Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B876 - Divorce Bill 2015 (Second Reading) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Procreation happened along time before marriage.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Marriage is the way procreation is defined as a method of creating families and gaining official status. This is the only natural process in which human life is born out of and for good reason.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Jesus, who sat at a table with prostitutes and thieves, who did not judge, who loved everyone equally, who spent everyday of his life helping the poor, who preached socialism, who preached equality. Does Ali really expect me, an Agnostic Christian, to believe that this great man would not have supported gay marriage?
    Hear hear!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage is a special union between a man and a woman that results in the creation of children and families with a mother and a father.
    That's nothing but poppycock to be honest, and a great infringment on civil liberties I must say to define something based on one's own personal opinion

    It is the institution which the vast majority of men and women on earth are born out of.
    And many people were born out of an institution which did not allow interracial marriage, what's your point?

    To change the definition of marriage is to destroy the special union in which most human life on earth is born out of.
    As I have said, nowhere is marriage marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, and never has it ever been the case. The only one changing any definitions is yourself.

    Marriage isn't simply based off of emotions but benefit society and the community as a whole. Marriage represents the self giving, life giving moral nature of God perfectly. Even if you aren't religious you have to understand the biological importance of this union and without it probably you and I wouldn't exist.
    Once again, poppycock. A complete waste of three sentences, I may have been born due to the institution of marriage, but that doesn't make it a union between a man and a woman. Nor does the fact that my birth being thanks to something give it any moral value, My great grandparents met during WW2, without WW2 I wouldn't have been born, that does not make it a good thing.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Change isn't a bad thing Sure, it typically has been between a man and a woman before, but for me as a Christian it's not what it's about. It's about the ultimate love, faith and partnership between people who are wholly comitted to each other, and that can happen regardless of gender.
    Marriage isn't simply defined by emotion but through it's benefits to society as a whole. You believe that change is good but it is the destruction of the institution of marriage. You have to realize that only heterosexual marriage would have Gods full blessing and represent the self giving, life giving moral nature of god.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't simply defined by emotion but through it's benefits to society as a whole. You believe that change is good but it is the destruction of the institution of marriage.
    No it isn't, marriage has been changing for as long as it's existed, which was initially, as I said before, a mere trade agreement.

    You have to realize that only heterosexual marriage would have Gods full blessing and represent the self giving, life giving moral nature of god.
    Oh sorry, I didn't realise. You had a chat with her then?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    That's nothing but poppycock to be honest, and a great infringment on civil liberties I must say to define something based on one's own personal opinion



    And many people were born out of an institution which did not allow interracial marriage, what's your point?



    As I have said, nowhere is marriage marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, and never has it ever been the case. The only one changing any definitions is yourself.



    Once again, poppycock. A complete waste of three sentences, I may have been born due to the institution of marriage, but that doesn't make it a union between a man and a woman. Nor does the fact that my birth being thanks to something give it any moral value, My great grandparents met during WW2, without WW2 I wouldn't have been born, that does not make it a good thing.
    A homosexual union can be defined as a civil partnership/union and given the same rights as marriage I would not have an issue with this. I only have an issue with the use if the word marriage to define this union falsely.

    Interracial marriage is also considered a marriage and doesn't violate the definition of marriage at all.

    It has always been the case for thousands of years to deny such a fact is outright deceit. You have to defend the institution of marriage and should not abandon it this way.

    Yes it does make it a good thing. You're here aren't you and wouldn't have been born if they had not met. You have to recognize this special union between a man and a woman.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't simply defined by emotion but through it's benefits to society as a whole. You believe that change is good but it is the destruction of the institution of marriage. You have to realize that only heterosexual marriage would have Gods full blessing and represent the self giving, life giving moral nature of god.
    If we're defining it in terms of benefits to society as a whole, arguably the LAST thing we need is yet more babies at the moment. A same-sex couple who are comitted, love and support each other, don't have children but are around to provide a stable home to those who can't be with their biological parents or to support other parents in their family are arguably a lot more helpful than a straight married couple pushing out seven babies they can't support themselves. So by this logic, until such a time as world population growth is at a sustainable level, we should have a ban on straight marriage
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    No it isn't, marriage has been changing for as long as it's existed, which was initially, as I said before, a mere trade agreement.



