JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Legislation would change the criteria. Opinions do not necessarily change. It's legislation that allow people to marry though, not opinions. So after the legislation is changed, would you consider a same sex couple that has gone through a legal marriage ceremony to be married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 It's legislation that allow people to marry though, not opinions. So after the legislation is changed, would you consider a same sex couple that has gone through a legal marriage ceremony to be married? Yes, of course I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Legislation would change the criteria. Opinions do not necessarily change. But according to you, the reason behind your opinion "marriage is for a man and woman" is that "marriage is for a man and woman" as well as some weird notion that marriage is about sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 But according to you, the reason behind your opinion "marriage is for a man and woman" is that "marriage is for a man and woman" as well as some weird notion that marriage is about sex. You are creating a circular argument. I have clearly explained myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Because many see marriage as the union between a man and woman and would prefer it to stay that way. Perfect Hogic ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 You are creating a circular argument. I have clearly explained myself. This post translates to me as "Fe" (+ic) in the periodic table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I do not consider contaminating is appropriate to describe my view on changes to marriage. Inappropriate is how I see it. Yes I would celebrate a couple pledging themselves to each other in whatever form it took. Why do you consider a civil partnership something not to be proud of ? Do you consider a register office wedding inferior to a church wedding ? Personally I disagree with the concept of marriage, but that's for another thread. Church, civil, registry. Just little boxes to assign to people. Judging on what qualification you're assigned to based on sex/gender is discriminatory . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Perfect Hogic ! Try reading my posts objectively without preconceived opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Try reading my posts objectively without preconceived opinions. I have done, all the way through. There is no reason or logic in them. Try having a read yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Yes, of course I would. So you'd consider them to legally married, but you think they shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is for men and women, even though at that stage same sex couples can marry? Classic Hogic! You do know that you're are not Mr Spock and I am not a power crazy computer that has taken over the USS Enterprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.