harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm sorry but this is twaddle on a monumental scale. There will always be murderers, paedophiles, rapists, embezzler's, all different from you and I..should we remove legislation which protects you and I from their difference. It is not twaddle. How can you compare a loving homosexual couple to murderers, paedophiles, rapists, embezzlers etc. Murderers etc. commit criminal acts, no one is suggesting there is anything criminal related to homosexuals. Would you answer the questions I asked please. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 10:21 ---------- There's nothing in that response which relates to the question I asked. Unless you'd like to enlighten me, I will take the answer to be no. Please pose your specific question again then in a brief form. Would you answer my question also ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Please pose your specific question again then in a brief form. It really can't get much briefer than how I've already asked: "Is there anything incorrect in what I wrote?" You appeared to agree with me at one point but I asked you to confirm this and you decided to go down the distraction route again. Would you answer my question also ? Yes, no problem, after you've shown the common courtesy of answering mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It is not twaddle. How can you compare a loving homosexual couple to murderers, paedophiles, rapists, embezzlers etc. Murderers etc. commit criminal acts, no one is suggesting there is anything criminal related to homosexuals. Hey, it's you that's using "difference" as a pivotal defense to solidify your stance. As a "Difference"...age, disability, colour, gender, sexuality, race or the natural colour of your hair is not something you choose...although some will argue that being any of the above is something you do choose and are happy to discriminate based on the level of mush between their ears, even to the point that when someone points this out they are also branded a closed minded bigot because their antiquated reasoning has been questioned. Should anyone in the future decide to discriminate on the basis of "difference" bigotry then they will quite rightly be subject to law....and not to soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I answered in post 905 Just like to say that I understood your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Just like to say that I understood your answer. Could you explain it then? I've had another look, the only thing which relates to what I asked (in bold) doesn't answer the question, it merely confirms that that part of what I said is correct... Is there anything in what I wrote which is incorrect? If you read my posts you would see that it was the ability to reproduce(and please don't start using the medically exempt or old to rubbish my point) that created the difference between a hetrosexual and homosexual couple. Regarding homophobia you imply that disagreeing with your viewpoint and others holding the same views could be based on this. And no I will not trawl through the thread to find examples. Maybe you could state that you do not consider it homophobic to disagree with same sex marriage when reasons are given. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 09:18 ---------- No one seems to be intersted in the knock on effect if same sex marriage is made legal. At present it s stated that certain religious bodies will not have to perform these ceremonies if they disagree with it. Is this discrimination where a couple are denied the right to marry by certain churches ? When this is challenged at the European Court and all churches are forced to carry out same sex marriages will the government have achieved its long term aims and are able to say it was never their intention but they have been over ruled in the matter and will ave avoided directly laying down religious policy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It really can't get much briefer than how I've already asked: "Is there anything incorrect in what I wrote?" You appeared to agree with me at one point but I asked you to confirm this and you decided to go down the distraction route again. Yes, no problem, after you've shown the common courtesy of answering mine. What are you asking is it about the name of a mortgage ? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 13:17 ---------- Hey, it's you that's using "difference" as a pivotal defense to solidify your stance. As a "Difference"...age, disability, colour, gender, sexuality, race or the natural colour of your hair is not something you choose...although some will argue that being any of the above is something you do choose and are happy to discriminate based on the level of mush between their ears, even to the point that when someone points this out they are also branded a closed minded bigot because their antiquated reasoning has been questioned. Should anyone in the future decide to discriminate on the basis of "difference" bigotry then they will quite rightly be subject to law....and not to soon. Have you read any of the explanations I have given ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 What are you asking is it about the name of a mortgage ? Scraping the bottom are you? Once more.. Is there anything incorrect in what I wrote? It's a very simple question which only requires a yes or no. Just in case you have forgotten what I'm talking about, here it is again... 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? To make it easier I have removed the mortgage comparison from the end. I'm sure if you concentrate you will be able to come up with an answer this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Should anyone in the future decide to discriminate on the basis of "difference" bigotry then they will quite rightly be subject to law....and not to soon. If bigotry and prejudice was against the law everyone would be on trial at some stage. As we all know,The reality is that there isn't a single person anywhere in the world that hasn't at some point in their life felt some form of prejudice towards a group or institution at some time in their life, whether it be through lack of of understanding, irrationality sometimes arising from a personal experience perhaps, or whatever other reason. If we deny that to ourselves then we are lacking in insight. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Well I don't think anything else constructive will come from this thread just the creation of circles. My conclusion is that I have based my arguments on facts. Many of the pro marriage posts are based on emotion and disregard basic facts. I have been pleased that the thread did not descend into trying to label posters and it has been mainly civil when some people obviously feel very strongly about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 If bigotry and prejudice was against the law everyone would be on trial at some stage. As we all know,The reality is that there isn't a single person anywhere in the world that hasn't at some point in their life felt some form of prejudice towards a group or institution at some time in their life, whether it be through lack of of understanding, irrationality sometimes arising from a personal experience perhaps, or whatever other reason. If we deny that to ourselves then we are lacking in insight. . I don't think that anyone can deny that at some point(s) in their life they will or have had prejudices, the important issue is whether or not they will listen to reason when a rational argument is presented to them, when they have no rational argument of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.