    Oh sorry, I didn't realise. You had a chat with her then?
    Marriage isn't a mere trade agreement but a special union between a man and his wife. Hopefully, you may get married in the future and realize this if you ever choose to have children or a family.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    If we're defining it in terms of benefits to society as a whole, arguably the LAST thing we need is yet more babies at the moment. A same-sex couple who are comitted, love and support each other, don't have children but are around to provide a stable home to those who can't be with their biological parents or to support other parents in their family are arguably a lot more helpful than a straight married couple pushing out seven babies they can't support themselves. So by this logic, until such a time as world population growth is at a sustainable level, we should have a ban on straight marriage
    Same sex couple have the right be committed to one another and live freely but should not be defined as a marriage but a civil union and partnership between two individuals. We should not promote homosexuality and protect the definition of marriage as well as the institution of marriage.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    A homosexual union can be defined as a civil partnership/union and given the same rights as marriage I would not have an issue with this. I only have an issue with the use if the word marriage to define this union falsely.

    Interracial marriage is also considered a marriage and doesn't violate the definition of marriage at all.

    It has always been the case for thousands of years to deny such a fact is outright deceit. You have to defend the institution of marriage and should not abandon it this way.

    Yes it does make it a good thing. You're here aren't you and wouldn't have been born if they had not met. You have to recognize this special union between a man and a woman.
    You're not saying anything of any meaning and I'm bored now.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't a mere trade agreement but a special union between a man and his wife. Hopefully, you may get married in the future and realize this if you ever choose to have children or a family.
    I have no plans to get married, but if I did then I'd marry a bloke just to get on your tits.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You're not saying anything of any meaning and I'm bored now.



    I have no plans to get married, but if I did then I'd marry a bloke just to get on your tits.
    "I'm not gay, but I wish I was, just to p*ss off the homophobes" - Kurt Cobain

    That's literally the first thing I thought when I saw your comment.

    Also, why did I get called leftist scum and you didn't? You're actually left-wing and you support Millwall, so you're clearly scum

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Same sex couple have the right be committed to one another and live freely but should not be defined as a marriage but a civil union and partnership between two individuals. We should not promote homosexuality and protect the definition of marriage as well as the institution of marriage.
    It's not promoting homosexuality. It doesn't give them anything straight people don't have. It just isn't actively repressing it either.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    "I'm not gay, but I wish I was, just to p*ss off the homophobes" - Kurt Cobain

    That's literally the first thing I thought when I saw your comment.

    Also, why did I get called leftist scum and you didn't? You're actually left-wing and you support Millwall, so you're clearly scum

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Refrain from using the word homophobe and also media that promotes the homosexual cause of destroying the institution of marriage. Kurt Cobain is an imbecile and thought his comments made him look witty or cool.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Refrain from using the word homophobe and also media that promotes the homosexual cause of destroying the institution of marriage. Kurt Cobain is an imbecile and thought his comments made him look witty or cool.
    There is nothing wrong with the word homophobe....

    The homosexual cause isn't to "destroy the institution of marriage".

    While he may have been an idiot, he was a great musician (a crap guitarist though) and came up with some brilliant quotes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It's not promoting homosexuality. It doesn't give them anything straight people don't have. It just isn't actively repressing it either.
    You are in denial. You have a moral obligation to defend the institution of marriage. Homosexuals can have their rights or union but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Refrain from using the word homophobe and also media that promotes the homosexual cause of destroying the institution of marriage. Kurt Cobain is an imbecile and thought his comments made him look witty or cool.
    I thought my comment was wittier and cooler to be honest, mostly because it was partly true. The Financier, fancy having at it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You are in denial. You have a moral obligation to defend the institution of marriage. Homosexuals can have their rights or union but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    You're the only person on this thread changing the definition of marriage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You're the only person on this thread changing the definition of marriage.
    Another witty yet stupid statement. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman period.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Another witty yet stupid statement. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman period.
    Says whom?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't have to denounce anyone of the marriages you state since they are between one and one woman. None of them violate the definition of the word marriage. Why do you insist on using this? None of them change my definition of marriage, I can't see how the definition is changed at all from one man and one woman?

