harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Scraping the bottom are you? Once more.. 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. If the answer you want, and the inclusion of the difference between black and white people is irrelevant, is that I think marriage should be between a man and woman. There are fundamental differences between a man and woman and one of them is that together they have the ability to reproduce. I have stated this several times before of which you are aware and have not dodged answering your post or any others, even though some have not answered when I have asked them questions. Does this clarify matters for you or do you want to go round in more circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 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. Do you understand the difference between causing and taking? I've seen ample evidence of the latter and precious little of the former. Prove me wrong if you can by telling me and everyone else what number post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 What are you asking is it about the name of a mortgage ? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 13:17 ---------- Have you read any of the explanations I have given ? Yes I have. There isn't any explanation that can be used to excuse or apologise inequality and bigotry for, even if you do think "difference" is the prime factor in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yes I have. There isn't any explanation that can be used to excuse or apologise inequality and bigotry for, even if you do think "difference" is the prime factor in doing so. No bigotry or inequality when there is a positive difference and alternative which was accepted by many homosexual couples who were joined in union by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Bob Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Considering gay couples contribute more to the economy than straight couples (because they generally don't reproduce or sponge off the state to such a great extent) I'm in favour of gay marriage. It's for the greater good....and equality and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 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. Or...an institution which supports those prejudices legally (not for long). When you have a single thought and it's encouraged by institutionalised archaic dogma the thought becomes an action which can affect peoples lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 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. If the argument is rational and presented to them reasonably,then there is a very good chance that they may change their mind following a period of reflection,but if they encounter a certain prejudice in the person in opposition they might be less inclined to listen to what they have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Or...an institution which supports those prejudices legally (not for long). When you have a single thought and it's encouraged by institutionalised archaic dogma the thought becomes an action which can affect peoples lives. Exactly. Whilst it is correct to say that we are all guilty, or have been guilty, of prejudices, what we are talking about is state prejudice. Together, using reason, we should strive to eradicate state prejudices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 No bigotry or inequality when there is a positive difference and alternative which was accepted by many homosexual couples who were joined in union by it. Accepted? with what alternative? "This is what you get..lump it - but just don't get any ideas that we are the same cos we ain't, we are different and you don't get what we get. We even went to the further trouble of creating a nice little pigeon hole we could stuff you in". The irony is the "hole" isn't a new concept...it was an add-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 No bigotry or inequality when there is a positive difference and alternative which was accepted by many homosexual couples who were joined in union by it. Accepted because they had no other choice. If they had chosen it over marriage you might have a point, but they couldn't and didn't choose it, it was imposed. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 14:06 ---------- If the answer you want, and the inclusion of the difference between black and white people is irrelevant, is that I think marriage should be between a man and woman. There are fundamental differences between a man and woman and one of them is that together they have the ability to reproduce. I have stated this several times before of which you are aware and have not dodged answering your post or any others, even though some have not answered when I have asked them questions. Does this clarify matters for you or do you want to go round in more circles. We established in another thread long ago that marriage is not and should not be restricted to couples who can reproduce, so why do you think repeating it now will help your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.