Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
FuriousFox46

Same-sex marriage

  

182 members have voted

  1. 1. Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?

    • Yes
      129
    • No
      43
    • Don't know
      10


Recommended Posts

Posted

Explain the practical reasons behind needing to know whether it is two men or two women?!?!

This has gone from playing devil's advocate to splitting hairs to flaunting a dead and nonsensical argument

Because it would require a different ceremony, even if it is just a few words changed here or there, it would require a different document to sign for legal reasons, again it may be only 1 word different to the straight marriage document, but if they bring the wrong document, then you will not be married.

Posted

Really, so if I am writing a story and I have a character in it who is black, and I am giving a description of him I can't give any more details to his appearance than he was a person. Or maybe I witness a black man being kidnapped, the police ask me to describe him, what do I say? He was a person. Very helpful.

Sometimes need you need to use someone's colour to describe them.

Likewise sometimes you need to describe someone's sacred vows by their sexuality, I am not denying anyone any rights here, I am just saying the only difference is the name, and the name is not important it is what it stands for that is important.

Put it this way:

Marriage is 2 people getting married

Gay Marriage is 2 people of the same sex getting married

Straight Marriage is 2 people of opposite sex getting married

Why are you so offended by me saying that?

By your logic you realise two black people who call up to book a wedding now have to ask for a 'black wedding' lol

So yes, I agree there are times when you need to describe people's race, gender, orientation, etc, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Now you've said yourself you don't even agree with what you're saying, so let's give this one a rest, eh?

Posted

True.

It's just like those white, black, mixed race, south Asian and Nepalese marriages.

Why are you bringing race into this, there is no biological difference between black and white, there are biological differences between men and women, nobody responded to this before so I will ask it in a more direct way:

Marriage is consummated by sex, how would you define that for gay couples?

Posted

Why are you bringing race into this, there is no biological difference between black and white, there are biological differences between men and women, nobody responded to this before so I will ask it in a more direct way:

Marriage is consummated by sex, how would you define that for gay couples?

Because it's a quality a person is born with that cannot be altered, the same as sexuality.

Is there a biological difference between a straight man and a gay one? or a straight woman and a lesbian? No.

I brought up race. Because no one in their right mind would refer to Will Smith and his wife's union as a 'black marriage'.

Believe it or not; gay people do have sex. (forgive me, lord)

Posted

Because it would require a different ceremony, even if it is just a few words changed here or there, it would require a different document to sign for legal reasons, again it may be only 1 word different to the straight marriage document, but if they bring the wrong document, then you will not be married.

And priests/registrars are that stupid that they need to get out 'Form 1G' at the time of the booking and start practicing to get that one word correct on the big day.

Right, I'm off out - my bullshit intake is clogged and I need a break

Posted

I think in the long term maybe they will all be termed simply as "marriage" whether straight gay or lesbian etc ,

But this would be a new situation to most people and will take some time to be seen as nothing really different .

We used to call decimal money "new pence" for about 10 years after decimalisation and i can;t really remember when it actually faded out and i'm sure these terms will fade out too

Posted

By your logic you realise two black people who call up to book a wedding now have to ask for a 'black wedding' lol

So yes, I agree there are times when you need to describe people's race, gender, orientation, etc, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Now you've said yourself you don't even agree with what you're saying, so let's give this one a rest, eh?

There would be no need to describe it as a black wedding there is no difference in the wording of the ceremony or the documentation needed to make it official, anyone else who tries to use the race card will not get a response, and will seriously go down in my estimation.

I have given you practical reasons and biological reasons why they are not the same thing, I am not trying to stop anyone doing anything.

In my eyes and in the eyes of the law gay people can get married, there is a grey area over religion which I am not going to argue because I am not religious.

The only difference is the name, now if I had to chose between the names, I would much rather it was called a civil union, than a gay marriage (which is why I brought it up I don't think it should be called a gay marriage as that does promote the difference between the 2) and despite all good intentions and the best efforts of all if it changed from civil union to marriage it would still end up being called a gay marriage because it is intrinsically different.

As has been shown people don't want it to be called "Gay Marriage", so whay not just accept that you have a civil union (which is quite often called a marriage anyway, because that is what it is) and for all but the religious is accepted as equal to marriage.

Anyway, this has been fun, but I need to go to the shops, byeee.

Posted

There would be no need to describe it as a black wedding there is no difference in the wording of the ceremony or the documentation needed to make it official, anyone else who tries to use the race card will not get a response, and will seriously go down in my estimation.

I have given you practical reasons and biological reasons why they are not the same thing, I am not trying to stop anyone doing anything.

In my eyes and in the eyes of the law gay people can get married, there is a grey area over religion which I am not going to argue because I am not religious.

