quisquose Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It has been explained. Okay ... INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES Time: Take as long as you want Answer all the questions. Read all questions before starting Explain your reasoning clearly 1. Homosexual couples should not allowed to commit themselves to each other in marriage because ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 This is proof that you haven't read the entire topic, because if you had you would know that I don't object to gay marriage or support it. He didn't say that you did over the last few posts. Read up. Seriously maxmaximus, we know that you think differently, but you aren't a wizard with words or debate. Keep it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Which member? What did he say? You seem to be struggling a little here. Surely you can just say what you think the explanation is? Read the topic you claim to have an interest in, I know you won't because your role on the forum is to antagonise other members. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 22:46 ---------- Okay ... INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES Time: Take as long as you want Answer all the questions. Read all questions before starting Explain your reasoning clearly 1. Homosexual couples should not allowed to commit themselves to each other in marriage because ... What makes you think they will come back on and try explaining that which you didn't understand the first time it was explained, especially after r they received abuse for trying to answer question earlier in the thread. ---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 22:48 ---------- He didn't say that you did over the last few posts. Then how could he know it hasn't already been explained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 I get the distinct impression that we're wasting time with somebody who hasn't yet got the equipment for this discussion. Maybe they need to get GCSE's out of they way first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 As you seem unable to heed warnings closing. It may reopen later when people have had time to calm down and grow up a little. Reopening this thread - however anybody who resorts to flinging insults around rather than discuss the subject will find their account suspended - there will be no subseqent warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It just seems like an endless barrage of whining to me and the sooner it's over the better. Tedium heaped upon tedium. Have you visited the football threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Read the topic you claim to have an interest in, I know you won't because your role on the forum is to antagonise other members. I have read the thread and there is no evidence of any rational explanation as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. You claim that there is one; I'm asking you to point it out, or summarise it. Unless you're able to do that I shall have to assume that you're just making it up - you're the one making the claim therefore the onus is on you to support the claim. If you can't, people will draw their own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I heard someones 'objection' to gay marriage the other day and it was basically this; Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage, as an institution is meant for a man and a woman, it has always been this way in Britain, and you shouldn't change what was set down in the past. It's the bold bit I'm interested in - I'm interested in the fact that 'in the past' in Britain the minimum age for marriage (and consent) was 12; 'An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age' So do the people who present such arguments believe that marriage, and sexual activity within marriage, should be allowed at 12, or is it right that those particular laws regarding marriage were changed? If they are happy for those laws 'of the past' to be changed what's different about changing it again to accomadate loving gay couples? Or is it a case that they want to pick and choose based on their own moral standing? I also like the 'It's because marriage should lead to reproduction' argument. What if I were to have got married and then found out that either myself or my wife were infertile - should we then be divorced? What about old people who want to get married and can't reproduce? Should they just go without? I'm sorry if I've covered old ground but as many have said already, there seems to be no reasonable argument against gay marriage that doesn't trip itself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I have read the thread and there is no evidence of any rational explanation as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. You claim that there is one; I'm asking you to point it out, or summarise it. Unless you're able to do that I shall have to assume that you're just making it up - you're the one making the claim therefore the onus is on you to support the claim. If you can't, people will draw their own conclusions. So there is an explanation which you think is irrational, your opinion doesn’t make it wrong and deserving of abuse and mockery, it’s just an opinion just like your opinion. I have never found religion to be very rational but that doesn’t mean they are wrong and deserved to be abused and mocked, because to do so would bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Discrimination is normal human behaviour, it happens every day, everywhere. It’s the level of discrimination that matters and this is more trivial that many other discriminatory practices against other people. By singling out same sex couples and saying you can't get married like everyone else it is perpetuating the myth that they are somehow different to everyone else and gives justification to those how discriminate against them. After all if they were the same as us they would be allowed to marry... jb ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 14:04 ---------- An excellent open letter here from Howard Hardiman to Andrew Turner MP. http://howardhardiman.com/2013/02/open-letter-to-andrew-turner-mp/ . . . . I'm just going to quote this, anyone who hasn't bothered to read perhaps should. jb ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 14:11 ---------- I heard someones 'objection' to gay marriage the other day and it was basically this; Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage, as an institution is meant for a man and a woman, it has always been this way in Britain, and you shouldn't change what was set down in the past. It's the bold bit I'm interested in - I'm interested in the fact that 'in the past' in Britain the minimum age for marriage (and consent) was 12 In reference to the bold bit, would those who hold a traditional values mindset (i.e. marriage has always been between a man and a woman) be happy if other changes to the law were reversed to what they had 'always' been. For example: The Civil Partnership Act: Should this be reversed? Allowing homosexual couple to adopt: Should this be reversed? Lowering the age of consent for gay couples to 16 from 18: Should this be reversed? Lowering the age of consent for gay couples to 18 from 21: Should this be reversed? The decriminalisation of homosexual acts in private between two men over the age of 21: Should this be reversed? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.