mikem8634 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 No. Just by those who want marriage to include same sex couples. I'm totally unaware of any changes in the history of marriage where marriage has refered to anything but the union of a man and woman. You can dress it up any way you like but this is just a play on words. Same sex couples may be able to obtain a piece of paper claiming that they are married. But that doesn't mean that others have to regard it as anything other than a civil partnership under a different name. You are perfectly at liberty to regard it as anything you like. The law will regard it as marriage. You have not answered my question regarding why the evolution of marriage to reflect the needs and wishes of society should stop now when it has been active throughout the history of marriage. You are aware of a change in the history of marriage where marriage has referred to anything but the union of a man and woman it is happening right now and you are commenting upon it. We are in the process of making that history just like every other significant change in the parameters of marriage. Do you agree that marriage was correctly modernised to end the ownership of a wife by her husband and to end the freedom of a husband to rape his wife without fear of prosecution? As a society we deemed those elements of marriage to be anachronistic, discriminatory and incompatible with a civilised society. The denial of same-sex marriage is currently undergoing the same process of long-overdue modernisation and we will look back in years to come, as we now do regarding marital rape, with embarrassment and shame that it took so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 No. Just by those who want marriage to include same sex couples. I'm totally unaware of any changes in the history of marriage where marriage has refered to anything but the union of a man and woman. You can dress it up any way you like but this is just a play on words. Same sex couples may be able to obtain a piece of paper claiming that they are married. But that doesn't mean that others have to regard it as anything other than a civil partnership under a different name. You can stick a Bentley badge on a Sierra if you like but that doesn't mean that I need to recognise it as a Bentley. But it has included marital rape and paedophilia, which you seem to be trying your very best to avoid acknowledging. It's not a 'play on words', accepting same sex marriage is no different from stopping paedophilia in marriage, your entire argument revolves around you picking and choosing the definition of marriage, in short, it's fundamentally flawed. Marriage from it's beginning to now has constantly evolved, this merely the latest stage in that evolution - to use tradition as an argument you have to define at which point in history exactly your argument rests in and all the reasons behind that argument. Avoiding difficult questions just makes you look like you have no basis to your argument. ---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 13:16 ---------- You are perfectly at liberty to regard it as anything you like. The law will regard it as marriage. You have not answered my question regarding why the evolution of marriage to reflect the needs and wishes of society should stop now when it has been active throughout the history of marriage. You are aware of a change in the history of marriage where marriage has referred to anything but the union of a man and woman it is happening right now and you are commenting upon it. We are in the process of making that history just like every other significant change in the parameters of marriage. Do you agree that marriage was correctly modernised to end the ownership of a wife by her husband and to end the freedom of a husband to rape his wife without fear of prosecution? As a society we deemed those elements of marriage to be anachronistic, discriminatory and incompatible with a civilised society. The denial of same-sex marriage is currently undergoing the same process of long-overdue modernisation and we will look back in years to come, as we now do regarding marital rape, with embarrassment and shame that it took so long. He/she is good at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingus Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 But it has included marital rape and paedophilia, which you seem to be trying your very best to avoid acknowledging. It's not a 'play on words', accepting same sex marriage is no different from stopping paedophilia in marriage, your entire argument revolves around you picking and choosing the definition of marriage, in short, it's fundamentally flawed. Marriage from it's beginning to now has constantly evolved, this merely the latest stage in that evolution - to use tradition as an argument you have to define at which point in history exactly your argument rests in and all the reasons behind that argument. Avoiding difficult questions just makes you look like you have no basis to your argument. He/she is good at that. Married folk have been rapists, pedos shop lifters, drug addicts, soldiers, sailors, bank robbers etc. That doesn't stop them being married, or Catholic, Muslim or anything else, because the institutions aren't exclusive. But that doesn't alter the fact that marriage is/was the union between a man and woman. You can hi-jack the word but not the condition. So you can claim that 2 guys are married, but that doesn't alter the fact they are a couple of homosexuals with a piece of paper and a hi-jacked word. We have a guy in our village. He drives a kit car. He has Ferrari badges on it, a Ferrari key ring and he has a Ferrari jacket. The point is that it is still a heap of junk with a Ford engine and the Ferrari owners club won't allow him to take it to their meetings. However do feel free to pop round and tell him what a great Ferrari he has in his driveway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Married folk have been rapists, pedos shop lifters, drug addicts, soldiers, sailors, bank robbers etc. That doesn't stop them being married, or Catholic, Muslim or anything else, because the institutions aren't exclusive. But that doesn't alter the fact that marriage is/was the union between a man and woman. You can hi-jack the word but not the condition. So you can claim that 2 guys are married, but that doesn't alter the fact they are a couple of homosexuals with a piece of paper and a hi-jacked word. We have a guy in our village. He drives a kit car. He has Ferrari badges on it, a Ferrari key ring and he has a Ferrari jacket. The point is that it is still a heap of junk with a Ford engine and the Ferrari owners club won't allow him to take it to their meetings. However do feel free to pop round and tell him what a great Ferrari he has in his driveway. You are still ignoring the fact that marriage, as the traditional institution you are championing, condoned, permitted and possibly even promoted rape, slavery and paedophilia. Do you think it was right or wrong to change the definition of marriage to eradicate those elements of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 So you can claim that 2 guys are married, but that doesn't alter the fact they are a couple of homosexuals with a piece of paper and a hi-jacked word. It's easy. You just change the law - then they actually are married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Married folk