There is no such thing as gay marriage, only heterosexual marriage. Nobody is disputing the right to love or the commitment gays have to each other. However, marriage is a statement by society and society acknowledges that marriage occurs between a man and a woman. Giving rights to some groups should not undermine the rights of others to be acknowledged in a certain way.
@m1trekker: With respect, you make very little sense. Affording the right of marriage to same sex couples does not affect the rights of heterosexual couples, the quality of their marriage or the respect afforded by society to their marriage. Seriously: what material difference to any heterosexual marriage would be made by the introduction of full civil marriage for same-sex couples?
@9dunmanus If you intended respect then you would respect that heterosexual marriage is an acknowledgement by society of the union between man and woman, for life, with the desired purpose of supporting family life. This is a right of heterosexual married couples that should not be displaced by trying to confer new rights on gay couples who now have the civil partnership route. Society must see the two as different in the same way it sees man and woman as different, both valuable but different.
@m1trekker: Allowing full civil marriage for same sex couples will not displace the rights of any heterosexual couple. How could it? Their marriage remains unchanged. Their relationship unchanged. The rights of their children (should they have any) unchanged. How would *your* marriage (I'm guessing) be changed by it, for instance?
@9dunmanus Marriage is about society, nothing to do with individuals. Adding another group that are not naturally capable of family life will of course affect the way society views marriage. As a reverse argument, why do gays need marriage, surely they have all they need in civil partnerships (legal representation, public acknowledgement, etc.)?
@m1trekker: You have yet to say HOW, in your opinion, it will change the way society views marriage. Like it or not, homosexual people are a part of society. Your argument applies both ways: why would heterosexuals require more than the same rights and responsibilities afforded by civil partnership?
@9dunmanus Heterosexual marriage carries with it the responsibility for family life. Homosexuals are not capable of natural family life. The two are not equal and there is a clear distinction in societies eyes. Homosexuals have quite rightly been given rights that protect them from discrimination and the injustices of the past, those rights do not extend into family life.
@m1trekker: The only thing different is the gendermix (or not) of the married people. So why not have the same rights, responsibilities and privileges? Heterosexuals will continue to marry; in some cases, procreate and; in some cases, divorce. The heterosexual portion of society will not cease to partner and procreate just because another section of society has been granted full equality in this regard. Civil Partnership does NOT protect the kids of gay parents.
@9dunmanus If you think of the word "doctor", today most people think of a medical practitioner. However, the term "doctor" has been usurped by the medical profession. Doctor derives from the latin "doctoris" for teacher and hence more accurately describes a person with a PhD or similar doctorate degree in any subject area. If you think conferring rights or societies acceptance on one group does not undermine another you are completely wrong. The same applies to the word "marriage"
@m1trekker: So you are saying that calling an MD "Doctor" undermines those with a PhD? The semantics aside, the quality or importance of a PhD is not diminished in any way.
@m1trekker: This particular PhD takes absolutely NO issue with her MD associates being called doctors. Gay marriage will not redefine marriage. Just like allowing women to vote did not redefine voting and allowing African Americans to eat at the same lunch counter as white people did not redefine dining out.
@9dunmanus: Thanks for giving this guy enough rope with which to hang himself. He clearly trawls the net to debunk gay marriage. His is an illogical, mean-spirited crusade.
@cecilylovegood Illogical, mean-spirited crusade ? Someone disagrees with a viewpoint and they are on a crusade ? Not quite the PhD level I would have expected. I think the heterosexual marriage / gay civil partnership distinction is quite logical, a gay family is not natural and would rely upon surrogacy, adoption, which in themselves are very unhealthy for society; I found the Elton John/Furnish surrogacy distasteful, creating a market in children to supply gay couples, very unhealthy.
@m1trekker: If you're not on a crusade, it seems too much like a strange coincidence that you just happened to stumble upon this video. Your use of the word "distasteful" says it all: is surrogacy only distasteful when the adoptive parents are gay? If not, we're on to a new discussion.
@cecilylovegood: I hadn't considered that m1trekker might be scouring for videos in this way. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt... for now. The thing is, his is exactly the kind of intransigent attitude that will hinder progress on equality. "Gay marriage will undermine society's belief in marriage" is relentlessly stated without saying HOW. The answer "gays can't procreate" is not answering what was asked. HOW will it affect marriage? You're right: his issue is probably "distaste."
@9dunmanus Can you reference another gay marriage upload I have commented on ? If cecilylovegood's assumptions are wrong, its not surpring the conclusions are also wrong.
My distaste arises since it is not the model that society should venerate to provide stable families. Having a wealthy, gay 63 year old Elton John pay an avaricious gold digger to have his surrogate child is not healthy for society. It treats children as commodities and does not take into consider the long term impact on a child's psychology. In my experience working with such disconnected children there is an inevitable yearning for bonding with the biological parents and a search for identity.
@m1trekker: Your distaste for Elton John's surrogacy arrangement is a side issue. On balance, let's just draw a line under this debate. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. *shrug* Out of curiosity, though, what drew you here?
@9dunmanus Yes lets agree to differ, I am of course not anti gays, I think it is abhorent the way gays have been treated in the past, I just oppose gay marriage and think civil partnership is preferable. As regards YouTube I have an eclectic mix of topics I comment on usually derived by clicking on something on the right hand side in a random manner. Bye for now.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, only heterosexual marriage. Nobody is disputing the right to love or the commitment gays have to each other. However, marriage is a statement by society and society acknowledges that marriage occurs between a man and a woman. Giving rights to some groups should not undermine the rights of others to be acknowledged in a certain way.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: With respect, you make very little sense. Affording the right of marriage to same sex couples does not affect the rights of heterosexual couples, the quality of their marriage or the respect afforded by society to their marriage. Seriously: what material difference to any heterosexual marriage would be made by the introduction of full civil marriage for same-sex couples?
