PaliRichard Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 They can get 'married' if it fulfills their quest for happiness etc. However, only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage. Let's face it, none of us would be here if it was not for the union of our mothers and fathers coming together..and bringing you in to world! So if I and my wife were unable to bear children we should divorce? If an older couple fall in love they should not marry? Are people unable to bear children unless they are married? These are all implied by your statement and yet none of them stand up to scrutiny, if you think I am wrong let us go into detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So if I and my wife were unable to bear children we should divorce? If an older couple fall in love they should not marry? Are people unable to bear children unless they are married? These are all implied by your statement and yet none of them stand up to scrutiny, if you think I am wrong let us go into detail. No. I stated if they wish to get married to fulfill their happiness etc then fine and this can be applied to anyone. However the procreation is how civilizations are built and flourish. It is natural for a man and woman to cement their marriage/union by producing offspring. If they cannot have children- and of course this happens, they may adopt- however it does not change the fundamental make up of raising a child with TWO parents of the opposite sex which would also be the right ingredient to give that child a healthy lifestyle- free from any prejudice they may face if this was a child raised by 'two daddies' or 'two mummies'. I am not against gays getting married- that I make clear. I don't approve of it for certain reasons- but can tolerate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So if I and my wife were unable to bear children we should divorce? If an older couple fall in love they should not marry? Are people unable to bear children unless they are married? These are all implied by your statement and yet none of them stand up to scrutiny, if you think I am wrong let us go into detail. Be careful..this could be construed as bullying....come to think of it I think this is the only reason Mr Maxismith has put forward..as defender of the bullied...or the "void" filler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I am not against gays getting married- that I make clear. I don't approve of it for certain reasons- but can tolerate it. You've now contradicted your previous statement, which you even underlined given your strength of feeling. However, only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage. Such backtracking in the face of a single rational response is encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Mr Fisk You said only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage[/Quote] But that is being overturned by this new law, the 'proper' label of marriage will then apply to two men/two women who can't produce children. Now let's look at the rest of your post. No. I stated if they wish to get married to fulfill their happiness etc then fine and this can be applied to anyone[/Quote] This contradicts the above quote in which you clearly state that the union of males and females with the purpose of producing children is the proper label of marriage, implying they can get 'married' but it wont be real marriage, if I have somehow misunderstood please clarify. However the procreation is how civilizations are built and flourish[/Quote] People will still be able to procreate. It is natural for a man and woman to cement their marriage/union by producing offspring[/Quote] It's also natural to procreate without marriage, marriage isn't necessary for procreation to take place. If they cannot have children- and of course this happens, they may adopt- however it does not change the fundamental make up of raising a child with TWO parents of the opposite sex which would also be the right ingredient to give that child a healthy lifestyle- free from any prejudice they may face if this was a child raised by 'two daddies' or 'two mummies'[/Quote] Such prejudicies only exist while those who object to such unions exist. I have racist comments made against me, does this mean Scottish people shouldn't leave Scotland just in case someone objects to them? Why do you think two mums/dad's can't give their children healthy lifestyles? I am not against gays getting married- that I make clear. I don't approve of it for certain reasons- but can tolerate it. What reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Because neither you or anyone else has managed to post any valid or rational reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I’ve already agree that no one has given a reason which you find valid or rational, which is why it’s pointless repeating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I’ve already agree that no one has given a reason which you find valid or rational, which is why it’s pointless repeating them. Mr Smith. What do you think are the 'good reasons' that those against gay marriage have. Simple question, requires a simple answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 They can get 'married' if it fulfills their quest for happiness etc. However, only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage. Can you share your source for this? Where do you get this from? Let's face it, none of us would be here if it was not for the union of our mothers and fathers coming together..and bringing you in to world! Are you saying that everyone's fathers and mothers are or have been married? ---------- Post added 13-02-2013 at 12:07 ---------- In order to repeat something you have to first state it. We are still waiting for those rational reasons for opposition to gay marriage. jb Actually he did say one thing, "they already have civil partnership, equal but different to marriage", BUT he said it as Maxmaximus and seems to have backed down on it now since the Mr. A and Mr. B conversation. Either he doesn't want to incriminate himself as having more than one account or he knows that still standing by "equal but different" means that he also agrees with Mr. B's opinons on blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 [/b] Can you share your source for this? Where do you get this from? Are you saying that everyone's fathers and mothers are or have been married? ---------- Post added 13-02-2013 at 12:07 ---------- Actually he did say one thing, "they already have civil partnership, equal but different to marriage" BUT he said it as Maxmaximus and seems to have backed down on it now since the Mr. A and Mr. B conversation. Either he doesn't want to incriminate himself as having more than one account or he knows that still standing by "equal but different" means that he also agrees with Mr. B's opinons on blacks. But that was his opinion. He claims that they (the anti gay marriage lobby) have good reasons for their stance, it's those reasons that he has yet to share, he hasn't explicity said that the equal but different argument is anything other than his own idea, I don't recall it being presented on this thread by anyone else who is against gay marriage (although I invite correction). As far as I'm aware he hasn't given any of the reasons he thinks are good from those that oppose gay marriage that he claims to agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Diversity! and obvously some have traditional views and don't equate the opposition to gay marriage with discrimination. I view Christians as Christians, not white christians and black Christians, so when I talk about Christians I mean the lot. So you think bringing black Christians into it (they already were, as far as I was concerned), with the same views as white Christians who are against gay marriage, is diversifying? And was this in response to this part of my post... Nobody has suggested they should be forced to perform same sex marriage, quite the opposite. It was never up for consideration in the first place, as far as I'm aware. or this part... I would be interested to hear how such people explain the logic of such an argument (things staying how they are because that's the way they already are/have been) ...? because I can't see the relevance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.