have been rapists, pedos shop lifters, drug addicts, soldiers, sailors, bank robbers etc. That doesn't stop them being married, or Catholic, Muslim or anything else, because the institutions aren't exclusive. But that doesn't alter the fact that marriage is/was the union between a man and woman. You can hi-jack the word but not the condition. So you can claim that 2 guys are married, but that doesn't alter the fact they are a couple of homosexuals with a piece of paper and a hi-jacked word. We have a guy in our village. He drives a kit car. He has Ferrari badges on it, a Ferrari key ring and he has a Ferrari jacket. The point is that it is still a heap of junk with a Ford engine and the Ferrari owners club won't allow him to take it to their meetings. However do feel free to pop round and tell him what a great Ferrari he has in his driveway. Your post misses the point. We're not talking about married people who do things external to marriage, we're talking about things that have been part of the institution of marriage. Your analogy would be better served by saying Ferrari themselves, the company, started using Ford engines in all the cars they made. They would still be Ferrari's but a vital component would have been adapted for whatever reason that may be. Actually edited to say a better analogy would be if in the future they stopped making cars with wheels. Ferrari would still make cars as they always have but they would have changed how they make them to reflect the times they live in - that would make them no less Ferraris in the same way that a Ferrari today is no less a Ferrari than one made twenty years ago despite the change in technology. Your kit car analogy - as do your posts, entirely miss the point surrounding the new laws. ---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 14:10 ---------- By the way any chance of answering the questions I put to you rather than doing everything you can think of to avoid them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I don't want to end it, if I wanted to end it I wouldn't keep asking you to answer. I said I was bored of trying to explain the difference to you. There is no language barrier, it is very simple. wonderful, yet entirely irrelevant. I'll have another go using both your examle and mine side by side. (it hasn't escaped my attention btw that you simply ignored the example I gave) Your wife likes sprouts. You don't. A man like shooting dogs. You don't. The reason your wife sprouts is because they taste nice to her. The reason the man likes shooting dogs is because it's fun to him. There are three options you have regarding those reasons. You can think they are good reasons. You cna think they are bad reasons. You can be indefferent to them. If you think the reasons are good you agree, by default. If you think the reasons are bad you disagree, by default. If you are indeferrent then you neither agree nor disagree. You cannot think the reasons are good but disagree. So you cannot think the man who shoots dogs and give the reason as being 'for fun' has a good reason because you are opposed to that reason. You cannot think your wife who likes sprouts and give the reason as being 'they taste nice' has a good reason because you are opposed to that reason. It cannot be a good reason if you are opposed to it. You can respect the right of both people to hold those views but that is not the same as thinking they have good reasons. Now regarding gay marriage, you claim you are indefferent, you are neither for or against it. I personally have no difficulty with that - you may simply not have seen any of the arguments on either side. But you also claim that both sides have good reasons. If you think either side has good reasons for their position then you must be aware of what those reasons are - and you must agree with them - otherwise you would not agree that they were good reasons. What I have been asking you to do is share with us those reasons that you think are good - and thus that you agree with, from the perspective of those who are against same sex marriage, and explain why you think they are good reasons. If you don't think they have good reasons - that is if you don't agree with any of the reasons they give yet respect their right to have opinions contrary to yours that is fine too. But what you are claiming is that they have good reasons, so by default you have to agree with them, so answer the question already I will have to take your word for it. INDIFFERENT 1 : marked by impartiality : unbiased 2 a : that does not matter one way or the other b : of no importance or value one way or the other 3 a : marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b : marked by a lack of[/b] interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something [/b]: apathetic <indifferent to suffering and poverty> 4 : being neither excessive nor inadequate : moderate <hills of indifferent size> 5 a : being neither good nor bad : mediocre <does indifferent work> b : being neither right nor wrong 6 : characterized by lack of active quality : neutral <an indifferent chemical> 7 a : not differentiated <indifferent tissues of the human body> b : capable of development in more than one direction; especially : not yet embryologically determined I have highlighted the bits which apear to apply to me, but probably the best is is that I don't see either side of this debate as being right or wrong in their opinion on gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I will have to take your word for it. INDIFFERENT 1 : marked by impartiality : unbiased 2 a : that does not matter one way or the other b : of no importance or value one way or the other 3 a : marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b : marked by a lack of[/b] interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something [/b]: apathetic <indifferent to suffering and poverty> 4 : being neither excessive nor inadequate : moderate <hills of indifferent size> 5 a : being neither good nor bad : mediocre <does indifferent work> b : being neither right nor wrong 6 : characterized by lack of active quality : neutral <an indifferent chemical> 7 a : not differentiated <indifferent tissues of the human body> b : capable of development in more than one direction; especially : not yet embryologically determined I have highlighted the bits which apear to apply to me, but probably the best is is that I don't see either side of this debate as being right or wrong in their opinion on gay marriage. It doesn't apply to you though because you said they had good reasons, so you do agree with some of those reasons. I went through this in my post, the bulk of which you have ignored. Are you incapable of honesty as well as answering a straight question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helhol Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 marriage whether between heterosexuals or gays is no ones business but their own, people dont chose to be gay/straight/bi, they are born that way. as long as they love each other that is all that matters, i am not sure how legal rights over property, belongings etc stands with same sex marriages but i hope they are legaly entitled to the same rights as hetrosexual couples who marry, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 No. Just by those who want marriage to include same sex couples. What are their "reasons" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.