This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Do you agree with Same-sex marriage?
Scroll to see replies
I disagree with the the legal basis for marriage regardless of who you or your partner are... Not quite sure where that puts me in this poll.
Yes I do....oh I do
Original post by Heteronormative
If they dont believe in God what do they want to be married for? why isnt Civil Partnership sufficient?
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria.
Love - prove that you know what 'love' is, even peadophiles say they 'love' children.
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
We need to find a cure for these most unfortunate ppl, until then they will continue thinking that they are normal and cause decent society endless problems. Mo I DONT AGREE WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGE!
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria.
Love - prove that you know what 'love' is, even peadophiles say they 'love' children.
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
We need to find a cure for these most unfortunate ppl, until then they will continue thinking that they are normal and cause decent society endless problems. Mo I DONT AGREE WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGE!
So by your logic, infertile people should not marry? And people who have past the age of child bearing?
Original post by Katty3
Some LGBT+ people like me believe in God. Civil partnerships are considered lesser than marriage by many people.
a) Marriage is a legal recognition of a loving relationship. By your reasoning, infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Two adults in a romantic relationship can know that they love each other. Both parties can express their love for each other.
b) Heterosexual people frequently break up as well. It's not unique to one specific sexuality.
c) Gay people don't need curing. They aren't ill. Explain one problem caused by gay people. STDs are neither caused by gay people nor are they exclusive to them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
a) Marriage is a legal recognition of a loving relationship. By your reasoning, infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Two adults in a romantic relationship can know that they love each other. Both parties can express their love for each other.
b) Heterosexual people frequently break up as well. It's not unique to one specific sexuality.
c) Gay people don't need curing. They aren't ill. Explain one problem caused by gay people. STDs are neither caused by gay people nor are they exclusive to them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You do believe in God; your 'god' is the Devil!
a) Marriage is not "a recognition of a loving relationship" because there are arranged marriages and no real mechanism for detecting 'love', its an arrangement; sometimes ppl just do it because they have children and unifying would be better for the children even if the initial infatuation has long worn off.
"Infertility" here is a medical diagnosis which can be incorrect or reversed. Marriage is arranged regardless because one or both of the couple doesnt know/accept or doesnt trust the diagnosis or expects a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their fortunes and allow conception - this position does not contradict the marriage. Now [in the case of two [perverts] trying to use this logic they must not know/accept or not trust their perverted lifestyle choice or expect a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their mis-fortune to be a [pervert] - this position would contradict the validity of their 'marriage' if they expected to not be gay in the lifetime of their gay marriage wouldnt it?
I'm treating infertility and homosexuality as diseases here because they are see (c).
b) I didnt say differently, all I said was why do gays break up so much more often? and you couldnt argue they do not.
c) If this horrendous condition is not genetically determined and gay perverts (and pervert is the correct word for them that I can defend because they are functioning against their DNA programming, they are per-verted) having heterosexual drive but somehow failing to execute them because of unhealthy conditions in their mothers filthy womb, mis-nurturing the fetus resulting in a gay condition be the case; then this would conspire to prove that homosexuality is indeed a syndrome. Now prove thats not the case!
Original post by saxsan4
So by your logic, infertile people should not marry? And people who have past the age of child bearing?
No that is not my logic - did you not read my response here:
"Infertility" here is a medical diagnosis which can be incorrect or reversed. Marriage is arranged regardless because one or both of the couple doesnt know/accept or doesnt trust the diagnosis or expects a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their fortunes and allow conception - this position does not contradict the marriage. Now [in the case of two [perverts] trying to use this logic they must not know/accept or not trust their perverted lifestyle choice or expect a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their mis-fortune to be a [pervert] - this position would contradict the validity of their 'marriage' if they expected to not be gay in the lifetime of their gay marriage wouldnt it?
I'm bisexual, I have the potential to love anyone of either gender. Marriage is a fundamental human right that is being denied across the world on an arbitrary basis.
The right to marry should not be limited based on something as petty and meaningless as gender distinctions. Homosexuality is not a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason. Everything within a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. The only differences are placed there by other people who have no business interfering in my right to choose who I marry.
The right to marry should not be limited based on something as petty and meaningless as gender distinctions. Homosexuality is not a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason. Everything within a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. The only differences are placed there by other people who have no business interfering in my right to choose who I marry.
