"the rusty sheriffs badge"... Never heard that one before . Chocolate starfish yes but never that one.
"the rusty sheriffs badge"... Yes, I particularly liked that one! Anyway, it now seems it has come down to semantics. You can have "marriage" between a man and a woman, but only "civil partnership" between gays. I'm still not sure what the difference actually is, unless at a party you can say "we're married" rather than "we're in a civil partnership". I don't buy the argument about the morality of being gay (which let's face it, is what is secretly being discussed). Being gay may not be useful in evolutionary terms (though, procreation aside, it may be), but as it is something that seems to happen fairly spontaneously, independent of the will of the gay person, it's a bit hard to say it is unnatural. For gays it must be about as natural as breathing or preferring orange to blue, or not liking garlic. Those that are against gay marriage clearly still seem to think that gays are "lesser" in some way. Not being gay, it doesn't affect me, but I really can't see why the loving gay relationships shouldn't be recognised in exactly the same what a loving hetero ones - and that means marriage if you want it. In what way does allowing them this right diminish those who are not gay? Maybe I should kick up a stink about grade inflation. My qualifications are being degraded because the same qualifications are now awarded more easily to younger people. Is that what married straight people feel, that their marriage is somehow degraded if the same semantics are applied to gay relationships? Anyway back to tradition. Let's burn lesbians. They are clearly all witches. I've never understood why burning witches died out. Seemed reasonable enough to me.
Here's my final take on the subject......... The gays (and others who support them) might be deeply offended by my views on the matter...........and they have the right to say they are offended...... .......Equally, I have the right to say that I am deeply offended by them; their practices; their want to marry and those that support them, their practices and gay marriage. AL
Of course you have that right but I hope you'd expect to be able to back up your opinion with some thoughts.
I don't hope to expect backing up my opinion with some thoughts................ .....my thoughts are my opinion.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised if you get labelled a bigot because of it! Try replacing the word "gay" with "muslim" or "black" or "Irish" or "Ducati Owner" in the above sentence, and see if you still have the same opinion?
If I insult you by saying that you threaten violence, will you respond by ... making violent threats?
One of the curious and interesting features of the national debate on this topic concerns views about the contrast between existing civil partnerships and marriage. Opponents of marriage equality argue that: (A) civil partnerships are almost exactly the same as marriage, and the difference in actually calling them marriage would be so slight it is not worth bothering to make the tiny change; and (B) extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is a huge and momentous change which will affect the whole of society and all existing marriages, and goes beyond the scope even of parliament to change. They do not seem to notice that the two arguments are wholly incompatible, and cancel one another out.
May I make a suggestion? Whilst in the midst of a debate with someone about important topics and issues of principle, that is not the best moment to raise points of English spelling, grammar or syntax. I try to make a point of refraining from criticising spelling etc unless it is genuinely to help the other person, especially as some people are posting in haste with tiny keyboards in phones. Being a non-native English speaker, or dyslexic, or ill-educated does not invalidate a person's arguments or make them any less valued.
Of course my opinions are backed up thoughts.......I can't see how I would arrive at them otherwise..... ......It's how brains are supposed to work..........
(A) was close to my original position on this subject. (B) is just taking the argument to a ludicrous extreme. However I have changed my mind and am now think why not extend marriage to include same sex couples.
OK.....I want marry my brother..... Yes, I know I can't marry my sister............ I haven't got one. (But I did want to marry my Grandmother and my father objected because he didn't like the idea of me marrying his mother...........I couldn't see his problem...........he married my mother). AL
I would generally agree, however when someone goes straight from discussion to abuse and threats of violence there's little point in maintaining debate. Your points about Non native speaking and dyslexia are entirely fair and right however lack of education when meaning lack of knowledge absolutely does make an argument less valid, as an example look at the "Danny Nightingale" thread where initially, based on Tabloid style stories about a war hero unfairly hounded by an uncaring judiciary and political system, many posters were of the opinion that he and all other SAS members should be allowed to keep weaponry in their bedrooms. Once you in particular were able to offer a more legally sound opinion the general tenor of the discussion changed. Ill educated opinions are almost always not worth considering.
