Halibut Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 So in your view the relationship between marriage partners has nothing to do with childbirth. As you well know buck, for many people marriage isn't about having children. I married last year. Children? Already got some thanks and we're too old to have more. Birds marry for life needing no ceremony, and what happens when two male birds meet, they fight, just like two lions. I don't know about the lionesses, I doubt there are many lesbians. They're too busy chasing zebras for the old man's supper. Don't know what your point is here quite, but homosexual behaviour as widespread in the animal kingdom. Rosa Parks struck a blow for a suppressed people. I don't know that she would have been impressed with homosexual marriage. What she did was face possible death for what she did. Not the same thing at all. Being male or female is a two tier system itself. Male and female are different but equal. If you don't allow gay man and women to marry it's clearly unjust and discriminatory, just as it was to have laws saying blacks can't do the same things as white folks do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It might be necessary to know if John Smith is a member of the crew operating a crew-served weapon, or a member of the crew in charge of communications. Clarification here could be essential. But why do you need to know if John Smith is married or in a civil partnership? I am going full circle now and appreciate that you do not agree with me but as I stated originally marriage is the accepted union of a man and woman and civil partnership of a man and man or woman and woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I am going full circle now and appreciate that you do not agree with me but as I stated originally marriage is the accepted union of a man and woman and civil partnership of a man and man or woman and woman.Accepted by whom ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Accepted by whom ? I think the majority of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I think the majority of people.Would that be something like the majority of 400 people in parliament who voted to allow same sex marriage ? Over the 175 people who voted to keep it different ? Do you have some statistics to back up your assertion or is it just a guess ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Spot on Esme. 'You're black, sit at the black' and 'You're gay, you can't get married' - both are clear examples of discrimination. Thanks for confirming that Halibut. We were unsure. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 17:19 ---------- Male and female are different but equal. . We seem to have some conflicting view points on the term different / equal http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9549339&postcount=57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 ...We seem to have some conflicting view points on the term different / equal http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9549339&postcount=57 If you are going to quote me then quote me. As in most of these arguments you are using arguments that affect a tiny minority of married people.Fine, if you deny the right to marry to same sex couples on these grounds then you must also deny this tiny minority.Is it so difficult to understand that a man and woman are different biologicaly and a man and man or woman and woman are the same sex.No biological differences are easily understood, but as I pointed out they aren't really relevant.That is why they can never be classed as the same and why there are different forms of union. Equal but different.You just contradicted yourself in two sentences 1 - That is why they can never be classed as the same and why there are different forms of union. This being marriage and civil partnerships ? 2 - Equal but different. If they are equal then they are not different, that's what equal is, two things being the same. So which is it are they the same or are they different ? And if they are different why are they different ? Please point out what in that quote contradicts Halibut ? Is it Is it so difficult to understand that a man and woman are different biologicaly and a man and man or woman and woman are the same sex.No biological differences are easily understood, but as I pointed out they aren't really relevant.Because that doesn't contradict. And the rest is about the difference in ceremonies and denying more people the right to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 And some of those discriminations are illegalSo two wrongs make a right ? Some religious groups are discriminatory, therefore we should all discriminate ? Some religious groups don't eat certain types of meat, should we all stop eating those types of meat ? Nope, just pointing out that discrimination exists and will always exist, but only allowing gay people to have a wedding that is equal in law to marriage but is called something else isn’t discrimination, it’s treating something that is different, differently whilst giving them the same legal right as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't understand the difference between marriage and civil partnership, I thought it was the same thing. If it is, then just get a civil partnership, and if the difference is purely religious, then...why do gays want to be married by an institution which fundamentally disagrees with what they're doing? There are plenty of churches who do not fundamentally disagree with homosexuality. Being anti-gay is no more fundamental to Christianity than stoning adulterers to death is. They're both right there in black and white in the bible but loads and loads of modern Christians are happy to pretend they aren't, which we can all be glad for. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 18:03 ---------- But they will now be exposed to huge pressure and demonstrations- possibly violent, to perform what is now (or soon will be legal). Before they didnt have this issue to contend with. How long before the first priest gets attacked for standing his ground. I'm betting approximately infinity years. You are being absurdly paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Nope, just pointing out that discrimination exists and will always exist, but only allowing gay people to have a wedding that is equal in law to marriage but is called something else isn’t discrimination, it’s treating something that is different, differently whilst giving them the same legal right as everyone else.I refer you to the Rosa Parks discussion I had with buck. "You people can have your ceremony which is different to everyone elses ceremony" Is discrimination, nothing less. And if discrimination will always exist then I will always stand up against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.