(March 19, 2012 at 2:25 pm)tobie Wrote: Until we use the same term for same sex and opposite sex partnerships, they will never feel equal.

I can't see the problem in using two distinct terms to describe two distinct forms of partnership, we do it all the time in life why not in this case? They remain equal in law but distinct forms of relationship. They are NOT the same thing, that is not the same as saying they are not equal.

(March 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 2:25 pm)tobie Wrote: Until we use the same term for same sex and opposite sex partnerships, they will never feel equal.

I can't see the problem in using two distinct terms to describe two distinct forms of partnership, we do it all the time in life why not in this case? They remain equal in law but distinct forms of relationship. They are NOT the same thing, that is not the same as saying they are not equal.

So, what you're arguing for is "Separate, but equal?"

You still haven't told me why they should necessarily be different, except for children, which is a fallacy since some gay couples have children through means other than adoption and some straight couples never do or can't.

Oh queen, you seem to forget you're talking to a religious biased person, its impossibru to talk reason into them. Stat's religion is preventing him from accepting any rebbutal made and his pride is preventing him from accepting he's wrong. That's just how it is.

17 pages in and this Bible thumper is still adamant he's right and not in the least bit homophobic. I guess the following advice will fall on deaf ears.

(March 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Oh queen, you seem to forget you're talking to a religious biased person, its impossibru to talk reason into them. Stat's religion is preventing him from accepting any rebbutal made and his pride is preventing him from accepting he's wrong. That's just how it is.

There is a huge difference between not understanding and not accepting something. I can fully understand thesummerqueens position i just don't agree with it. I think its entirely reasonable to have a distinction in terms for two distinct types of partnership, whilst giving equal rights in law. Same sex partnerships and male-female partnerships are not the same thing no matter how much you try to say they are.

(March 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I think its entirely reasonable to have a distinction in terms for two distinct types of partnership, whilst giving equal rights in law.

So you don't mind if they have a religious civil partnership in a more tolerant church then?
A while ago you were dead against it, and wanted them to be banned from having a religious ceremony in a quaker or unitarianist church.

Going back to the original question, this is the basis of the amendments under the Equality Act 2010.

Or are we cherry picking equal rights in law now. Equal.. but not too equal now!

(March 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: 17 pages in and this Bible thumper is still adamant he's right and not in the least bit homophobic. I guess the following advice will fall on deaf ears.

ahh another person who thinks disagrement and argument is won simply by weight of numbers...The more people don't agree with you the more it shows your argument is wrong, beautiful logic..I guess all you atheists are always correct on here then using that type of thinking

And you still haven't told me why, beyond citing children, which is ridiculous.

Marriage become instated as a way to ensure property inheritance and to bind families together for alliances. Religion is practically an afterthought. I still have a copy of the marriage contract my great-great grandparents signed, all in Hebrew, to denote everything that was being passed back and forth.

Nowadays we have civic functions to perform all those duties. So what is marriage? Two people standing up and stating "we're together for the rest of our lives"? How does being hetero or homo change that in any way?

If you want to make a distinction for some stupid reason, call it a homo or hetero marriage. Or homo or hetero civil union. Then you have the distinction you want.

What you're asking for is to make sure the happy connotation of marriage doesn't apply to gays or the polygamous, and that the "cold" and secularized one does.

(March 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: So you don't mind if they have a religious civil partnership in a more tolerant church then?
A while ago you were dead against it, and wanted them to be banned from having a religious ceremony in a quaker or unitarianist church.

If it remains a civil partnership and some other Church wishes to perform a religious ceremony without it being recognised as a marriage then why not? sure. That wouldn't affect the institution of marriage and would be a good compromise.

---

(March 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: You still haven't told me why they should necessarily be different, except for children, which is a fallacy since some gay couples have children through means other than adoption and some straight couples never do or can't.

I refer you to my earlier post re why different and children etc

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.