Fleur Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I too don't much concern myself with other adults relationships nor how they choose to formalise it, and i think they should be allowed to formalise it, as should anyone else. I'm not thrilled at them calling it marriage though. I think that there are many relationships, some family, some platonic, that need a change in the law to allow signing over of insurance, pension and property. Could a few changes to and a legal firming up of the rights of a nominated next of kin be sufficient to ensure insurance, pension and hereditory rights without having homosexuals continually banging the gay drum? They really, sometimes, don't appear to give a toss about anyone elses rights at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I don't have a problem with people who are in love with each other marrying. Humans and animals maybe, because we don't actually know if the horse wants to and it would have problems saying "I Do" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I too don't much concern myself with other adults relationships nor how they choose to formalise it, and i think they should be allowed to formalise it, as should anyone else. I'm not thrilled at them calling it marriage though. I think that there are many relationships, some family, some platonic, that need a change in the law to allow signing over of insurance, pension and property. Could a few changes to and a legal firming up of the rights of a nominated next of kin be sufficient to ensure insurance, pension and hereditory rights without having homosexuals continually banging the gay drum? They really, sometimes, don't appear to give a toss about anyone elses rights at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see what impact it has on anyone else's rights. If someone thinks that their marriage is devalued just because gays can call their relationships "marriage" as well, they need their head testing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 What would Adolf have to say about gay relationships?. Oh yes, thats it, round them up and exterminate them. Wasnt big on tolerance was Adolf so i reckon tolerance is what we need, dont want to be agreeing with AH on this one eh? So i reckon live and let, do not judge lest ye, different strokes, etc etc. As a wise old Manxois told me as a gilpin, " dont knock the quare fellas soul, there more there is of them, the more women there is for us uns." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 This thread isn't (or shouldn't be) about tolerance. That ought to be dealt with in a separate one. It is simply about whether the word 'marriage' can be applied to other forms of relationship besides the one between a man and a woman or, indeed, whether it ought to be. In other words, it does really boil down to a question of semantics. I'm probably a dinosaur in this respect, because I honestly believe that the term 'marriage' should be reserved exclusively for the use of a male/female relationship. At the same time, I think that something similar of the kind suggested by Chinahand, like 'Civil Union,' ought to be available to same-sex couples - and possibly to other partnerships (as, for example, entirely celibate ones) - who wish to formalise their relationships on a permanent basis. It is not simply about sexual relationships, it is about providing a framework in which everyone can enjoy the rightful benefits of a long-term relationship, and it is not necessary to offend those with religious or traditional views in order to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fox Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Only when people stop judging others, and except that there are different ways of life to the traditional customs, willl we get on and sort things out that would benefit us all -such as world Peace ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Lot of hair splitting going on, ive been married 32 years and it wont give me a moments pause to have two guys saying that they are married, im not annoyed or scandalised nor do i think we hetros have copyright on the term, hell, an awful lot of hetros abuse the institution anyway, perhaps the gay community could bring a bit of dignity back into marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 My personal beleif is that marrage should be between a male + female, im not sure i agrea with same gender marrages. However i point touched upon.......slightly of topic but along the same lines is Zoophilllia!!! Sexually aroused + sexual intercouse beteen humans + animals I love animals but i dont wanna have sex with em! Im aware of people in america actually marrying horses! nope im sorry i cant agrea with this at all, i find it just discusting, what do others think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 No way would I marry a horse - they're far too big. I may, however, be able to accommodate a dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 This thread isn't (or shouldn't be) about tolerance. That ought to be dealt with in a separate one.It is simply about whether the word 'marriage' can be applied to other forms of relationship besides the one between a man and a woman or, indeed, whether it ought to be. In other words, it does really boil down to a question of semantics. I'm probably a dinosaur in this respect, because I honestly believe that the term 'marriage' should be reserved exclusively for the use of a male/female relationship. At the same time, I think that something similar of the kind suggested by Chinahand, like 'Civil Union,' ought to be available to same-sex couples - and possibly to other partnerships (as, for example, entirely celibate ones) - who wish to formalise their relationships on a permanent basis. It is not simply about sexual relationships, it is about providing a framework in which everyone can enjoy the rightful benefits of a long-term relationship, and it is not necessary to offend those with religious or traditional views in order to do so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Only when people stop judging others, and except that there are different ways of life to the traditional customs, willl we get on and sort things out that would benefit us all -such as world Peace ......... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is being judgmental wrong? Being judgmental is absolutely right. We all have standards by which we try to live and hopefully these standards are what we believe to be the best that there can be. We also fall short, at least I know that I do, and we see others who also fall short or have set themselves standards that we might believe are immoral, uncivilized, or just plain ‘common’. What is WRONG with being judgmental? It is after all what holds a society together and hopefully enables it to evolve and improve. Maybe if more people were judgmental it would be a better society that we all could live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Added the poll started in the new thread to this one. I've also manually added the votes so if you've already voted, please don't screw the poll up by voting again. Click on the view results button which casts a null vote. If anyone voted 'No' when the option for civil partnerships was not there, please PM me and I'll adjust your vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keristal Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Thanks for doing the changes Ans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Only when people stop judging others, and except that there are different ways of life to the traditional customs, willl we get on and sort things out that would benefit us all -such as world Peace ......... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is being judgmental wrong? Being judgmental is absolutely right. We all have standards by which we try to live and hopefully these standards are what we believe to be the best that there can be. We also fall short, at least I know that I do, and we see others who also fall short or have set themselves standards that we might believe are immoral, uncivilized, or just plain ‘common’. What is WRONG with being judgmental? It is after all what holds a society together and hopefully enables it to evolve and improve. Maybe if more people were judgmental it would be a better society that we all could live in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Judge not, lest ye be judged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Judge not, lest ye be judged... Not siding with Rog's preceding argument particularly, but what's so wrong about being judged?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.