The only difference is the name, now if I had to chose between the names, I would much rather it was called a civil union, than a gay marriage (which is why I brought it up I don't think it should be called a gay marriage as that does promote the difference between the 2) and despite all good intentions and the best efforts of all if it changed from civil union to marriage it would still end up being called a gay marriage because it is intrinsically different.

As has been shown people don't want it to be called "Gay Marriage", so whay not just accept that you have a civil union (which is quite often called a marriage anyway, because that is what it is) and for all but the religious is accepted as equal to marriage.

Anyway, this has been fun, but I need to go to the shops, byeee.

You've plummeted in my estimation for saying that gays don't need the right to marry, as a couple of words will need to be changed on a bit of paper. Logical, that.

Posted

There would be no need to describe it as a black wedding there is no difference in the wording of the ceremony or the documentation needed to make it official, anyone else who tries to use the race card will not get a response, and will seriously go down in my estimation.

I have given you practical reasons and biological reasons why they are not the same thing, I am not trying to stop anyone doing anything.

In my eyes and in the eyes of the law gay people can get married, there is a grey area over religion which I am not going to argue because I am not religious.

The only difference is the name, now if I had to chose between the names, I would much rather it was called a civil union, than a gay marriage (which is why I brought it up I don't think it should be called a gay marriage as that does promote the difference between the 2) and despite all good intentions and the best efforts of all if it changed from civil union to marriage it would still end up being called a gay marriage because it is intrinsically different.

As has been shown people don't want it to be called "Gay Marriage", so whay not just accept that you have a civil union (which is quite often called a marriage anyway, because that is what it is) and for all but the religious is accepted as equal to marriage.

Anyway, this has been fun, but I need to go to the shops, byeee.

I agree, there would be a slight difference in the wording so the people conducting the wedding would need to know if it was a same sex wedding.

Like zingari said, it would soon die out and over time

they will all be termed simply as "marriage"

Posted

I agree, there would be a slight difference in the wording so the people conducting the wedding would need to know if it was a same sex wedding.

Like zingari said, it would soon die out and over time

they will all be termed simply as "marriage"

I'm still waiting on my engagement ring ;)

Posted

And priests/registrars are that stupid that they need to get out 'Form 1G' at the time of the booking and start practicing to get that one word correct on the big day.

Right, I'm off out - my bullshit intake is clogged and I need a break

Ok last comment, people do make mistakes, I would hate for you big day to be ruined because you were too proud to specify that it was a gay marriage.

You also have no problem with it having different documentation, which kinda means you accept that there is a difference. :P

Because it's a quality a person is born with that cannot be altered, the same as sexuality.

Is there a biological difference between a straight man and a gay one? or a straight woman and a lesbian? No.

I brought up race. Because no one in their right mind would refer to Will Smith and his wife's union as a 'black marriage'.

Believe it or not; gay people do have sex. (forgive me, lord)

No but there is a biological difference between a staright couple and a gay couple, they don't fit together in the same way, and I know gay people have sex, but it is not the same as the way sex is defined in the consummation of a marriage, so you would either need to remove the consummation as part of the act of marriage (seems unfair) or define sex as consummation for gay marriages, (incidentally I would love to be in the House of Commons whilst this is being drafted) and again you are defining differences.

Posted

I believe everyone should have the opportunity to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should have a chance to have a slow decrease in sexual action, which inevitably becomes a favour for your birthday or Christmas. It's not fair to keep this to the heteros.

Posted

I believe everyone should have the opportunity to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should have a chance to have a slow decrease in sexual action, which inevitably becomes a favour for your birthday or Christmas. It's not fair to keep this to the heteros.

:D

but 2 males would obviously not have "headaches" on such regular basis

Posted

You've plummeted in my estimation for saying that gays don't need the right to marry, as a couple of words will need to be changed on a bit of paper. Logical, that.

I'm not saying anything about rights, gay people already have the right to marry, it is just called something different now, civil union, and if the name changes will still need to be defined as something different. My argument is not about rights, it is about semantics, and changing something now for something that won't be any different. I am sorry if you are interpretting this as something more sinister or underhand, it is not. My point is you already have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. The only difference is a religious thingy that will change in time.

If you can find any other differences between the civil unions and marriages that would actually show discrimination I would naturally be opposed to it, but there aren't. It is just a name.

Posted

:D

but 2 males would obviously not have "headaches" on such regular basis

Or the monthly hiccup which could be dual fold for 2 woman although I have read that women living together tend to end up with synchronised periods.

Posted

Or the monthly hiccup which could be dual fold for 2 woman although I have read that women living together tend to end up with synchronised periods.

and sychronised headaches ?

Posted

Or the monthly hiccup which could be dual fold for 2 woman although I have read that women living together tend to end up with synchronised periods.

Believe it or not men have 'periods' too. Not in the messy sense, but in the hormone influx sense. I believe that two males could probably sync too, so to speak.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...