Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[maxmaximus]

Clearly you do, you've been arguing for days and 30+ pages that it shouldn't be allowed. Arguing it to the point of attempting to deny reality and playing fast and loose with words to avoid the obvious fact that equality is easy to achieve and desirable for everyone who isn't a homophobe.

 

You won't find a post on mine that claims they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

The point is I’m not bothered either way, and throughout these pages no one as convinced me that gay people are being discriminated against and that marriage is somehow better than a civil partnership, if you can’t convince me how do you hope to convince the people that have reasons to be opposed to gay marriage.

[Halibut]

no one has said how marriage is better than a civil partnership

 

I'm not aware that anyone's claiming it is. The point is that gays are presently denied the right to get married, just as Rosa Parks was denied the right to sit in the white only seats on the bus.

[RootsBooster]

One also as to understand that tradition doesn't means from the start of time, marriage as been as it is though several generations with each generation accepting marriage to be the union of man and women. Today’s generation have never known it to be any different, to them it is traditional because it is what was passed to them from the last generation.

 

It's called cherry picking.

"We like things traditional. Oh wait, they did what back then? We don't like things THAT traditional"

[Halibut]

Especially but not exclusively and no one as shown an intolerance to gay people, but some have shown an intolerance to the group that believe marriage is the union of man and women.

 

 

 

From mikem8634's excellent post further up the page -

 

“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.”

''In other words, it’s what people do who really agree with bigotry and discrimination, but they don’t want to admit it, to themselves or other people.''

 

I think this describes your position rather accurately.

[dafodil]

The wedding day arives.

Groom stumbles out of bed and stumbles around trying to remember how he got home last night .

Soon his mam starts telling him to get a shower as Dick or Fred or Tom the the best man and grooms! will soon be here to escort our hero to his doom.

Mam and Dad get togged up ready for the big day remembering the time tweny odd years ago when they were doing exactly the same.

 

Across Town the gorgious Maria, sits in front of the dressing table mirror with her excited brides maids who fuss around her giggling at the daft conversations flying around.

 

Down stairs Dad sits in his faviourite chair staring into space thinking of his little girl who after today he will no longer be the most important man in her life.

 

The cars arive at Church the organist pipes up here comes the bride.

All heads turn to see the the most lovely girl in the World walking down the isle arm in in arm with Dad .

 

Tears flow from mams on both sides as promises are made and rings exchanged confettee flows and the reception begins .

A few family rows and daft dad dances later every one stumbles home after a grand day .

 

The next morning Tom and Maria get the Ryonair plane for a week in Majorca, Dad gently sobs into his midday pint at the club.

 

Eight months later the same church! The same congregation[ except that lot that had a fight at the wedding] .the new born twins are christened as the proud parents Tom and Maria surrounded by their loving famillys look on .

 

And the whole melting pot that is life starts all over again.

[Cyclone]

Yes I could I could even quote the other members that left the discusion because of the abuse they received. But it would be pointless because you are obstinately convinced or your opinion and intolerant of any one that opposes it.

No I'm not, I'm entirely open to any evidence you can provide that people have been abused.

 

 

There is already equality, and so far no one has said how marriage is better than a civil partnership or what rights married couples have that civil partners don't have.

You've already been asked what 'better' has to do with it, this is about equality, not about one thing being better than the other.

There clearly isn't equality, equality is everyone being allowed to use the same seats, or to get married. I did already answer you re:rights though, the right to call themselves married.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 08:40 ----------

 

 

Rosa was allowed to travel but had to use different seats to white people, gay people are don't have to use different anything to heterosexuals, they can and do you the same building, same registrar, same cars if the wish everything apart from the name is the same.

Marriage is the front seats of the bus.

They aren't permitted to be married in a religious ceremony, this is something that straight people can do.

To use the analogy again, black people could sit in the back of the bus just like white people could (a civil ceremony). White people had the additional choice of sitting in the front though (a marriage).

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 09:45 ----------

 

If you aren't of the believe that gay people should not be able to marry (you've claimed this), then why are you spuriously claiming that marriage and civil partnership are equal in order to deny gay people the right to marry.

And why are you so obstinate about it and intolerant to people who disagree?

