Originally posted by Flosshilde
View Post
Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
amateur51
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by french frank View PostI don't think that answered the question about Darby and Derek. If you consider me one of 'the same set of characters', I'm surprised: I hardly every express an opinion on the subject - merely a sigh each time it's revisited.
Not sure I get your point about Darby and Derek. As I firmly believe that marriage is for heterosexuals only I'm not likely to agree with you, am I?
That is not to say I wouldn't wish Darby and Derek all the companionship and happiness in the world and they can easily commit officially to each other by way of a Civil Partnership from which heterosexuals are currently barred.
So where's the problem regarding 'unfair discrimination' and 'lack of equality'?
Sorry for again being 'repetitive' in giving the same old answers but I'm in turn being bombarded with the same old questions!
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostI agree you don't get involved too much in such debates (wisely) but (not for the first time) you did express an opinion on the matter which has contributed to the debate.
Not sure I get your point about Darby and Derek. As I firmly believe that marriage is for heterosexuals only I'm not likely to agree with you, am I?
That is not to say I wouldn't wish Darby and Derek all the companionship and happiness in the world and they can easily commit officially to each other by way of a Civil Partnership from which heterosexuals are currently barred.
So where's the problem regarding 'unfair discrimination' and 'lack of equality'?
Sorry for again being 'repetitive' in giving the same old answers but I'm in turn being bombarded with the same old questions!
Comment
-
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by vinteuil View PostI certainly hope so too!!
But many men want to marry women, many women want to marry men, many men want to marry men, many women want to marry women.
And I can't see any reason why they shouldn't if that's what they want to do....
[EDIT - I think we're still waiting for Scotty to give his reasons as to why they shouldn't... ]
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by ahinton View PostBut whatever you may think of same sex marriage as an institution (and you've just about made us all aware of your view of that!), what do you think about it, dispassionately, as a candidate for export? Do you think that it could help to improve the ailing British economy?
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostAs I firmly believe that marriage is for heterosexuals only I'm not likely to agree with you, am I?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostI believe that marriage is between a man and a womanOriginally posted by vinteuil View Post... and so your "belief" should stop people who wish to be happy by getting married from doing so???
What kind of reason is that?
Originally posted by vinteuil View Post... But many men want to marry women, many women want to marry men, many men want to marry men, many women want to marry women.
And I can't see any reason why they shouldn't if that's what they want to do....
[EDIT - I think we're still waiting for Scotty to give his reasons as to why they shouldn't... ]Originally posted by scottycelt View PostI don't wish to be too unkind, vinteuil, but have you ever considered a visit to Specsavers ... ?
But I think the answer has been provided above - your objection is that, as Flosshilde put it -
Originally posted by Flosshilde View PostI think he's given his reasons - which amount to 'I don't like it'.
Comment
-
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by french frank View PostNo, you're not. But as the issue (as I expressed it re Darby and Joan) had nothing do with the natural production or rearing of children, your firm belief is apparently grounded on what has always been the case and what the dictionaries say. Neither of which has been resistant to change in many cases. Indeed, even in this matter, both have changed.
If you are right there is no earthly reason why the word 'man' could not now be altered to include 'woman' on the grounds of discrimination and vice-versa? After all, with the advent of 'gay marriage' the words 'husband' and 'wife' are set to disappear (officially) as the French have already discovered!
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by vinteuil View PostIt wd help, Scotty, if you answered the question.
But I think the answer has been provided above - your objection is that, as Flosshilde put it -
Well, of course I (and many others) 'don't like it' when social-engineering politicians start meddling with the long-standing meaning of words.
My objection is simple and straightforward and should be easily understood. Unlike others, I didn't make up my own definition of marriage. I have simply believed what it has always been defined in every dictionary and by every person for centuries until now. Like an elephant is an elephant and a giraffe a giraffe.
What is so difficult to understand about this apparently revolutionary concept, vinteuil ... ?Last edited by Guest; 27-07-13, 19:23.
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostThere is no law that says that marrieds must have children, obviously some cannot. But marriage has always MEANT the union of a man and woman and nothing else. It has been a clearly defined term for the official union of two of the opposite sex
If you are right there is no earthly reason why the word 'man' could not now be altered to include 'woman' on the grounds of discrimination and vice-versa? After all, with the advent of 'gay marriage' the words 'husband' and 'wife' are set to disappear (officially) as the French have already discovered!
how about MUSIC for example ?
Music has been enriched by a widening of meaning
Just because something has meant something in the past doesn't mean that it should stand for ever more
just what is "Traditional Marriage" ?
is that the sort where marital rape us acceptable ?
or that women have no financial autonomy ?
seems a bad idea to me that should be consigned to the past ...........
It's not true that it's meant "nothing else" it USED to mean all sorts of nasty things that have no place in a civilised society
what is this obsession with genitalia ?
Like an elephant is an elephant and a giraffe a giraffe.
now I get it
elephants have changed
as have giraffes
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostBut marriage has always MEANT the union of a man and woman and nothing else. It has been a clearly defined term for the official union of two of the opposite sex
I really don't care what you, or the Pope, think.
Comment
-
Comment