harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It was a question, didn't the ? give it away? I thought it was a round about way of giving praise but still accepted it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 More of a question about what makes you qualified to conclude such a thing when the government, which has taken expert advice has come to the opposite conclusion... Any argument to continue discrimination on the basis of your unsupported legal opinion is IMO a pretty weak one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Because I don't think it fair to use people with medical problems o score points It is not scoring points and it is not unfair. If the possibility of procreation is essential to the definition and validity of marriage in your opinion then the absolute nature of your rule should apply to all. It is hypocritical to exclude those who cannot have children from your absolute rule because you feel sorry for them. If one the reasons that gay marriage is unpalatable to you is that there is no possibility of procreation then the marriage of a heterosexual couple who cannot have children should, in logical and reasonable terms, be equally unacceptable and invalid. Maybe I could answer with a question. What are the practical and positive differences between a marriage and civil partnership when both are equal and held with the same regard. They are not equal. They afford the same legal rights but there are key exclusions and caveats inherent in both that render them unequal. Even though I did not ask you about practical and positive differences there may well be some. There may well be couples both gay and straight who would prefer a civil partnership for whatever reason and I, personally would be more than happy for them to do so. The question I asked was - can you show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage? I have now asked you twice and you have failed to answer so I will assume at this point that your answer is no I cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hiya Harvey, Have a listen to Canon Giles Fraser from yesterday morning on Radio 4. It's towards the end of the programme. I think you may find it interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qhd0c/Sunday_10_02_2013/ It starts at about 38.00. The preceding bit, starting at 30.00, about the Danish church's attitude to same sex marriage is worth a listen as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'll ask again as you failed to answer the last time - can you show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage? If you can I'll happily consider it. I want to know the answer to this one. What possible reason is there to differentiate between a gay and straight marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 More of a question about what makes you qualified to conclude such a thing when the government, which has taken expert advice has come to the opposite conclusion... Any argument to continue discrimination on the basis of your unsupported legal opinion is IMO a pretty weak one. I was referring to this thread and my perception of the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It starts at about 38.00. The preceding bit, starting at 30.00, about the Danish church's attitude to same sex marriage is worth a listen as well. Thankyou for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hiya Harvey, Have a listen to Canon Giles Fraser from yesterday morning on Radio 4. It's towards the end of the programme. I think you may find it interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qhd0c/Sunday_10_02_2013/ I listened to the whole programne until it cut out a minute or so into the relevant interview !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 So by the part of your definition I have highlighted you would be entitled to deem absolutely anything I said to you as offensive , intended or not. Balderdash is what that amounts to Mr. Smith. If someone makes a statement that is clearly homophobic or bigoted they can hardly cry foul when it is pointed out to them...or maybe they can in your world. Not in mine! Anyone offended in such a situation deserves to be offended. It's part of growing up and seeing where we are wrong in order to be able to broaden our horizons. This applies to us all! What you are saying is emotional blackmail is ok..."Don't say that or I'll be hurt." Accurately describing the behaviour could only be construed as an insult if they didn't believe that their behaviour fitted the category. ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 15:33 ---------- It was a question, didn't the ? give it away? ---------- Post added 11-02-2013 at 15:34 ---------- I think you've got a point, there isn't a point to them, lets be done with them and grow up. Homophobia, like all insidious discriminatory behaviour, has no place in a civilised society. It is the moral duty of those who consider themselves civilised or at least to be striving towards it to challenge it. In order to challenge it effectively it is necessary to identify it. To classify is not to insult. To challenge discrimination is not a negative and insulting act it is the positive affirmation of tolerance and diversity. We will have to agree to disagree because I was brought up to be polite no matter what I thought of someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It is not scoring points and it is not unfair. If the possibility of procreation is essential to the definition and validity of marriage in your opinion then the absolute nature of your rule should apply to all. It is hypocritical to exclude those who cannot have children from your absolute rule because you feel sorry for them. If one the reasons that gay marriage is unpalatable to you is that there is no possibility of procreation then the marriage of a heterosexual couple who cannot have children should, in logical and reasonable terms, be equally unacceptable and invalid. My point was that because of the difference between a man and woman they can reproduce. If this can not happen because of medical problems it does not change the basic differences of the people. They are not equal. They afford the same legal rights but there are key exclusions and caveats inherent in both that render them unequal. Even though I did not ask you about practical and positive differences there may well be some. There may well be couples both gay and straight who would prefer a civil partnership for whatever reason and I, personally would be more than happy for them to do so. The question I asked was - can you show me the practical or positive purpose behind differentiating between a gay and straight marriage? I have now asked you twice and you have failed to answer so I will assume at this point that your answer is no I cannot. I must admit your question has got me thinking and I know it is not a direct answer but eligibility is a major issue. Which takes us back to equal but different. If I may add a sentence from one of your posts........To classify is not to insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.