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 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 Former member
Brian
You said:
And I said:
How is it possible that you meant something other than the conclusion that I came to?
That I find such a conclusion arrogant and offensive is my right - just as I am offended by bigotry and prejudice in many other spheres.
Am I not "allowed" to state that I find your viewpoint arrogant and offensive, yet you are equally "allowed" to state such a view?
I have been with my partner for eight years now. We are not married. Is my relationship invalid? Am I a second class citizen?
Should we enjoy the same legal rights as any other partnership? Or does the answer to that last question depend on the gender of my partner?
Food for thought?
Alex
You said:
quote:
I do not want to see the importance of marriage reduced by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.
And I said:
quote:
To suggest that same-sex marriages would somehow denigrate the value of all marriages is a pretty arrogant and offensive viewpoint.
How is it possible that you meant something other than the conclusion that I came to?
That I find such a conclusion arrogant and offensive is my right - just as I am offended by bigotry and prejudice in many other spheres.
Am I not "allowed" to state that I find your viewpoint arrogant and offensive, yet you are equally "allowed" to state such a view?
I have been with my partner for eight years now. We are not married. Is my relationship invalid? Am I a second class citizen?
Should we enjoy the same legal rights as any other partnership? Or does the answer to that last question depend on the gender of my partner?
Food for thought?
Alex
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
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
Read your entire post. What I'm getting at is that until the last paragraph that I quoted back to you, your post sounded that although you didn't agree, you were at least granting me the right of an opinion. Your last paragraph appears to go against that.
Err, is this just as it is my right to believe same-sex marriages should not be allowed?
Of course you are. But surely you see that the way everybody is taking a pop at me here makes me believe that many believe I should not be allowed to hold my point of view. Am I not allowed to state that same-sex marriages should not be allowed?
Why should you be? Just as long as you don't expect the same treatment as those who get married. BTW I lived with my wife for 12 months before we were married.
Why should it? It seems to me that some of you people have an agenda here. I would not give the same rights to men and women living together as a man and woman who are married.
No doubt, I'll be asked why by the pedant.
quote:
How is it possible that you meant something other than the conclusion that I came to?
Read your entire post. What I'm getting at is that until the last paragraph that I quoted back to you, your post sounded that although you didn't agree, you were at least granting me the right of an opinion. Your last paragraph appears to go against that.
quote:
That I find such a conclusion arrogant and offensive is my right
Err, is this just as it is my right to believe same-sex marriages should not be allowed?
quote:
Am I not "allowed" to state that I find your viewpoint arrogant and offensive, yet you are equally "allowed" to state such a view?
Of course you are. But surely you see that the way everybody is taking a pop at me here makes me believe that many believe I should not be allowed to hold my point of view. Am I not allowed to state that same-sex marriages should not be allowed?
quote:
I have been with my partner for eight years now. We are not married. Is my relationship invalid? Am I a second class citizen?
Why should you be? Just as long as you don't expect the same treatment as those who get married. BTW I lived with my wife for 12 months before we were married.
quote:
Should we enjoy the same legal rights as any other partnership? Or does the answer to that last question depend on the gender of my partner?
Why should it? It seems to me that some of you people have an agenda here. I would not give the same rights to men and women living together as a man and woman who are married.
No doubt, I'll be asked why by the pedant.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
But the stability of society is built around the family and marriage of a man and woman imo is part of that.
Then shouldn't banning divorces be the top priority? I mean, divorces undoubtedly tear families apart.
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but is it safe to say that you're uncertain whether same-sex couples can successfully raise responsible children (adopted or otherwise) loved by the couple and the couple's parents, and who later contribute positively to society?
IMO and observations "deadbeat dads" and divorced moms working 3 jobs to support their kids are more harmful to family than two loving partners under the same roof.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Former member
quote:The only agenda I can see here Brian is quite a wide variety of people in favour of single-sex marriage (for want of a decent vocabulary) who find your argument against it somewhat thin and unsubstantiated, though I'm a little further on in understanding your position thanks to your reply.
It seems to me that some of you people have an agenda here
Or do you think were all raving queens out to subvert society?
nick.lees at btinternet.com
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,].
quote:Nothing surprises me here - I'm not even surprised by the fact that I've surprised both you and Matthew in the same thread. [OK, I am really
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.
].quote:You are probably right in saying that you never actually said that you gave a reason earlier but you did say (as I previously quoted):
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:It appears, therefore, that what you are saying is essentially that because people disagreed with a reason that you did not express, they thought this reason ( of which they knew nothing) was not a reason. Do you really think this is a reasonable position?
But Jeremy, because people don't agree with my reason, (like robinson) they arrogantly think it's not a reason.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Former member
Dear All,
There are times when you read a Thread that is simply too important to ignore. I hope that my deeply held opinion is not offensive. It is quite reasonable to express an opinion, but not perhaps to berate those whose opinions differ. (Sorry IMHO).
The question of homosexuality is something which is related to the nature/ nurture thing, and far too complicated to cover in the miriad possibilties as expressed in individuals. It is, however, certain that some people are completely homosexual, and that they are not making a choice to be so. It is considered a natural enough phenomenon, in other species...
So what we are talking about is not a question of Politically Correct Madness, so much as a reasonable ability to accept people of differing sexualities to our own in seious long term and loving relationships and also accept such relationships should be recognised with the same legal rights as those in what we call the conventional "marriage." I have no problem with this as homosexual relationships exist - inevitably. Homosexuals are no worse and no better, no more and no less natural, and so on, than any other particular section of society. Therefore even though I do not fall into the group who would benefit from this proposed legal change, I can see every reason why it is a decent and enlightened thing to do, not just accept, but welcome it. This, especially if it makes some people concerned happier, and more equitably treated.
To those who protest that this is the begining of the end of Society and family life, do you really beleive that keeping these legal rights back, is going to stop long-term homosexual relationships going on? surely no legislation is going to affect that. It has failed all through history till now. Just welcome the chance to allow some people to be happier than otherwise, and welcome the legal recognition of this type of Union (I shall avoid the emotive M- word), and accept that there are many more serious and vexing problems even associated with the conventional arrangements to worry ourselves about.
In a way it does not matter for when society as whole changes its view, then democracy tends to see that this is reflected in law anyway, and I suspect that IS the way Society IS moving.
I hope no one is offended by this, even if it is at the polar opposite of your own view.
Yours sincerely, Fredrik Fiske
There are times when you read a Thread that is simply too important to ignore. I hope that my deeply held opinion is not offensive. It is quite reasonable to express an opinion, but not perhaps to berate those whose opinions differ. (Sorry IMHO).
The question of homosexuality is something which is related to the nature/ nurture thing, and far too complicated to cover in the miriad possibilties as expressed in individuals. It is, however, certain that some people are completely homosexual, and that they are not making a choice to be so. It is considered a natural enough phenomenon, in other species...
So what we are talking about is not a question of Politically Correct Madness, so much as a reasonable ability to accept people of differing sexualities to our own in seious long term and loving relationships and also accept such relationships should be recognised with the same legal rights as those in what we call the conventional "marriage." I have no problem with this as homosexual relationships exist - inevitably. Homosexuals are no worse and no better, no more and no less natural, and so on, than any other particular section of society. Therefore even though I do not fall into the group who would benefit from this proposed legal change, I can see every reason why it is a decent and enlightened thing to do, not just accept, but welcome it. This, especially if it makes some people concerned happier, and more equitably treated.
To those who protest that this is the begining of the end of Society and family life, do you really beleive that keeping these legal rights back, is going to stop long-term homosexual relationships going on? surely no legislation is going to affect that. It has failed all through history till now. Just welcome the chance to allow some people to be happier than otherwise, and welcome the legal recognition of this type of Union (I shall avoid the emotive M- word), and accept that there are many more serious and vexing problems even associated with the conventional arrangements to worry ourselves about.
In a way it does not matter for when society as whole changes its view, then democracy tends to see that this is reflected in law anyway, and I suspect that IS the way Society IS moving.
I hope no one is offended by this, even if it is at the polar opposite of your own view.
Yours sincerely, Fredrik Fiske
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Phil Barry
Frankly, I'm surprised that there's only one major voice against same-sex marriage in this thread. This is gratifying.
BrianD seems to have gotten this backward. Courts are now ruling that limiting marriage to traditional couples violates same-sex couples' civil rights (equal protection clause, as explained above, so many pages back).
It is now up to the opponents of same-sex marriage to convince us why these couples' rights should be limited.
It might also behoove the opponents to explain how society will be damaged by same-sex marriage. Like BrianD, I love my wife, though my memories of the 1st 25 years are dimming.
I don't care what any law says - if I weren't married to her, I'd have sought the carnal comfort from women.
How will the acceptability of same-sex marriage damage any straight boy or girl?
As far as I can tell, the only person whose life would be changed is the closet homosexual who is forced into a straight - or semi-straight - life by society's disregard for homosexuals.
