Moderator: Community Team
daddy1gringo wrote:All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.
You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.
I could legitimately get out of answering by saying, "you'd have to ask the archbishop who made the staement." Technically, I wasn't taking that position, but only pointing out a problem with the way the debate was framed up to this point (and usually is). However, although that would be true and legitimate, it would be a wussy thing to do.crispybits wrote:Couple of absolutely genuine questions from that post:daddy1gringo wrote:All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.
You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.
What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Phatscotty wrote:Is the Queen the head of the Church of England?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
daddy1gringo wrote:
...a problem with the way the debate was framed up to this point (and usually is).
Phatscotty wrote:Is the Queen the head of the Church of England?
Metsfanmax wrote:ITT: Phatscotty, who routinely tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how America works because he is from the UK, tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how England works either.
crispybits wrote:What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Metsfanmax wrote:ITT: Phatscotty, who routinely tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how America works because he is from the UK, tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how England works either.
stahrgazer wrote:crispybits wrote:What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?
stahrgazer wrote:crispybits wrote:What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Symmetry wrote:crispybits wrote:Technically the Queen is still sovereign ruler, but all the power is with parliament and she's no more than a figurehead. The queens speech (well, the policy element) gets written for her by the government and she just adds in the personal and family elements (or her speechwriter does)
I think that's much the same in the church of england. Technically she's the top bod, but I don't think she ever exercises that power to actually do anything.
The royal family are in such a precarious political and economic position, and so reliant on public good will to stay on their gravy train, that they really don't have the power to make even the smallest of waves unless theyre supporting an extremely populist view (and supporting an extremely populist view isn't going to make too many waves anwyays)
But as Symmetry just pointed out she has no authority over the catholic religion
To be fair, I'm pretty sure she could take him in a knife fight.
spurgistan wrote:stahrgazer wrote:crispybits wrote:What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?
No reason. In terms of political economics, it's probably because of the relatively small number of people who want to enter into group marriages. Also, probably because we first need to convince a lot of people that it's ok for a dude to enter into a marriage with one dudes, or at least wait for those opposed to die off. But there's no ethical reason why we should expand the definition of marriage to include dudes marrying dudes but hold the line at dudes marrying dudes and ladies (in much the same way there's no real ethical reason to allow dudes to marry ladies but not allow them to marry dudes), and most people who've accepted gay marriage also accept poly, by my rough polling.
gordon1975 wrote:Blah blah bandwagon comment blah blah blah
Funkyterrance wrote:gordon1975 wrote:Blah blah bandwagon comment blah blah blah
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap