Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 7:04 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It depends what function you place marriage. If we all agree that our primary function is to procreate marriage serves a purpose in that function then it quite clearly isn't the same for a same sex couple.

...or for a couple where one or both partners is infertile, for a couple who are too old to procreate, or for a couple who simply don't wish to start a family.

If we go down the line of stating that marriage is only for procreation, then all of those people I mentioned above should be prevented from marrying. If marriage is not solely for procreation, then there's absolutely no reason that same sex couples should not marry.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 8:13 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

...or for a couple where one or both partners is infertile, for a couple who are too old to procreate, or for a couple who simply don't wish to start a family.

If we go down the line of stating that marriage is only for procreation, then all of those people I mentioned above should be prevented from marrying. If marriage is not solely for procreation, then there's absolutely no reason that same sex couples should not marry.

You're missing the point. The reason why "marriage" should be for heterosexuals is not procreation per se but as a basis to celebrate the union of a man and a woman - union in the sense of the act of marriage and the act of naturally expression that love via sexual intercourse. Sexual intercouse being an act between man and woman as shown by the realities of sexual reproduction.

As I said previously, I personally have nothing against equal legal rights in terms of tax status, etc but not the hijacking of the term "marriage".

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 8:51 pm  

Dally wrote:

As I said previously, I personally have nothing against equal legal rights in terms of tax status, etc but not the hijacking of the term "marriage".

Once again for the hard of understanding, it is the religious (mainly right wing) that have hijacked the term and the ceremony of marriage.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 9:04 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Once again for the hard of understanding, it is the religious (mainly right wing) that have hijacked the term and the ceremony of marriage.

Don't be daft.

I suppose Genghis Khan hijacked the word "gay" too?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 10:00 pm  

Dally wrote:

Don't be daft.

I suppose Genghis Khan hijacked the word "gay" too?

How is it daft, there was weddings long before your prophet was around.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Tue May 28, 2013 10:05 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

How is it daft, there was weddings long before your prophet was around.

Were men marrying men and women marrying women though?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 10:23 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Were men marrying men and women marrying women though?

Oh well, that settles it.

I've never, ever heard a better argument.

No, really. Plaudits, Sir.

After all, what we used to do should never change.

It's been downhill since they started accepting that a husband could rape his missus, for instance, and it wasn't just him demanding his conjugal rights.

The Bible is full of obscenities and yet some believers only ever obsess about gay people.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 11:14 am  

Mintball wrote:

Oh well, that settles it.

I've never, ever heard a better argument.

In the context of BG's comment it was valid.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 11:19 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Were men marrying men and women marrying women though?

Can you find evidence that they weren't?
Besides it isn't the pagans that are trying to dictate the rules of something they never owned.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Wed May 29, 2013 1:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

I always thought the union of a man and a woman was the expression of love and the basis of marriage.

That's because, in the past, homosexuality was often considered to be unnatural or undesirable. It was even considered to be a form of mental illness at one point. We now know that homosexual behaviour may be observed in any number of different species, and that it is anything other than 'unnatural'. Similarly, there isn't a (competent) psychologist or psychiatrist alive today who would recognise being gay as a psychological disorder. So as our understanding of homosexuality as a perfectly normal part of human variation has improved, so, quite rightly, has our collective desire to ensure that people who happen to be born that way are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

So whilst the union of a man and a woman is indeed an expression of love and a valid basis for marriage, it is not the only one.

Dally wrote:

Indeed, a species is often defined via the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction.

This isn't the first time you've trotted out this irrelevant nonsense, and it doesn't get any more sensible for being repeated. It may surprise you to learn that humans are somewhat different to other species. Marriage itself is purely a construct of human society, and, as such, has no parallels within the animal kingdom. That aside, if we judged ourselves by the same standards as those in the animal kingdom, theft, rape, murder and a whole host of other undesirable behaviours would be considered perfectly acceptable.

Dally wrote:

I must have missed something given that I am clearly wrong.

Yes, but it's certainly not the first time. I feel equally certain it won't be the last.

Dally wrote:

Could someone please elucidate?

Done. You're welcome.