maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 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. So your prejudices discriminate against the happiness of an individual just because you don't understand their sexuality and yet you are campaigning for equality, which is something that already exists for gay people but doesn’t exist for other groups. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:49 ---------- 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. Who decides if or how it affects them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 My apologies the article I looked at was a little out of date - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships - Feb 17 2011 It's still called a civil partnership though and not a marriage,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 Shall we start again. Please say no !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 If it is the same as marriage then it should be called marriage... Why? Lots of words in the dictionary have the same meaning yet we use them every day without considering changing the words or removing words with the same meaning from our language. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:54 ---------- 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? I don't have a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but I accept that some people do have a reason and respect their reasons. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 14:59 ---------- 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. I already understand you position, I also understand the position of those opposed to gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 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? No, it also deals with other situations such as, what I'm assuming you're referring to, incest. Having two very close relatives (brother and sister for example) produce children can hugely increase the chances of serious defects within those children. Hence the law is there to protect 3rd parties in this case also. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 15:06 ---------- Who decides if or how it affects them? We as a society decide through the political democratic process after researching the issue and understanding the evidence and data that's provided throughout that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 No, it also deals with other situations such as, what I'm assuming you're referring to, incest. Having two very close relatives (brother and sister for example) produce children can hugely increase the chances of serious defects within those children. Hence the law is there to protect 3rd parties in this case also. Brother wouldn't create children with serious defects and brother and sister don't have to have children just because they are married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I already understand you position, I also understand the position of those opposed to gay marriage. Their position is that they are opposed to gay marriage, the puzzle is why. This is why Cyclone has repeatedly asked for the reasons why. Would you care to answer him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 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. You're arguing a lot for someone who isn't bothered... I'd say that it's you who clearly doesn't understand what equality within the law means. I accept that other people have different opinions, that doesn't mean that they are valid, correct or not homophobic though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 We as a society decide through the political democratic process after researching the issue and understanding the evidence and data that's provided throughout that process. Which is something that hasn’t happened and the reason many MP's voted against the proposal, gay marriage wasn’t an election pledge so the people haven’t had a say since we didn’t know it was on the agenda when we cats our votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 So your prejudices discriminate against the happiness of an individual just because you don't understand their sexuality and yet you are campaigning for equality, which is something that already exists for gay people but doesn’t exist for other groups. By "my prejudice" what prejudice are you referring to? Are you trying to say that a desire for equality is prejudice against those who are homophobic? If not, then be clear, what "other groups" are you talking about? If equality existed then gay couples would be able to get married. It's clearly inequality if they cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Their position is that they are opposed to gay marriage, the puzzle is why. This is why Cyclone has repeatedly asked for the reasons why. Would you care to answer him? Why do you need to know why? Which by the way as already been explained but appears to be beyond the comprehension of some members. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 15:13 ---------- You're arguing a lot for someone who isn't bothered... I'd say that it's you who clearly doesn't understand what equality within the law means. I accept that other people have different opinions, that doesn't mean that they are valid, correct or not homophobic though. Nor does it mean that they are invalid, incorrect or homophobic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.