HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Run out of logic have we? Are you being serious? You genuinely think something we invented and decided upon the rules of is the same as wanting to change an immutable fact? You also didn't answer why. What does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillshepherd Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. There's no marriage in nature, so what's this got to do with gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. Christ not the old homosexuality isn't natural myth? Sexual activity and pair bonding between same sex animals, including people, is basically ubiquitious in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. Christ not the old homosexuality isn't natural myth? Sexual activity and pair bonding between same sex animals, including people, is basically ubiquitious in nature. The next argument will be "We should be better than animals". After implying that nature is always right in the previous argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. Christ not the old homosexuality isn't natural myth? Sexual activity and pair bonding between same sex animals, including people, is basically ubiquitious in nature. Of course it is natural. It is simply different as are brown and blue in the analogy above. So why the sudden drive to give it the same name as the union of a man and a woman? Are we so PC that we don't recognise the difference? Guess the answer's yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 We did not invent and decide upon the nature of the union between a man and a woman. Yes we did. Are you trying to imply that marriage pre-dates people? no nature does. Christ not the old homosexuality isn't natural myth? Sexual activity and pair bonding between same sex animals, including people, is basically ubiquitious in nature. Of course it is natural. It is simply different as are brown and blue in the analogy above. So why the sudden drive to give it the same name as the union of a man and a woman? Are we so PC that we don't recognise the difference? Guess the answer's yes. The answer is that the difference has no relevancy to marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 So call it something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Why? The issue is the importance of the bond, the commitment between the pair, the acknowledgement of the relationship. Why should the law have to maintain two sets of legislation on this issue? Religions can do what they want - but you seem to want to create a whole unnecessary distinction in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 So call it something else.Why? What difference does it make to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 It makes no difference to me whatsoever. It isn't something that touches me personally, but I think it is a very bad move for society. It is an agenda driven hard by a small section of homosexuals which came as a surprise to the majority who were perfectly happy with civil partnerships. Simply an extreme manifestation of political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 It makes no difference to me whatsoever. It isn't something that touches me personally, but I think it is a very bad move for society. It is an agenda driven hard by a small section of homosexuals which came as a surprise to the majority who were perfectly happy with civil partnerships. Simply an extreme manifestation of political correctness. Do you have a source for this? What difference does it make to society? I can't think of many laws that have distinctions for whether it's two men involved or mixed genders involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 If you don't know then nobody can explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.