borntobewild Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 hahahaha i might just do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I would also like to see Mr. Cocker attempt to answer those questions as he avoided and evaded similar ones from me. I"m not evading or avoiding anything at all I just think its a fallacy when you are equating two different belief's, one that homosexual persons should have equal civil rights with other citizens and two, that homosexual love and heterosexual love are not similar but the same. The first point is fair enough, as for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church made plain some decades ago. The second point is at best disingenuous. Same sex relationships may, from the point of view of civil society, be be of equal worth with other (non-fruitful) relationships but they are not the same thing as heterosexual relationships. To describe them in the same terms and to promote the same institutions for them is to elevate a fiction, that sexual complementary is not a significant factor in an intimate relationship, into a legal fact. Heterosexual marriage and same sex relationships may well be analogous in a number of ways but in many others they are radically dissimilar and pretending otherwise serves no useful purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I"m not evading or avoiding anything at all First question of mine you have not answered... Are you aware of how many times the social and legal parameters of marriage have been recast and redefined to serve the prevailing attitudes and pragmatism of the time? Indeed we have a comprehensive tradition of tinkering with marriage. Why should that evolution stop now? Second... No, I don't. Are you suggesting that every Christian does? Third... Yes, categorically. Now seeing as I have answered your question why not answer mine? Are you suggesting that every Christian does? Fourth... Any reason why you are choosing to attempt to belittle a post rather than challenge the content? Fifth... I have no idea but that is up to them isn't it? Perhaps they want to reform from within? Perhaps their personal relationship with their god supercedes all of the bigoted rhetoric? Perhaps all of the Christians they associate with are progressive and enlightened and reject all of that bigotry? Perhaps they want to get married in the same church as their parents? Perhaps there are a million and one reasons that we can't fathom because we are not in their shoes? Perhaps, in light of the OP, the most pertinent question is why is it any of your damned business? Before I waste my time asking any more questions in a vain attempt to promote a little thought about the flaws and fallacies in your thinking on this issue, perhaps you could do me the courtesy of answering those that I (and many others) have already put to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 First question of mine you have not answered... Second... Third... Fourth... Fifth... Before I waste my time asking any more questions in a vain attempt to promote a little thought about the flaws and fallacies in your thinking on this issue, perhaps you could do me the courtesy of answering those that I (and many others) have already put to you. That sounds familiar. Oh yes John, that's probably because you have yet to answer any of my questions either, and instead put forth a counter question which isn't necessary for the answer I asked for (and it has to be added, seems more than a little rhetorical and asked with no other purpose than avoiding the questions put to you). ---------- Post added 21-02-2013 at 17:48 ---------- I'm going to ask a question now I have already asked but hasn't been answered. I welcome open and honest respondents: If you are against same sex marriage, or you think those that are have legitimate reasons for being so would you mind detailing those reasons in a list format so we can go into each one on its own merit. For example; 1. first reason 2. second reason etc. and (this is the important bit) sticking around so that when I pose follow up questions to establish the rational behind those reasons we can have an actual debate. I'm not interested in calling you names, I am interested in actually getting to the core of the rational behind why people are against same sex union. Thankyou in advance. ---------- Post added 21-02-2013 at 18:05 ---------- =johncocker;9588921] did I say it was all about having children:suspect: one of the reasons why is because it serves to highlight one fundemental difference between a homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. Another clear difference is that one involves a relationship between people of the same sex and the other between people of opposite sex. Does it mean all couples of opposite sex are allowed to be married? No, those under 12-16 are not allowed to be married, siblings are not allowed to be married, polygamist are not allowed to have all there partners recognised. Being able to have children is not the single factor. It is one that underlines the difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships.Once you accept there is a difference, which there is. It is then acceptable to label them differently. Doing so is not prejudice[/Quote] No it's not. Many couples are infertile (for many reasons), some know this before they marry. So therefore your argument that the ability to have children underlines the difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is completely flawed. Another clear difference is that one involves a relationship between people