The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ejl
quote:
I can claim that you are in favour because you're selfish and greedy. How do you like that kind of comment, or is it possible to carry on a discussion?
Brian,
I'm not attacking you personally but just trying to get an argument from you that supports your position. You made all kinds of comments earlier in this thread that a man should only marry a woman, and the only argument I could find for this was your claim that same sex marriage went against tradition. I replied to this argument by pointing out why I think it's bunk.
Since then haven't given anything more except repeated assetions that it's your opinion and that you have a right to express it, and now you've added that you needn't give reasons for holding it. The problem is that bare statements of opinion are a dime a dozen; they only get interesting when people back their opinions with arguments and reasons. So I guess I'm expecting you to give reasons, and not just keep stating your opinion (which no one denies that you or anyone else here can do ad nauseam).
Eric
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by alexgerrard:
Brian
Why do you believe that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
Why does there have to be a reason? Seriously? It's like asking somebody why they believe in anything, people have their upbringing that help form the way they are, and what they believe in, what they hold as important to them. I believe in having only one wife but there are cultures where it's ok to have many wives. I don't go around asking those people why they think it's fine to have lots of wives because I only have one. It is simply that I believe in marriage in the way other people hold beliefs about their religion, for example.
I can listen to people's point of view, I understand exactly what Eric was on about earlier on regarding benefits that aren't available. And I feel some sympathy for that. But that doesn't mean I am going to be happy about same-sex marriages.
quote:
Why do you not believe that a same-sex marriage is equally valid?
We are going around in circles. I have said that I believe marriage is something between a man and a woman. I don't have to justify that to anybody, it is what I believe as others believe something else. Can you tell me why a same-sex marriage is valid? Apart from the benefits listed by Eric.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Thomas K
You are claiming that I haven't given a reason why I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Brian, Matthew's claim is absolutely correct: You haven't given any reasons, you've simply given a definition (admittedly, a very common one) of the word "marriage".
I'm sure none of the advocates would mind speaking of "same-sex life partnerships" if the terminology is all that's bothering you. We could even eliminate the terminology problem altogether by changing the definition of “marriage” (language constantly changes and is constantly changed).
It is for you to tell me why you believe marriage is not a union just between a man and a woman. So far, you have been unable to do this.
I think throbnorth and others have listed more than enough (genuine) reasons for their advocating same-sex marriages. Indeed, it is your right to oppose these reasons and argue against them, but you don’t! Instead, you’re ignoring them.
I'm expressing an opinion. It appears to me that you have no respect for anyone who has a differing opinion to your own.
Well, “black people and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” is also an opinion, but if such an opinion finds a majority and representation in legislation and government and then leads to people’s rights being curtailed, you need to back it up with reasons.
For example, “murderers should be held captive” is also an opinion, and I’m sure you could give an inquisitive child a number of convincing reasons why we curtail the civil rights of murderers. In this debate, however, all you can offer is
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong
and quite frankly, that doesn’t sit well next to
I was born in the 20th century.
Thomas
Brian, Matthew's claim is absolutely correct: You haven't given any reasons, you've simply given a definition (admittedly, a very common one) of the word "marriage".
I'm sure none of the advocates would mind speaking of "same-sex life partnerships" if the terminology is all that's bothering you. We could even eliminate the terminology problem altogether by changing the definition of “marriage” (language constantly changes and is constantly changed).
It is for you to tell me why you believe marriage is not a union just between a man and a woman. So far, you have been unable to do this.
I think throbnorth and others have listed more than enough (genuine) reasons for their advocating same-sex marriages. Indeed, it is your right to oppose these reasons and argue against them, but you don’t! Instead, you’re ignoring them.
I'm expressing an opinion. It appears to me that you have no respect for anyone who has a differing opinion to your own.
Well, “black people and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” is also an opinion, but if such an opinion finds a majority and representation in legislation and government and then leads to people’s rights being curtailed, you need to back it up with reasons.
For example, “murderers should be held captive” is also an opinion, and I’m sure you could give an inquisitive child a number of convincing reasons why we curtail the civil rights of murderers. In this debate, however, all you can offer is
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong
and quite frankly, that doesn’t sit well next to
I was born in the 20th century.
Thomas
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
While I disagree most strongly with your views I doubt if it would ever occur to me to describe them as "bizarre" because they are rather commonplace, tending to be held by religious fundamentalists and people whose morality is based on rules [e.g. the Ten Commandments] rather than values.
quote:Earlier in this thread you admitted that:
Originally posted by BrianD:
I think I may as well go away again. Some things NEVER change on this forum. The same people portray the same attitudes towards others to the point it is impossible to express an alternatve view to people on this forum.
quote:Why assume the worst? It isn't very pleasant to be labelled hypocritical on the basis of a false assumption. I cannot help wondering if the real challenge to your views is coming from within. My question about your opinion on the marriage rights of hermaphrodites was obviously intended to be amusing but it had a serious point. Since I base my views on values rather than rules it takes not a moment's thought for me to say they should be allowed to marry whoever they choose to. I was interested to know your opinion because it seemed to me that this question posed difficulties for your viewpoint. But you chose to reply with a joke.
I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.
quote:I would have thought it obvious that my use of the the term "bizarrely" was jocular. I used it simply because, as you were the only one so far to express views such as yours in this thread, it took a major act of absent-mindedness to confuse us. [Sorry, Eric].
Jeremy, it would have been easy to have just said to Eric,quote:rather than....
Eric, you seem to have confused me with BrianD.quote:
Eric, you seem, bizarrely, to have confused me with BrianD.
What are you trying to portray by using the word 'bizarrely?' People are entitled to hold differing views without them being thought of as bizarre.
While I disagree most strongly with your views I doubt if it would ever occur to me to describe them as "bizarre" because they are rather commonplace, tending to be held by religious fundamentalists and people whose morality is based on rules [e.g. the Ten Commandments] rather than values.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Eric (and others)
You repeatedly ask me to justify my belief. Why on earth should I have to justify anything to you? For example, do you all insist that a follower of some faith has to give you a reason why they hold their beliefs? Or do you just accept those beliefs without question? If so, why?
You repeatedly ask me to justify my belief. Why on earth should I have to justify anything to you? For example, do you all insist that a follower of some faith has to give you a reason why they hold their beliefs? Or do you just accept those beliefs without question? If so, why?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas K
Fine. So it's a definition. I happen to believe that it is right.
throb puts forward the same argument as Eric. It's all based on 'benefits'.
You don't need to 'back it up' with reasons to maintain something. You need to give reasons why there should be change. I'm still waiting for valid reasons regarding same-sex marriages.
Why? Are you suggesting that I should tell my daughter that it is fine for her to marry a woman, and tell my son it is fine for him to marry a man? Who do you think you are that you want to bring about a society that tells my children that this is ok?
[This message was edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 16:41.]
quote:
Brian, Matthew's claim is absolutely correct: You haven't given any reasons, you've simply given a definition (admittedly, a very common one) of the word "marriage".
Fine. So it's a definition. I happen to believe that it is right.
throb puts forward the same argument as Eric. It's all based on 'benefits'.
quote:
Well, “black people and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” is also an opinion, but if such an opinion finds a majority and representation in legislation and government and then leads to people’s rights being curtailed, you need to back it up with reasons
You don't need to 'back it up' with reasons to maintain something. You need to give reasons why there should be change. I'm still waiting for valid reasons regarding same-sex marriages.
quote:
and quite frankly, that doesn’t sit well next to ... I was born in the 20th century.
Why? Are you suggesting that I should tell my daughter that it is fine for her to marry a woman, and tell my son it is fine for him to marry a man? Who do you think you are that you want to bring about a society that tells my children that this is ok?
[This message was edited by BrianD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 16:41.]
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
I am surprised you ask. Has experience of this forum taught you nothing?
I notice 'views', not 'view'. I thought we were talking only about same-sex marriages here.
BTW I am not religious at all, let alone a fundamentalist.
quote:
Why assume the worst?
I am surprised you ask. Has experience of this forum taught you nothing?
quote:
While I disagree most strongly with your views
I notice 'views', not 'view'. I thought we were talking only about same-sex marriages here.
BTW I am not religious at all, let alone a fundamentalist.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Thomas K
Are you suggesting that I should tell my daughter that it is fine for her to marry a woman, and tell my son it is fine for him to marry a man?
That would be nice. Especially if they're gay. Sorry, homosexual.
Who do you think you are that you want to bring about a society that tells my children that this is ok?
Honestly, you're starting to sound like a rabid preacher.
You need to give reasons why there should be change.
Apart from the fact that at least one person here (Eric) has given you "reasons" that you seem to accept, and that you've not given any reasons against the change you so dread, that statement is simply absurd.
I have to go back to the 21st century to do some work now.
