Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[Bryn]

So we can now add the additional layer of an elephant trunk to a giraffe and still call it a giraffe cos it really doesn't change a thing, as a giraffe might already mean different things to different people?

Gotcha, Flossie!

I don't think you have quite got the hang of this evolution thingy.

[MrGongGong]

So we can now add the additional layer of an elephant trunk to a giraffe and still call it a giraffe cos it really doesn't change a thing, as a giraffe might already mean different things to different people?

Gotcha, Flossie!

You have been reading the jehovah's witness' Did man get here by evolution of creation haven't you ?
Elephants , like all creatures evolved .......... i'm no biologist but your idea of species's being completely separate doesn't really chime with what I see in the World ....... things in the sea use flippers as legs move onto the land
and so on

Or are you really now a Creationist ?

I think if we put a pigs nose on Michael Gove he would still be a dickhead

[Anna]

I think if we put a pigs nose on Michael Gove he would still be a dickhead

Hear, Hear!! (sorry, really off topic. apologies)

[Simon]

What have I stumbled into ............. ???

http://www.themerlin.co.uk/

Possibly this? I know I've stumbled out of it a couple of times !

[KipperKid]

http://www.themerlin.co.uk/

Possibly this? I know I've stumbled out of it a couple of times !

Is it a Weatherspoon's?

[Simon]

I don't see why you should be unfair to Scotty. Whether you agree with him or not, it's a perfectly reasonable and logical position to take, that if certain things are changed in fundamental ways it is at least arguable to say that they can no longer be considered quite the same thing.

To use the animal analogy, if a giraffe evolves slowly to have a long neck to reach high food, that's a normal process and longer-necked giraffes can logically be considered part of the same family as the earlier giraffe-type animals with shorter necks. But if you suddenly find a giraffe-like creature with wings and webbed feet - a change of major proportion - it is at least sensible to ask whether it can still be a giraffe.

[ahinton]

Anything that improves, but does not destroy, is welcome in my scheme of things. Same sex 'destroys' the conjugal, procreational man/woman aspect of marriage. It turns marriage into something else is the point for me.

It doesn't do anything of the kind - and how can it? The legal right to marry someone of the opposite sex and to procreate with that marriage partner if possible and if so desired remains entirely unaffected by the new legislation, as indeed it should be!

[Simon]

Is it a Weatherspoon's?

Certainly didn't used to be. Not been there for a while.

[ahinton]

I can see that too. The idea of a man and woman getting together in a formal arrangement within which to produce and bring up children has been around a very long time, and as you say, around all that there is room for a lot of tolerance. That there have been major improvements to the role of the woman within this system (at least in the West, though much less so of course in some Muslim and some other less advanced tribal groups) can only be lauded as a civilising advance, but to take away the "produce children" side of things and open it to same sex relationships does seem to be making a more fundamental change than any that have gone before, and the logic of those who regard it as a step too far is clear, whether one agrees with the view or not.

I was agreeing with what you were writing until you let yourself down with this "taking away" stuff; the new legislation and what it sanctions "takes away" nothing from those of opposite sex who wish to marry or not to marry and to procreate or not to procreate.

[ahinton]

This procreational aspect of marriage is such an illusion. Did we really think that Camilla & Chas were going to start having children when they got married at Windsor Registry Office?

Exactly.

No, it is not an "illusion"; it is a reality. That said, it is not compulsory and has never been so, nor should it be so. It's there for those who can and who want to; a choice (other than for those incapable of procreating even if they might want to), not an obligation.

[MrGongGong]

I don't see why you should be unfair to Scotty. .

One could "Logically" argue that he is advocating a situation which is unfair to many people
and anyway he enjoys it i'm sure :-)
more importantly though is
whether one can be in a clique of one ?

[KipperKid]

One could "Logically" argue that he is advocating a situation which is unfair to many people
and anyway he enjoys it i'm sure :-)
more importantly though is
whether one can be in a clique of one ?

Two wrongs making a right, in your view?

[MrGongGong]

Two wrongs making a right, in your view?

No
There's nothing wrong with equal marriage

[KipperKid]

No
There's nothing wrong with equal marriage

Have you not been following this thread?!!!

[ahinton]

Have you not been following this thread?!!!

If you've been following it yourself, why would you need to ask?