rumncoke wrote:Nobody wants to withhold rights to anyone what is sought is that defined roles are recognised and maintained . The words " this is my wife " define a relationship and roles . this my girlfriend a different type of relationship this is my companion another .
Take away the terms and you cause confusion .
While the words "my wife and I are divorced" defines a subject to be off discussion unless I permit it .
If people want rights fine but stop redefining the meaning of terms .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We now have rumn teaching us about language and words.
BR wrote:Solidarity - so being a loved companion is only possible within a marriage? Dogs up and down the country will be devastated
Not at all, the only point I was trying to make is that marriage is not primarily for procreation. Of course a whole host of other relationships can be loving, including homosexual relationships.
You're right as well, Rocky, again, homosexual relationships can be committed, warm and loving. I wonder if Christians should simply accept that their understanding of marriage as a heterosexual relationship is no longer shared by the majority of society, that the unqualified word 'marriage' no longer describes what they believe and look for another phrase.
solidarity wrote:
Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship. I'm sure Mrs Trousers will be thrilled to know that she's a partner in a contract, not a loved companion.
Solidarse, I must say I haven't taken you for an idiot before. My post was very clear and precise about my convictions in this matter.
For you to draw the conclusion that you have is mind-numbingly stupid. The correct conclusion you should have drawn is that Mrs. T & I do not need anything but the legal status and the benefits in law that marriage confers. Neither of us need a piece of paper to affirm that we shall be devoted to each other for life.
How very disappointingly silly of you to seek to score a little point for mentalists in such a pathetic way. I hope it is not conclusively indicative of you being a low rent mentalist asshole, I'd rather higher hopes for you , mentalism notwithstanding.
I just haven't got this right have I? How do I express 'I'm pulling your leg here' in a post? I never know which wee smiley thing to use.
Marriage is supposed to be about a commitment to a life long monogamous relationship.
Most gay marriages don't even have that aspiration at the outset.
solidarity wrote:
Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship. I'm sure Mrs Trousers will be thrilled to know that she's a partner in a contract, not a loved companion.
Solidarse, I must say I haven't taken you for an idiot before. My post was very clear and precise about my convictions in this matter.
For you to draw the conclusion that you have is mind-numbingly stupid. The correct conclusion you should have drawn is that Mrs. T & I do not need anything but the legal status and the benefits in law that marriage confers. Neither of us need a piece of paper to affirm that we shall be devoted to each other for life.
How very disappointingly silly of you to seek to score a little point for mentalists in such a pathetic way. I hope it is not conclusively indicative of you being a low rent mentalist asshole, I'd rather higher hopes for you , mentalism notwithstanding.
I just haven't got this right have I? How do I express 'I'm pulling your leg here' in a post? I never know which wee smiley thing to use.
Fear not Solidarse, of course I know you were, I just care enough about this issue not to accept diversion from what I see is the core of the issue, equality.
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
I see we've attracted one of those folk in who could make one question the very existence of human social and intellectual evolution. I suppose it was asking too much to hope he'd sleep all through the cold snap.
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
Shan wrote:I see we've attracted one of those folk in who could make one question the very existence of human social and intellectual evolution. I suppose it was asking too much to hope he'd sleep all through the cold snap.
Nevin Spence 26 April 1990 – 15 September 2012 gone but never forgotten
Shan wrote:Take out all the emotional conviction and the word games and the whole thing boils down to one simple question....
Do you agree with equality for all citizens, yes or no? The subject matter itself is, or should be, irrelevant.
Really really simple isn't it?
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
Yes but we don't exist in an equal world thus natural equality does not exist . If equality existed abuse would cease to exist . Baggy wouldn't call people mentalists etc as an example because all would exist eternal harmony if equality existed . Every rugby match would be a draw etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
solidarity wrote:
Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship. I'm sure Mrs Trousers will be thrilled to know that she's a partner in a contract, not a loved companion.
Solidarse, I must say I haven't taken you for an idiot before. My post was very clear and precise about my convictions in this matter.
For you to draw the conclusion that you have is mind-numbingly stupid. The correct conclusion you should have drawn is that Mrs. T & I do not need anything but the legal status and the benefits in law that marriage confers. Neither of us need a piece of paper to affirm that we shall be devoted to each other for life.
How very disappointingly silly of you to seek to score a little point for mentalists in such a pathetic way. I hope it is not conclusively indicative of you being a low rent mentalist asshole, I'd rather higher hopes for you , mentalism notwithstanding.
I just haven't got this right have I? How do I express 'I'm pulling your leg here' in a post? I never know which wee smiley thing to use.
Fear not Solidarse, of course I know you were, I just care enough about this issue not to accept diversion from what I see is the core of the issue, equality.
???