The tolerant Catholic Church

RomanNose said:
Yes because homosexuals would want to share the same terms as heterosexual couples. No one wants to be the green flower in the red field. It's as simple as that, people don't like differences to be highlighted when it is not needed.
Click to expand...

If the flower IS green in the red field, shouldnt it be known as a green flower?
 
Craterloads said:
If heterosexual couples gave up the term "marriage" and adopted the term "civil partnership" and essentially give homosexual couples exclusive rights to the term "marriage" I’m sure we would still be having this debate...no?. It would be the same thing just in reverse with homosexuals wanting to have the term "civil partnership"

Problem started again...
Click to expand...

Yeah let's change the name of a world-wide tradition instead of changing the term 'civil partnership'.
 
RomanNose said:
That's entirely different because you are not muscular. A red flower is a flower in the same sense gay marriage is still marriage.
Click to expand...

Im still "big" though

Maybe not the best analogy but the point being made is still valid.

There is a difference between homo/hetro sexual couples, which need seperating.
 
Craterloads said:
Im still "big" though

Maybe not the best anology but the point being made is still valid.

There is a difference between homo/hetro sexual couples, which need seperating.
Click to expand...

By the use of gay marriage and straight marriage. It's not always needed though. Also a tradition doesn't mean it has to carry on.
 
Last edited:
RomanNose said:
By the use of gay marriage and straight marriage. It's not always needed though. Also a tradition doesn't mean it has to carry on.
Click to expand...

Again using the term "gay marriage" would still cause debate.

Why should a long standing tradition be changed just to appease a minority? whats wrong with "civil partnership"

There is a PHYSICAL difference between the two which deserves highlighting.
 
Craterloads said:
Again using the term "gay marriage" would still cause debate.

Why should a long standing tradition be changed just to appease a minority? whats wrong with "civil partnership"

There is a PHYSICAL difference between the two which deserves highlighting.
Click to expand...

Why would it cause debate? Sorry I don't understand, do you mean debate as in bigots who are outraged over something that will have no effect on them? Modifying marriage to include gays will have no effect on anyone else but gays. What's the problem with the term gay marriage?
 
RomanNose said:
Why would it cause debate? Sorry I don't understand, do you mean debate as in bigots who are outraged over something that will have no effect on them? Modifying marriage to include gays will have no effect on anyone else but gays. What's the problem with the term gay marriage?
Click to expand...

No people like you would be outraged because someone put the "gay" in front of marriage, "Gay marriage" as opposed to just "marriage"

As essentially adding the "gay" part would still be highlighting the difference...
 
Craterloads said:
No people like you would be outraged because someone put the "gay" in front of marriage, "Gay marriage" as opposed to just "marriage"

As essentially adding the "gay" part would still be highlighting the difference...
Click to expand...

It wouldn't always need to be used! I don't think you understand this. For example in forms that is actually needed, they would have two boxes for straight marriage and gay marriage. Why would someone object to that? It really wouldn't need to be used elsewhere and even if it is, it would be a whole lot better than "civil partnership". Black people are sometimes called black people, only when needed though. In most cases it's completely stupid unnecessary to point out they are black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom