Cyclone Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The law does not says a man and woman are the same gender. This is the point of the argument, gender difference. The law says that gender doesn't matter. It shouldn't be important whether someone is a man or a woman because to treat them differently due to their sex would be discrimination. You want to discriminate against gay couples, you've said it in black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Disagree with you. Reasons already given. In that case you are simply endulging in self delusion, you want to treat gay couples differently, that's discrimination. There is no argument to make against this statement, it's plainly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Please read previous posts which explain my reasoning. As far as I can tell your only reasons are based on the notion that because gays are 'different' they should have a different ceremony which is nonsense, and that you don't accept that people might want to be married for reasons other than having children together, which is patently absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 As far as I can tell your only reasons are based on the notion that because gays are 'different' they should have a different ceremony which is nonsense, and that you don't accept that people might want to be married for reasons other than having children together, which is patently absurd. You should add that he denies that forcing a specific group to have a different ceremony is discrimination against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 You should add that he denies that forcing a specific group to have a different ceremony is discrimination against them. Oh, yes. A bit like saying that not allowing black people to marry and insisting that they should be content with a civil partnership wouldn't really be racial discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Once upon a time – but not so long ago as legend; nor so timeless as a fairytale – this Sunday used to be known as ‘Mother’s Day’. It was a quaint custom in celebration of the patience, kindness, goodness and sacrificial love of those who bore us, nurtured us and guided us in the way that we should go. But then came the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition with more than a hint of Labour’s inclination for social engineering. They decided that the traditional family – a husband, a wife and children – was a bit passé. And they decreed that marriage need no longer require a male and female of the species, and that two men or two women might enter into nuptial bliss and consummate their union without prejudice or discrimination. And so it came to pass that all expressions of gender upon official forms and documents were expunged, in case a declaration of marriage might be presumed to be heterosexual. No more ‘Husband’ or ‘Wife’ on marriage certificates; and no more ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’ on birth certificates. The state was compelled to be gender neutral, and the statute books were amended accordingly: all presumption of biological complementarity ceased. And so ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ became ‘Spouse 1’ and ‘Spouse 2’. And ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ became ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’. It remains to be seen how long it will take the Government to realise that ‘Parent B’ is appallingly sexist and insulting to those erstwhile mothers. For who determined that the female progenitive contribution should be recognised merely as the ‘B’ component? Does not the slight of ‘B’ perpetuate the primacy of ‘A’? Is not the matriarch still subject to patriarchy? And what of ‘Parent C’, which will surely come as a consequence of imminent court rulings which will decree that a child may legally have three parents? Happy parent B day xxx Do you know, It's really odd, but I could have sworn that today was STILL called "Mother's Day"- no ifs no buts, no changes to the law... "Mother's Day" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The law says that gender doesn't matter. It shouldn't be important whether someone is a man or a woman because to treat them differently due to their sex would be discrimination. You want to discriminate against gay couples, you've said it in black and white. I suppose you think a man and woman are the same gender then ? Please think before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 In that case you are simply endulging in self delusion, you want to treat gay couples differently, that's discrimination. There is no argument to make against this statement, it's plainly true. Gay couples are different to hetrosexual couples, don't you agree ? A man is a different gender to a woman, do you agree ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 No, I think that their gender is not relevant to the state. I suppose you think that it should be okay to discriminate against either men or women? Please think before answering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gay couples are different to hetrosexual couples, don't you agree ? A man is a different gender to a woman, do you agree ? I do agree. Black people are different to white people, do you agree? And do you see where I'm going with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts