(March 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm not sure why a male-female union vs a same sex union has any difference except in the eyes of the religious.

If you want to call a state-sanctioned combination a union and the religiously ordained combination a marriage, then fine. But don't equate the two. And don't pretend they're separated by gender issues either. That's just your way of prettying up your bigotry.

---

Which means, by the way, that any straight couples who have a straight secular union can't be called "married".

No, I want to call a union between a man and a woman a marriage, and a union between same sex couples a civil partnership. You asked why they are seen as different? Well for one a union between a man and a woman has procreative and natural family possibilites same sex unions do not. This has noting to do with obscure instances of infertility or adoption of children, i'm talking about the undeniable principle that in general male-female couples are procreative which leads to natural families, this in itself is a major distinction between marriage and civil parnerships.

...and if the point of marriage was to have children, you'd have a point. The point of marriage is not to have children though; people have children without getting married, and some married people go their entire lives without having children. The whole "procreative" argument is on dodgy ground from the start.

How does the ability to have children in any way make any person (or union) superior?

(March 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Nobody forced you to marry divorcees, or those not in the regular congregation, why should you be forced to marry homosexuals.

The difference here is that divorcees don't have an anti-church agenda, its just an unfortunate circumstance that their marriage has broken down. The same sex pressure groups do have an anti-church agenda and won't stop at same sex marriage. As has proven to be the case with civil partnerships, they said it wasn't an attempt to undermine marriage, simply an issue of legal rights, well look now, they have the same legal rights but marriage is next on the agenda...

What's the anti-church agenda? I know plenty of gays who still love church - as long as the church isn't bigoted.

(March 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: How does the ability to have children in any way make any person (or union) superior?

I didn't say superior, I said different, you're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions at the same time

Have you any proof that marriage equality groups have an anti-church agenda?

Using IVF, same sex couples are completely capable of having a child. In fact, science has allowed some methods to develop in which bone marrow from one partner can be turned into sperm cells to fertilize the egg. At least in lesbians.

Quote:Have you any proof that marriage equality groups have an anti-church agenda?

Obviously not.

(March 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Nobody forced you to marry divorcees, or those not in the regular congregation, why should you be forced to marry homosexuals.

The difference here is that divorcees don't have an anti-church agenda, its just an unfortunate circumstance that their marriage has broken down. The same sex pressure groups do have an anti-church agenda and won't stop at same sex marriage. As has proven to be the case with civil partnerships, they said it wasn't an attempt to undermine marriage, simply an issue of legal rights, well look now, they have the same legal rights but marriage is next on the agenda...