Disabled people in taxis

[vwdan]

Because I hold that the very definition of marriage is based on the joining of people of different genders, in a permanent and irrevocable way.

So which historical version of marriage have you picked to stick with? Will you be selling your (hypothetical, if not applicable) daughter? Do you consider yourself the owner of your (again, hypothetical if not applicable) wife?

[d000hg]

Oooh, ooh - I know this one. It's because $Religion told me that God said so.

As opposed to your view which is based on "it's just what I feel, it's obvious".

I agree with you, if it is the case that there is no "absolute truth" and we are merely froth on the quantum ocean, then any discussion on "right" and "wrong" is silly other than in terms of species/personal survival/happiness. But I think humanism is cobblers.

That's more for others' benefit, since we all know you're just another obvious troll-sockie.

[vwdan]

As opposed to your view which is based on "it's just what I feel, it's obvious".

Well, I suppose morality is all based a little bit on feel - but I've not been able to find any kind of logical argument against gay marriage. What harm does it do? Does it hurt your marriage? Given your reply, I'll presume your views are based on religious prejudice, though. Threads like these are fantastic for digging down and finding out what people are all about, aren't they?

I agree with you, if it is the case that there is no "absolute truth" and we are merely froth on the quantum ocean, then any discussion on "right" and "wrong" is silly other than in terms of species/personal survival/happiness. But I think humanism is cobblers.

I think most people accept that there has to be some boundary and some kind of moral right and wrong. I just don't believe it should be defined completely arbitrarily and by using historical precedents deeply rooted in religion. To pre-empt a question, I generally take the view that so long as everyone involved is capable of and is fully consenting to an activity, then I find it very hard to condemn. Most laws need to exist because people can't be trusted to play nice.

I'll ask you again, though - Wikipedia lists a LOT of interesting history and variety in marriages. Which one have you chosen to stick with 100%?

That's more for others' benefit, since we all know you're just another obvious troll-sockie.

Not at all, but I'm flattered by the accusation as I believe it's something of a rite of passage here. I'd be quite happy for the mods to cross reference my IP addresses or e-mail details and confirm.

[RedSauce]

What do you mean 'if you have a paedophile'?

Was meant to say "have a paedophile living next door"

[Old Greg]

Was meant to say "have a paedophile living next door"

Well, I wouldn't let them babysit, that's for sure.

Of course, I may already have a paedophile next door but no know, so assuming I know that I had a paedophile next door and knew that they weren't an offender (all a bit hypothetical), why would I be against them?

[MyUserName]

So which historical version of marriage have you picked to stick with? Will you be selling your (hypothetical, if not applicable) daughter? Do you consider yourself the owner of your (again, hypothetical if not applicable) wife?

Do not forget that his morals etc. are already defined and specified in his 'holy' book.

You and I might be free to evolve our opinions through experience and empathy but he does not have that luxury and has to evolve his through twisting interpretations of text and trying to negate 'rules' with other 'rules' etc.

Hence he (and my in laws which he is more like than I realised) are far slower to catch up to modern standards but they will eventually get there, probably.

Because I am a homophobic bigot

FTFY

[original PM]

interesting on the subject of gay marriage

marriage is supposed to be a union between 2 people with the intention of starting a natural family.

I have no problems with gay couple being legal joined and also having exactly the same rights as straight people.

however please do not call it marriage because it can never produce a natural family

[RedSauce]

interesting on the subject of gay marriage

marriage is supposed to be a union between 2 people with the intention of starting a natural family.

I have no problems with gay couple being legal joined and also having exactly the same rights as straight people.

however please do not call it marriage because it can never produce a natural family

So should an infertile couple be allowed to 'marry'?

[BrilloPad]

interesting on the subject of gay marriage

marriage is supposed to be a union between 2 people with the intention of starting a natural family.

I have no problems with gay couple being legal joined and also having exactly the same rights as straight people.

however please do not call it marriage because it can never produce a natural family

And those couples who are infertile and have IVF?

Anyway I think the only way of conceiving a child "naturally" is if you are both wearing leather and nipple electrodes.

[vwdan]

however please do not call it marriage because it can never produce a natural family

So, two people with infertility or no intention of starting a family should not get married? Should a woman who is past her ability to have a baby be refused marriage? When I got married I don't remember anyone official asking about our intentions to start a family - mostly because it's none of their business and nothing to do with marriage.