With same-sex marriage available, these people may be saved from hellish lives - and, in living a life truer to themselves, these people may have more positive influence on those around them.
I can't help thinking that a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on fear of homosexuality.
Homosexuals are small in number, and they're simply not a threat to anything good and holy (despite the comments in the Bible).
How can we turn our backs on our homosexual brothers, sisters, children, parents, aunts, uncles, colleagues, and friends? How can we let the Law treat them differently than it treats straight people?
I can undersatnd being uneasy with the sexual practices of consenting adult straight and/or gay people. I can't understand translating that uneasiness into a prohibition on those practices (emphasizing 'between consenting adults').
Opponents of same sex marriage also owe us an explanation of what love has to do with it. Historically, across many - perhaps all - cultures, marriage has been an institution for managing wealth and political power. In Europe, the Church may have preached marriage as an institution for child-rearing, but the sermons were honored in the breech.
And if the argument is that same-sex marriages cannot naturally produce children of the 2 partners, then I ask if the proposed laws against same-sex marriages will include clauses annuling marriages which do not produce children?
The human population includes lots of characteristics which offend someone - but we're all entitled to respect from each other, and that requires equal protection under Law.
BrianD seems to have gotten this backward. Courts are now ruling that limiting marriage to traditional couples violates same-sex couples' civil rights (equal protection clause, as explained above, so many pages back).
It is now up to the opponents of same-sex marriage to convince us why these couples' rights should be limited.
It might also behoove the opponents to explain how society will be damaged by same-sex marriage. Like BrianD, I love my wife, though my memories of the 1st 25 years are dimming.
I don't care what any law says - if I weren't married to her, I'd have sought the carnal comfort from women.
How will the acceptability of same-sex marriage damage any straight boy or girl?
As far as I can tell, the only person whose life would be changed is the closet homosexual who is forced into a straight - or semi-straight - life by society's disregard for homosexuals.
With same-sex marriage available, these people may be saved from hellish lives - and, in living a life truer to themselves, these people may have more positive influence on those around them.
I can't help thinking that a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on fear of homosexuality.
Homosexuals are small in number, and they're simply not a threat to anything good and holy (despite the comments in the Bible).
How can we turn our backs on our homosexual brothers, sisters, children, parents, aunts, uncles, colleagues, and friends? How can we let the Law treat them differently than it treats straight people?
I can undersatnd being uneasy with the sexual practices of consenting adult straight and/or gay people. I can't understand translating that uneasiness into a prohibition on those practices (emphasizing 'between consenting adults').
Opponents of same sex marriage also owe us an explanation of what love has to do with it. Historically, across many - perhaps all - cultures, marriage has been an institution for managing wealth and political power. In Europe, the Church may have preached marriage as an institution for child-rearing, but the sermons were honored in the breech.
And if the argument is that same-sex marriages cannot naturally produce children of the 2 partners, then I ask if the proposed laws against same-sex marriages will include clauses annuling marriages which do not produce children?
The human population includes lots of characteristics which offend someone - but we're all entitled to respect from each other, and that requires equal protection under Law.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by matthewr
Brian,
After a lond day at work I am about out of the energy required to further bang my head against the brick wall of your logic. I think our respective positions are clear.
However, when you say "BTW When it comes to opinions, all you've done so far [is] nowt very much" I think you do me a grave disservice and would like to point out that I answered Ludwig's original question with a quote from the relevant legal ruling and provided links to further reading on the subject.
And, for the record, whatever meaning your defensiveness and seeming paranoia might ascribe to my style of argument, I'm not that one who felt the need to personally attack the other or ended up having to censor my own postings to remove some (presumed) gratuitously offense remark.
Matthew
After a lond day at work I am about out of the energy required to further bang my head against the brick wall of your logic. I think our respective positions are clear.
However, when you say "BTW When it comes to opinions, all you've done so far [is] nowt very much" I think you do me a grave disservice and would like to point out that I answered Ludwig's original question with a quote from the relevant legal ruling and provided links to further reading on the subject.
And, for the record, whatever meaning your defensiveness and seeming paranoia might ascribe to my style of argument, I'm not that one who felt the need to personally attack the other or ended up having to censor my own postings to remove some (presumed) gratuitously offense remark.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
They can't be banned, but they should certainly be made more difficult to obtain. Nowadays, divorce is far too easy and I think that is bad.
Again, fill your boots, just don't be sarcastic like some are.
Yes, it's safe to say that. I don't believe a same-sex marriage is a proper environment in which to raise a child.
I've heard this argument before. While it's true to say that 'deadbeat dads' and women holding down 3 jobs is a poor environment, that doesn't make a same-sex environment a good environment.
quote:
Then shouldn't banning divorces be the top priority? I mean, divorces undoubtedly tear families apart.
They can't be banned, but they should certainly be made more difficult to obtain. Nowadays, divorce is far too easy and I think that is bad.
quote:
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth,
Again, fill your boots, just don't be sarcastic like some are.
quote:
but is it safe to say that you're uncertain whether same-sex couples can successfully raise responsible children (adopted or otherwise) loved by the couple and the couple's parents, and who later contribute positively to society?
Yes, it's safe to say that. I don't believe a same-sex marriage is a proper environment in which to raise a child.
quote:
IMO and observations "deadbeat dads" and divorced moms working 3 jobs to support their kids are more harmful to family than two loving partners under the same roof.
I've heard this argument before. While it's true to say that 'deadbeat dads' and women holding down 3 jobs is a poor environment, that doesn't make a same-sex environment a good environment.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Nick
Probably no more than some on here have me marked down as someone who hates 'queers', for want of a better word.
quote:
Or do you think were all raving queens out to subvert society?
Probably no more than some on here have me marked down as someone who hates 'queers', for want of a better word.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by John C
Brian you are a bollix.
John
John
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Just a reminder as you appear to have forgotten, earlier in this thread you got personal when you said...
The bit I edited was simply a statement to the effect that this is the type of remark I expected from you.
John C
You may not agree, but here we have someone else who is free and easy with insults over a public forum. I hope you're proud of yourself. Can't quite see how thinking that a man marrying a man is wrong makes me a *bollix*. Are you another who can't stand someone to have an opposite view to yourself and so throws childish insults around behind the safety of your PC? You people talk about tolerance, yet you show none yourselves, you can't even tolerate an opinion. Why am I not surprised? What a self-righteous bunch you are.
Just a reminder as you appear to have forgotten, earlier in this thread you got personal when you said...
quote:
(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)
The bit I edited was simply a statement to the effect that this is the type of remark I expected from you.
John C
You may not agree, but here we have someone else who is free and easy with insults over a public forum. I hope you're proud of yourself. Can't quite see how thinking that a man marrying a man is wrong makes me a *bollix*. Are you another who can't stand someone to have an opposite view to yourself and so throws childish insults around behind the safety of your PC? You people talk about tolerance, yet you show none yourselves, you can't even tolerate an opinion. Why am I not surprised? What a self-righteous bunch you are.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by John C
Complete bollocks.
John
John
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by John C:
Complete bollocks.
John
Err aye. Brave boy, aren't you?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by John C
Brian for Gods sake pull yourself together. Everyone else on this thread (me excepted) has made a serious and cogent argument, you in turn have hidden behind your self important "belief". If you don't like gay people come out and say it.
John
John
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Let me just say one thing to people like matthew and John C, who prefer to simply be personal with either sarcasm, or in John's case just be stupid.
I am reading the argument in every post. For those of you who realise I'm not a lone voice (although I am on this thread) you should see this as an opportunity to convince me I'm wrong by the strength of your argument and persuade me to change my view. Is this not the purpose of discussion? I have not thrown personal insults at individuals on the basis that I don't like their opinion. People like Matthew and John C go a very long way to simply making people like me switch off and disregard the arguments being put forward. Not a very intelligent approach, is it?
I am reading the argument in every post. For those of you who realise I'm not a lone voice (although I am on this thread) you should see this as an opportunity to convince me I'm wrong by the strength of your argument and persuade me to change my view. Is this not the purpose of discussion? I have not thrown personal insults at individuals on the basis that I don't like their opinion. People like Matthew and John C go a very long way to simply making people like me switch off and disregard the arguments being put forward. Not a very intelligent approach, is it?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
John C
At last, someone who has actually come out and said what I know you all believe. Despite your pathetic posts earlier I admire you for this one. Very good, John. (Pathetic is a bit strong, sorry. Perhaps 'daft' is a better description...I'm on about the contructive 'bollix' post)
The answer to this charge is no. But of course, you won't believe me, so does it matter what I say?
Suffice to say, in an earlier post I said I wouldn't give the same legal rights to a cohabiting man and woman as those rights that are given to a married man and woman. The issue of benefits put forward as a reason to allow same-sex marriages is, to me, not a valid reason. If it was, I would agree to this for a cohabiting couple, yet I don't.
