I believe it to be a bad argument when people instantly ask for your reasons when you ask for theirs. Anyway, I do not wish to disclose my reasons, not because they are homophobic, but because I cannot be doing with getting into argument about it. OK? If martinsh wishes to reveal his reasons then that is fine by me.I'd be interested to know "why not", since you've asked "why".
Terminology has connotations attached to it though. At the moment I would imagine civil partnerships are seen as an afterthought or somehow less worthy despite legal statusI signed it, but in truth I'm not too bothered being as in essence this is just a question of terminology (a civil partnership affords all the same rights as a marriage).
Thanks for your understanding. I mainly used the 'oppression' term in case this whittled down to me (and others) getting lynched for saying it - it's great to see that it isn't going that way though! I didn't type that with regard to this specific situation, but just in case it did get to the point of me being opposed solely on the grounds of my belief and because I don't conform to what it is generally seen as correct to think.I respect your reasons and your opinions and you don't have to say them. As I said, I'd just be interested to know them, and you're right that you don't need to say them.
I don't see how "we should be allowed to get married" is more oppressive than that.
I also fail to see where the "liberal intolerance" lies in "I should be allowed to get married".
Aye, but I think traditionally it can appear to be that more conservative people oppose it (as well as those of religious beliefs), whereas more liberal and left-wing people support it. I should have probably made that clearer.Anyway, this is nothing to do with left and right, as can be seen by looking at who supports what.
Cameron claims he "supports gay marriage because he is a Conservative", and the C4M countercampaigners* have amongst their spokespeople several Labour MPs.
*note, the C4M are against it, and the C4EM (whose petition this is) are for.
Oh yes, that's what i mean. All that is either instructions for the Tribes of Israel roaming the desert 2,000 years before Jesus' time, and when the important thing was expanding the strength of the tribe (and so, any kind of nookie that wasn't with that aim in mind was frowned upon), or it was Paul's opinion, and Paul was someone who had lots of opinions about all sorts of things, and when he mentioned it it was in the middle of a great long catalogue of complaints about things people were doing. It wasn't even as if he made that big a thing of it, certainly disproportionate to the amount of fuss that's been made about it ever since.There are sentences in the bible (which may or may not be poor translations or additions over the years), such as a man shan't lie with another man (for it is an abomination). there are definately phrases in the bible which could be interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a sin (but interestingly, only for men, not for lesbian relationships). But then that still assumes that married people will always have sex (or "know" one another as I think it says). So that must mean marriage is fine if sex isn't involved.
What is so complicated about saying that 'I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair.'. Please tell me what is so complicated about that?Campaign for Equal Marriage website said:If marriage is redefined (again), those who believe in the modern definition of "traditional" marriage will still be married. They will still have the same sexual-orientation. Peoples' careers will remain intact, the sun will keep shining, and toast will still have a tendency to land butter-side-down. Couples seeking to adopt or foster will still be assessed based on the needs of the child, as they should be. Also, if we're very lucky, schools might teach kids not to be massive bigots like their parents, and we'll be one step closer to a cohesive, mature, civilised society.