    On your last statement. What??? What are you even talking about?
    None of them violate the meaning of marriage according to your definition which is post those events and pre same sex, if you wish I can break out the bible, or Koran, or whatever other religious text tomorrow and find statements on marriage that support polygamy, oppose age restrictions, endorse arranged marriages, oppose interracial marriages and whatever else, and ones that support same sex marriage; your definition should be at least as old as such texts.

    Since we're talking of ancient definitions I guess I could even do it in Hebrew for you, or Arabic of you would prefer it down the Ishmaelite route, although admittedly the Ishmaelite path only starts distinctly about 20 generations on from Adam and Steve.

    If those aren't old enough I could do some research into ancient Rome and Greece and give it to you in Latin (although it would have to be classical Latin rather than old Latin) or ancient Greek. Actually, scratch that, they had same sex relationships and I imagine formalised them too as marriage, so I guess we need to go further.

    How about I brush off my knowledge of the ancient Egyptians (sorry, won't do it in hieroglyphs, too much effort to transcribe, photo and upload) and we think of marriage back then, there was definitely polygamy, many of the Pharaoh's had dozens, if not hundreds of wives, and definitely had, by our standards, child wives, and I'm pretty sure arranged marriages too, and most probably homosexual too, but I would need to double check that.

    Want to propose something more ancient? I suppose we could go to pre history, after all, the ancient Egyptians were one of the earlier peoples with history, and then things get a bit tricky.

    Okay, that's settled, given we're going by original definitions, marriage is between at least one male of our species, with potentially hundreds or thousands of females, with no minimum age, which can be arranged by their parents for them with no say from the female; also, quite possibly males together or females together, but that's irrelevant, because we have just determined that your definition does not square up with what it should be, and you are therefore perfectly willing to redefine marriage. Congratulations, you can now stop gay bashing.

    As for the last bit, I suggest you do a bit of research into the etymology of the words "man", " woman", "human" and the old Saxon word "Mann". Actually, by that, I mean simply read on. The word human comes via Latin (and several forms of English and French) so actually is irrelevant to this all, the rest is the important bit. Let's go back to pre Norman times. Back in the time of the Saxon kingdoms there are three words we are interested in, the first is wīfmann, from it we developed the words " woman " and "wife", should be pretty clear how these things happened. The next word is wērmann, the wēr prefix determines that we are taking about a male, it is a prefix that has largely disappeared, pretty much only existing now as the were- in werewolf; after the Norman conquest the prefix was dropped, mostly by the 13th century, hence having merely the mann bit, now just man, to refer to the male. I should hope you can work out for yourself what Mann meant, it was a gender neutral term to refer to ANY member of our species, whether they be male, female, gender fluid, whatever.

    Hence why one man (Mann) and one woman (wīfmann) is the endorsing of a woman to marry whomever the hell they wish.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    No, you're intolerant of my views that's why you insist on attacking me and the only good argument you've made so far is criticizing my spelling.

    Also you are clearly defending the change of the definition of marriage to the benefit of the homosexual community. So whether you wanted to or not are supporting this false definition and in fact attempting to enforce this definition using misleading examples.
    You're pretty solidly going to be in the minority there, criticising of spelling is going to be the weakest, as for the strongest, well, highlighting hypocrisy is generally a good one, and I suppose there is the lecture above too.

    And it was interesting to see you completely overlook to fact that your suggestions would mean we actually have no laws. Actually, not quite, we would be in the EU, the London assembly would exist with an elected mayor, the hit Friday agreement would have been accepted, northern Ireland would still be in the UK, the welsh assembly would exist, as would the Scottish parliament with tax setting powers, not that taxation wound be legal, and there would be a bunch of other directly elected mayors.

    Saying that, under the anarchy you suggest we souls have I guess none of those things would have actually happened.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.