Was it the Romans? They had had gay marriage for a bit. The Greeks? Them too. The Chinese? So did they. Modern people? We've got gay marriage too.
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.
Maybe because you are discussing the definition of marriage.
Who defined divorce? Does the question even make sense?
Another bad analogy. "Gun control" is not a institution conferring life changing benefits on those with it and withholding them from those without it, it's just a general term for the debate itself. If a law was written "there shall be gun control and whatnot" you could then ask for there to be a strict and clear definition.
Which bit does he dislike most? Men sucking each other off or sticking it up each others arseholes?
Speaking of which, what do you think of men or women fecking each other?
Let's get back to the question I asked you.
What are the absolute essentials you think there should be to qualify for marriage?
I'd suggest there hasn't been enough of a sample size or historical data to give any weight or significance to such a statement.
And there never will be if you have your way. In a democracy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to restrict rights.
Polygamy is a common, stable practice among wide swathes of the world. A lot of practices have negative societal impacts (drugs for example); the liberal solution is to mitigate those impacts while defending the right of the individual to do what he pleases. Not ban the activity altogether.
If we're going on history, marriage is a fecking awful, misogynistic institution. Not really what you want to reach for here.
But I want to know who exactly defined divorce, Silva. You're asking me who defined marriage, and I think that question doesn't make any sense. But since you persist in asking me, you must think it's a reasonable question. So, tell me. Who exactly defined divorce.
We restrict drugs.
Why bother with that when nobody is looking to outlaw divorce? Create a divorce thread if you like.
You did my work for me there.
Not quite! But nice try...
A marriage is between a marriage and woman (0.).
The rest (1-3) deals with purpose.
No one is disputing the meaning of divorce. No one's saying we can't change what it means if we want to. You're however saying marriage has an inherent definition, so back it up or shut the feck up.
What do you think about men sucking dick @McUnited
You haven't answered my question. I want you to admit that 1-3 are not essential to a marriage between a man and a woman.
Not really raising the level of discourse here.
Yes. Do you think drugs should be restricted?
The very harmful ones yes. So we should restrict heroin to a much larger degree than marijuana.
Last edited:
Considering the people he's quoting I don't think he's far off saying something even stupider.
So let him be the one lowering it. Don't add to it.
The first two questions you ask are for William Lane Craig, not me. How should I know?
I'm not sure why you're asking me the third question - seems a bizarre question to ask a stranger.
The Christian apologist ? Hardly a legitimate source of starting a debate is he.
Well, let's imagine that some people do decide to lobby for a change in the meaning of divorce. Would you then think it reasonable for me to ask of you 'Well, just hold on, who exactly defined the word 'divorce'?
Again, a strange question to ask. I'm afraid I won't be able to respond to these kind of questions because there're a few of you at your keyboards and I won't be able to keep up.
Assuming you mean man there. I don't think LGBT people are fighting for the right to be married inside a church. They just want to be accorded rights and privileges available to opposite sex couples. What's the problem with that?
Can't argue with that.
A simple "I'm fine with it" would do.
I note your earlier comments in this thread to the more hostile posters, Raoul, which are appreciated.
Why, though, do you not consider him as a 'legitimate source'? Take note not of who speaks, but what is said!
If someone brought up an inherent definition of divorce. Yes. Since you think there is an inherent definition of marriage, who defined it?
Oops. Yes. Man and Woman!
There's nothing wrong with according them exactly the same rights and priveleges. So change the law for civil partnerships.
Most would rather get married. That would the exact same legal rights.
Why would they rather get married, even if they were able to get exactly the same rights?
No, he did exactly what I was about to. You're prepared to move the goalposts to suit straight couples who can't/don't want children and I can't see any reason why gay people should be disqualified from 1 and 2. So far the only reason you've given for why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed is essentially 'because I don't think they should'.
If you want marriage to be a religious institution then you should be arguing for it to be taken out of the legal system, not restricted by it. Even within religious circles there are priests, imams and so other types of religious leaders who want to perform same sex marriage ceremonies @McUnited
For the same reason you'd rather marry a woman than get a civil partnership with her.
And what would those be?
Now I see what the argument is centering on. Personally if the resolution was that civil partnerships have the same rights as marriage I'd be ok with that, all that's left is the title, stupid activists can keep that.
Such people are in the vast minority, and act independent of the bodies of the organizations they officiate for.