Jump to content

Gay marriage - 'shameful'?


Recommended Posts

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'.
Actually no it isn't sterile refers to individuals not couples. Gay men are no more or less likely to be sterile than straight men as far as I'm aware.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no it isn't sterile refers to individuals not couples. Gay men are no more or less likely to be sterile than straight men as far as I'm aware.
:hihi: 'Sterile' means 'incapable of producing offspring' in this context. It is an adjective, and describes the noun 'couple'. So yes, you can have a sterile couple. Of course you can. What on earth are you trying to achieve here?

 

Regarding your last point: so what? How is the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual male sterility relevant to this? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?
I would not have thought so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not have thought so.
So are there any other reasons you can think of for denying these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, the right to marry or for calling such a marriage "shameful" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are there any other reasons you can think of for denying these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, the right to marry or for calling such a marriage "shameful" ?
Err... no. This message needs extra characters before it can be posted, so here they are!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err... no. This message needs extra characters before it can be posted, so here they are!
So were the law to be changed to allow these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, to marry, then from what you've said you would have no grounds for an objection, although you may not actively support the change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So were the law to be changed to allow these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, to marry, then from what you've said you would have no grounds for an objection, although you may not actively support the change.

 

It seems like it. For some their arguement is that 'the law is the law' seems a little short sighted for me but if their moral judgtements change due to what parliament says then fair enough. I just wish they;d have th emoral fortitude to stand up for what they believe in rather than go for some cop out excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So were the law to be changed to allow these sterile couples, same sex or otherwise, to marry, then from what you've said you would have no grounds for an objection, although you may not actively support the change.
Good grief - that's exactly what I've said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief - that's exactly what I've said!

 

My apologies, from my reading you appeared to be arguing against it, I must have missed the post where you said this, my fault entirely.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.