PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

One for our legal eagles, Same sex groups ban.
Roverboy
post Sat, 30 Nov 2013 - 11:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,276
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



Me and a few mates (about 5/6) in previous years have really struggled to find anywhere to accept our bookings for our jolly boys outing as many refuse on the grounds of no same-sex groups.

With the recent ruling against the b&b owners refusing to accept the gay couple (which I think was a set up) can I somehow challenge a company that refuses our booking in future.

Mate said if they refuse, to say "are you seriously refusing a booklng by a group of gay men after the b&b case" even though we're not, and see what they say.

This post has been edited by Roverboy: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 - 11:49


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Sat, 30 Nov 2013 - 11:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
psimmons200
post Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:10
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,614



QUOTE (Wongsky @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:06) *
QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:14) *
[...]I agree that the current situation is weird, but I can't agree that it's discriminatory as I can't see how anyone is being treated less favourably. They get the same thing whether its called a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, a courgette or a zucchini.


So if there's no difference, then - why not standardise it all, and let them have marriage?

Whom does it truly harm?

And if it doesn't harm anybody, then why the hell shouldn't they be able to?


Why not indeed. We are not on different pages.

QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:55) *
there are two stated position that could be so

1)not allowing gay marriage is discrimination
2) civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same (so no discrimination)

both of these are a good reason to only have one sort of marriage

if every one accepts that is a either a) fairer or b) a sensible rationalization. then we are only differing one why we think its a good idea

does anyone here think its a bad idea ?


I actually quite like Civil Partnerships and would be sad to see them go. I think they should be open, along with marriage, to couples of any sexual persuasion.

A rather neat way of extending the rights and responsibilities of traditional 'marriage' to those people who want a legal way of recognising their commitment and enjoying the privileges and legal status, without the historic association with organised religion and female subordination.

But of course it's all nomenclature. Big whoop.

This post has been edited by psimmons200: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:14
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:10) *
QUOTE (Wongsky @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:06) *
QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:14) *
[...]I agree that the current situation is weird, but I can't agree that it's discriminatory as I can't see how anyone is being treated less favourably. They get the same thing whether its called a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, a courgette or a zucchini.


So if there's no difference, then - why not standardise it all, and let them have marriage?

Whom does it truly harm?

And if it doesn't harm anybody, then why the hell shouldn't they be able to?


Why not indeed. We are not on different pages.

QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:55) *
there are two stated position that could be so

1)not allowing gay marriage is discrimination
2) civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same (so no discrimination)

both of these are a good reason to only have one sort of marriage

if every one accepts that is a either a) fairer or b) a sensible rationalization. then we are only differing one why we think its a good idea

does anyone here think its a bad idea ?


I actually quite like Civil Partnerships and would be sad to see them go. I think they should be open, along with marriage, to couples of any sexual persuasion.

A rather neat way of extending the rights and responsibilities of traditional 'marriage' to those people who want a legal way of recognising their commitment and enjoying the privileges and legal status, without the historic association with organised religion and female subordination.


i can live with that,( provided marriage is both ways as well) but then i dont think they are exactly the same, for reasons including the ones you given above

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:15


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minotaur
post Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 22:14
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 899
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
From: East Midlands
Member No.: 58,478



Cut out the church; rename "marriage" to "civil partnership" - end of problem.


--------------------
Remove Residents' Parking Scheme: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me (and others) 1
Parking Tickets: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me 3
Parking Tickets: Civil Enforcement Ltd. 0 - Me 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 22:23
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (minotaur @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 22:14) *
Cut out the church; rename "marriage" to "civil partnership" - end of problem.


The thought did cross my mind.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



Going back to the original post, I sincerely hope that barring large single-sex groups does not turn out to be a breach of the Equality Act. In my experience such bans (e.g. at campsites) are there for a reason (which is to say I have been on campsites without such a ban and have seen first-hand why other campsites do impose such a ban; in one instance a large group of lads go so out-of-hand in the early hours that they were asked to leave, and when they refused the owner - a farmer - towed his muck-spreader to their camp and, to the applause of all the other "residents", threatened to fertilise them. They left, and the last time I was there the owner was sleeping in a caravan at the entrance to the site - despite having a perfectly good farmhouse - in order to deny entry to such groups showing up on spec).

QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:10) *
A rather neat way of extending the rights and responsibilities of traditional 'marriage' to those people who want a legal way of recognising their commitment and enjoying the privileges and legal status, without the historic association with organised religion and female subordination.

As someone who has been in a heterosexual relationship for many years I can say that (i) we feel discriminated against by being denied a civil partnership and (ii) we are sick of people who dismiss our gripe by saying "well just get married then".

You have put very succinctly the reasons why (i) we would want a civil partnership and (ii) we don't want to get married. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:14
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17) *
Going back to the original post, I sincerely hope that barring large single-sex groups does not turn out to be a breach of the Equality Act. In my experience such bans (e.g. at campsites) are there for a reason (which is to say I have been on campsites without such a ban and have seen first-hand why other campsites do impose such a ban; in one instance a large group of lads go so out-of-hand in the early hours that they were asked to leave, and when they refused the owner - a farmer - towed his muck-spreader to their camp and, to the applause of all the other "residents", threatened to fertilise them. They left, and the last time I was there the owner was sleeping in a caravan at the entrance to the site - despite having a perfectly good farmhouse - in order to deny entry to such groups showing up on spec).


the problem is, nearly all discriminators have a reason for their discrimination, either, women in the tap room puts the blokes off coz they cant use industrial terms, or having EMs at the tennis club '' lowers the tone'' and will effect membership or indeed that having people from the sub content living in the area will increase crime/lower property prices. back in early 70s they had a petition going round coz an Indian family had brought a house in our street

So to your point, is it fare to discriminate against a defined set of people just because a % of them behave irresponsibly ? is it even supportable that with objective criteria that a single sex group will be more leary than a mixed group of the same age bracket.

will a model train enthusiasts group made up of males be more of a handful than a tennis club outing made up of couples ? Will the woman institute Xmas outing be a nightmare compared to the rugby club xmas meal where they brought their partners ? it clearly nonsense ? to make a generlized statement on single sex groups. would your camp site owner stick to his guns if the bishop of york turned up with some work mates for a weekends camping, of course not

reconcile these two statements for me, we wont allow irish travelers in this hotel coz some of them are thieves. we wont allow a single sex football team in this hotel coz some of them will get drunk and smash the place up

both are clearly ''unfair'' just one is illegal and the other is current under dispute

This post has been edited by jobo: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:27


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17) *
As someone who has been in a heterosexual relationship for many years I can say that (i) we feel discriminated against by being denied a civil partnership and (ii) we are sick of people who dismiss our gripe by saying "well just get married then".

You have put very succinctly the reasons why (i) we would want a civil partnership and (ii) we don't want to get married. Thank you.


Ok this point has been raised a few times. A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?

have you actually been declined such to base you claim of discrimination on ? can you point out the law that you say discriminates against you ?


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:41
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34) *
QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17) *
As someone who has been in a heterosexual relationship for many years I can say that (i) we feel discriminated against by being denied a civil partnership and (ii) we are sick of people who dismiss our gripe by saying "well just get married then".

You have put very succinctly the reasons why (i) we would want a civil partnership and (ii) we don't want to get married. Thank you.


Ok this point has been raised a few times. A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?

have you actually been declined such to base you claim of discrimination on ? can you point out the law that you say discriminates against you ?



This was in 2010..dunno where it went :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

"There's only one snag. Under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such arrangements are restricted to couples of the same sex."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomic Tomato
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:47
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,209
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,356



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34) *
Ok this point has been raised a few times. A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?

have you actually been declined such to base you claim of discrimination on ? can you point out the law that you say discriminates against you ?

Well if you followed the information on the CAB website you may well come to that conclusion
QUOTE
How does civil partnership differ from marriage?

Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.


This post has been edited by Atomic Tomato: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:56
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 915
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34) *
A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?


s.3(1) -Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—

(a)they are not of the same sex
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:05
Post #71


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE
the claim is hetrosexual can NOT have a CP


If you are going to split hairs and reduce an argument ad absurdum, don't start off by re-wording the argument that you are purporting to cite.

