Suffragette1 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 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.) I was refuting the argument that marriage is predicated upon two people, a man and a woman procreating. As many don't or can't, then if applying this criterion, they too should be disqualified and are, in this respect no different to gay couples who want children and need a '3rd' part or some form of assisted conception. Whether procreation is achieved naturally or artificially is academic in the context of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ediesedgwick Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I thought polygamy was illegal? jb If this is regarding lesbian marriage, what the hell do you mean by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ediesedgwick Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 this is a load of *****... LGBT people are not hurting anyone by having relationships with the same sex, or getting married to them. all those that think its disgusting or unnatural are complete narrow minded idiots. open your eyes!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Sex is usually defined by a man inserting his 'thing' into the woman's 'thing'. It seems some people wish to change that definition for their own agenda. No it isn't. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I thought polygamy was illegal? jb If this is regarding lesbian marriage, what the hell do you mean by that? It's a joke. Obviously not a very good one. My local mosque recently married two lesbians. This can be read as the mosque had gotten married to two lesbians i.e. the mosque has two wives, thus polygamy. Sheesh. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ediesedgwick Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 It's a joke. Obviously not a very good one. This can be read as the mosque had gotten married to two lesbians i.e. the mosque has two wives, thus polygamy. Sheesh. jb Oh reyt... funny, you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 A. Gay marriage doesn't bother me - simple as that. I have a neutral point of view. I don't see it as anything to get upset about, but then, I don't see it as anything to get excited about either! B. No, I am not a Christian. C. Yes, I was referring to other religions, although as someone else has pointed out, there are 'Christians' who kill gays, and other Christians for that matter; mostly in other countries though, hey. Thanks for answering Aleksandr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 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. And I thought you were extracting the Michael! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Here's yet another inequality. I've just an article in today's Sunday Tines magazine which states that you can't dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery, which is still defined as sexual relations between a man and a woman. Apparently, 'unreasonable behaviour' has to be cited instead and according to one divorcée, a more protracted and expansive process than divorce, due to being unable to avail themselves of adultery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah_kay Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Here's yet another inequality. I've just an article in today's Sunday Tines magazine which states that you can't dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery, which is still defined as sexual relations between a man and a woman. Apparently, 'unreasonable behaviour' has to be cited instead and according to one divorcée, a more protracted and expansive process than divorce, due to being unable to avail themselves of adultery. The legal definition of adultery, as you say, relates specifically to heterosexual couples. Dissolution based on unreasonable behaviour 'could' apply in the case where adultery has been committed. This is the information I have on Dissolution. Your partner has behaved in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live with him or her. Both partners agree to the dissolution and have been separated for 2 years. They have been separated from their partner for 5 years. Their partner has deserted them for a period of 2 years or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.