Anti-American?

chill

Flukey wrote:

Why can't the gay couple be treated the same as married people? Simple, the view is that they are not married.

Who's view is that ? and when was it measured ?

a woman and a woman can't be called a marriage any more than a dog can be called a cat or a deckchair called a toilet roll.

Why not ? Who says ?

Flukey

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. That is what everyone says. That is what the law says. That is what a dictionary says, aswell as the joining of elements. Marriage is accepted as being the joining of a man and a woman Divorce is not the same as separation. Single isn't the same as widowed. Joining a man and a woman is not the same as a joining a same-sex couple. We can have a same sex joining if we want, call it something, giving it a legal standing, define entitlements or whatever. There is no problem about that. As I said gays and lesbians are free to get married, so it is wrong to say they can't. With the possible exception of parents and children, and siblings, any man can marry any woman if they both agree. We distinguish other marital statuses, so why should a same-sex union be any different? If anything, labelling it the same as something else would be undermining it. It deserves recognition in its own right, which is what people want, so why are people so against giving it its own name and identity? It seems contradictory that people want specific recognition of same-sex unions, but don't want to give it its own identity. Anyway we are getting off topic, in fact doubly so. The issue this came from was around tax and the thread is about Anti-Americanism.

Sleepy

Flukey wrote:

whether they be same sex or just two people living together.

Are two people of the same sex who live together not just two people living together? I'm sorry, you're confusing me with your bigotry.

Flukey

Yes, two people living together are two people living together, whether they be friends, brothers, sisters, brother and sister, husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and the person they are responsible for, lovers, flatmates, cousins or whatever. Some of those have legal recognition, some don't. People are looking for more of those to have one, which I said I agree with. Where is there any bigotry?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chill

Flukey wrote:

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman.

Says who ?

That is what everyone says.

Everyone ? Not me it isn't.

That is what the law says.

You mean the law that used to make women the 'property' of a man ? the law that used to give only men the vote ? that law ?

That is what a dictionary says..

The dictionary that has new words and changes to the meaning of old words in the thousands every year ? that dictionary ?

Marriage is accepted as being the joining of a man and a woman.

Accepted by whom ?

Joining a man and a woman is not the same as a joining a same-sex couple.

Why ?

We can have a same sex joining if we want, call it something, giving it a legal standing, define entitlements or whatever. There is no problem about that.

Exactly... and let's call it "Marriage" !!

As I said gays and lesbians are free to get married, so it is wrong to say they can't.

Except they cannot chose the person they marry...

It deserves recognition in its own right,

Now you're taking the p1ss....:)

It seems contradictory that people want specific recognition of same-sex unions, but don't want to give it its own identity.

Why is it contradictory ? They want the SAME rights and the SAME status and the SAME laws and the SAME taxes. Sounds to me like we should use the SAME word !

Anyway we are getting off topic, in fact doubly so. The issue this came from was around tax and the thread is about Anti-Americanism.

Agreed.....
:rolleyes:

claidheamh

Flukey wrote:

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. That is what everyone says. That is what the law says. That is what a dictionary says, aswell as the joining of elements.

Everyone eh?

In the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Purusha produces a wife from his own body, (thus each being only one sex). He copulates with himself producing humans.

Not familiar with the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad?

Hinduism- One of the "other" religions...

Therefore, tax law can be skewed as a direct result, by the imposition of a particular religious belief within a community.

bonkey

Can we get back on topic please.

As well as having nothing to do with the topic, the current direction would seem to be more a Humanities-relevant one rather than a Politics one.

jc