maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I think you must fail to see the sophistication within maxmaximus's argument. You see, when Rosa Parks had to sit at the back of the bus, the seats there were exactly the same, so she was equal. Different, but equal. Oh wait, did I say sophistication, I think I meant sophistry. You Mock What You Don’t Understand:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Nice piece here from Alice Arnold about why she'll be getting married now that she can. Yesterday’s victory is important. Children are not born with prejudice, it is society that nurtures it. Young people now can grow up to learn that a loving relationship between a same sex couple can be recognised in exactly the same way, it is not something ‘other’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 In what language? I always thought it was a French/English word, languages that only developed long after the first Biblical writings In almost every language at a guess, the word is so ubiquitous. Matrimonium, conjugium, γάμος, 婚 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Possibly because duh they are trying to redefine words. I think the Archbishop of Tonbridge sums it up quite well. I also back the Church of Englands stance. The Archdeacon wants a universal agreement. Can't happen in our society! Read the Norse myth of Baldur ( http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Ar-Be/Balder.html ). He was murdered, but could be restored if EVERYONE would weep for him. One person refused! By the Archdeacon's reasoning, women should not have been given the vote until all men agreed to it; the present Government should not have been elected since some voted against them. There was once a parliament in Poland called the Sejm; no motion could pass if one member vetoed it; so nothing ever got done, and Poland fell from being a great power to a vulnerable victim between Russia and Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It's pretty simple. If some institution or state exists which requires that you be a particular sexuality to join that institution or enter into that state, then by definition it's discriminator because it is excluding people not of that sexuality. What about the other groups of people whose sexuality doesn’t conform to what is perceived to be normal, should they also be treated equally and be allowed to marry the person or thing they love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 What about the other groups of people whose sexuality doesn’t conform to what is perceived to be normal, should they also be treated equally and be allowed to marry the person or thing they love. Here we go, slippery slope argument again ... Watch out, it'll be the old "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 No, a civil partnership is a different ceremony, up until now a civil partnership could not include religious readings, music or symbols (whatever that means, presumably crosses) and they couldn't take place in a place of religious worship. So the ceremony was similar, but not equal. 2 November 2011 Same-sex couples are to be allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other places of worship in England and Wales. 19 July 2012 Gay couple become first in Britain to hold civil partnership ceremony in a church ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:15 ---------- And it's the absence of the word which is not equal and is being corrected now. What is your objection to this equality? I don't object to equality, I am happy that they already had equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 My apologies the article I looked at was a little out of date - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships - Feb 17 2011 It's still called a civil partnership though and not a marriage, and there isn't any good reason for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Here we go, slippery slope argument again ... Watch out, it'll be the old "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" next. So equality doesn't have to include everyone and its acceptable in your eyes to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:25 ---------- My apologies the article I looked at was a little out of date - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships - Feb 17 2011 It's still called a civil partnership though and not a marriage, and there isn't any good reason for it Maybe not in your eyes or my eyes for that matter but some people do think there is a good reason, and there reason should be respected. I also don’t think there’s a good reason to change the law when a gay couple can already form a union which is the same as marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 So equality doesn't have to include everyone and its acceptable in your eyes to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality. Keep building that strawman higher, then perhaps we can put you in with Edward Woodward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.