Original post by Heteronormative
If they dont believe in God what do they want to be married for? why isnt Civil Partnership sufficient?
Marriage isn't owned by religion. Marriage pre dates Christianity.
Marriage doesn't exist purely for procreation. It's a symbol of love and commitment. Such a thing doesn't need a boundary of gender.
Love - prove that you know what 'love' is, even peadophiles say they 'love' children.
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
Pedophiles don't "love" children, and certainly not jn the same way as a couple loves each other.
And people in the LGBT probably break up less than straight couples, but citation is needed regarding your claim.
It would be better to find a cure for religion and ignorance.
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
I'm bisexual, I have the potential to love anyone of either gender. Marriage is a fundamental human right that is being denied across the world on an arbitrary basis.
The right to marry should not be limited based on something as petty and meaningless as gender distinctions. Homosexuality is not a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason. Everything within a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. The only differences are placed there by other people who have no business interfering in my right to choose who I marry.
The right to marry should not be limited based on something as petty and meaningless as gender distinctions. Homosexuality is not a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason. Everything within a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. The only differences are placed there by other people who have no business interfering in my right to choose who I marry.
Marriage is only a ¨fundamental human right¨, because you choose to define it as such. You can equally define it as ¨the union between a man and woman under God¨. Neither is more or less correct than the other. It is a matter of semantics.
'Gay people have civil partnerships, marriage isn't necessary'
And black people had black washrooms during the racial segregation period in the US. Sure, they were less well kept and ultimately separate from the bathrooms used by the white majority, but black bathrooms still did the same thing right? They could still wash their hands and use the toilet?
Clearly this was not ok, and I think the marriage/civil partnership distinction is exactly the same. You're basically telling gay couples that they aren't worthy of the special status of 'marriage' (which carries prestige and is deeply embedded into the traditions our society) and must settle for something not only different, but worse, effectively excluding an entire minority from one of our country's most prestigious institutions. In both the white bathroom/black bathroom and marriage/CP, a person is still able to undertake the same function (i.e.wash hands, get partnered, respectively) - it is the principle of the two being separate which is the issue. It is implying that one group (funnily enough, the dominant group in both cases) in society is entitled to one thing, while another group is entitled to another (funnily enough, inferior) thing.
'There is no need to change something which has been in place for hundreds of years'
I hate this argument, it's such a cop out and is often not supported by any reasoning. This very same argument could have been applied to slavery and public executions before they were abolished. In fact, even recently with developments in gender equality, one could make the argument that we have always lived in a patriarchy where females have had very limited rights - why should we change a system which has been in place for hundreds of years?
Well guess what, society and its attitudes change, and therefore we need to account for this by altering our laws and institutions to cater for this social evolution. The old way is not necessarily the right way, as I have pointed out with slavery, females being denied the vote, etc, and tradition is a poor excuse for denial of rights. If you value your traditions over the liberties and welfare of society (in this case, a particular area of society), then maybe you should have a good long think about your morality.
'Can straight people get civil partnered though?' as a way of trying to turn the argument is stupid and detracts from the main point. But yes, I agree that civil partnerships should be extended to straight couples, as the informality of a civil partnership is occasionally seen as more desirable than marriage.
Our politics is not guided by religion - something we should be proud of - so why should this extend to marriage? So many non-religious people use religion as a defence for their homophobic views which makes me think that you don't have a valid reason. In fact, I'm yet to come across a good argument for non-religious people to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole, so please give me one, there has to be at least one, surely?? If your religion is opposed to it I totally get that and most of my arguments don't necessarily apply.. although if your religion is encouraging you to take a negative stance towards fellow human beings based on sexual preferences which they DID NOT CHOOSE, maybe I'm opposed to the relevant passages of your outdated religious texts.
Oh and by the way, 'marriage should be between a man and a woman' without giving a reason why is the most painfully dogmatic and ignorant argument you can make, and I will automatically assume that you have nothing valid to say in your subsequent argument. Why should it be?!
Above all, WHY THE **** DO YOU CARE? Two people of the same sex institutionalising their love in the prestigious form of marriage has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever, yet it makes not only the couple happy, but an entire group of people in the UK who may begin to feel like the government recognises that, just maybe, LGBTQ+ people are not the downtrodden second class citizens they once were and that laws should be introduced which recognise this equality?
