Same sex marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ilios said:
Are you now complaining of being persecuted? I should remind you of your theme of this thread that only gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry...I'm not trying to be a bellend, but I had to mediate an argument over blackness between a pot and a kettle earlier...come on now, don't be silly. You made an argument (or a series of statements) that was entirely fallacious, and have been bashed around for it. It is perfectly ok to say that you misspoke, or perhaps needs to re-evaluate your reasons or whatever. Put the spade down, before you reach Australia. ;)
Click to expand...

dont be silly, a couple of people have came up with the ludicrous suggestion there is zero argument against and decided to compare anybody who disagreed to bigots or even Hitler.

most people have been sensible and seen both sides of the argument.
 


FootballFan said:
That is where you start attacking a person and accusing them of all sorts because they disagree with your opinion. It started when a lad called Cockney was convinced he was so right about something that anybody else who disagreed was burnt at the stake.
Click to expand...

Alternatively @TopCat, read the thread and see how well @FootballFan did in presenting his arguments

FootballFan said:
dont be silly, a couple of people have came up with the ludicrous suggestion there is zero argument against and decided to compare anybody who disagreed to bigots or even Hitler.

most people have been sensible and seen both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

People can't see both sides of the argument because one side has failed to present an argument
 
Without reading 14 pages I can only imagine the content of this thread.
 
gardni said:
that's just how the English language works, usually the same thing has different names based on context.
Click to expand...
That isn't a development in language though, it's creating a completely separate legal status to prevent a cohort of people from having the same options as another.

If this was a conversation about civil partnerships, which is the closest thing we have to what you're suggesting, I'd be saying they should either be scrapped or extended to include heterosexual couples.
 
FootballFan said:
That is where you start attacking a person and accusing them of all sorts because they disagree with your opinion. It started when a lad called Cockney was convinced he was so right about something that anybody else who disagreed was burnt at the stake.
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking you. You are the one who believes that all people are no equal. You believe that gay people do not deserve the same rights are hetrosexual people. Your views are from the 19th century
 
Some Random Guy said:
That isn't a development in language though, it's creating a completely separate legal status to prevent a cohort of people from having the same options as another.

If this was a conversation about civil partnerships, which is the closest thing we have to what you're suggesting, I'd be saying they should either be scrapped or extended to include heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm saying as others have pointed out, the rights aren't the same, (which thy should be) but if they were, would it matter so much if the name differed
 
FootballFan said:
Its a debate man get a grip, that is a ridiculous statement, again you are falling into the trap Cockney made.
Click to expand...

But it's not a debate is it, you are just focusing on your hurt feelings, while studiously avoiding the glaring hole in your logic.

Tell me why of all the types of marriage that result in no children, you only want gay couples to have less status.
 
gardni said:
Yeah I'm saying as others have pointed out, the rights aren't the same, (which thy should be) but if they were, would it matter so much if the name differed
Click to expand...

Imagine if marriage rights were managed regionally rather than locally, and people from Sunderland had been campaigning for years for legal rights to have their relationships officially recognised by the Newcastle regional office, only to be told that the people of Newcastle had insisted Sunderland people can't get married because that would undermine the institution of marriage for Newcastle people. But they can have a civil partnership which is basically the same. I imagine that there would be a few words said by Sunderland people and anyone making similar arguments in favour of that situation to the ones on this thread would get quite a vitriolic response.

Regionally rather than nationally rather
 
Last edited:
gardni said:
Yeah I'm saying as others have pointed out, the rights aren't the same, (which thy should be) but if they were, would it matter so much if the name differed
Click to expand...
There isn't much difference between civil partnerships and marriage, so yes, to to many it would.

To a lot of people even if civil partnerships and marriage were exactly the same in all but name, it's still going to be perceived as government (and society as a whole) saying "you do not deserve this thing we have, be happy with this instead".
 
I happen to think that marriage is between a man and a woman.

However, what I think means fuck all because the right of two men/women to get married are more important than my opinion. Ultimately gay marriage isn't harming anyone so there's no logical reason for it to be illegal.
 
fyl2u said:
Jesus was clearly a closet homosexual. Why else would he never be mentioned as having relations with a woman in any of the gospels?
Click to expand...
He was balls deep in that Mary Magdelane character wasn't he?
 
Some Random Guy said:
There isn't much difference between civil partnerships and marriage, so yes, to to many it would.

To a lot of people even if civil partnerships and marriage were exactly the same in all but name, it's still going to be perceived as government (and society as a whole) saying "you do not deserve this thing we have, be happy with this instead".
Click to expand...
I suppose that's it isn't it, it's not all necessarily about the marriage itself, it's the principle of being denied something, even if it makes no difference. If they did away with marriage for the non religious, people would probably rage as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top