Angela Merkel and gay marriage

[chrisd]

My marriage is no less valid than yours.

I cannot agree more Karen!

 

[louise_a]

Someone who undergoes gender reassignment can get their birth certificate changed so if they are married they are then in a same sex marriage. Previously they would have to divorce and then enter a civil partnership which was just silly.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Yip! Sorry but it's pure bigotry on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.

I completely agree that your marriage is no less valid than mine or anyones. But to accuse me of bigotry because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is bigoted on your part.

From dictionary.com - Bigotry - "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You are clearly intolerant of my opinion. I'm not arguing against same sex relationships, civil partnerships or any other celebration of that relationship. I've clearly stated that I support them and that whatever they are called they should enjoy exactly the same rights as a "traditional" marriage. My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.

 

[Hobbit]

Yip! Sorry but it's pure bigotry on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.

Where is the massive like button. :thup:

 

[dewsweeper]

Nice to see many on here bending over backwards to be tolerant of others views!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Some of my wives best friends are in same sex marriage and I know they treat the meaning of marriage far more seriously than some "traditional" couples

I don't care about political or religious views for me marriage is only ever about two people being totally in love with each other and wanting to confirm that commitment for the rest of their lives - it shouldn't matter if that's same sex or opposite sex

 

[PhilTheFragger]

My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.

But the problem is that if you have different terms for different types of relationships, you automatically introduce an identifiable marker that leaves it wide open to potential prejudice .

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage in my book

 

[ColchesterFC]

But the problem is that if you have different terms for different types of relationships, you automatically introduce an identifiable marker that leaves it wide open to potential prejudice .

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage in my book

But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.

Then we must agree to disagree

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.

All the relationships are the same - they are people being in love with another person regardless of their sex

Wasn't civil partnerships created because same sex weren't allowed to be married - as soon as that's removed then so can civil partnerships and it's just marriage to one and all if they so wish - no one should be treated any differently because of who they love

 

[GreiginFife]

But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.

How are they different? Procreation aside which is not a necessity of a relegation ship and vice Verda, how is two people regardless of sex, being in love and dedicated to each other, different?
Is it because religion tells you it is? Or have you personally defined why it's different and can articulate it?

 

[Val]

The only difference between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage is procreation. Same sex couples cannot have a family naturally but a same sex marriage can create a more loving household for a kid through fostering or adoption than many opposite sex marriages can.

Ive no objections at all to same sex marriages (I've been to 2) despite the fact as a catholic my religion don't permit it.

 

[ColchesterFC]

How are they different? Procreation aside which is not a necessity of a relegation ship and vice Verda, how is two people regardless of sex, being in love and dedicated to each other, different?
Is it because religion tells you it is? Or have you personally defined why it's different and can articulate it?

In my opinion (and that's all it is, and a very minority one judging by the replies to this thread) the difference is only that one relationship is between a man and a woman, one is between a man and a man and one is between a woman and a woman. To me they are different relationships, regardless of the fact that all of them are just two people being in love and wanting to celebrate that. None of them are any less valid or less important than any of the others but to me they are different. It's nothing to do with religion as I am one of the least religious people I know. A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. They are different. We don't feel the need to call them all four legged domesticated mammals.

 

[User20205]

The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.

 

[ColchesterFC]

The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.

I've tried to explain why I think they are different. It's not based on facts, it's purely my opinion. I am happy to accept that other people have a different opinion and that their opinion is equally as valid as mine.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I completely agree that your marriage is no less valid than mine or anyones. But to accuse me of bigotry because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is bigoted on your part.

From dictionary.com - Bigotry - "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You are clearly intolerant of my opinion. I'm not arguing against same sex relationships, civil partnerships or any other celebration of that relationship. I've clearly stated that I support them and that whatever they are called they should enjoy exactly the same rights as a "traditional" marriage. My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.

Which is just what I was saying about the view of some having a religious faith, and a belief in the 'traditional' meaning and the sanctity of marriage. I am unfortunately not surprised that you are rather shot down - when I asked that those who disagree with your view do not make assumptions about why you might think this. But of course those assumptions are made and your view is summarily dismissed. Which is a pity.

 

[chrisd]

A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. They are different. We don't feel the need to call them all four legged domesticated mammals.

Isn't a human a human, a person a person, no one chooses their sexuality and there's no need to label a union between two people anything other than marriage no matter what their sex they are, after all it's just a word and, for me, any other word differentiates them from the norm which, of course, is quite wrong imo

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.

Why does he have to explain a belief? It is a belief. If you are not open to individuals holding beliefs, and a belief such as this, then you will never understand why such a belief can be held. Not everything in, on and about this world has to be subject to detailed analysis and scientific proof.

 

[User20205]

I've tried to explain why I think they are different. It's not based on facts, it's purely my opinion. I am happy to accept that other people have a different opinion and that their opinion is equally as valid as mine.

No you haven't . You've just said they are different, cats are cats, dogs are dogs etc.
thats not explanation just a paper thin justification for a opinion that may be underpinned by something more sinister

 

[ColchesterFC]

Which is just what I was saying about the view of some having a religious faith, and a belief in the 'traditional' meaning and the sanctity of marriage. I am unfortunately not surprised that you are rather shot down - when I asked that those who disagree with your view do not make assumptions about why you might think this. But of course those assumptions are made and your view is summarily dismissed. Which is a pity.

My views are based on tradition rather than religion and I am happy for my opinion to be challenged/dismissed and for me to be considered as some kind of dinosaur because of my views. But I have a lot more respect for those that are putting forward a counter argument to my views rather than those that simply dismiss them. Many people on this thread have disagreed with my opinion and have explained why and while I may not agree with what they have said, and equally they obviously don't agree with my opinion, I think that this thread has shown that it is possible to discuss a serious topic on the forum without it descending into name calling and abuse.