Edit: Oh, and 'marriage should be for raising children' is also an out-dated and painfully conservative argument. Should we stop infertile straight people from getting married? No because they can adopt, surely? Oh wait, so can gay people ...
And black people had black washrooms during the racial segregation period in the US. Sure, they were less well kept and ultimately separate from the bathrooms used by the white majority, but black bathrooms still did the same thing right? They could still wash their hands and use the toilet?
Clearly this was not ok, and I think the marriage/civil partnership distinction is exactly the same. You're basically telling gay couples that they aren't worthy of the special status of 'marriage' (which carries prestige and is deeply embedded into the traditions our society) and must settle for something not only different, but worse, effectively excluding an entire minority from one of our country's most prestigious institutions. In both the white bathroom/black bathroom and marriage/CP, a person is still able to undertake the same function (i.e.wash hands, get partnered, respectively) - it is the principle of the two being separate which is the issue. It is implying that one group (funnily enough, the dominant group in both cases) in society is entitled to one thing, while another group is entitled to another (funnily enough, inferior) thing.
'There is no need to change something which has been in place for hundreds of years'
I hate this argument, it's such a cop out and is often not supported by any reasoning. This very same argument could have been applied to slavery and public executions before they were abolished. In fact, even recently with developments in gender equality, one could make the argument that we have always lived in a patriarchy where females have had very limited rights - why should we change a system which has been in place for hundreds of years?
Well guess what, society and its attitudes change, and therefore we need to account for this by altering our laws and institutions to cater for this social evolution. The old way is not necessarily the right way, as I have pointed out with slavery, females being denied the vote, etc, and tradition is a poor excuse for denial of rights. If you value your traditions over the liberties and welfare of society (in this case, a particular area of society), then maybe you should have a good long think about your morality.
'Can straight people get civil partnered though?' as a way of trying to turn the argument is stupid and detracts from the main point. But yes, I agree that civil partnerships should be extended to straight couples, as the informality of a civil partnership is occasionally seen as more desirable than marriage.
Our politics is not guided by religion - something we should be proud of - so why should this extend to marriage? So many non-religious people use religion as a defence for their homophobic views which makes me think that you don't have a valid reason. In fact, I'm yet to come across a good argument for non-religious people to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole, so please give me one, there has to be at least one, surely?? If your religion is opposed to it I totally get that and most of my arguments don't necessarily apply.. although if your religion is encouraging you to take a negative stance towards fellow human beings based on sexual preferences which they DID NOT CHOOSE, maybe I'm opposed to the relevant passages of your outdated religious texts.
Oh and by the way, 'marriage should be between a man and a woman' without giving a reason why is the most painfully dogmatic and ignorant argument you can make, and I will automatically assume that you have nothing valid to say in your subsequent argument. Why should it be?!
Above all, WHY THE **** DO YOU CARE? Two people of the same sex institutionalising their love in the prestigious form of marriage has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever, yet it makes not only the couple happy, but an entire group of people in the UK who may begin to feel like the government recognises that, just maybe, LGBTQ+ people are not the downtrodden second class citizens they once were and that laws should be introduced which recognise this equality?
Edit: Oh, and 'marriage should be for raising children' is also an out-dated and painfully conservative argument. Should we stop infertile straight people from getting married? No because they can adopt, surely? Oh wait, so can gay people ...
(edited 8 years ago)
i agree with it although some people in sikhism may not
Original post by lawhopefu1
'Gay people have civil partnerships, marriage isn't necessary'
And black people had black washrooms during the racial segregation period in the US. Sure, they were less well kept and ultimately separate from the bathrooms used by the white majority, but black bathroom still did the same thing right? They could still wash their hands and use the toilet?
Clearly this was not ok, and I think the marriage/civil partnership distinction is exactly the same. You're basically telling gay couples that they aren't worthy of the special status of 'marriage' (which carries prestige and is deeply embedded into the traditions our society) and must settle for something not only different, but worse, effectively excluding an entire minority from one of our country's most prestigious institutions. In both the white bathroom/black bathroom and marriage/CP, an person is still able to undertake the same function (i.e.wash hands, get partnered, respectively) - it is the principle of the two being separate which is the issue. It is implying that one group (funnily enough, the dominant group in both cases) in society is entitled to one thing, while another group is entitled to another (funnily enough, inferior) thing.
