harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I have done, all the way through. There is no reason or logic in them. Try having a read yourself. But there is basic logic argued with consistent sound reasoning. You may not agree with my reasons and have differing opinions but that does not discount my opinions. I wonder if the posters who have disagreed with me would have had the same opposition if it had been an homosexual expressing my views on marriage. Always try to see both sides of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 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? You have completely lost me. The couple have entered into a legal agreement and so are legally married. I do wonder if we are in the real world reading some of the replies to my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 You have completely lost me. The couple have entered into a legal agreement and so are legally married. I do wonder if we are in the real world reading some of the replies to my posts. I'm repeating your position back to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I'm repeating your position back to you! We could be accused of having a circular debate ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 But there is basic logic argued with consistent sound reasoning. Then why haven't you posted it? You may not agree with my reasons and have differing opinions but that does not discount my opinions. I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "reason". Your arguments; 1. That marriage is for men and women because marriage is for men and women - has no reasoning or logic, it's just the current status of the marriage system. 2. That marriage is for men and women because men and women can have children and same sexes can't - has no relative reasoning or logic, procreational sex is not a requirement for marriage and never has been. It's not that I disagree with your opinions, it's that all you have is opinions. You have no argument, no case. That's not my opinion, it's fact. I wonder if the posters who have disagreed with me would have had the same opposition if it had been an homosexual expressing my views on marriage. Always try to see both sides of the argument. I can't ever see a homosexual expressing the views that marriage is for men and women only and that it is about procreational sex. If they did, of course I'd oppose them because they would have even LESS reason or logic in their argument. EDIT: If you meant a homosexual person claiming that marriage should only be for same sexes, then OBVIOUSLY I'd oppose that too, what makes you think I or others might not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Then why haven't you posted it? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "reason". Your arguments; 1. That marriage is for men and women because marriage is for men and women - has no reasoning or logic, it's just the current status of the marriage system. 2. That marriage is for men and women because men and women can have children and same sexes can't - has no relative reasoning or logic, procreational sex is not a requirement for marriage and never has been. It's not that I disagree with your opinions, it's that all you have is opinions. You have no argument, no case. That's not my opinion, it's fact. I can't ever see a homosexual expressing the views that marriage is for men and women only and that it is about procreational sex. If they did, of course I'd oppose them because they would have even LESS reason or logic in their argument. EDIT: If you meant a homosexual person claiming that marriage should only be for same sexes, then OBVIOUSLY I'd oppose that too, what makes you think I or others might not? This is my last post and I still think you are missing the point of my reasoning. Marriage is an established form of union for man and woman. That is a fact. I wish I had a copy of the Newsnight programne from a couple of weeks ago where this was discussed and a document produced which supported my argument. On the programne an homosexual man was opposing the proposed change in legislation. The reference to the sex of the couple and ability to reproduce reinforces the point that defines the difference between opposite sex and same sex couples. You may not agree with my reasons but they are relevant and cannot be dismissed because they do not support your viewpoint. I don't think we will come to agreement on the subject but that is what debate is about expressing different viewpoints but think this subject is exhausted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 You still don't understand do you? This: Marriage is an established form of union for man and woman. That is a fact. is still saying this: 1. That marriage is for men and women because marriage is for men and women - has no reasoning or logic, it's just the current status of the marriage system. Once again, saying that marriage should only be for men and women because it IS currently only for men and women, is NOT a REASON or a LOGICAL argument. It's just how things currently are, and just because it's been that way a long time, does NOT make it a reason not to change. Also, this; The reference to the sex of the couple and ability to reproduce reinforces the point that defines the difference between opposite sex and same sex couples. is the same as this; 2. That marriage is for men and women because men and women can have children and same sexes can't - has no relative reasoning or logic, procreational sex is not a requirement for marriage and never has been. If you really believe there is any logic or reason in this statement relative to marriage, please explain it. You may not agree with my reasons but they are relevant and cannot be dismissed because they do not support your viewpoint. They can be dismissed because they don't even support YOUR viewpoiont! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 You still don't understand do you? He never will. It's not in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I think I have answered all questions put to me in a logical reasonable way and not ducked any. The debate is repeating itself and so becoming circular and boring so it's probably time for me to leave. Sometimes we have to agree to differ but may all couples of whatever sex and whatever union they enter into have happy lives together without prejudice or envy. This is my last post and I still think you are missing the point of my reasoning. Why can't you leave it alone then Harvey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 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.Is that really a weird notion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.