Lotusflower Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Been there done that and experience with you suggests not. 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 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. 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. 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. No matter how many times you say it it will still be WRONG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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! Sorry what have I missed, bear in mind that I’m trying my best to discuss this with half a dozen different people at the same time, not easy to remember which one of you said what and when it was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. The issue is that gay people are currently discriminated against - they're excluded from marriage. Most sane and humane people want to change that so they can marry. All of your twisted and tortured attempts to mangle the English language into all sorts of unpleasant shapes don't alter the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 But is it this generation doing that is cherry picking, it wouldn’t be traditional for people now to change marriage back to the way it used to be. Tradition is an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behaviour and this generation inherited marriage the way it is. The point is, and one that you're totally missing is that when I first touched upon the tradition comment the woman who made it was saying that this was the way it had always been, so her view was that it hadn't changed from conception in this country - not just from her memory, and this changes the whole context of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 It cannot be in a church. That would be a false analogy. We've demonstrated that they are not. For at least the 3rd time, the right to call themselves married. Equality is the only argument required. It can be in a church and I posted a link to such a church service several pages back, the analogy is better than the one you presented and they are already equal in law. They can even call themselves married if they wish just as I can call myself a girl if I want. How doesn't not being married adversely affect them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Just popping on with a quick reminder to all the nasty bigots out there arguing against equal marriage, in whatever shape that argument might take - you're making the world a worse place! Deliberately! Just because you can! Is that a good use of your time? If you really think it is, do you want to maybe have a think about what the implications of that are for the rest of your life, and the people in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Sorry what have I missed, bear in mind that I’m trying my best to discuss this with half a dozen different people at the same time, not easy to remember which one of you said what and when it was said. Please go back and read post 546 by me. You keep clinging to the lie that civil partnerships and marriage are the same. They are not! I must say I'm not surprised to hear you admit to confusion. Semantics is one thing...reinventing the meaning of words is unacceptable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Incest : Leviticus 20:11-17 Bestiality : http://www.openbible.info/topics/bestiality Paedophilia...interestingly, no, sorry! Thankyou for taking the effort to provide those sources. So regarding Paedophilia, as their is no scriptural reference condemning it, and as I showed in an earlier post children of twelve years of age used to be able to marry (and consumate that marriage) in this country could I ask what the difference is between that law being ammended for marriage and the law being introduced for gay couples to marry? I'm very stuck on this point, there seems to be a lot of cherry picking going on from the Church regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 It can be in a church and I posted a link to such a church service several pages back, the analogy is better than the one you presented and they are already equal in law. They can even call themselves married if they wish just as I can call myself a girl if I want. How doesn't not being married adversely affect them? Are we allowed to call you a big girl's blouse perchance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 The issue is that gay people are currently discriminated against - they're excluded from marriage. Most sane and humane people want to change that so they can marry. All of your twisted and tortured attempts to mangle the English language into all sorts of unpleasant shapes don't alter the reality. In what why are civil partners treated differently to married people? In law they are the same and there is no discrimination between the two, one group isn’t being treated any better or worse than the other group. Insults rarely change peoples minds. ---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 10:33 ---------- The issue is that gay people are currently discriminated against - they're excluded from marriage. Most sane and humane people want to change that so they can marry. All of your twisted and tortured attempts to mangle the English language into all sorts of unpleasant shapes don't alter the reality. I because you are incapable or unwilling to respond in a civil way I will no longer respond to your abusive posts. ---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 10:36 ---------- The point is, and one that you're totally missing is that when I first touched upon the tradition comment the woman who made it was saying that this was the way it had always been, so her view was that it hadn't changed from conception in this country - not just from her memory, and this changes the whole context of the argument. Right I see, yes they were clearly incorrect on that count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.