'There is no need to change something which has been in place for hundreds of years'
I hate this argument, it's such a cop out and is often not supported by any reasoning. This very same argument could have been applied to slavery and public executions before they were abolished. In fact, even recently with developments in gender equality, one could make the argument that we have always lived in a patriarchy where females have had very limited rights - why should we change a system which has been in place for hundreds of years?
Well guess what, society and its attitudes change, and therefore we need to account for this by altering our laws and institutions to cater for this social evolution. The old way is not necessarily the right way, as I have pointed out with slavery, females being denied the vote, etc, and tradition is a poor excuse for denial of rights. If you value your traditions over the liberties and welfare of society (in this case, a particular area of society), then maybe you should have a good long think about your morality.
'Can straight people get civil partnered though?' as a way of trying to turn the argument is stupid and detracts from the main point. But yes, I agree that civil partnerships should be extended to straight couples, as the informality of a civil partnership is occasionally seen as more desirable than marriage.
Our politics is not guided by religion - something we should be proud of - so why should this extend to marriage? So many non-religious people use religion as a defence for their homophobic views which makes me think that you don't have a valid reason. In fact, I'm yet to come across a good argument for non-religious people to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole, so please give me one, there has to be at least one, surely?? If your religion is opposed to it I totally get that and most of my arguments don't necessarily apply.. although if your religion is encouraging you to take a negative stance towards fellow human beings based on sexual preferences which they DID NOT CHOOSE, maybe I'm opposed to the relevant passages of your outdated religious texts.
Oh and by the way, 'marriage should be between a man and a woman' without giving a reason why is the most painfully dogmatic and ignorant argument you can make, and I will automatically assume that you have nothing valid to say in your subsequent argument. Why should it be?!
Above all, WHY THE **** DO YOU CARE? Two people of the same sex institutionalising their love in the prestigious form of marriage has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever, yet it makes not only the couple happy, but an entire group of people in the UK who may begin to feel like the government recognises that, just maybe, LGBTQ+ people are not the downtrodden second class citizens they once were and that laws should be introduced which recognise this equality?
Edit: Oh, and 'marriage should be for raising children' is also an out-dated and painfully conservative argument. Should we stop infertile straight people from getting married? No because they can adopt, surely? Oh wait, so can gay people ...
And black people had black washrooms during the racial segregation period in the US. Sure, they were less well kept and ultimately separate from the bathrooms used by the white majority, but black bathroom still did the same thing right? They could still wash their hands and use the toilet?
Clearly this was not ok, and I think the marriage/civil partnership distinction is exactly the same. You're basically telling gay couples that they aren't worthy of the special status of 'marriage' (which carries prestige and is deeply embedded into the traditions our society) and must settle for something not only different, but worse, effectively excluding an entire minority from one of our country's most prestigious institutions. In both the white bathroom/black bathroom and marriage/CP, an person is still able to undertake the same function (i.e.wash hands, get partnered, respectively) - it is the principle of the two being separate which is the issue. It is implying that one group (funnily enough, the dominant group in both cases) in society is entitled to one thing, while another group is entitled to another (funnily enough, inferior) thing.
'There is no need to change something which has been in place for hundreds of years'
I hate this argument, it's such a cop out and is often not supported by any reasoning. This very same argument could have been applied to slavery and public executions before they were abolished. In fact, even recently with developments in gender equality, one could make the argument that we have always lived in a patriarchy where females have had very limited rights - why should we change a system which has been in place for hundreds of years?
Well guess what, society and its attitudes change, and therefore we need to account for this by altering our laws and institutions to cater for this social evolution. The old way is not necessarily the right way, as I have pointed out with slavery, females being denied the vote, etc, and tradition is a poor excuse for denial of rights. If you value your traditions over the liberties and welfare of society (in this case, a particular area of society), then maybe you should have a good long think about your morality.
'Can straight people get civil partnered though?' as a way of trying to turn the argument is stupid and detracts from the main point. But yes, I agree that civil partnerships should be extended to straight couples, as the informality of a civil partnership is occasionally seen as more desirable than marriage.
Our politics is not guided by religion - something we should be proud of - so why should this extend to marriage? So many non-religious people use religion as a defence for their homophobic views which makes me think that you don't have a valid reason. In fact, I'm yet to come across a good argument for non-religious people to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole, so please give me one, there has to be at least one, surely?? If your religion is opposed to it I totally get that and most of my arguments don't necessarily apply.. although if your religion is encouraging you to take a negative stance towards fellow human beings based on sexual preferences which they DID NOT CHOOSE, maybe I'm opposed to the relevant passages of your outdated religious texts.