Thomas
That would be nice. Especially if they're gay. Sorry, homosexual.
Who do you think you are that you want to bring about a society that tells my children that this is ok?
Honestly, you're starting to sound like a rabid preacher.
You need to give reasons why there should be change.
Apart from the fact that at least one person here (Eric) has given you "reasons" that you seem to accept, and that you've not given any reasons against the change you so dread, that statement is simply absurd.
I have to go back to the 21st century to do some work now.
Thomas
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
What does this mean? Is this an attempt to discredit me in some way to people fairly new to the forum?
Not at all -- it's just that in recognising you I also remember your particular style of debate which explains the wading through molasses nature of this thread. If memory serves we are best suited to communicating in bullet points.
So:
1. You offer no reason why same-sex marriage should not be permitted other than it hasn't been permitted before.
2. Others have given very real reasons why it should be allowed (essentially that same-sex couples should be equal in law).
3. You persist with the argument that it is for others to say why it should be allowed despite the fact that it is you who seek to deny people the exact same rights that you already enjoy.
That about sums it up.
Matthew
Not at all -- it's just that in recognising you I also remember your particular style of debate which explains the wading through molasses nature of this thread. If memory serves we are best suited to communicating in bullet points.
So:
1. You offer no reason why same-sex marriage should not be permitted other than it hasn't been permitted before.
2. Others have given very real reasons why it should be allowed (essentially that same-sex couples should be equal in law).
3. You persist with the argument that it is for others to say why it should be allowed despite the fact that it is you who seek to deny people the exact same rights that you already enjoy.
That about sums it up.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Just saw a couple being interviewed in Frisco waiting to get married married alongside many others, they've been together for 28 years, an inspiration to us all innit.
Fritz Von Ifiruledtheworld
Graham Ricketts
Fritz Von Ifiruledtheworld
Graham Ricketts
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
Fritz -- that was a correctly formed sentence. What's got into you man?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
However, you expressed your view without explanation, so it seemed perfectly natural to assume you might have a reason, and to ask you about it.
When a known religious fundamentalist explains that their view on a particular topic is determined by their beliefs then I accept that this is what they believe and that there is no point in further discussion. Now that I know you don't have a reason for your view, I place it in the same category, and certainly do not demand that you provide a reason.
[This message was edited by JeremyD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 17:31.]
quote:
Why does there have to be a reason? Seriously? It's like asking somebody why they believe in anything...
quote:You certainly do not have to have a reason. After all, those of us who do have reasons for our views base these reasons on axiomatic beliefs or values that ultimately do not have reasons.
Eric (and others)
You repeatedly ask me to justify my belief. Why on earth should I have to justify anything to you? For example, do you all insist that a follower of some faith has to give you a reason why they hold their beliefs? Or do you just accept those beliefs without question? If so, why?
However, you expressed your view without explanation, so it seemed perfectly natural to assume you might have a reason, and to ask you about it.
When a known religious fundamentalist explains that their view on a particular topic is determined by their beliefs then I accept that this is what they believe and that there is no point in further discussion. Now that I know you don't have a reason for your view, I place it in the same category, and certainly do not demand that you provide a reason.
quote:No significance should be attached to my use of the word "views" in place of "view" - just sloppy grammar.
I notice 'views', not 'view'. I thought we were talking only about same-sex marriages here.
[This message was edited by JeremyD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 17:31.]
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Fritz -- that was a correctly formed sentence. What's got into you man?
An acute case of sobriety I'm afraid old chap, could be serious ?
Fritz Von Offforascan
Piss² The 3 fff's occur quite frequently in the new german grammatical fun & games, I expect my old pal Markus can tell us all about it someday, Fritz you bitch, cheers anyway.
"Zum Bleistifft Schifffsfahrt !!!! innit
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by blythe
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
Basilquote:
Brian, what difference does it make if same sex relationships are given equal recognition in law?
None.
How can you possibly say that it makes no difference?
My neighbours are an elderly Gay couple.
They've been together for 40 years - much longer than any straight couple I know - except for my parents.
When one of the Gay couple was seriously ill a few years ago, his partner was not allowed to sit with him in Intensive Care because he was not family. That is truly wrong.
Had the partner died, the house was left to his partner in his will; howeverthere are serious tax implications because they are not a legally recognised couple.
Had the mortgage not been paid off, the partner would not benefit by having the mortgage paid off as would be the case with a straight couple.
