Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I thought I had answered all your points. You didn't answer this question and still haven't. Are black people different to white people. My arguments is not against homosexuals or making any couple inferior or superior. Yes it is. You ignore my points about the reasons for the different types of union are that a man and woman are different genders and homosexual couples are the same gender. I don't ignore it, I say that this is just justification for your discrimination. A person that loves another of the same sex is different to one who loves a person of the same sex therefore they are different. Again neither superior or inferior but simply different. Nobody has claimed they are the same. This is not relevant to marriage though. A same sex couple cannot reproduce whereas a a couple of different sex can reproduce. Potentially they can, depending on a whole lot of additional factors, but this is completely irrelevant to marriage. There is no way both groups can be called the same. Yes they can, we simply change the law and it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Because the institution of marriage was created for opposite sex couples who because of their biological differences could reproduce. And we come back to asking you for proof of your assertion. Which you don't have. You'll probably refer back to the Christian document, which we all know doesn't mark the beginning of the institution of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 But it is not homophobia to realise people are different. A man and woman are different. It is homophobia to deny them equal rights due to that difference, which is what you are supporting no matter how you try to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Do you think gay people should have their own section on the bus, and not be allowed to sit with everyone else? Not superior or inferior seats on the bus, just different. They're allowed on buses???! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 They're allowed on buses???! Busses are like the House of Lords. If you can afford it, they'll let you in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 As quoted many times they do not fit the criteria for marriage. They fit the criteria for civil partnerships. I am not against anyone entering into a union together. It's enough to make me dizzy, you try to justify not changing the legal criteria by referring back to the current legal criteria. You have 2 answers that I've seen so far. They're different (they can't have children) That's not what the current law allows The first is irrelevant, the 2nd is circular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The idea of same sex marriage is causing a division in the church.This of course would more then please the militant atheists who would wish to see a callapse of the established church of England.They are only concerned with freedom of rights and principle,and have no respect for church doctrine. Good, I think that's a healthy attitude to have. Not all gay people wish to see change,and if they wish to marry they can have a civil ceremony.. Like black people were allowed to sit on the back of the bus. It's discrimination. Some gay people are christians,some are atheists etc. Why should the goverment interfere with the church. It isn't, the church is trying to interfere with the government since it's the legal institution of marriage that is being discussed which is nothing to do with the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It's enough to make me dizzy, you try to justify not changing the legal criteria by referring back to the current legal criteria. You have 2 answers that I've seen so far. They're different (they can't have children) That's not what the current law allows The first is irrelevant, the 2nd is circular.[/quote all powerful reproduction arguement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 . . . . . Like black people were allowed to sit on the back of the bus. It's discrimination.. . . .Marriage is an ancient institution to bring together man and woman as husband and wife. Denying that right to black people, or fat people, or ginger people would be discrimination. A black man and woman or a ginger man and woman have the same right, as they should (even the gingers). Because they are man and woman. If a 'couple' who are not man and woman wish to be together, then that's fine and nobody is stopping them, but they aren't man and woman so they cannot and become man and wife. Let them be 'person and person' under a civil partnership. If I developed a deep crush on my horse I would not expect the laws to be changed to allow me to marry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If I developed a deep crush on my horse I would not expect the laws to be changed to allow me to marry it. Indeed. An horse can't give consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts