So...even though science is progressing to pass genetics along regardless...you're still stuck on two different sexes who can do it "naturally".

I still call that a "natural" fallacy.

---

And I still don't see why couple who can do it naturally but don't get married in a church or through a religious affiliate get to be called "married." They got a civil union.

(March 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm)StatCrux Wrote: 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

I don't make argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum fallacies.

Cut your losses already and move on.

Your semantical and arbitrary 'objections' to gay marriage are outdated, intolerable, prejudiced, bigoted, irrational and narrow-minded and therefore are never going to gain any support or acknowledgement from the likes of us, humanists who value equality, whether you're 17 pages in, or 1,700 pages in, you'll still be wrong then as you are now.

Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is this: why do you feel the need to make the distinction?

Can they not be parents regardless? Is it necessary to label them socially as such to make the distinction? Why do you want to keep the term "marriage" pure? Language evolves - get over it.

Go ahead, we can agree to disagree if you say you see my point, but I call your points borderline retarded, bigoted and elitist.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm)StatCrux Wrote: 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.

This is the proposal for same sex marriage in the UK, to provide some background to non-UK posters, what is causing shock and horror to our theist friend.

Home Office:Equal civil marriage consultation
The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
  
• to make no changes to religious marriages. This will continue to only be legally possible between a man and a woman
  
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
  
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
  
• individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage
  
• Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.
  

So what exactly is your problem with this and how does THIS relate to forcing your church to perform them.

edited for clarity

(March 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(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.

Right. Because you know, the seats at the back of the bus are just as good as the ones in the front.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So...even though science is progressing to pass genetics along regardless...you're still stuck on two different sexes who can do it "naturally".

I still call that a "natural" fallacy.

---

And I still don't see why couple who can do it naturally but don't get married in a church or through a religious affiliate get to be called "married." They got a civil union.

Because marriage is the union of a man and a woman, it can be civil or religious.

Because your church said so, not because EVERYONE says so.

---

I'm seeing all you're saying, but this is what's coming out:

"NO!" [stomps foot] "THIS IS HOW MARRIAGE IS! NOTHING CAN EVER BE CHANGED OR IMPROVED UPON!"

(March 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Because your church said so, not because EVERYONE says so.

---

I'm seeing all you're saying, but this is what's coming out:

"NO!" [stomps foot] "THIS IS HOW MARRIAGE IS! NOTHING CAN EVER BE CHANGED OR IMPROVED UPON!"

That's a little harsh, I did say that same sex couples should be allowed to have civil partnership ceremonies performed in religious settings if that particular church or institution wanted to perform them, at present that isn't allowed. I think that would be a good compromise, for example if an anglican church wanted to perform a civil partnership ceremony it should be able to. But a distinction would remain between marriage and civil partnership.

I'm still hearing it. How about the rest of y'all?

(March 19, 2012 at 4:31 pm)StatCrux Wrote: That's a little harsh, I did say that same sex couples should be allowed to have civil partnership ceremonies performed in religious settings if that particular church or institution wanted to perform them, at present that isn't allowed. I think that would be a good compromise, for example if an anglican church wanted to perform a civil partnership ceremony it should be able to. But a distinction would remain between marriage and civil partnership.

Thats EXACTLY what the proposals are suggesting for same sex marriage. You wonder why we're all incredulous.

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice...48356xhlqw

So I repeat. What exactly is your problem. Is it literally the word marriage, even when it makes a clear distinction for religions like yours.

"The government does not propose to open up religious marriage to same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?" is Question 5 by the way. Like I said in my very very first post. You have been misled about these proposals.