IntenseDebate - Shelagh

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 2 replies · -7 points

You are so impatient. I gave an answer to your last comment. Here it is again:

Okay, so you are saying that a man's right to take a wife now means that a wife can be a man, whereas, originally, a wife meant a woman.

I claim the two lls to save you the bother of continuing your game. It's late in the UK, and tomorrow I will be travelling to visit my dad to celebrate his ninetieth birthday. I know you will all miss me. Parting is such sweet sorrow that I’ll say good night ...

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 2 replies · -5 points

Okay, so you are saying that a man's right to take a wife now means that a wife can be a man, whereas, originally, a wife meant a woman. The law can be so confusing to us dimwits.

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 4 replies · -5 points

Shouldn't you be thanking me for giving everyone the chance to shine so brightly?

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 4 replies · -7 points

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal," he did not mean social or economic egalitarianism. Rather he and others of the Founding generation believed that society by its nature could never be socially or economically homogeneous because men differ in their abilities and virtues. They did not want to level society, but rather give to each individual the opportunity to make the most of his abilities. In order for this opportunity to exist, all men (and at the time they were only concerned with men) had to stand before the law on an equal footing. There could not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, although the Founders ignored the fact that there was clearly one law for white people and another for slaves. A generation later, when Andrew Jackson's Democrats talked about equality, they meant the same thing — equality of opportunity based on equal treatment by the law.
http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeo...

So, all men, rich or poor, had the right to take a wife. This was the original right. How was this right changed?

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 1 reply · -6 points

Who takes the bible literally? I most certainly don't.

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 1 reply · -7 points

You are too kind.

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 4 replies · -12 points

Following your reasoning, any adult should be allowed to marry any other adult unless the State can prove that it is not in the State's interest. Which means that no individual or institution should be protected, under any circumstances, because it might infringe upon other people's rights. Well, if that's the society you want, go for it, and good luck!

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 14 replies · -12 points

That is an assumption on your part. You are saying that the Institution of Marriage cannot be protected because it is discriminatory, and therefore the Institution itself must be changed. You are also saying that it is wrong to want to protect the Institution of Marriage. Yet you know only too well that two men alone cannot produce a child, neither can two women, the purpose for which marriage was established.

As a defence against this argument, infertility is thrown out as somehow vindicating the sterility of a homosexual relationship. This is a very poor argument since infertile couples often suffer numerous miscarriages and still born births, something a homosexual couple would never have to suffer. Childless couples are not synonymous with same sex couples; they are oceans apart.

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 40 replies · -13 points

You offer your personal situation as grounds for allowing same-sex couples to marry, yet stubbornly reject that marriage was never meant to be a ceremony other than that for the union of one man and one woman. Yes, fight for equal rights, fight for a civil partnership to be recognised in law with equal benefits to those afforded married couples. The Institution of Marriage was set up for the union of a man and a woman. Nothing you say will change that.

I hope your partner has fully recovered and is enjojing good health and continues to do so.

8 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Marriage equality at S... · 1 reply · -12 points

The hypothesis did not exclude homosexuals; they would exclude themselves by choice.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Shelagh

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

Shelagh