Oh and by the way, 'marriage should be between a man and a woman' without giving a reason why is the most painfully dogmatic and ignorant argument you can make, and I will automatically assume that you have nothing valid to say in your subsequent argument. Why should it be?!
Above all, WHY THE **** DO YOU CARE? Two people of the same sex institutionalising their love in the prestigious form of marriage has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever, yet it makes not only the couple happy, but an entire group of people in the UK who may begin to feel like the government recognises that, just maybe, LGBTQ+ people are not the downtrodden second class citizens they once were and that laws should be introduced which recognise this equality?
Edit: Oh, and 'marriage should be for raising children' is also an out-dated and painfully conservative argument. Should we stop infertile straight people from getting married? No because they can adopt, surely? Oh wait, so can gay people ...
This.
Not every religious person is homophobic and many support gay marriage.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Heteronormative
If they dont believe in God what do they want to be married for?
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes
You can't have it both ways
either it is about God or it's a legal issue
But as marriage existed before God and before out legal system I think your talking bollox to try and justify your bigotry
also if its about children do you have issues with people marring who can't or don't want children?
Original post by Heteronormative
If they dont believe in God what do they want to be married for?
You could say the same for atheists, do you object to them getting married?
Original post by Heteronormative
why isnt Civil Partnership sufficient?
Have you even looked at the differences, or if there are any?
Original post by Heteronormative
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria.
Original post by Heteronormative
Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring to continue the family genes - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria.
Only the bolded is accurate, and that applies to same-sex couples too, no?
Original post by Heteronormative
Love - prove that you know what 'love' is, even peadophiles say they 'love' children.
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
Bestials say they 'love' animals - should they marry too? and why do they break up so much if they are so 'in' love'?
Prove that heterosexual couples 'love' each other then?
Original post by Heteronormative
We need to find a cure for these most unfortunate ppl, until then they will continue thinking that they are normal and cause decent society endless problems. Mo I DONT AGREE WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGE!
I feel I'm wasting my time here, but evidence for any of these claims?
Original post by shadowdweller
You could say the same for atheists, do you object to them getting married?
Have you even looked at the differences, or if there are any?
Only the bolded is accurate, and that applies to same-sex couples too, no?
Prove that heterosexual couples 'love' each other then?
I feel I'm wasting my time here, but evidence for any of these claims?
Have you even looked at the differences, or if there are any?
Only the bolded is accurate, and that applies to same-sex couples too, no?
Prove that heterosexual couples 'love' each other then?
I feel I'm wasting my time here, but evidence for any of these claims?
Would rep this 1000 times if I could. Think this thread has been a victory for equality and a loss for unfounded bigotry
Original post by shadowdweller
You could say the same for atheists, do you object to them getting married?
I always assumed that they were no longer atheists; thats why they take their vows before God - if they acknowledge God in their lives why do you call them atheist?
Have you even looked at the differences, or if there are any?
Yes I have, it is sufficient.
Only the bolded is accurate, and that applies to same-sex couples too, no?
No, your view is too narrow and naively simplistic. Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring and combining estates to propagate their continued existence - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria because they are a dead end genetically.
Prove that heterosexual couples 'love' each other then?
Why? I've already said "Marriage is not "a recognition of a loving relationship" because there are arranged marriages and no real mechanism/test for detecting 'love', its an arrangement; sometimes ppl just do it because they have children and unifying would be better for the children even if the initial infatuation has long worn off." So stop trying to pull that same old lame gay trick. What the heterosexual couple have is the offspring or the intention to produce or the hope of producing genetic offspring an area where gays are mute so you avoid it. Marriage separates itself from civil partnerships because its a family building foundation.
If you just want your perverted 'love' claim recognised - civil partnerships are sufficient.
I feel I'm wasting my time here, but evidence for any of these claims?
You have been given it.
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/russian-scientists-discover-cure-to-homosexuality/
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by thunder_chunky
Marriage isn't owned by religion. Marriage pre dates Christianity.
Maybe;maybe not, but how long has gay marriage been in existance?