of the same sex and the other between people of opposite sex[/Quote] Is that really enough of a difference to stop two people who are in love, above the age of consent, and willing partners from marrying? If you think yes why do you think this. On what basis do you think one set of loving adults may marry and another may not? A homosexual could if they chose, have a heterosexual relationship, that is, a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. A black person could not choose to be white. There is the fundamental difference that you seem to struggle with. The same rules apply for both black people and white people. Race/color is a false argument. a black person and a white person can natural produce children if they are of the opposite sex. A black man and a white man cannot. The real question is why do we call human-beings of darker complexion black and those of lighter complexion white? is this racist? No, the reference to colour doesn't imply any difference in value. So the label merely seeks to describe a tangible difference. Likewise we call people who engage in opposite sex relationships heterosexual and those that engage in same sex relationships homosexual. The terms are not prejudice. They simply help to identify the difference between the two relationships. Similarly the terms male and female. Which is why it is entirely appropriate to label the union of each relationship different, they are different. Changing it to 'gay-marriage' will still make it different to normal marriage so you'll achieve nothing. Just add another layer of legislation and confusion. You've yet to adequately explain why it will be different to 'normal' marriage, other than giving the reason that they can't produce children, which seems to be from my reading of your posts the sole reason why you object to the term 'marriage' for same sex couples. and yet when this was suggested to you earlier you said did I say it was all about having children[/Quote] maybe not word for word, but there seems to be no other argument in your posts other than that they can't have children. A homosexual could if they chose, have a heterosexual relationship[/Quote] But. in an ideal world wouldn't because they are gay, just like I, as a straight man, wouldn't consider having a homosexual relationship. It seems to me the reason why gay people do have 'straight' relationships* is solely due to the prejudice that exists in society against them and they feel they have no choice but to try to be accepted by living up to the 'norm'. *I fully accept that there are those who enjoy relationships with both sexes, this is not what I am making the point about though, I'm talking about those attracted solely to the same sex. I'm also still waiting to hear why you think I am middle class and an apologist. To say you claim not to avoid questions you've got quite a backlog building up to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I asked why you think marriage is about having children, you haven't answered yet You first did I say it was all about having children:suspect: You use the the ability to have children as the reason why marriage is "clearly not for homosexuals".... Why would someone who calls themselves 'gay' in opposition to 'heterosexual' want to interfere in something that is clearly not for gays They don't want to interfere in it, they want to be included in it. Why is it clearly not for gays? The difference between a homosexual realtionship and a heterosexual one is that a heterosexual relationship can bring forth new life. This is no trivial distinction. All human life flows from it. The difference is therefore both fundamental and profound. ...which still doesn't explain why marriage is "clearly not for gays" one of the reasons why is because it serves to highlight one fundemental difference between a homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. Another clear difference is that one involves a relationship between people of the same sex and the other between people of opposite sex. Yes, it's a difference, but what does it have to do with marriage? Does it mean all couples of opposite sex are allowed to be married? No, those under 12-16 are not allowed to be married, siblings are not allowed to be married, polygamist are not allowed to have all there partners recognised. what does that have to do with permitting or prohibiting gay marriage ? Being able to have children is not the single factor. It is one that underlines the difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. Once you accept there is a difference, which there is. It is then acceptable to label them differently. Doing so is not prejudice. But what does it have to do with marriage? I"ll answer for him if you like:D Colour is not the same as sexual orientation. Of course not, it's equal but different!!! Discrimination against people because they have different skin colour Discrimination against people because they have different sexual attractions A homosexual could if they chose, have a heterosexual relationship, that is, a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. A black person could not choose to be white. There is the fundamental difference that you seem to struggle with. A black person could CHOOSE to be white, but it would go against their natural state of being, same as a homosexual person could CHOOSE to have a heterosexual relationship, but it would go against their natural state of being. There is the fundamental truth that you seem to struggle with. .The same rules apply for both black people and white people. Race/color