harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Yes, and I yet to see one convincing argument from you why that is so. And all I see from those who want to legalise marriage between homosexual couples is, They have it so why can't we even though we don't fit the criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I am not going to repeat again what I have recently posted. The law can be changed to anything within reason, so can you give me one good reason as to why the law cannot ignore the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals and allow them the same rights of marriage? Or does, sadly we can't always have everything we want in life, become the final say in the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I think as bad as harvey19's arguments are, it is good to see that there is no solid argument against it. A circular "they're different, just accept they're different" argument isn't going to prove the best defence. I have much more respect for out-and-out homophobia. At least then it's an honest argument. This endless round and round dribble is insulting to everyone's intelligence. But it is not homophobia to realise people are different. A man and woman are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 And all I see from those who want to legalise marriage between homosexual couples is, They have it so why can't we even though we don't fit the criteria. No, all you hear from the other side is: It's wrong to treat people differently because of their sexuality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The law can be changed to anything within reason, so can you give me one good reason as to why the law cannot ignore the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals and allow them the same rights of marriage? Or does, sadly we can't always have everything we want in life, become the final say in the matter? But why should the law be changed when there is seperate legislation to fit different criteria ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapthrillz Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 But it is not homophobia to realise people are different. A man and woman are different. That doesn't mean they should be treated differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 No, all you hear from the other side is: It's wrong to treat people differently because of their sexuality Absolutely right and what I am stating is that it is not sexuality but gender that makes the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I think as bad as harvey19's arguments are, it is good to see that there is no solid argument against it. A circular "they're different, just accept they're different" argument isn't going to prove the best defence. I have much more respect for out-and-out homophobia. At least then it's an honest argument. This endless round and round dribble is insulting to everyone's intelligence. I must admit that there is a certain amount of pleasure to be gained by seeing the anti same sex marriages brigade squirm with each reply. The ironic thing is it's going to happen in the next 2-3 years, allowing civil partnership was just the start of the process that will end with full rights of marriage, of that I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 But it is not homophobia to realise people are different. I don't doubt you. You seem fair. Your arguments are terrible though, being different is no reason to deny anyone a marriage, but you stick with it if you wish. ------------- The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans ( ) were on tv this morning, arguing against gay marriage as incrementalism - that they only agreed to civil partnership because they thought that'd be the end of the problem. The obvious flaw in that is that it's only incrementalism because they fought against it - if they'd've let them just have marriage a few years ago there wouldn't be a need for a second step. Their own stance created the situation they are now trying to use as a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 That doesn't mean they should be treated differently. They are not, a man can enter into a union with a man as a woman can with another woman. It is when a man and woman enter into a union there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.