Two. What do you understand by it?Add "couple" to the list of words you don't understand.
Two. What do you understand by it?Add "couple" to the list of words you don't understand.
But they had the same rights and respect as any other couple. Gay people had exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex who wanted to marry them. No one was denying them the right to marry becasue of their sexual orientation. The other end of this was that heterosexuals did not have legal recognition of a homosexual marriage either. Thus, heterosexuals and homosexuals were treated exactly the same under the law. Neither heterosexuals or homosexuals could have legal recognition of a same sex marriage.They don't. They just want the same rights and respect as any other couple.
The point was that gay marriage they can't create them.Homosexuals who want children can easily get them.
Why is it necessary for straight marriage, then?Government recognition of gay marriage simply isn't necessary for gay people to live out their lives and relationships.
Two sexes with corresponding anatomy.Why is it necessary for straight marriage, then?
O look. Sophistry. How clever.But they had the same rights and respect as any other couple. Gay people had exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex who wanted to marry them. No one was denying them the right to marry becasue of their sexual orientation. The other end of this was that heterosexuals did not have legal recognition of a homosexual marriage either. Thus, heterosexuals and homosexuals were treated exactly the same under the law. Neither heterosexuals or homosexuals could have legal recognition of a same sex marriage.
You have gone on and on. All you are doing is making an argument against marriage. Why do gay people want to get married? For exactly the same reason as straight couples. And now they can.The only thing gay people lacked---was government recognition of their gay relationship--but so what? What difference does it make whether the government gives formal acceptance and approval to their relationship? Lots of relationships do not get government recognition. It wasn't just homosexuals relationships that lacked government recognition. There also, then, homosexuals were not singled out for discrimination. If it is discrimination for the government to not formally recognize, or otherwise accept a gay relationship, then it is discrimination for the government to not give formal recognition or acceptance of any relationship.
Were gay people forbidden from committing themselves to each other? No. Were gay people forbidden from livening together and loving each other? No. Were gay people forbidden from willing things to each other? No. Were gay people forbidden from having a living will stating their wishes and appointing their partner the power of attorney? No. Were gay people forbidden from co-owning property? No. I could go on and on.
It isn't necessary for any relationship. Social recognition of pair bonding and commitment is necessary however. Some countries, including my own, trialed civil partnerships. A sort of marriage lite for the gay under class. They didn’t work. Marriage does. It hurts no one. It benefits many. The ship has sailed. Move on.Government recognition of gay marriage simply isn't necessary for gay people to live out their lives and relationships.
Good. Then what I have proven--is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. That way----people can pair as they wish with whomever they wish. Whether people want incestious relationships, polygamous relationships, "pair bonding" with a tree, animal, etc, people are free to do as they wish. As long as it involves consenting adults---whatever floats their boat.You have gone on and on. All you are doing is making an argument against marriage. Why do gay people want to get married? For exactly the same reason as straight couples. And now they can.
Then you concede the point I made all those replies ago - if the government isn't prepared to recognize gay marriage, it should stay out of marriage altogether.Good. Then what I have proven--is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together.
"Gay people have every right to marry somebody of the opposite sex."I am glad you like my "sophistry." How was it....... "sophistry?"
No Temujin, romsih is essentially saying the same thing as I am. The species has two sexes with corresponding anatomies for sexual intimacy and reproduction. You are citing straight and gay which is sexual orientation, that is your first confusion because I as a straight man cannot have corresponding anatomy with someone UNLESS they are the opposite sex, a woman, regardless of whether they are straight or lesbian.O look. Sophistry. How clever.
You have gone on and on. All you are doing is making an argument against marriage. Why do gay people want to get married? For exactly the same reason as straight couples. And now they can.
It isn't necessary for any relationship. Social recognition of pair bonding and commitment is necessary however. Some countries, including my own, trialed civil partnerships. A sort of marriage lite for the gay under class. They didn’t work. Marriage does. It hurts no one. It benefits many. The ship has sailed. Move on.
Romish is suggesting that people can choose, that would be without you limiting them in their choices for you personal reasons. If you think same sex coupling is ok for marriage and we don't think any union apart from faithful man/woman, you haven't really differed much from us, yet you assume you know better.Then you concede the point I made all those replies ago - if the government isn't prepared to recognize gay marriage, it should stay out of marriage altogether.
You are not arguing against gay marriage, but against marriage.
"Gay people have every right to marry somebody of the opposite sex."
But they don't want to.
What they want is the right to have their relationship recognized by law, a right that straight people have, that gays are denied.
I know.I said MAN not woman.
Irrelevant.If I said the big red bus went up the hill.
What do you think went up the hill? A giraffe or a bus?
And a woman.No, its the man who is calling himself something, so he is a man.
Irrelevant.If I am late for work today its me that is late, not you. Get it?
Woman (biological): a person with XX chromosomesWould you define - or point me to your defition of - woman, please?
Wrong.Incorrect on both accounts.