If no will was left by a man who was married to a woman, by default, the next of kin (the wife) would be the beneficary.
Not the case with a Gay couple. That is wrong.
If a straight man divorces his wife, who has probably given support to her husband for many years, she quite rightly is entitled to a hefty portion of what they had built over the years; house, money etc. They are legally obliged to split fairly.
If this happens in a Gay relationship they are entitled to bugger all. This recently happened to someone I know, one of the couple became a multi-millionaire after they'd met and the other worked hard looking after the smaller things in life, supported his partner for 19 years, looked after the house and all domestic arrangements and was left with absolutely NOTHING. This is wrong.
If a man and woman are married, the retired husband get a nice pension. He dies and usually, the widow continues to get the pension. If this were a Gay couple, the surviving partner would not get a penny. The pension would die too.
There was a comment on an earlier post with reference to "are you telling me I should tell my children it's OK for same sex marriages?" - well, if you don't, imagine the tremendous pressure on them to "conform" when they realise that they themselves are Gay.
Purely telling your children that same sex is OK will not make them Gay. They either are, or they are not.
If it turns out that they are, don't put them through the hell of thinking that it's "wrong" which will only add to the difficult time they're undoubtedly going through anyway. There are too many suicides already without adding to the figures.
I personally don't think same sex marrigaes are neccessarily "right" but there is no convincing argument as to why same sex couples shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as straight couples.
When the great British vote on the age of consent raged a few years ago, my own feeling was, yes, have an equal age of consent, but instead of lowering that age to 16 for Gays, they should have equaled Gays and straights at 18.
Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas K
And somehow I had the idea I was the one being preached at by everybody else. Unbelievable.
quote:
Honestly, you're starting to sound like a rabid preacher.
And somehow I had the idea I was the one being preached at by everybody else. Unbelievable.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
You can't stop the sarcastic, childish digs, can you?
At present, same-sex marriage is not allowed. That means that those who advocate change must forward a case FOR it, not the other way around.
Yes, I read that. And that isn't enough for me to believe making this legal is justified.
Because it is for others to provide a strong enough argument of the benefits of changing the law. Are you seriously telling me that the existence of a law has to be justified rather than reasons for a change to that law offered by those who would like to see change?
If you bother to post a reply please try to do so without sarcasm. Do you speak to people face to face in the same manner you exchange views on a forum?
quote:
Not at all -- it's just that in recognising you I also remember your particular style of debate which explains the wading through molasses nature of this thread. If memory serves we are best suited to communicating in bullet points.
You can't stop the sarcastic, childish digs, can you?
quote:
1. You offer no reason why same-sex marriage should not be permitted other than it hasn't been permitted before.
At present, same-sex marriage is not allowed. That means that those who advocate change must forward a case FOR it, not the other way around.
quote:
2. Others have given very real reasons why it should be allowed (essentially that same-sex couples should be equal in law).
Yes, I read that. And that isn't enough for me to believe making this legal is justified.
quote:
3. You persist with the argument that it is for others to say why it should be allowed despite the fact that it is you who seek to deny people the exact same rights that you already enjoy.
Because it is for others to provide a strong enough argument of the benefits of changing the law. Are you seriously telling me that the existence of a law has to be justified rather than reasons for a change to that law offered by those who would like to see change?
If you bother to post a reply please try to do so without sarcasm. Do you speak to people face to face in the same manner you exchange views on a forum?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
But Jeremy, because people don't agree with my reason, (like robinson) they arrogantly think it's not a reason.
The reason, because it's obviously escaped everybody, is that I place a very high level of importance on the relationship between a man and a woman. This is a very important relationship, I said as much when I said that in my life I have been with one woman, she is my wife now. I do not want to see the importance of marriage reduced by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. No doubt someone will ask me why I think it's importance will be reduced. Well, just accept that this is what I believe, you lot could ask me a question to every answer I give just because you don't agree with me.
No doubt those who don't agree (everybody) will still believe I haven't given a reason.
What a joke.
quote:
However, you expressed your view without explanation, so it seemed perfectly natural to assume you might have a reason, and to ask you about it.
But Jeremy, because people don't agree with my reason, (like robinson) they arrogantly think it's not a reason.
The reason, because it's obviously escaped everybody, is that I place a very high level of importance on the relationship between a man and a woman. This is a very important relationship, I said as much when I said that in my life I have been with one woman, she is my wife now. I do not want to see the importance of marriage reduced by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. No doubt someone will ask me why I think it's importance will be reduced. Well, just accept that this is what I believe, you lot could ask me a question to every answer I give just because you don't agree with me.