Marriage doesn't exist purely for procreation. It's a symbol of love and commitment. Such a thing doesn't need a boundary of gender.
But a test for love would not? how do we know gays love each other?
Pedophiles don't "love" children, and certainly not jn the same way as a couple loves each other.
Yeah but they claim to dont they and you gays arguments are built on nothing else but empty un-provable claims
And people in the LGBT probably break up less than straight couples, but citation is needed regarding your claim.
You talk ****. Perverts havent had the right to marry long enough for credible data to be processed and key findings extrapolated yet. But heres an honest study, UK specific called
"The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage"
which concludes
"Event-history analyses showed that same-sex cohabitations have higher rates of dissolution than do different-sex cohabiting and marital unions. Among same-sex couples, male couples had slightly higher dissolution rates than did female couples."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x/abstract
It would be better to find a cure for religion and ignorance.
Yeah but how would I force you to take it once its invented?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BaconandSauce
You can't have it both ways
either it is about God or it's a legal issue
But as marriage existed before God and before out legal system I think your talking bollox to try and justify your bigotry
also if its about children do you have issues with people marring who can't or don't want children?
either it is about God or it's a legal issue
But as marriage existed before God and before out legal system I think your talking bollox to try and justify your bigotry
also if its about children do you have issues with people marring who can't or don't want children?
Bloody hell you gays are rubbish arnt you? just spouting crap out of your own echo chamber - the bold type was asked and answered (but never rebutted) here:
"Infertility" here is a medical diagnosis which can be incorrect or reversed. Marriage is arranged regardless because one or both of the couple doesnt know/accept or doesnt trust the diagnosis or expects a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their fortunes and allow conception - this position does not contradict the marriage. Now [in the case of two [perverts] trying to use this logic they must not know/accept or not trust their perverted lifestyle choice or expect a correction or lives in hope of a medical intervention at some stage that will reverse their mis-fortune to be a [pervert] - this position would contradict the validity of their 'marriage' if they expected to not be gay in the lifetime of their gay marriage wouldnt it?
And in the case of couples who dont want children [yet] thats fine because presumably they will be subsumed under the same as above when they are ready to do so - this position also will not nullify/contradict/annul the marriage.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Heteronormative
Bloody hell you gays are rubbish arnt you?
why do you think I'm gay?
Original post by Heteronormative
I always assumed that they were no longer atheists; thats why they take their vows before God - if they acknowledge God in their lives why do you call them atheist?
Why do you assume gay people aren't Religious?
Original post by Heteronormative
No, your view is too narrow and naively simplistic. Marriage is a legal construct recognizing two families combining to produce offspring and combining estates to propagate their continued existence - homosexual relationships do not yet fulfill this criteria because they are a dead end genetically.
Marriage:
1.0 The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship
1.1 The state of being married
Sorry, but I don't see anything about offspring there
Original post by Heteronormative
Why? I've already said "Marriage is not "a recognition of a loving relationship" because there are arranged marriages and no real mechanism/test for detecting 'love', its an arrangement; sometimes ppl just do it because they have children and unifying would be better for the children even if the initial infatuation has long worn off." So stop trying to pull that same old lame gay trick. What the heterosexual couple have is the offspring or the intention to produce or the hope of producing genetic offspring an area where gays are mute so you avoid it. Marriage separates itself from civil partnerships because its a family building foundation.
Not every heterosexual couple has children, but a lot of same-sex couples do. If arranged marriages are enough of a warrant that love can't be a reason for marriage, then infertile couples are enough of a warrant for children not to be a reason either.
Original post by Heteronormative
If you just want your perverted 'love' claim recognised - civil partnerships are sufficient.
Claim? What make it any more of a claim than a heterosexual couple?
Original post by Heteronormative
I was asking for evidence that homosexuality will 'cause society endless problems'. This is not that.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Dwp pre employment checksLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Nottingham university or MMU for Msc Psychology conversion (online)Last reply 9 minutes ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 9 minutes ago
LSE Economics L100 2024 EntryPosted 15 minutes ago
Anyone still waiting for outcome of their undergraduate application?Last reply 15 minutes ago
Civil Service Fast Stream 2024 - Applicants threadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official University of Reading 2024 Applicants ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
How useful do you find YouTube for exam revision?Last reply 18 minutes ago
KPMG Audit Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
BBC General Election 2024 Poll Tracker - 17th April 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 21 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