A heterosexual couple cannot have a CP. A heterosexual couple could seemingly enter into separate CPs with other people of the same sex as themselves, but that is not a real right as it defeats the ostensible object of the right. It would be far more accurate to say that same-sex couples have the right to marry, just not each other.

Civil partnership is not the same as marriage. It confers broadly the same legal rights and obligations, but it is not marriage. It has been dubbed 'gay marriage', because that is effectively what it is. It is not a true marriage in the traditional sense.

Marriage traditionally has primarily been about providing a stable basis for raising children produced by the couple. It also provides a degree of legal protection for the married couple. Raising children is not a requirement of marriage, nor is it a requirement that any children are the offspring of either or both of the partners, but that historically has been the primary purpose.

Same-sex couples can enjoy the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. If it were otherwise, that would constitute discrimination. However, that is not equality, partly because they are called different things, and partly because they are not the same.

A traditional marriage was between a man and a woman, and the ceremony was performed in a church. For some people, a church wedding is more respectable than a registry office wedding. A couple married in a registry office enjoy the same legal rights as those married in a church, they are not entitled to call their wedding a church wedding. There is inequality there, should the law be changed?

If marriage is to be extended to same sex couples, despite the fact that they are already entitled to the same legal protection that married couples are, shouldn't it be extended to absolutely anyone who wants to be married? If a woman wanted to marry a wall, why shouldn't she be entitled to do so? If a single man wanted cheaper car insurance quotes that a married man would get, why can't he just marry himself?



--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:13
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 915
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:28) *
the claim is hetrosexual can NOT have a CP.


Spot the difference...

QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34) *
A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wongsky
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:33
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,507



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:05) *
A traditional marriage was between a man and a woman, and the ceremony was performed in a church. For some people, a church wedding is more respectable than a registry office wedding. A couple married in a registry office enjoy the same legal rights as those married in a church, they are not entitled to call their wedding a church wedding. There is inequality there, should the law be changed?


Why is it inequality - they're still married? People make choices - I didn't get married in a church, either - it was my choice not to - I don't feel disadvantaged because it would be incorrect to label it a church wedding.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:05) *
If marriage is to be extended to same sex couples, despite the fact that they are already entitled to the same legal protection that married couples are


Which it is almost inevitable that it will be.

Quite right too.

You can protest all you want, create all the "Why should they?" arguments, or question why the law should be changed - but times change. The perspective should be why shouldn't homosexual couples be able to get married?

For many years, now, marriage hasn't been the exclusive ceremony of religions or churches, why shouldn't homosexual couples be able to get married? Nobody truly seems to answer that, beyond churlish, pointless, and entirely specious inferences that they'd like to claim would be imposed on those that have issues with homosexuality.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:05) *
shouldn't it be extended to absolutely anyone who wants to be married? If a woman wanted to marry a wall, why shouldn't she be entitled to do so? If a single man wanted cheaper car insurance quotes that a married man would get, why can't he just marry himself?


Now who's doing the ad absurdum thing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32
Post #74


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Wongsky @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:33) *
Now who's doing the ad absurdum thing?


Says the man who argued that the only good reason for allowing gay marriage is that [he believes] there is no good reason not to allow it...

However, the main point of that point was that jobo mis-cited the argument that he was trying to argue against and only succeeded in picking holes in the error that he himself introduced.

Before civil partnerships, on the face of it at least, it was inequitable that committed same-sex couples were denied the opportunity to have the same legal rights as married couples. The law did not allow for the recognition of the difference between a committed long term relationship and a casual relationship if the partners were of the same sex. Now it does, but without extending the title of married couple.

Many people would disagree with my assessment that it was inequitable. Others would says that it is inequitable that same-sex couples cannot marry in church, and there are many people who hold every conceivable opinion in between. Civil Partnerships are a compromise which give same sex couples the option of the legal protection they were previously denied.

You have paraphrased the doctrine that in a free society any man should be free to do anything which is not prohibited by law. However, that talks of the state not interfering with his actions without lawful reason, not of the state granting him any particular legal status or rights.

Marriage is a legal status. Living together as a married couple would is an activity. Taking part in a ceremony to celebrate and confirm a partnership is an activity. Having rights equivalent to that of a married couple is a legal status.

The second and third are required by the doctrine. The last is enshrined in law, and the first isn't, but neither are protected by the doctrine. The last is required by equality law, but the first isn't - albeit because the last is law.

Your argument the perceived lack of a good argument against changing the law is all the argument that is needed to change the law is seriously flawed. There should always be a good reason to change the status quo, otherwise we would have constant change for the sake of it.

You argue that if same sex couples want the legal right to marry (as opposed to having the same rights but under a different name), then nobody has the right to object unless it directly affects them. People who are merely offended by the concept - whether it is same-sex couples in general, or politicians pandering to politically correct ideals by giving same sex couples rights which they already have - are bigots and their opinions don't count. Unfortunately, in a democracy opinions of people whose views you disagree with still count - or at least they should. Disenfranchising those whose views you find objectionable is the very essence of fascism.

Clearly I chose extreme examples of 'equality' to prove a point, but if we must have equality, why should it be equality for some and not equality for all? In Germany they have equality and crazy women can marry walls. If traditional marriage is an outdated concept - the argument which many of those who object to same sex marriage would dispute, why not allow siblings to marry? Or inanimate objects? Or single people? Or multiple partners? You might think that those suggestions are absurd, but if we are going to have equality, what rational reasons are there why they should they be excluded? Is it the proportion of people who find them abhorrent/absurd even though they aren't directly affected by them? Or do you think that equality should be extended to all?

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:33


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:41
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 915
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:12) *
your query only works if you have a different definition of ' 'a couple''to me, clearly ''to couple'' has a different meaning


Any sensible person would understand the phrase "which prevents hetro couples from having one" to mean preventing a 'hetero couple' from entering into a civil partnership with one another.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:53
Post #76


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (dp7 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:12) *
your query only works if you have a different definition of ' 'a couple''to me, clearly ''to couple'' has a different meaning


Any sensible person would understand the phrase "which prevents hetro couples from having one" to mean preventing a 'hetero couple' from entering into a civil partnership with one another.


Even ignoring the context which would clearly indicate that "couples" was a noun not a verb, as a verb the sentence would make no sense (even ignoring the usual poor grammar and spelling).


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wongsky
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:55
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,507



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
QUOTE (Wongsky @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:33) *
Now who's doing the ad absurdum thing?


Says the man who argued that the only good reason for allowing gay marriage is that [he believes] there is no good reason not to allow it...


Another mistake - I didn't say the only good reason for allowing gay marriage, is that there is no good reason not to allow it. I think it's the most significant reason though - and it stands.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
Before civil partnerships, on the face of it at least, it was inequitable that committed same-sex couples were denied the opportunity to have the same legal rights as married couples. The law did not allow for the recognition of the difference between a committed long term relationship and a casual relationship if the partners were of the same sex. Now it does, but without extending the title of married couple.

Many people would disagree with my assessment that it was inequitable. Others would says that it is inequitable that same-sex couples cannot marry in church, and there are many people who hold every conceivable opinion in between. Civil Partnerships are a compromise which give same sex couples the option of the legal protection they were previously denied.

You have paraphrased the doctrine that in a free society any man should be free to do anything which is not prohibited by law. However, that talks of the state not interfering with his actions without lawful reason, not of the state granting him any particular legal status or rights.

Marriage is a legal status. Living together as a married couple would is an activity. Taking part in a ceremony to celebrate and confirm a partnership is an activity. Having rights equivalent to that of a married couple is a legal status.

The second and third are required by the doctrine. The last is enshrined in law, and the first isn't, but neither are protected by the doctrine. The last is required by equality law, but the first isn't - albeit because the last is law.

Your argument the perceived lack of a good argument against changing the law is all the argument that is needed to change the law is seriously flawed. There should always be a good reason to change the status quo, otherwise we would have constant change for the sake of it.


Utter tripe.

We wouldn't have change for the sake of change, we would merely be without restriction for no damn good reason.