No doubt those who don't agree (everybody) will still believe I haven't given a reason.
What a joke.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
"At present, same-sex marriage is not allowed. That means that those who advocate change must forward a case FOR it, not the other way around"
Which they have done.
"And that isn't enough for me to believe making this legal is justified"
Which rather begs the question why not?
On what basis do you grant legal rights to different-sex couples and deny them to same-sex couples?
"Are you seriously telling me that the existence of a law has to be justified rather than reasons for a change to that law offered by those who would like to see change?"
More sophistry.
1. Different-sex couples enjoy certain legal rights
2. It is suggested that same-sex couples should enjoy those same rights.
3. The reasons for this is a simple case of natural justice: the vast majority of people beleive it is, generally speaking, wrong to deny rights to one group over another based on arbitary differences.
4. You disagree and say this should not be allowed and refuse to give any reason to support this view.
5. In the absence of you offering no reason to support your wish to deny these rights to others I think it's reasonable to regard your views as simple personal preference which carry little to no merit in deciding if such changes should be made.
"If you bother to post a reply please try to do so without sarcasm"
I'll reply how I see fit. In this case you are making what I beleive to be stuipd, illogical arguments that I am striving to debunk by ridiculing them. Note that I am not attacking you but your arguments which I beleive to be nonsensical.
Matthew
Which they have done.
"And that isn't enough for me to believe making this legal is justified"
Which rather begs the question why not?
On what basis do you grant legal rights to different-sex couples and deny them to same-sex couples?
"Are you seriously telling me that the existence of a law has to be justified rather than reasons for a change to that law offered by those who would like to see change?"
More sophistry.
1. Different-sex couples enjoy certain legal rights
2. It is suggested that same-sex couples should enjoy those same rights.
3. The reasons for this is a simple case of natural justice: the vast majority of people beleive it is, generally speaking, wrong to deny rights to one group over another based on arbitary differences.
4. You disagree and say this should not be allowed and refuse to give any reason to support this view.
5. In the absence of you offering no reason to support your wish to deny these rights to others I think it's reasonable to regard your views as simple personal preference which carry little to no merit in deciding if such changes should be made.
"If you bother to post a reply please try to do so without sarcasm"
I'll reply how I see fit. In this case you are making what I beleive to be stuipd, illogical arguments that I am striving to debunk by ridiculing them. Note that I am not attacking you but your arguments which I beleive to be nonsensical.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Nick
You can put words in my mouth all you like, it's the sarcastic one's that get on my wick because it achieves absolutely nothing apart from making them look stupid.
Anyway, to answer your well phrased question. I'm not bothered about whether commitment and love is possible in a same-sex relationship. It quite probably is, but that's not the issue for me, as far as I'm concerned these people can live together and love each other all they like and I've no problem with that. But the stability of society is built around the family and marriage of a man and woman imo is part of that. It is important for society to have this, one of the reasons the country is going to rack and ruin is the way the tories destroyed local communities and destroyed the togetherness of the family unit. The family unit starts imo with the marriage of a man and a woman. My 2 kids love to see their grandfather and grandmother on my wifes side of the family, they love to see their other grandmother, who is my mother. I loved to spend time with my grandfather and grandmother. It is part of being a unit, it is the fabric of our society.
Other than allowing people access to some mainly financial benefits, I see no reason for same-sex marriages at all.
Again, just my opinion. No doubt it's a load of balls to some on this forum so it's not even worthy of being called an opinion.
quote:
Can I ask you, do you believe that that sort of commitment and love is not possible in single-sex relationships? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but is that why you believe single-sex marriages would reduce the importance of heterosexual marriage?
You can put words in my mouth all you like, it's the sarcastic one's that get on my wick because it achieves absolutely nothing apart from making them look stupid.
Anyway, to answer your well phrased question. I'm not bothered about whether commitment and love is possible in a same-sex relationship. It quite probably is, but that's not the issue for me, as far as I'm concerned these people can live together and love each other all they like and I've no problem with that. But the stability of society is built around the family and marriage of a man and woman imo is part of that. It is important for society to have this, one of the reasons the country is going to rack and ruin is the way the tories destroyed local communities and destroyed the togetherness of the family unit. The family unit starts imo with the marriage of a man and a woman. My 2 kids love to see their grandfather and grandmother on my wifes side of the family, they love to see their other grandmother, who is my mother. I loved to spend time with my grandfather and grandmother. It is part of being a unit, it is the fabric of our society.
