paulry

not actually

Cape Blue

I said "I didn't see the arguments what were they" and you reply "they were very compelling"?

I assume the arguments are only the ones from the audience guy, you say he made two good points and then mention only one which is the close relatives issue - this often morphs into the "a guy could marry his dog" argument and is the sort of whataboutery that could be said about any law - "in Scotland they are considering letting 16 yr-olds vote in the devolution vote, next they will wants their goats to have a vote" - the extrapolation of one issue to a totally different one is frequently illogical and they should stand on their own merits. If you disagree with incest then you should argue against incestual marriage, not argue against a different form of marriage as a stalking horse.

How does two gays getting married make the institution lay in tatters? How does it devalue your hetro marriage?

How does having more marriage make society worse off when you believe in marriage?

paulry

Nice try at trying to re-introduce that old chestnut: "marry an animal" into the debate hoping that I'll take the bait so that you can then scream "Moral outrage!", etc. You really would love that wouldn't you?

I happen to think that a marriage can only be between a man and woman - it being a pretty sound framework for a family with standard male dad and female mum attributes. Of course it's not perfect but it's the best model that we and several other civilisations have. If others don't buy into it then fine. If gay couples understandably want the same rights as heteros then they should have lobbied for change to the civil partnership for it to bestow them those same rights. If gays can't be tolerant of hetero rights and sensitivities then how the hell do they think heteros should respect theirs?

But this argument in the UK is in any case pointless because the horse has already bolted: another cultural marxist nail hammered into the coffin of social cohesion. I hope you're happy.

Amazulu

I am tolerant of homosexuality but am against gay marriage

Up until now that's been fine with most people but according to commie f**ksticks like Will Self, I'm now homophobic

WTF?

scrubbedexpat098

You'll get labelled a bigot cos all 'they' preach acceptance of is 'their' own point of view, yours is just wrong end of (in 'their' opinion)

Cape Blue

You might be right on it being a sound framework - but why is the framework extinguished if it gets extended to gay people?

TheCreature

Perhaps because it leads directly to action like this?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-a...r-refusing-wed

If they're are succesful then they would basically be forcing their views on the Church of England. I don't see how that progresses anything.

scrubbedexpat098

I agree, if these campaigners force their views on anyone, or demonise anyone not supporting them, they'll have become exactly like the institution they've allegedly struggled against for years. I think this is lost on most 'preachers' though.

on a happier note, i pressed the spell check button and i'd spelt campaigners right, gold star me

TheCreature

There you go. Actually, have two.

You're right about the rest.. If marriage in church is that important to you, and the existing religious institutions think you're a "'wrong 'un" then form your own church.
I really don't see the attraction in a ceremony, being performed by an organization that is opposed to you personally and that you would have to legally force them to do.

Swerv-o

Yes, this mystifies me...


S

Amazulu

Agree. These 2 idiots are just trying to create controversy

GarryP

See, this is where you go over the edge.

As I said earlier, marriage was primarily a business arrangement, the idea that it was created to nurture kids is wrong - it was to legitimise them as the inheritors. So all that 'framework' guff goes out the window.

Now, if you'd like to redefine marriage to mean something else, for some other purpose, then fine - we agree. It really doesn't work (I mean REALLY doesn't work) in today's world. But you do have to accept that you've no firmer place in your heterosexual bigotry than the homosexuals do in their clammer to be 'just the same, only different'.

As I might have mentioned before, the best bet is just to get rid of marriage entirely and go to contract law.

TheCreature

Give over. Marriage, in some shape or form, seems to have been around since before the written word, so to claim it's just some type of business deal is ridiculous.

GarryP

Take a look at the origins and history yourself and tell me it's not about property, alliances, etc.

paulry

Clearly you have no regard for traditional marriage, little wonder you are happy to mess with it.

As for your bigotry accusations - they say more about you than they do me.