Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[six45ive]

So equality doesn't have to include everyone and its acceptable in your eyes to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality.

 

No, you discriminate when clear harm could be done to a third party who doesn't have the mental/emotional stability or physical capability of consenting to a certain kind of behaviour, ie; children with paedophiles.

[Cyclone]

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 ----------

 

 

I don't object to equality, I am happy that they already had equality.

 

You clearly do object to equality, that's exactly what you're arguing about now. For some reason you don't think gay couples should be allowed to marry, but should instead have to do something else. Claiming it's equal isn't fooling anyone.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:32 ----------

 

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.

 

We're interested in equality amongst people, in that two people of whatever sexuality should be allowed to marry.

If you are thinking of situations that don't involve two people then, no, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[maxmaximus]

Keep building that strawman higher, then perhaps we can put you in with Edward Woodward.

 

I guess you answer is yes then, you appear to want equality on the issues that suit you but you are also happy to discriminate when it suits you.

[six45ive]

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.

 

Not when other people's behaviour doesn't affect them. Their opinions deserve absolutely zero respect. They need to keep their noses out of other people's business.

[Cyclone]

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 ----------

 

 

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 don't think it should. Nobody is going to make them have or perform a gay marriage, which is as far as their homophobia 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.

 

If it is the same as marriage then it should be called marriage...

[maxmaximus]

No, you discriminate when clear harm could be done to a third party who doesn't have the mental/emotional stability or physical capability of consenting to a certain kind of behaviour, ie; children with paedophiles.

 

That takes care of one type of sexuality. What about the rest?

There are other situations in which two consenting adults are not allowed to get married, should they be allowed to marry?

[Cyclone]

Rather than trying to argue that civil partnership is the same as marriage (clearly it isn't), maybe you could explain why it's not right to simply make it possible for gay couples to marry?

[maxmaximus]

You clearly do object to equality, that's exactly what you're arguing about now. For some reason you don't think gay couples should be allowed to marry, but should instead have to do something else. Claiming it's equal isn't fooling anyone.

We're interested in equality amongst people, in that two people of whatever sexuality should be allowed to marry.

If you are thinking of situations that don't involve two people then, no, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

As I said earlier you clearly don’t understand because you can’t comprehend that others have different opinions, this is demonstrated in your false assumptions.

I am in the group 1. Not bothered either way because it such an unimportant issue.

[Voltaire]

“Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are “same sex” marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex.”

 

― Bill Maher, New Rules

[quisquose]

I guess you answer is yes then, you appear to want equality on the issues that suit you but you are also happy to discriminate when it suits you.

 

First building a strawman argument, and now putting words in other people's mouths.

 

The answer is not yes btw.

 

I refer you to John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. Read this and you should understand my, and others, position.

 

Allowing same sex people to marry will make many people happier, it will reduce harm and there is no corresponding harm to justify discriminating against this group of people. There is no threat to my marriage, or anybody else's.

 

If you want to introduce fantasy scenarios that do create harm, and accuse me of hypocrisy for discriminating against those, then you have no argument.