Sure you can. You'll just be wrong.In today's political climate I can call anyone I like a woman, even the female fetus,
Nope.and everyone claiming abortion is a Constitutional right is pro-abortion.
No, it would be evidence that they are pro-choice.For them it is a right. According to June's Pew poll, 61% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. If we separated the "all" from the "most" and found that only 10%, or only 1%, were in favor of the "all" that would be evidence someone is pro-abortion.
Nope again.More accurately, nearly everyone is pro-abortion - including me -
Nope. Pro-choice.but we place the dividing line pertaining to when and/or under what conditions the procedure occurs in different places. Some hold it is acceptable - they are pro-abortion - only in cases when either the fetal life or the maternal life is in physical mortal danger.
Nope. Pro-choice.Others - they too are pro-abortion - use the point of survival outside the womb as the dividing point of moral and/or legal permissibility. Some, according to Pew, are pro-abortion all the time and have no line of separation at all.
OK... but how does a person with XX chromosomes live?Woman (biological): a person with XX chromosomes
Woman (gender): a person who lives, as far as is practicable, as if they were a woman (biological)
You fail to understand the difference between being for the right to perform a certain act and being for the performance of a certain act. I am for the right to (for example) commit adultery, in that I do not believe it should be illegal. I am certainly not for the committing of adultery, as I believe it immoral. Similarly, I am for the right to abort, in that I do not believe it should be illegal. I am not for the abortion - I'm neither for nor against it as it should be the woman's choice.Depends.
Politically there may be a difference. Logically there is none because a "pro-choice" view is "pro-abortion," as a possible, legitimate, and veracious choice, and pro-abortion in any and all occasion when a person so chooses. The supposed caveat, "I personally don't believe abortion should occur," does not change the necessary outcome of the position. That outcome is a human life killing abortion that is supported and approved de facto as a consequence of choice.
No, it does not. That might be your interpretation but that is not objective.
Furthermore, there are in fact people who do actively encourage women to have abortions. Millions of dollars are spent overseas in other countries under the guise of "reproductive health" where women are intentionally, willfully, unabashedly "encouraged" to abort.
And for many morality has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't worry me. It's just more evidence that pro-lifers aren't actually interested in discussing the subject, but just in demonising those with whom you disagree.How do you like it when Fundamentalist Christians refer to abortion supporters as "baby-killers" "pro-death" etc? You do not like that do you? You would not accept that characterization of what it is to support abortion, right? You see things like this as childish don't you?
Pro-lifers do just want to take away women's rights. That's the entirety of the 'platform.However, when you make the comment you did above-----when abortion supporters say stupid things like "Pro-lifers just want to take away women's rights, control women, make them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, etc" that is analogous to me as a pro-lifer saying you are pro-death and pro-killing babies.
Of course they do. That's the definition of being a 'pro-lifers'.You know full well that most reasonable pro-lifers do not want to take away the rights of women to choose.
Again, you want to take away a woman's right to choose.For me as a pro-lifer the issue isn't even about choice. Pro-lifers are interested in protecting unborn human beings. Our choices are limited when they effect someone else negatively. Women get to choose whatever they want to choose--until their choice comes up against the rights of another human being. Then their choices are limited.
There's no such thing as an unborn child. It's like an unmarried husband. A child is born; a husband is married.As I have told you repeatedly: I do not care what a woman wants to do to HER body. If a woman wants to have her breasts enlarged, reduced or removed, who cares? Between her and her doctor. That involved her body, therefore it is her choice. If a woman wants her appendix removed, leg, whatever operated on, once again, her body, her choice. That is between her and her doctor.
When a woman wants to kill her unborn child----that is when I stand up and proudly say "Wait just a minute there---you do not get to kill another human being becasue they are an inconvenience to you."
Nope. Choice is the entire debate. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion.Besides, you know full well that "choice" is just a euphemism for abortion anyway.
Of course they are.Why? Because when you talk to people who call themselves "pro-choice" they aren't really for choice.
What nonsense. "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are positions relating to the abortion issue and nothing else. Being 'pro-choice' says nothing whatsoever about the position on any of the issues above. Pro-choicers are for the woman's ability to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.They do not believe women should have the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense. They do not believe women should have the right to choose what school to send their children. They do not believe women should have the right to choose whether or not to take an experimental vaccine. So in what sense are "pro-choicers" for choice? They aren't. They are just pro-abortion.
Wait...you seriously think it was the left that tried to "destroy Christianity" in the first century?Oh I am well aware of the tactics used by the left to threaten, scare and otherwise beat people into submission to their secular values.
The left never seems to learn---that---tactics like that never work.
They tried to destroy Christianity in the first century. It didn't work.
You have never exposed any claim as false or deluded.but it isnt though, is it! As we have seen I have just exposed that claim as false and deluded.
On the contrary. It is Christianity that abandons reason. Leading Christians have specifically eschewed it.Here is the thing:
The devil's main tactic----is the uncanny ability--to attack reason itself. Once one throws reason out the window, it is sort of hard to make an intelligent argument for anything. I believe this is the position we are in today: people have lost their ability to reason.