Other than allowing people access to some mainly financial benefits, I see no reason for same-sex marriages at all.
Again, just my opinion. No doubt it's a load of balls to some on this forum so it's not even worthy of being called an opinion.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
Until that comment I thought you were being quite understanding of the fact that I hold a different opinion to others. Seemingly not.
Why is it that people on this forum are unable to make a post without some kind of personal attack in there somewhere?
I'm off out for a beer now.
quote:
To suggest that same-sex marriages would somehow denigrate the value of all marriages is a pretty arrogant and offensive viewpoint.
Until that comment I thought you were being quite understanding of the fact that I hold a different opinion to others. Seemingly not.
Why is it that people on this forum are unable to make a post without some kind of personal attack in there somewhere?
I'm off out for a beer now.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
What is your problem?
I can give any answer to anything you ask, if you don't agree with my answer you will ask me 'why'. There is no point in discussing anything with you at all. You have the gall to speak of my 'style', your particular style is to simply go on and on and on and on and on when someone doesn't agree with you.
quote:
Which rather begs the question why not?
What is your problem?
I can give any answer to anything you ask, if you don't agree with my answer you will ask me 'why'. There is no point in discussing anything with you at all. You have the gall to speak of my 'style', your particular style is to simply go on and on and on and on and on when someone doesn't agree with you.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
From my point of view it is difficult to see how increasing the number of people whose lifelong committment to each other is legally recognised could reduce the "importance"* of marriage - quite the reverse, if anything...
* I had better add, to avoid potential further complications, that my use of inverted commas is not intended to cast doubt on the importance of marriage but to acknowledge that while I am not entirely certain what the phrase "the importance of marriage" means I don't particularly feel a need to ask. [It's amazing what you can do with punctuation
].
[This message was edited by JeremyD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 19:26.]
quote:I have just reviewed every one of your posts in this thread, and your one but last post (i.e. the one I am quoting from) is the only one where you provided a reason. You cannot now claim that you gave a reason earlier. Before that you said:
But Jeremy, because people don't agree with my reason, (like robinson) they arrogantly think it's not a reason.
quote:The reason you have now provided is this:
You are claiming that I haven't given a reason why I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. My answer is I don't need to.
quote:You seem offended by the thought that anyone might ask you to explain this view, but if you want anyone to understand your viewpoint then I cannot see why you would not want to provide an explanation.
I do not want to see the importance of marriage reduced by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.
From my point of view it is difficult to see how increasing the number of people whose lifelong committment to each other is legally recognised could reduce the "importance"* of marriage - quite the reverse, if anything...
* I had better add, to avoid potential further complications, that my use of inverted commas is not intended to cast doubt on the importance of marriage but to acknowledge that while I am not entirely certain what the phrase "the importance of marriage" means I don't particularly feel a need to ask. [It's amazing what you can do with punctuation
].[This message was edited by JeremyD on TUESDAY 17 February 2004 at 19:26.]
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
BTW When it comes to opinions, all you've done so far is offer a link to someone elses' opinion, be pedantic with Jeremy while discussing the meaing of a word and then argue with me, probably because as you openly said, you now realise that "I am that BrianD".
Sums you up. You have nowt very much to say, mate.
BTW When it comes to opinions, all you've done so far is offer a link to someone elses' opinion, be pedantic with Jeremy while discussing the meaing of a word and then argue with me, probably because as you openly said, you now realise that "I am that BrianD".
Sums you up. You have nowt very much to say, mate.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
What has happened to you in the last 2 years? You surprise me. Although we often disagreed in the past I always thought that you grasped what was being said.
I never said I gave a reason earlier, in fact, I said that I didn't see why I have to give a reason to maintain a current law. I said that it is for others to provide convincing reasons to change an existing law and I still think so.
quote:
You cannot now claim that you gave a reason earlier.
What has happened to you in the last 2 years? You surprise me. Although we often disagreed in the past I always thought that you grasped what was being said.
I never said I gave a reason earlier, in fact, I said that I didn't see why I have to give a reason to maintain a current law. I said that it is for others to provide convincing reasons to change an existing law and I still think so.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
"If looks could kill, they probably will, in games without frontiers, War without tears" seemed appropiate I thought, innit ?
Fritz Von Therighttolaugh
Fritz Von Therighttolaugh