Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Gay Marriage …. Again
With the gay marriage debate taking place tonight in parliament, despite the numerous threads on the subject, I’ve yet to see one valid reason for opposition. Does anyone have one? Please, if you see no problem in it, don’t answer. I just want a valid reason for opposing it – and simply not liking the idea does not qualify as a valid reason.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I've yet to see one valid reason in support of it. Simply liking the idea doesn't qualify. As for valid reasons to oppose it see my previous posts on the subject regarding pandering to those that want it to the extent of actually changing the definition, knowing and unjustifiably upsetting those who believe there is a difference, and the fact that equality forms no part of this change since both straight and gay couples already have recognised partnerships.
There are very few arguments our there that can legitimately be presented as utterly irrefutable, with the addition of an "end of " statement.
Maybe something like the "Earth is round, not flat. End of". Thats just about the only one i can think of :)
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Something Chris Hitchens said.
Maybe something like the "Earth is round, not flat. End of". Thats just about the only one i can think of :)
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Something Chris Hitchens said.
Ann
Interesting.
Someone can say, "I disagree with fox hunting because xyz".
However, it seems difficult for opponents to marriage equality to do the same because it doesn't exist yet - so they don't have anything to base their objections on.
I would've thought at the very least, they would point to the European countries (and Canada) to point out the downsides - but the problem is...there haven't actually been any.
Society hasn't imploded. Heterosexuals are still getting married, the family unit hasn't broken down and church hasn't devolved from the state.
Interesting.
Someone can say, "I disagree with fox hunting because xyz".
However, it seems difficult for opponents to marriage equality to do the same because it doesn't exist yet - so they don't have anything to base their objections on.
I would've thought at the very least, they would point to the European countries (and Canada) to point out the downsides - but the problem is...there haven't actually been any.
Society hasn't imploded. Heterosexuals are still getting married, the family unit hasn't broken down and church hasn't devolved from the state.
There was at least one protester in favour of Gay Marriage, while being married herself, saying something like "Gay people have the right to be as miserable as I am!"
What makes a reason valid or not? In a subject like this I think there is too much room for opinion, and not enough for factual reasons, as where gay marriages have been allowed they've not been around long enough really to see what the effects are. So people both for and against are speculating, really.
What makes a reason valid or not? In a subject like this I think there is too much room for opinion, and not enough for factual reasons, as where gay marriages have been allowed they've not been around long enough really to see what the effects are. So people both for and against are speculating, really.
I've a big bee in my bonnet about this, I'd hate for my kids to grow up in a country that would treat them differently to everyone else just because of their sexuality, it makes me more than a little sad.
Once it's legal, give it 10-15 years and it'll be the norm, no one will bat an eyelid and future generations will just accept it for what it is and should be. I've gathered from speaking to different people about it, it's mainly the older generation that have a problem with it, middle aged and under can't see what the fuss is all about.
Bring it on :)
Once it's legal, give it 10-15 years and it'll be the norm, no one will bat an eyelid and future generations will just accept it for what it is and should be. I've gathered from speaking to different people about it, it's mainly the older generation that have a problem with it, middle aged and under can't see what the fuss is all about.
Bring it on :)
The idea that the Earth is flat emerged primarily as a counter-movement in the 19th Century. Still don't quite understand why, exactly. Reaction against the way Society was moving, most likely. Prior to that, there was never a point in recorded history where the accepted view was for a flat Earth. So actually the progression is:
- Earth is round
- Actually it's slightly bulging one way or another, we don't know which way (poles or equator)
- It was the middle, in fact.
And since then the measurements have got more accurate, but nothing's changed or is going to. The corrections to a round earth due to the equatorial bulge is of order 0.3%, so can be neglected in both cases anyway.
/off-topic.
- Earth is round
- Actually it's slightly bulging one way or another, we don't know which way (poles or equator)
- It was the middle, in fact.
And since then the measurements have got more accurate, but nothing's changed or is going to. The corrections to a round earth due to the equatorial bulge is of order 0.3%, so can be neglected in both cases anyway.
/off-topic.
sp1814 in either case there can be a "because xyz"
People can base their objections on what their church teaches, on their own feelings..things that don't rely on knowing what will happen.
people base their objection to the ban on foxhunting on various things.
The problem is that objectors will think that the reason for their objections is valid and supporters won't.
Equally supporters will think that their reasons are valid and objectors won't.
and both will be right for a given definition of "valid"
People can base their objections on what their church teaches, on their own feelings..things that don't rely on knowing what will happen.
people base their objection to the ban on foxhunting on various things.
The problem is that objectors will think that the reason for their objections is valid and supporters won't.
Equally supporters will think that their reasons are valid and objectors won't.
and both will be right for a given definition of "valid"
Woof, a lot of objections are based solely on personal feelings and predjudices.
I object to fox hunting because, it appears the fox suffers, I however am a "townie" and understand that fox's are vermin and as such they should be curbed just not for sport.
As I said on anther thread, people who object due to the bible are extremely selective, in what they chose to take from the bible and what they leave, as such it completely invalidates any religious argument
What it comes down to, is that certain people in society do not wish to offer all the democratic benefits of being a member of our society to all members. By doing so they are making a section 2nd class citizens. I cannot see any good reason to do so.
I object to fox hunting because, it appears the fox suffers, I however am a "townie" and understand that fox's are vermin and as such they should be curbed just not for sport.
As I said on anther thread, people who object due to the bible are extremely selective, in what they chose to take from the bible and what they leave, as such it completely invalidates any religious argument
What it comes down to, is that certain people in society do not wish to offer all the democratic benefits of being a member of our society to all members. By doing so they are making a section 2nd class citizens. I cannot see any good reason to do so.
When talking about a change to cultural, legal and societal values that affect everyone in a society which values equality and transcends specific religions, I do not think objections based solely upon religious belief or personal prejudice can be a sufficiently valid reason to prevent a change, although of course the persons themselves are perfectly at liberty to hold and express such views, subject to the boundaries of good taste etc.
I agree that gay church marriage should be possible for those people and those churches who want it. I think that the C of E should either comply with the law or disestablish, not use its fatuous Canon Law "get out of jail free card" exception.
I do think though that "I simply don't like the idea" is a valid reason for opposition, although not a valid reason for not allowing people who do like the idea to go ahead.
I do think though that "I simply don't like the idea" is a valid reason for opposition, although not a valid reason for not allowing people who do like the idea to go ahead.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
News63 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Offers & Competitions73 mins ago
