Why? Because you feel icky about it?
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why? Because you feel icky about it?
What about them?
Do they count? They weren't married the particular section priests who've fooled you.
No. Because, to go all the way back to my original post, I believe a marriage is a union between man and woman. Simple.
And, as I've already mentioned, I don't have anything against gay people so there's nothing to be icky about.
And are you even going to address marriage predating your religion @McUnited or are you going to carry on pretending you have some sort of say in what it is?
Well I don't think I've been fooled.
You clearly do have something against gay pay, you're think the thousands of gay people currently married to each other should have that taken away from them and that none should be allowed to marry in the future.
If something has nothing to do with you, you shouldn't be bothered about it. Would you agree with this statement?
What about p.1 of the question. Are religions other than yours allowed to use the term marriage?
Oh my goodness you simply don't try to understand other people's views, Silva.
Are they between men and women?
So you think the law should create separate institutions separating people by their sexuality just because you "believe" it? Surely you see that isn't a way to run a country.
I understand what you're saying. But it's got very laughable flaws.
Mostly, sure. But they've nothing to do with your values.
You still aren't making the distinction between sexuality and gender, Eboue. Mine isn't an anti-gay stance. It's an anti same-sex marriage stance.
Sadly, for you, it seems you are going to have to alter your belief system to view marriage as a legal union between two consenting adults where the sex of those adults is irrelevant.
If I don't understand your views, which part did I get wrong? Do you think currently married gay people should be allowed to carry on being married? @McUnited
That is an anti-gay stance. Pedantry isn't your strong point.
Distinction without a difference because I'm not aware of there being a lot of gay men trying desperately to marry a woman.
Seven pages since yesterday on Same-Sex Marriage. I thought I was going to read some compelling arguments from both sides of the debate but it's just McMuffin trying to argue all logic being put before him. This whole thread has read a bit like this Richard Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright. (He's the woman by the way... the rest of you are all Dawkins, in case that wasn't glaringly obvious).
We set several limits on who can get married, the main one I can think of right now is a minimum age. I think it's 16 in California. The reason for that is rational, having to do with a concept of informed consent. But whatever the limits of who can marry whom are, they have to be rational. It would not, for example, be rational to prohibit a Latino from marrying a black or a left-hander from marrying a right-hander.
We also prohibit siblings (cousins too) from marrying each other, the rational basis for that being the health of the children that might arise from this marriage. Second cousins are ok, not sure about aunts or uncles. Parent-child marriages are a no-go.
I have yet to hear a rational argument against same sex marriage. The strongest argument I've heard is that's always been so, so it must always be so. But surely if a rational argument existed, it must be stronger than the "it has been thus, thus so it must always be".
An interesting gotcha argument by the right-wing would be asking why an incestuous gay marriage should be prohibited, since there is no chance of an offspring arising from a same sex marriage between a dad and his son. I'd have to work out an argument for that, but there is no question in my mind that incestuous marriages of any kind, same or opposite sex, must remain off limits.
We also prohibit siblings (cousins too) from marrying each other, the rational basis for that being the health of the children that might arise from this marriage. Second cousins are ok, not sure about aunts or uncles. Parent-child marriages are a no-go.
I have yet to hear a rational argument against same sex marriage. The strongest argument I've heard is that's always been so, so it must always be so. But surely if a rational argument existed, it must be stronger than the "it has been thus, thus so it must always be".
An interesting gotcha argument by the right-wing would be asking why an incestuous gay marriage should be prohibited, since there is no chance of an offspring arising from a same sex marriage between a dad and his son. I'd have to work out an argument for that, but there is no question in my mind that incestuous marriages of any kind, same or opposite sex, must remain off limits.
If something other people are doing harms neither of them nor anyone else and has nothing to do with you, you shouldn't be bothered about it. I agree with that one, which is the case here. The ones being harmful tend to be the homophobes looking to discriminate.
Do you not know gay men who have married women?? (and vice versa?)
And it's not even true. Gay unions and marriages far predate our era.
I think with incest you also have the probability that someone is being exploited. Especially with parent/child incest.
This is a good time to bring out the "When men were men and men who weren't pretended to be" - someone on the caf
Seven pages since yesterday on Same-Sex Marriage. I thought I was going to read some compelling arguments from both sides of the debate but it's just McMuffin trying to argue all logic being put before him. This whole thread has read a bit like this Richard Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright. (He's the woman by the way... the rest of you are all Dawkins, in case that wasn't glaringly obvious).
I'm sorry, but your contribution has no insight. Again, ridicule is the first recourse of those without an argument.
Yes, under family/ societal pressure which was not a happy marriage for either participant. This negative outcome is one of the things gay marriage and increasing acceptance alleviates. Because it is a bad thing.
What's the situation in the states anyway? Is it legal in some states and not in others?
where are you from anyways?
The moon, by all reckoning.
Not true. Moon people are very progressive!
I have no interest in arguing with you, in the same way I have no interest in banging my head against the wall. You're great entertainment. Keep up the good work buddy.
It's also the first recourse of those faced with something ridicule worthy.
You're right. That was very intolerant of moon people. It's probably one of those weird Mormon planets.
Gareth Thomas the Welsh rugby player. You should read his book and share his pain of a life he felt he had no choice but to take because of the social pressures put on him, especially as a "man" playing a "mans game"
And why the hell can two women who are married not offer a loving caring home to children they have through adoption or using a surrogate father or a turkey baster? Or two men who adopt?
Or is that taboo too?
Last edited:
I have no interest in arguing with you, in the same way I have no interest in banging my head against the wall. You're great entertainment. Keep up the good work buddy.
If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything at all?
I'm glad to note you admit it!
Whoah. Is Gavin Henson gay?
I admit the possibility they can. Perhaps you can also admit the possibility they can't (or perhaps not).
But women can be in a civil partnership and bring up a child. Or my afore-mentioned parriage.