JFKvsNixon Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 If the law redefines marriage I will accept it but here we are debating whether we think it should be so redefined and giving our opinions for and against. But you're not giving any opinion as to why it shouldn't be redefined apart from stating what the current definition is, over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Just to make sure that you recognise that a man and woman can never be the same as a man and man or woman and woman. Whether a married couple reproduce is not the question the defining principle is that they are able to if they wish to(please don't use medically denied people as an argument as they have enough problems already without using them in this argument). That is why they are different and so have different forms of union at present. A very simple concept. So what does reproduction (or the choice to reproduce) have to do with marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 Or, what does marriage have to do with reproduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Sperm and egg meet outside marriage, and that child is a sin, and will spend part of the afterlife in a specially reserved layer of hell because of the actions of its parents - before it was even born. Welcome to the wonderful world of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 So then, back to the topic, gay marriage; what damned business is it of religion? Having had a think about this through this thread over the last few days i've changed my mind. I'm now of the opinion that church's should be legally obliged to marry a gay couple. That should apply from the lowliest Methodist chapel to the highest Catholic cathedral. To do otherwise would be institutional discrimination. But, I don't think that individual priests should be obliged to perform ceremonies though. They can keep their prejudices if they wish to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Disagreeing with them is not oppression. Being in a minority doesn't mean you are being bullied or are being oppressed. Which as far as I can see is basically what they're claiming. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 09:54 ---------- Being told that your opinion appears to be homophobic on the other hand is simply the price of having a homophobic opinion. There are ways to disagree with people without using language that can be construed as offensive and bullying. And if you can't communicate without causing offence then you can't expect many people to enter the discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 This thread has now reached the stage where anyone who was actually prepared to step up and say, 'Yep, I'm against equal marriage and I know that makes me homophobic' would be a welcome relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Well it looks like the pink smokescreen worked, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2276327/Last-week-MPs-revived-corpse-Secret-Justice-Bill--debating-gay-marriage-time-noticed-Here-spell-terrifying-implications-life--Secret-Britain.html#axzz2KFpLBPDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Well it looks like the pink smokescreen worked, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2276327/Last-week-MPs-revived-corpse-Secret-Justice-Bill--debating-gay-marriage-time-noticed-Here-spell-terrifying-implications-life--Secret-Britain.html#axzz2KFpLBPDG Are you still in the Flat Earth society ret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 The way some people are so upset about it you'd think the Government had made it compulsory. Basically, getting back to the OP, if Bill and Fred who live in Bristol, who I've never met, don't know and will never meet decide to marry then is it really any of my damned business? Of course it isn't. I don't know them from Adam, why should I give a toss? Why does anyone give a toss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.