harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yes you have mentioned that several times, which doesn't answer the question of whether any of what I wrote is incorrect. What I wrote is a collection of the opinions/beliefs expressed by yourself on this thread, presented together in a list so that you can see how they contradict each other (which, I'm guessing, is why you were so reluctant to answer). It's ironic that you mention going round in circles... -You think that heterosexuals should have something different to homosexuals because of a biological difference -You don't think that black segregation on buses can be compared because the biological difference isn't to do with reproduction -You also say that reproduction isn't relevant to marriage, it's the fact that there's a biological difference that matters -Blacks are biologically different to whites ...go back to the first point to complete the circular logic, rinse and repeat. Is that what they mean by "Hogic" ? Please see my post 983 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Please see my post 983 above. I did, I haven't asked any more from you. Why are you still posting then? Just out of interest, does anyone still subscribe to the "equal but different" reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I did, I haven't asked any more from you. Why are you still posting then? Just out of interest, does anyone still subscribe to the "equal but different" reasoning? I only posted to show that I wasn't ignoring you. But I have now finished with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Just out of interest, does anyone still subscribe to the "equal but different" reasoning? Male and female, equal but different. Black and white people equal but not different, other than a tiny genetic mutation that caused us to become lighter in colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Male and female, equal but different. Black and white people equal but not different, other than a tiny genetic mutation that caused us to become lighter in colour. I like it how you're still dismissing differences because you judge them to be too small to BE a difference. Okay, so how about civil partnership and marriage, are you still saying that they are equal but different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Male and female, equal but different. Black and white people equal but not different, other than a tiny genetic mutation that caused us to become lighter in colour. That it I’m done on this topic. Could you be a tiny bit different and follow through on your "I'm done"..yer making an arse of yerself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Could you be a tiny bit different and follow through on your "I'm done"..yer making an arse of yerself. Confucius he say, "man who want to be smartass had better make sure he smart first or he be just an ass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Christians Plan Separate Prom to Ban Gays Some here will think that the title of this YouTube video is most unfair. By creating a separate prom for gays which is just as good as the regular prom it is not banning them at all, just recognising that they are different but equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I like it how you're still dismissing differences because you judge them to be too small to BE a difference. Okay, so how about civil partnership and marriage, are you still saying that they are equal but different? Since he said he's done, I'll assume his position hasn't changed and he still regards civil partnership to be "equal but different" to marriage A few key points in the debate and my views on them (the comments in brackets are mainly for Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus) -Same sex couples are denied the right to equailty when it comes to marriage. "It's equal, just different" is a feeble and transparent argument based on technicalities which do not stand up to scrutiny (as shown in the next few points) -Same sex couples are denied the right to call themselves married (to each other), they cannot in honesty call themselves husband or wife. They are denied the right to join "the great institution of marriage" together. -Same sex couples are denied the right to have the same wedding ceremonies that opposite sex couples are permitted. Civil partnerships can be registered in religious buildings but religious services cannot be used while this is being done. (no matter how you choose to interpret that, juggle the order in which things happen or do it a little different, it is not equal or the same). -Tradition. Some will argue that it's traditional for only a man and a woman to marry. How old is this tradition? Do we go from there and skirt around the traditions of adults marrying children and women being subservient to men? Some traditions appear to be older and more convenient than others when using this argument. It is no longer tradition to marry a 12 year old child, traditions change. If same sex marriage is allowed it will soon be a tradition of it's own in a generation or two. -Religion. Does it say anywhere in the Bible (or other holy texts) that same sex marriage (not sexual intercourse) for two people who love each other should be forbidden? Even if it did, would it be yet more cherry picking as an argument amongst all the other things the Bible is speaks against but is now accepted in modern times? -Procreation. "Marriage is about procreation", really? Then why aren't people arguing about how many people get married with no intention of having kids, or can't have kids? Marriage isn't about sex or having kids. Maybe it was once, a long time ago (see section on traditions, above) -"They already have civil partnerships, which are equal, just different" They aren't equal, apart from technicalities which some seem to think are too trivial to count (see first few points), there is the social and symbolic aspect. Many homophobes and bigots will consider a ban on gay marriage as a victory and a sign that their hateful views are "right". Many homosexuals and people in favour of equality will consider it an insult and a violation of rights. Two pieces of wood, on fire. A burning cross, which is just two pieces of wood, on fire. Equal but different. I only touched on this briefly, but I think the social and symbolic aspect of having a different word for a same sex union than for an opposite sex union, is the most important issue. Back to the comparison of blacks on the back of the bus and civil partnerships, which some say cannot be fairly compared; -Gay man, can't marry his lover, he can have a civil partnership which is almost the same. He gets almost the same rights and experience. The difference is trivial, minute, so it doesn't matter. Equal but different. -Black man, allowed to sit on the second row of the middle seats, but not the first. His seat is only a few inches back from the white man's seat, he can see the same things, has the same quality of seat, the same ride experience. Equal but different, right? I mean the difference of a few inches is trivial, minute. Okay, now let's pretend for a minute that there is NO difference between a marriage and a civil partnership, only the name given to it. -Gay man has a civil partnership with his lover, exactly how he wants it, no problems, just as if they got married. It's equal, but different, right? Nobody can deny that, right? Now let's also pretend that black people never had to sit in a designated section, they were free to sit on ay seat they wanted, the same seats as white people. The only difference was the name for it. -White man sits in a "seat" for his journey, then gets up and leaves. Black man sits down on the same seat, but because he is black it is not called a seat. While ever there is a black person using it, it must be referred to as a "place". The white man sits in his "seat" while the black man sits in his "place". Equal but different, right? No problems there then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Just want to point out that in Harvey's post 971 he quotes a previous post of mine. Embedded within that quote of my previous post is his comment - My point was that because of the difference between a man and woman they can reproduce. If this can not happen because of medical problems it does not change the basic differences of the people. Because of a tagging mix up it looks as though that comment is from me. It's not. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 23:01 ---------- Since he said he's done, I'll assume his position hasn't changed and he still regards civil partnership to be "equal but different" to marriage I only touched on this briefly, but I think the social and symbolic aspect of having a different word for a same sex union than for an opposite sex union, is the most important issue. Back to the comparison of blacks on the back of the bus and civil partnerships, which some say cannot be fairly compared; -Gay man, can't marry his lover, he can have a civil partnership which is almost the same. He gets almost the same rights and experience. The difference is trivial, minute, so it doesn't matter. Equal but different. -Black man, allowed to sit on the second row of the middle seats, but not the first. His seat is only a few inches back from the white man's seat, he can see the same things, has the same quality of seat, the same ride experience. Equal but different, right? I mean the difference of a few inches is trivial, minute. Okay, now let's pretend for a minute that there is NO difference between a marriage and a civil partnership, only the name given to it. -Gay man has a civil partnership with his lover, exactly how he wants it, no problems, just as if they got married. It's equal, but different, right? Nobody can deny that, right? Now let's also pretend that black people never had to sit in a designated section, they were free to sit on ay seat they wanted, the same seats as white people. The only difference was the name for it. -White man sits in a "seat" for his journey, then gets up and leaves. Black man sits down on the same seat, but because he is black it is not called a seat. While ever there is a black person using it, it must be referred to as a "place". The white man sits in his "seat" while the black man sits in his "place". Equal but different, right? No problems there then Utterly excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.