Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 At last you see the point. Marriage is for opposite sex partners. Civil partnership is for same sex partners. Unions between different types of couples are equal but different ceremoies. You apparently entirely missed the point. Marriage is currently for opposite sex partners. That is NOT a justification for why it must be for opposite sex partners. Your argument is circular. It's not equal if the legal status is not available to both groups. It's discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I just searched for when I last used the word tautology, and suprise suprise it was against harvey - arguing drugs are bad because they are illegal. He's the nut you're not going to crack. I think my argument was that it was wrong to break the law even if some posters thought the drug laws were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 When you clarified your request I answered your question. Waiting for your answer. Of course men and women are different, I answered this question pages ago. I also said that the law is blind to that difference, they are not discriminated against legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 You apparently entirely missed the point. Marriage is currently for opposite sex partners. That is NOT a justification for why it must be for opposite sex partners. Your argument is circular. It's not equal if the legal status is not available to both groups. It's discriminatory. A man and woman partnership is different to a man and man or woman and woman partnership. If a man and man were allowed to marry but not a woman and woman that would be discrimination. Gender difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Of course men and women are different, I answered this question pages ago. I also said that the law is blind to that difference, they are not discriminated against legally. Glad you agree there is no discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsar Chasm Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Neither he nor his religion own marriage though, so what makes him think that he has a say about what it means, particularly when his 'say' is that it should discriminate? Well in simple terms the question was raised so he has a right to answer. You're right. No one owns marriage. Before the church became involved couples were forming partnerships quite happily. Religion has likely brought about homophobia with its insistence that same sex relationships are a sin blah blah! Personally I see no right or wrong in two men or two women getting married it's two people and a piece of paper. If God doesn't want to give his blessing who cares, I don't. If people see marriage as a strictly man and woman affair that's ok. I don't rest easy with the discrimination thing though. I think it comes down to what a person perceives as a 'legitimate' union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 A man and woman partnership is different to a man and man or woman and woman partnership. If a same-sex couple were to marry in another country, and then move to England, would you recognise them as married or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It's tautology. Marriage is between man and woman because, and only because, same-sex marriage isn't allowed. The very same arguments were used by the very same people in 2005 to disagree with civil partnerships for gay people. They now claim that they're okay with civil partnerships, and it's just marriage that isn't allowed. "Voting is a thing done by men", "sport is a thing done by men", "driving is a thing done by men", "the front seats are for white people", "sodomy is illegal". These things, and many other inequalities, have all been true in the recent past, and to argue that they should be true simply because they are true, is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If a same-sex couple were to marry in another country, and then move to England, would you recognise them as married or not? I.ll answer with a qnother question as I don.t think your question is relevant to this debate. What if someone with several wives moved to this country would you recognise this aspect of his marriage as being legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsar Chasm Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If a same-sex couple were to marry in another country, and then move to England, would you recognise them as married or not? The question has no value. I don't recognise anyone as being married whether they tell me or not. They are who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts