MrSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 So do you think "equal but different" is okay? Would it be okay for black people to have to sit in a "place" while whites can sit in a "seat" ? In what way do the seat and place differ? Or are they the same but with different names, for instance I sit on the sofa whilst my other half sits on the settee. Same seat but different name. ---------- Post added 17-02-2013 at 17:55 ---------- That's their choice though. No but there was a legal option for married people to marry again if they choose it. Choice here seems to be the central theme, by denying same sex couples the same choice you must agree that they are discriminated against, however symbolic that discrimination may be; it still exists. There’s nothing stopping them calling each other husband and wife if they want, I wouldn’t think there is a law against it. Not really, one of my mates is 6' 11" and weight over 20 stones, he doesn't have the same choice of car that I have because he can't fit in them all. But that doesn't mean car manufacturers are discriminating against him because of his size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 There’s nothing stopping them calling each other husband and wife if they want, I wouldn’t think there is a law against it. So you believe that they can declare themselves to be married on official documentation, and they can refer to their partner officially as their husband or wife? Not really, one of my mates is 6' 11" and weight over 20 stones, he doesn't have the same choice of car that I have because he can't fit in them all. But that doesn't mean car manufacturers are discriminating against him because of his size. I don't believe that car manufacturers stop tall people buying their car, so they still have the choice in your analogy to attempt to drive the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 So you believe that they can declare themselves to be married on official documentation, and they can refer to their partner officially as their husband or wife? I don't believe that car manufacturers stop tall people buying their car, so they still have the choice in your analogy to attempt to drive the car. I didn't say that. Not much point owning it if one can't drive it. That’s like saying gay people can get married, which is something they do quite often as long as the person they marry is the opposite sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I didn't say that. Not much point owning it if one can't drive it. That’s like saying gay people can get married, which is something they do quite often as long as the person they marry is the opposite sex. Can I politely suggest that you stop it now. You've been almost intolerably tiresome and pointless on the other thread and you're bringing the same absurd pseudological claptrap with you to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I didn't say that. So you accept that same sex couples can't officially call each other husband and wife, and a symbolic discrimination exists. Not much point owning it if one can't drive it. That’s like saying gay people can get married, which is something they do quite often as long as the person they marry is the opposite sex. No it's not, a tall person can attempt to fit in a small car, may even decide to dive small car even if it makes them really uncomfortable, if they choose to. They have the choice, to do with the car what ever they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 What makes you so certain that Jesus would condone gay marriage? Why would he oppose the wishes of God? Is there anything on record, any instances where Jesus opposed the wishes of God? What we do know is that there are passages in the new testament that tell us that Jesus himself was condemned severely for not following all the laws decreed by the writers of the old testament,and that his followers were also condemned and punished,and that those condemning were professing to be strictly following the laws of God (those being the Pharisees and Sadducees the religious leaders in control at that time) so what does that tell us? To a non-believer that means nothing,but to a Christian it should teach us something! and that should be that even if we are influenced by our church leaders at present,we should always think for ourselves sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 So you accept that same sex couples can't officially call each other husband and wife, and a symbolic discrimination exists. Yes but that’s no different than my daughter and partner not being officially allowed to call each other husband and wife. No it's not, a tall person can attempt to fit in a small car, may even decide to dive small car even if it makes them really uncomfortable, if they choose to. They have the choice, to do with the car what ever they want to. Back then to a gay person getting married, they can and do but it is likley to make them uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 To a non-believer that means nothing,but to a Christian it should teach us something! and that should be that even if we are influenced by our church leaders at present,we should always think for ourselves sometimes. That's rather arrogant, Janie. A non-believer is capable of drawing exactly the same conclusion as you from that story - just without the attached God nonsense. They would also be able to, perhaps, conclude that Christians should just admit they're not Jews any more, ditch the OT completely and stick with the NT. That would make their whole basis much less self-contradictory. They would also be able to conclude that while a knowledge and understanding of the past is important, nay essential, tradition and attachment to the past is rarely a positive factor. I could go on ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yes but that’s no different than my daughter and partner not being officially allowed to call each other husband and wife. Do you mean your daughter and her partner or your daughter and your partner, your comments are very ambiguous, I'll asume that you're talkng about your daughter and her partner. They have the choice to marry at some stage in their lives, and then they can refer to each other as officially as husband and wife. Back then to a gay person getting married, they can and do but it is likley to make them uncomfortable. I do not understand what you are trying to say, could you paraphrase it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I do not understand what you are trying to say, could you paraphrase it for me. At a guess; a gay person choosing to marry is like a tall person choosing to buy a car. It's a meaningless metaphor, but MrSmith will never get tyred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.