Should gay marrige be allowed?

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

Do enlighten me.

Enlightening the religious is pretty much impossible.

Is tit for tat repetition your usual debating style? Very adult.

Its nice to see you realise your own pathetic argument is... well pathetic.

The religious aspect of marriage celebrates exactly the same for those who want it and adhere to the requirements. All alternatives are to be welcomed for those who want them. Are you suggesting that those who marry in the church don't do so for love? How blinkered!!:D

Not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting those that do are blinkered by silly out-dated superstition.

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

Enlightening the religious is pretty much impossible.

You disputed my definition, yet seem reluctant to give one of your own, preferring to hide behind barbed comment. An entirely transparent "debating"style. Go on, put your money where your mouth is.:rotfl:

23n1th wrote: »

Its nice to see you realise your own pathetic argument is... well pathetic.

You do know what "repetitive tit for tat" is? If so, my posts don't evidence it......yours on the other hand.

23n1th wrote: »

Not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting those that do are blinkered by silly out-dated superstition.

An opinion you are fully entitled to hold. Just as I am entitled to hold mine. So, we are all happy then.:D

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

You disputed my definition, yet seem reluctant to give one of your own, preferring to hide behind barbed comment. An entirely transparent "debating"style. Go on, put your money where your mouth is.:rotfl:

I said it was confused, as you say you're entitled to your opinion. I would offer mine but there is no point as you've a tunnel vision on the issue making it impossible for you to see the bigger picture.

You do know what "repetitive tit for tat" is? If so, my posts don't evidence it......yours on the other hand.

I threw your rather pathetic response back at you, you didn't like it, so maybe you should consider a better way of debating an issue. Basically I dismissed your comment in the same way you dismissed mine.

An opinion you are fully entitled to hold. Just as I am entitled to hold mine. So, we are all happy then.:D

Yes you are entitled to believe silly fairy tales are true if you wish. However they shouldn't be allowed to stop others having the same rights as you.

The sooner these religious bigots and their organisations are stopped from discriminating the better.

Joyous_Jaci

As a lesbian, I want to know that when I find someone who I want to share my life with, I can have the same rights and pleasures as a straight person.

Before civil partnerships, gay people were dying and anti gay relatives were able to keep long term partners out of the hospital rooms, some died without saying goodbye. How can anyone want that to happen.

To all those antis out there, put yourself in the position of someone lgbt and see how you feel then.

Peace and love to all:)

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

I said it was confused, as you say you're entitled to your opinion. I would offer mine but there is no point as you've a tunnel vision on the issue making it impossible for you to see the bigger picture.

So, in other words, you cannot provide an alternative definition? I am certainly open to hearing it.

23n1th wrote: »

I threw your rather pathetic response back at you, you didn't like it, so maybe you should consider a better way of debating an issue. Basically I dismissed your comment in the same way you dismissed mine.

I made a response, you, on the other hand, then repeated my response. Usually original comment moves a debate forward, repetition rarely achieves that. Nor did it here. Your comment was "dismissed" but not in the way you countered mine. Still, imitation is they say the sincerest form of flattery.;)

23n1th wrote: »

Yes you are entitled to believe silly fairy tales are true if you wish. However they shouldn't be allowed to stop others having the same rights as you.

The sooner these religious bigots and their organisations are stopped from discriminating the better.

But if they are so silly why would others want to share them? Yet they do.....go figure.:rotfl:

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

So, in other words, you cannot provide an alternative definition? I am certainly open to hearing it.

So in other words I'm not providing you one due to the reasons already stated.

I made a response, you, on the other hand, then repeated my response. Usually original comment moves a debate forward, repetition rarely achieves that. Nor did it here. Your comment was "dismissed" but not in the way you countered mine. Still, imitation is they say the sincerest form of flattery.;)

Thats funny I remember you saying you hadn't dismissed it. Which I might add is the reason the "debate" hasn't been furthered. And in this respect the imitation was the sincerest form of mockery.

But if they are so silly why would others want to share them? Yet they do.....go figure.:rotfl:

I would imagine for the same reasons you share them; indoctrination from birth and a preference for faulty logic and the make believe. They're gay, it doesn't mean
they're anymore sensible than you, unfortunately.:rotfl:

esuhl

poet123 wrote: »

For those for whom marriage has nothing to do with religion there is a civil alternative.

No there isn't - not if they're heterosexual. Civil partnerships are not currently permitted between a mixed-sex couple. The only option they have is marriage, although of course it doesn't have to be a religious one.

Why should homosexuality be considered a "special" case?

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

So in other words I'm not providing you one due to the reasons already stated.

The onus is on the poster who claims something is incorrect or confused to give their version. If you don't, that usually means you can't, being disingenuous doesn't alter the conclusion of those who read the comments.

23n1th wrote: »

Thats funny I remember you saying you hadn't dismissed it. Which I might add is the reason the "debate" hasn't been furthered. And in this respect the imitation was the sincerest form of mockery.

You really don't get the nuance of debate do you? I said hadn't dismissed the issue you were using to point score, that didn't imply I hadn't dismissed the way you brought it to the table. If you inferred that you were incorrect.

23n1th wrote: »

I would imagine for the same reasons you share them; indoctrination from birth and a preference for faulty logic and the make believe. They're gay, it doesn't mean
they're anymore sensible than you, unfortunately.:rotfl:

They are indoctrinated, yet indulge in practices (awaits revised definition here) which are proscribed by those religions. I don't think it is my logic that is flawed.:D

poet123

esuhl wrote: »

No there isn't - not if they're heterosexual. Civil partnerships are not currently permitted between a mixed-sex couple. The only option they have is marriage, although of course it doesn't have to be a religious one.

Why should homosexuality be considered a "special" case?

Fair point.

I believe there are mixed sex couples who want civil partnerships and I am not sure why they should be denied that right. So, on the one hand we have pressure from the gay lobby to change their rights and give them both gay marriage and civil partnership options, yet the same rights are not accorded to mixed sex couples. As I understand it it is not envisaged this consultation will include the latter so why are those crying discrimination not up in arms?

MamaMoo_2

Because the people lobbying for mixed sex civil unions are doing so in the hope that it will then stand to reason that homosexuals can have civil marriages.
Also, as civil marriages and religious marriages are both already afforded to mixed sex couples (which contain the same rights as civil unions, plus more) it's unnecessary for heterosexuals to have a civil union.