[Cyclone]

The fact that you've had to qualify that "in law equal" makes it obvious that it is not in actuality equal.

 

What is the argument for not making it actually equal? You refuse to give one as far as I can see, but just keep repeating "it's equal" when it's clearly not.

 

You're also disingenously claiming that civil partnership and marriage are identical in all details when they are not. Sure, a marriage can take place in a registrars office, but a civil partnership cannot take place in a church. Clearly not equal.

[Lotusflower]

But they do have the right to do something that in law is equal to marriage, whereas Rosa wasn't allowed to sit on seats that were deemed to be seats for white people. She had to sit in an entity different seat, one which would never be shared with a white person; the seat wasn’t equal to the seats white people could sit on where as a civil partnerships are equal to marriage and everything apart from the name is the same, same building, room, registrar, seats, cars.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 09:55 ----------

 

 

There was nothing in my post that breached the rules, yet it was removed without explanation. This happens quite frequently when it comes too responding to your antagonistic drivel.

If you could remain civil discussions would be disrupted.

 

Re my bold.

 

I gave you a link some pages ago to show how wrong you were, and are, with that statement! You have steadfastly chosen to ignore it, some would say, obstinately chosen to ignore it!

When one adopts the position of the ostrich with one's head buried deep into the sand one inevitably leaves another part of one's anatomy exposed.

My advice is... be careful...be very careful!

[maxmaximus]

No I'm not, I'm entirely open to any evidence you can provide that people have been abused.

Been there done that and experience with you suggests not.

 

 

 

You've already been asked what 'better' has to do with it, this is about equality, not about one thing being better than the other.

There clearly isn't equality, equality is everyone being allowed to use the same seats, or to get married. I did already answer you re:rights though, the right to call themselves married.

Marriage would have to be better than a civil partnership for them to be unequal and if they aren’t unequal then there is no inequality.

 

 

Marriage is the front seats of the bus.

They aren't permitted to be married in a religious ceremony, this is something that straight people can do.

No but they can have a civil ceremony which is the same and in the same building but under a different name, that would be like Rosa being allowed to sit in the same seats as white people as long as the seat was called something different. Maybe when white people sit on it, its s seat and when Rosa sits on it’s is called a bench.

 

 

 

To use the analogy again, black people could sit in the back of the bus just like white people could (a civil ceremony). White people had the additional choice of sitting in the front though (a marriage).

A better analagy would be black people could sit in the back of the bus (a civil ceremony.) White people could also sit at the back of the bus (a marrage.) Both the same but using a different word to describe them.

 

 

 

If you aren't of the believe that gay people should not be able to marry (you've claimed this), then why are you spuriously claiming that marriage and civil partnership are equal in order to deny gay people the right to marry.

And why are you so obstinate about it and intolerant to people who disagree?

 

I'm not claiming they are equal to deny them the right to marry, I’m claiming they are equal because they are and so far failed to say what rights a married couple have that civil partners do not have.

Esme I think is the only member so far that as came up with a reasonable argument to call both ceremonies the same.

[Cyclone]

Been there done that and experience with you suggests not.

Now you're just lying.

 

 

 

 

Marriage would have to be better than a civil partnership for them to be unequal and if they aren’t unequal then there is no inequality.

No, that's nonsense. The fact that marriage is not open to gay couples makes it not equal, equivalents, better, worse or otherwise are irrelevant.

 

 

No but they can have a civil ceremony which is the same and in the same building but under a different name

No they cannot. It cannot be in a church.

that would be like Rosa being allowed to sit in the same seats as white people as long as the seat was called something different. Maybe when white people sit on it, its s seat and when Rosa sits on it’s is called a bench.

Poor effort.

 

 

 

 

A better analagy would be black people could sit in the back of the bus (a civil ceremony.) White people could also sit at the back of the bus (a marrage.) Both the same but using a different word to describe them.

That would be a false analogy.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not claiming they are equal to deny them the right to marry, I’m claiming they are equal because they are

We've demonstrated that they are not.

and so far failed to say what rights a married couple have that civil partners do not have.

For at least the 3rd time, the right to call themselves married.

Esme I think is the only member so far that as came up with a reasonable argument to call both ceremonies the same.

Equality is the only argument required.