is a false argument. a black person and a white person can natural produce children if they are of the opposite sex. A black man and a white man cannot. I keep asking you, what does having children have to do with it? The real question is why do we call human-beings of darker complexion black and those of lighter complexion white? is this racist? No, that's not the real question at all, have a look at the thread title and stop trying to distract from your lack of reasoning No, the reference to colour doesn't imply any difference in value. So the label merely seeks to describe a tangible difference. Likewise we call people who engage in opposite sex relationships heterosexual and those that engage in same sex relationships homosexual. The terms are not prejudice. They simply help to identify the difference between the two relationships. Similarly the terms male and female. Which is why it is entirely appropriate to label the union of each relationship different, they are different. Changing it to 'gay-marriage' will still make it different to normal marriage so you'll achieve nothing. Just add another layer of legislation and confusion. What a huge bunch of text and still no answer to the question! Do you think it's okay that the black person has to call the seat their "place" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 How old are you? It's like talking to a child, if you tell them something true that they don't want to hear, they say, you don't like me. That's emotional blackmail. I have no problem with human-beings who engage in same sex relationships. What I don't like is people who attempt to confuse an issue deliberately to manipulate and twist an argument/debate in their favour. I also dislike intolerant/ignorant people, which those arguing for gay marriage have shown to be. There more than happy to force their values/beliefs on to others whilst protesting against the same being done to them. btw after having my posts removed for responding to the goading and false accusations just think yourselves lucky you got any kind of response all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 How old are you? It's like talking to a child, if you tell them something true that they don't want to hear, they say, you don't like me. That's emotional blackmail. I have no problem with human-beings who engage in same sex relationships. What I don't like is people who attempt to confuse an issue deliberately to manipulate and twist an argument/debate in their favour. I also dislike intolerant/ignorant people, which those arguing for gay marriage have shown to be. There more than happy to force their values/beliefs on to others whilst protesting against the same being done to them. btw after having my posts removed for responding to the goading and false accusations just think yourselves lucky you got any kind of response all. Have I missed something? I am struggling to make any sense of this pretty incoherent post. As far as I can see you still haven't actually answered any of the questions put to you. Is this simply more avoidance, evasion and obfuscation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Have I missed something? I am struggling to make any sense of this pretty incoherent post. As far as I can see you still haven't actually answered any of the questions put to you. Is this simply more avoidance, evasion and obfuscation? That's pretty much a stoc answer for SF these days. Everyone - Why not let other people do what they want providing it doesn't affect the quality of your life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 How old are you? It's like talking to a child, if you tell them something true that they don't want to hear, they say, you don't like me. That's emotional blackmail. I have no problem with human-beings who engage in same sex relationships. What I don't like is people who attempt to confuse an issue deliberately to manipulate and twist an argument/debate in their favour. I also dislike intolerant/ignorant people, which those arguing for gay marriage have shown to be. There more than happy to force their values/beliefs on to others whilst protesting against the same being done to them. btw after having my posts removed for responding to the goading and false accusations just think yourselves lucky you got any kind of response all. if you tell them something true that they don't want to hear[/Quote] ALL you've said so far is that gay marriage shouldn't be called marriage because they can't have children. Should straight people which can't have children not be allowed to call their union marriage as well then? Why are you avoiding direct questions and instead trying to deflect the issue by becoming aggressive with people? Look, this is a straightforward question. Why wont you answer my questions? Another one Why did you make comments towards my person then when I asked you why you thought them ignore me? If you're going to name call it's usually reasonable to provide a reason why you have made the comments when requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Say something true? ALL you've said so far is that gay marriage shouldn't be called marriage because they can't have children. Should straight people which can't have children not be allowed to call their union marriage as well then? Why are you avoiding direct questions and instead trying to deflect the issue b becoming aggressive with people? He holds a different opinion,do you really think he has expressed that in an aggressive way,i don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.