BTW John, to me, my 'belief' that you so lightly dismiss, is as important to me as anything else other people may believe in that isn't questioned.
quote:
If you don't like gay people come out and say it.
At last, someone who has actually come out and said what I know you all believe. Despite your pathetic posts earlier I admire you for this one. Very good, John. (Pathetic is a bit strong, sorry. Perhaps 'daft' is a better description...I'm on about the contructive 'bollix' post)
The answer to this charge is no. But of course, you won't believe me, so does it matter what I say?
Suffice to say, in an earlier post I said I wouldn't give the same legal rights to a cohabiting man and woman as those rights that are given to a married man and woman. The issue of benefits put forward as a reason to allow same-sex marriages is, to me, not a valid reason. If it was, I would agree to this for a cohabiting couple, yet I don't.
BTW John, to me, my 'belief' that you so lightly dismiss, is as important to me as anything else other people may believe in that isn't questioned.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by John C
I agree I have been stupid. Unfortunately the pages of intelligent argument that went before did not break through your shell. As I understand it noone is trying to persuade you of anything. Everyone has accepted your "belief". They only want to understand the reasoning behind it. You appear coy with that reasoning. My conclusion is you are a homophobe. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise.
John
ps The benefits to same sex marriage as I understand it are economic and errrm the usual ..they love each other.
John
ps The benefits to same sex marriage as I understand it are economic and errrm the usual ..they love each other.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Former member
quote:
...in an earlier post I said I wouldn't give the same legal rights to a cohabiting man and woman as those rights that are given to a married man and woman. The issue of benefits put forward as a reason to allow same-sex marriages is, to me, not a valid reason. If it was, I would agree to this for a cohabiting couple, yet I don't.
Brian
You didn't explain how you came to your conclusions, you have simply stated it is your belief, that same sex unions are bad, that it's improper to raise a child in such a union - without anything to back it up.
That's fair enough, and no-one can question the validity of any belief, but beliefs are borne of experience/circumstance/logic. There have been plenty of well reasoned, logical, well constructed and, frankly, good posts from Throb, Phil, Fredrik etc all pointing to reasons why equality should (and in all likelihood will) pervade.
You explicitly stated that you weren't religious, and that your belief system wasn't derived from religion, but you haven't said how you have come to your conclusions.
And yet isn't marriage primarily a religious ceremony and contract?
ag
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
John
You can conclude what you like. I'm happy enough to know that you are wrong in this conclusion. A natural enough one to make and one I've been waiting for since my first post.
The main reasons being put forward are economic. Not good enough, in my homophobic opinion.
Well, their lack of agreement is causing them to fail to understand the reasoning behind it.
I am not saying that my reasoning is not flawed, anybody who says that of themselves is a fool imo. In a few years time I may well look back and realise I am wrong. But this is what I believe right now and I really don't see why some people, who claim to want tolerance, or better, acceptance, are unable to tolerate an opposing view.
I also don't see why my having this view should lead you to believe I 'do not like gays'. The only thing I would stop gay people doing is marrying. That's it. Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women. But, for same-sex couples, that should be done through the legal system without them being allowed to marry. I would have no problem with that. Would they then still want to marry?
Isn't the point of a debate to attempt to persuade someone they are wrong? I do have an open mind, I can be persuaded by discussion although not by sarcasm and/or insults.
quote:
My conclusion is you are a homophobe
You can conclude what you like. I'm happy enough to know that you are wrong in this conclusion. A natural enough one to make and one I've been waiting for since my first post.
quote:
The benefits to same sex marriage as I understand it are economic and errrm the usual ..they love each other.
The main reasons being put forward are economic. Not good enough, in my homophobic opinion.
quote:
As I understand it no one is trying to persuade you of anything. Everyone has accepted your "belief". They only want to understand the reasoning behind it.
Well, their lack of agreement is causing them to fail to understand the reasoning behind it.
I am not saying that my reasoning is not flawed, anybody who says that of themselves is a fool imo. In a few years time I may well look back and realise I am wrong. But this is what I believe right now and I really don't see why some people, who claim to want tolerance, or better, acceptance, are unable to tolerate an opposing view.
I also don't see why my having this view should lead you to believe I 'do not like gays'. The only thing I would stop gay people doing is marrying. That's it. Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women. But, for same-sex couples, that should be done through the legal system without them being allowed to marry. I would have no problem with that. Would they then still want to marry?
Isn't the point of a debate to attempt to persuade someone they are wrong? I do have an open mind, I can be persuaded by discussion although not by sarcasm and/or insults.