There is no convincing argument, that doesn't stem from bigotry, as to why homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married - so once again - why shouldn't they be able to?

The status quo. And that's about it. Not very convincing, is it.

Here's the thing - this will happen. The law will be changed. It's inevitable. That you may well not like it, and think it's unnecessary - well feel free to rage against the light, but it won't make a blind bit of difference. Sooner or later, it will happen.

So why be churlish about it - why try and fight it - whom does it harm?

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
You argue that if same sex couples want the legal right to marry (as opposed to having the same rights but under a different name), then nobody has the right to object unless it directly affects them.


I think you've rather cut to the chase there.

People have the right to object about anything - that's NOT the point I was making. The point I was making is why should anybody take any heed of such objections, if it doesn't affect them (which it doesn't).

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
People who are merely offended by the concept - whether it is same-sex couples in general, or politicians pandering to politically correct ideals by giving same sex couples rights which they already have - are bigots and their opinions don't count. Unfortunately, in a democracy opinions of people whose views you disagree with still count - or at least they should. Disenfranchising those whose views you find objectionable is the very essence of fascism.


Tell somebody who gives a damn - see how that works?

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
Clearly I chose extreme examples of 'equality' to prove a point,


Oh if only...

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:32) *
but if we must have equality, why should it be equality for some and not equality for all? In Germany they have equality and crazy women can marry walls. If traditional marriage is an outdated concept - the argument which many of those who object to same sex marriage would dispute, why not allow siblings to marry? Or inanimate objects? Or single people? Or multiple partners? You might think that those suggestions are absurd, but if we are going to have equality, what rational reasons are there why they should they be excluded? Is it the proportion of people who find them abhorrent/absurd even though they aren't directly affected by them? Or do you think that equality should be extended to all?


What rational reasons are they that they should be excluded? I have no idea - I care so little if somebody wants to marry a wall, or a tree. Would I vote for / against it? I'd probably abstain because I couldn't give a flying <censored>

But - it does bear comment - there is a difference between people who have reasonable grounds to want to be able to do something, and somebody that wants to sail the ocean in a colander.

The inevitables remain - there is no convincing argument against it - which is why nobody, really, is listening to the argument against it. That's not fascism, that's seeing the wood for the trees. The biggest voice of detraction is the religious / religions - but there only true voice of any value, is whether they would be coerced against their beliefs to perform ceremonies - which I'm not sure I've heard argue that they should, so is probably a strawman. And at the end of the day, whether it's people who believe in aliens or people who believe in other supernatural hocus-pocus, they have hardly cornered the market on reason and rationale.

This post has been edited by Wongsky: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minotaur
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:08
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 899
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
From: East Midlands
Member No.: 58,478



A lot of the above seems to come down to -

1. Everything should be banned unless specifically allowed

or

2. Everything should be allowed unless specifically banned.


Take your pick.


--------------------
Remove Residents' Parking Scheme: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me (and others) 1
Parking Tickets: Nottinghamshire County Council 0 - Me 3
Parking Tickets: Civil Enforcement Ltd. 0 - Me 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wongsky
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:10
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,507



QUOTE (minotaur @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:08) *
A lot of the above seems to come down to -

1. Everything should be banned unless specifically allowed

or

2. Everything should be allowed unless specifically banned.


Take your pick.


Oh absolutely!

I'll pick 2 - or was that a trick question?

No, I'll go with 2. I've spent time in China, thank you very much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:23
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:53) *
QUOTE (dp7 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:12) *
your query only works if you have a different definition of ' 'a couple''to me, clearly ''to couple'' has a different meaning


Any sensible person would understand the phrase "which prevents hetro couples from having one" to mean preventing a 'hetero couple' from entering into a civil partnership with one another.


Even ignoring the context which would clearly indicate that "couples" was a noun not a verb, as a verb the sentence would make no sense (even ignoring the usual poor grammar and spelling).


?????? yes it was indeed a noun

1.
two people or things of the same sort considered together.
"a couple of girls were playing marbles"
synonyms: pair, duo, duology, twosome, set of two, match; More
doublets, twins;

there are other definitions but this is the one i meant



--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:15
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here