Gays and Marriage

Forums › Off topic › Gays and Marriage

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#664975 31-Jul-2012 21:45

Technofreak:
kyhwana2: Also, we've just hashed out why this argument isn't about children at all, so don't try that one again)

Oh really, children can result from a heterosexual relationship but never from a homosexual relationship.

I'm still trying to determine what the need for this bill is to start with. No one has come up with a credible argument as to why it's needed. What does it do that the current law doesn't achieve?

Civil unioned couples can't adopt because they're not "married".

Also, civil unioned couples won't be/might not be recognised as married overseas in countries where they have equal marriage. Also equal marriages from overseas aren't recognised here and only a few "civil unions" from overseas are recognised here.

Also, if one or both of the opposite sex couples is infertile, there's no way children can result from the relationship, just like how they can't result from homosexual relationships. (yet). As I said before, do you support banning infertile couples from getting married?
If not, why not?
What makes an infertile opposite sex couple different from a homosexual couple in this case, in relation to breeding? I'm not seeing one.

CamH

564 posts

Ultimate Geek

#664989 31-Jul-2012 21:55

surfisup1000:
CamH: I do not want to have a gay marriage and therefore will not get one.

However if Jim Bob and John want to get married because they are in love then go right ahead. None of my business who you can and can't love.

If some religious organisation/cult/whatever doesn't believe it it.... Well, just don't associate with them. I certainly don't - If you are really that closed minded then I'm not going to have anything to do with ya.

So, close minded = anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I find that insulting.

No, closed minded as in discriminating against people due to their differences. If they want to hold an opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you can completely discriminate like that.

As per the old expression "Live and let live!"

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#664992 31-Jul-2012 21:56

In any case - gay couples have been making arrangements to conceive/bear children within their relationships for some time now. Why should they not marry as well?

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665001 31-Jul-2012 22:00

Technofreak: Oh really, children can result from a heterosexual relationship but never from a homosexual relationship.

This has no place in this argument, there is no requirement for procreation for marriage. What about heterosexual couples who choose to marry knowing that either they are unable to or have no desire to procreate? Do they get off on a technicality? If you want to argue that the point of marriage is procreation, go and try and have that argument.

I'm still trying to determine what the need for this bill is to start with. No one has come up with a credible argument as to why it's needed. What does it do that the current law doesn't achieve?

Have you actually read this thread? Or anything about the subject? I think it has been quite clearly pointed out on many occasions that a civil union does not carry the same legal rights as marriage. Adoption is the big one. Also, it's the stigma of being denied the title based on your sexual preference - something beyond their control.

So, can you come up with a credible argument why it's not needed and why we shouldn't remove this discrimination?

Twitter: ajobbins

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665002 31-Jul-2012 22:03

kyhwana2:

Civil unioned couples can't adopt because they're not "married".

So it is really about children.

kyhwana2:Also, civil unioned couples won't be/might not be recognised as married overseas in countries where they have equal marriage. Also equal marriages from overseas aren't recognised here and only a few "civil unions" from overseas are recognised here.

That issue needs to be dealt with in the country where the recognition is required and our civil union law needs to be changed to allow overseas Civil Unions to be recognised. The simple solution is to reaffirm the the union in the other country like is done now with some marriages that are not recognised.

kyhwana2:Also, if one or both of the opposite sex couples is infertile, there's no way children can result from the relationship, just like how they can't result from homosexual relationships. (yet). As I said before, do you support banning infertile couples from getting married?
If not, why not?
What makes an infertile opposite sex couple different from a homosexual couple in this case, in relation to breeding? I'm not seeing one.

Are you suggesting a test before couples get married to see if they are fertile? There was a regime about 60 years ago in Europe that had similar ideals. I'm not sure that would go down all that well here. There is generally no need for a test to prove whether or not a person is male or female.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#665006 31-Jul-2012 22:10

Technofreak:
kyhwana2:

Civil unioned couples can't adopt because they're not "married".

So it is really about children.

You're the one making it about children!
I EVEN ASKED YOU TO COME UP WITH A REASON TO NOT ALLOW EQUAL MARRIAGE NOT INVOLVING CHILDREN.

Come on dude, either give a decent reason or GTFO already.

Technofreak:
Are you suggesting a test before couples get married to see if they are fertile? There was a regime about 60 years ago in Europe that had similar ideals. I'm not sure that would go down all that well here. There is generally no need for a test to prove whether or not a person is male or female.

You're the one who seems to be implying that people need to be tested before they're allowed to get married?
(Also lol God'wined. EDIT: I'm told by @themorgan Godwinning a thread doesn't mean it's over. But I still think you should GTFO until you can come up with a good reason to keep equal marriage illegal)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#665015 31-Jul-2012 22:17

I'm locking this discussion because someone invoked Godwin's Law.

I DO NOT ACCEPT ANYONE INVOKING Godwin's Law on Geekzone.

The person has received a warning.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665337 1-Aug-2012 12:51

We are allowing "take 2" for this topic, please see the new one here.

Due to the highly political nature of this topic, I urge you to familiarise yourself with the forum usage guidelines as we will be banning without warning this time.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7