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus If you intended respect then you would respect that heterosexual marriage is an acknowledgement by society of the union between man and woman, for life, with the desired purpose of supporting family life. This is a right of heterosexual married couples that should not be displaced by trying to confer new rights on gay couples who now have the civil partnership route. Society must see the two as different in the same way it sees man and woman as different, both valuable but different.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: Allowing full civil marriage for same sex couples will not displace the rights of any heterosexual couple. How could it? Their marriage remains unchanged. Their relationship unchanged. The rights of their children (should they have any) unchanged. How would *your* marriage (I'm guessing) be changed by it, for instance?
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus Marriage is about society, nothing to do with individuals. Adding another group that are not naturally capable of family life will of course affect the way society views marriage. As a reverse argument, why do gays need marriage, surely they have all they need in civil partnerships (legal representation, public acknowledgement, etc.)?
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: You have yet to say HOW, in your opinion, it will change the way society views marriage. Like it or not, homosexual people are a part of society. Your argument applies both ways: why would heterosexuals require more than the same rights and responsibilities afforded by civil partnership?
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus Heterosexual marriage carries with it the responsibility for family life. Homosexuals are not capable of natural family life. The two are not equal and there is a clear distinction in societies eyes. Homosexuals have quite rightly been given rights that protect them from discrimination and the injustices of the past, those rights do not extend into family life.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: The only thing different is the gendermix (or not) of the married people. So why not have the same rights, responsibilities and privileges? Heterosexuals will continue to marry; in some cases, procreate and; in some cases, divorce. The heterosexual portion of society will not cease to partner and procreate just because another section of society has been granted full equality in this regard. Civil Partnership does NOT protect the kids of gay parents.
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus If you think of the word "doctor", today most people think of a medical practitioner. However, the term "doctor" has been usurped by the medical profession. Doctor derives from the latin "doctoris" for teacher and hence more accurately describes a person with a PhD or similar doctorate degree in any subject area. If you think conferring rights or societies acceptance on one group does not undermine another you are completely wrong. The same applies to the word "marriage"
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: So you are saying that calling an MD "Doctor" undermines those with a PhD? The semantics aside, the quality or importance of a PhD is not diminished in any way.
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus Most definetely that is what I am saying.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: Thank you. I'm curious to know what my doctor friends and relatives - both the MD and PhD kinds - will have to say on that subject.
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@m1trekker: This particular PhD takes absolutely NO issue with her MD associates being called doctors. Gay marriage will not redefine marriage. Just like allowing women to vote did not redefine voting and allowing African Americans to eat at the same lunch counter as white people did not redefine dining out.
@9dunmanus: Thanks for giving this guy enough rope with which to hang himself. He clearly trawls the net to debunk gay marriage. His is an illogical, mean-spirited crusade.
cecilylovegood 1 year ago
@cecilylovegood Illogical, mean-spirited crusade ? Someone disagrees with a viewpoint and they are on a crusade ? Not quite the PhD level I would have expected. I think the heterosexual marriage / gay civil partnership distinction is quite logical, a gay family is not natural and would rely upon surrogacy, adoption, which in themselves are very unhealthy for society; I found the Elton John/Furnish surrogacy distasteful, creating a market in children to supply gay couples, very unhealthy.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: If you're not on a crusade, it seems too much like a strange coincidence that you just happened to stumble upon this video. Your use of the word "distasteful" says it all: is surrogacy only distasteful when the adoptive parents are gay? If not, we're on to a new discussion.
cecilylovegood 1 year ago
@cecilylovegood: I hadn't considered that m1trekker might be scouring for videos in this way. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt... for now. The thing is, his is exactly the kind of intransigent attitude that will hinder progress on equality. "Gay marriage will undermine society's belief in marriage" is relentlessly stated without saying HOW. The answer "gays can't procreate" is not answering what was asked. HOW will it affect marriage? You're right: his issue is probably "distaste."
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus Can you reference another gay marriage upload I have commented on ? If cecilylovegood's assumptions are wrong, its not surpring the conclusions are also wrong.
m1trekker 1 year ago
My distaste arises since it is not the model that society should venerate to provide stable families. Having a wealthy, gay 63 year old Elton John pay an avaricious gold digger to have his surrogate child is not healthy for society. It treats children as commodities and does not take into consider the long term impact on a child's psychology. In my experience working with such disconnected children there is an inevitable yearning for bonding with the biological parents and a search for identity.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@m1trekker: Your distaste for Elton John's surrogacy arrangement is a side issue. On balance, let's just draw a line under this debate. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. *shrug* Out of curiosity, though, what drew you here?
9dunmanus 1 year ago
@9dunmanus Yes lets agree to differ, I am of course not anti gays, I think it is abhorent the way gays have been treated in the past, I just oppose gay marriage and think civil partnership is preferable. As regards YouTube I have an eclectic mix of topics I comment on usually derived by clicking on something on the right hand side in a random manner. Bye for now.
m1trekker 1 year ago
@9dunmanus: I think you may consider yourself roundly patronised. *rolls eyes*
cecilylovegood 1 year ago
LOL!! Love the Brenda Power animation and the Minister of Duh!
cecilylovegood 2 years ago