and nonsense. A same-sex couple might comprise two fertile adults, but as a couple, they are totally sterile. And of course, a mixed-sex sterile couple might have one fertile adult, but as a couple, they are sterile. Together, as couples, they cannot 'create' life without a 3rd party - end of. Which bit don't you understand?

So would this lack of ability to procreate be a good reason for denying any of these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, the right to marry or calling such a marriage "shameful" as Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks ?