harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 So let me get this straight... -Your argument is that gay couples shouldn't marry because they are biologically different to straight couples, but the comparison of blacks and whites is invalid -Straights are different because they can reproduce -By your own admission, reproduction is irrelevant to to the subject of marriage, it's just a difference between gays and straights -The comparison of blacks and whites being biologically different (and the historic effects of this) is invalid, because a black man and a black woman can reproduce, even though reproduction is irrelevant to to the subject of marriage, it's just a difference between gays and straights Is that right ? So if your argument is that the union between same sex couples should have a different name because they are different to opposite sex couples, I take it you also think a mortgage between same sex couples should be renamed something like a "civil home owner's loan"? I am now sure that you are arguing for the sake of it. If the reasons are rational and the person refuses to accept them, then that makes their aversion irrational, which fits the definition of homophobe But if one will not accept or consider rational reasons against it because they are not in favour of that persons viewpoint what does that make them ? You seem to think that homophobia is the reason behind certain viewpoints and you are completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Harvey, please don't think this is anything other than a genuine question as part of a genuine attempt to map the parameters of your position. Would you be happy if legislation created an alternative to marriage for same-sex couples that was identical in every way to marriage but was called harriage? That may sound facetious but it is not intended to be. In other words is the only thing that concerns you the fact that the definition of marriage should not be changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Harvey, please don't think this is anything other than a genuine question as part of a genuine attempt to map the parameters of your position. Would you be happy if legislation created an alternative to marriage for same-sex couples that was identical in every way to marriage but was called harriage? That may sound facetious but it is not intended to be. In other words is the only thing that concerns you the fact that the definition of marriage should not be changed? As I have explained on many occassions in this debate my objection is that the union is between different types of people and so the unions should be named differently. There is a very important and unchangeable difference between the 2 groups. As I have stated earlier(at the risk of being mocked) the unions are equal but different. Both types of union should be afforded the same degree of respect and neither is superior to the other. So in answer to your question I do not think the definition of marriage(between man and woman)should be changed. What is happening at the moment is that discrimination is being introduced in that homosexual couples can marry in some venus and not others which I find more serious than the present system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayggb Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 As far as I know marriage in the church type of way is relatively new 200 years old? maybe?.As far as I know abrahamic religions are relatively new,only 2000 years old.The history of man is what 10,000 ,20,000 years old or longer?.I am but, a speck of dust in the eye of a seagul gliding over the vast ocean waves!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 As I have explained on many occassions in this debate my objection is that the union is between different types of people and so the unions should be named differently. There is a very important and unchangeable difference between the 2 groups. As I have stated earlier(at the risk of being mocked) the unions are equal but different. Both types of union should be afforded the same degree of respect and neither is superior to the other. So in answer to your question I do not think the definition of marriage(between man and woman)should be changed. What is happening at the moment is that discrimination is being introduced in that homosexual couples can marry in some venus and not others which I find more serious than the present system. I accept that you do not consider one to be superior to the other and do not intend any disrespect. However, I still have no idea why we need to differentiate between a homosexual and a heterosexual union at all. What purpose does it serve to differentiate? The naming of something still seems a rather spurious reason to avoid a change that will increase inclusivity for a sector of society that has been historically marginalised. Surely a civilised society should attempt to eradicate divisive conventions if they have no positive or practical purpose. If somebody can show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage I'll happily consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Homosexual and heterosexual are two different words describing people that are different, but equal, should these words be removed from our language so as not to differentiate between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I accept that you do not consider one to be superior to the other and do not intend any disrespect. However, I still have no idea why we need to differentiate between a homosexual and a heterosexual union at all. What purpose does it serve to differentiate? The naming of something still seems a rather spurious reason to avoid a change that will increase inclusivity for a sector of society that has been historically marginalised. Surely a civilised society should attempt to eradicate divisive conventions if they have no positive or practical purpose. If somebody can show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage I'll happily consider it. I am basing my arguments on the facts(which can never be changed) that a man and woman union is different to a same sex union and therefore should be named differently. I fully appreciate that many will find me pedantic about this and not agree but this is what debate is about. As I posted earlier this thread is like those involving religion, everyone argues their views but no one changes their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Homosexual and heterosexual are two different words describing people that are different, but equal, should these words be removed from our language so as not to differentiate between the two. No, absolutely not and that appears to be an attempt to deliberately obfuscate the point I was making. Straw man anyone? As Roots suggested there is no need for a different term for a gay mortgage. There is no practical purpose in having a separate term for homosexual employment contracts or car insurance. Why the need to differentiate? Please try and actually answer the question this time Mr Smith, if you can. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 21:28 ---------- I am basing my arguments on the facts(which can never be changed) that a man and woman union is different to a same sex union and therefore should be named differently. I fully appreciate that many will find me pedantic about this and not agree but this is what debate is about. As I posted earlier this thread is like those involving religion, everyone argues their views but no one changes their views. So you can offer no practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage then? Do we name any other conventions or institutions differently based purely on the sexuality of the participants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 No, absolutely not and that appears to be an attempt to deliberately obfuscate the point I was making. Straw man anyone? As Roots suggested there is no need for a different term for a gay mortgage. There is no practical purpose in having a separate term for homosexual employment contracts or car insurance. Why the need to differentiate? Please try and actually answer the question this time Mr Smith, if you can. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 21:28 ---------- So you can offer no practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage then? I thought I had explained several times my reasons. We can not pretend everyone and everything is the same when it is not even though many would like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Homosexual and heterosexual are two different words describing people that are different, but equal, should these words be removed from our language so as not to differentiate between the two. Those words describe people's different sexualities, much like black and white describe people's different skin colours. We don't need a different word to differentiate between a heterosexual wedding and a homosexual wedding, just as we don't need a different word to differentiate between a wedding between a white couple and a wedding between a black couple, unless it is to discriminate. If you think we do then would you also want different words to describe a marriage between two companies if the boards of directors were mixed sex, all male, all female, black, white, whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.