Stomp Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 No you are wrong. Why is he (or she) incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 You misunderstand me again. No I didn't, you've said that the name doesn't matter whilst insisting that a union between a gay couple not be called a marriage. You can't even keep it straight in your own head. They are seperate unions which should have different names whatever those names are. They are unions, they should be called the same thing because they are the same thing. As we already have titles marriage and civil partnership why change them. Because it discriminates against a group to deny them something on the basis of innate differences. Unless those unhappy with the civil partnership title wish to change it to anything but marriage which is happily accepted by those it applies to. Why, what justification is there to not allow the ceremonies to be called the same thing. And try to avoid answering with a circular definition or making any reference to the ability to bear children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think a consutative excersize should be undertaken with the fish to answer that question. Do fish enter into a fish partnership I wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 No you are wrong. Can you explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 My point all the way through and now things are the other way round it may be recognised that I was right all the way through this debate. No, reversing the point makes no difference. It's wrong that heterosexual couples can't have a civil partnership. The best solution would be to get rid of this status and simply have marriage for all couples who wish to enter into that state. I say good luck to homosexual couples whichever union they choose and I will not complain that they have a choice over hetrosexuals or Lord forbid accuse society of discrimination or homophobia against hetrosexuals. Live and let live. There is no suggestion that gay couples will have a choice of either and straight couples not, the civil partnership will no longer exist once marriage is available to gay couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Do fish enter into a fish partnership I wonder ? I believe the law does not currently recognise fish to fish relationships, no matter what the gender. Perhaps we should start an e-pettition to ask the Government to allow same-species marriage as well as same sex marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Why is he (or she) incorrect? A man and woman are different to a man and man or woman and woman. If a man and man were tret differently to a woman and woman that would be discrimination as the homosexual pairs are in same gender partnerships. The hetrosexual pair is made up of different gender people. Different types of partnerships by fundamental gender difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 the civil partnership will no longer exist once marriage is available to gay couples. Actually, no: While the Government is moving forward on allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage, we are also seeking to retain the existing regime of civil partnerships for same-sex couples only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 No I didn't, you've said that the name doesn't matter whilst insisting that a union between a gay couple not be called a marriage. You can't even keep it straight in your own head. They are unions, they should be called the same thing because they are the same thing. Because it discriminates against a group to deny them something on the basis of innate differences. Why, what justification is there to not allow the ceremonies to be called the same thing. And try to avoid answering with a circular definition or making any reference to the ability to bear children. You keep ignoring the basic argument I have put forward several times. Would it make you happy if a man was classed the same as a woman and we ignore the biological differences ? Would it make you happy if the word marriage was removed from use ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 You keep ignoring the basic argument I have put forward several times. You've not really put any forward, that's why. You've given us tautology and base truth. Finish this, it's easy. Two men should not be allowed to marry because ... If you can do it without saying "because they have civil partnership" I'll give you a prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.