Heterosexuals can marry who they like,

No, they can’t.

They can marry any person of the opposite sex (if the other consents, obviously)

It is also discrimination that heterosexuals can’t enter into a civil partnership with who they like, but homosexuals can.

Oh, this is an interesting point. Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry. Homesexuals cannot.

There is no unique relationship between a ‘man’ and a ‘women’ for marriage to describe

Except at the moment there is;

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consummation and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consummation.

So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consummation will no longer be part of the contract. Some opponents to same sex marriages believe that this devalues the marriage of heterosexual couples and that by removing a historically significant aspect of the marriage contract the new ‘thing’ is no longer a marriage but something different, marriage MK2?

To some people I know the whole consummation thing was a big deal, they were married as virgins and the act of consummation was sealing the deal, to be fair they are deeply religious people and I would imagine them to be in an ever decreasing minority. To me it didn’t even cross my mind because neither of us are religious and we weren’t in the no sex before marriage camp.

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

That’s not at all true, and I have the restraining order to prove it!

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal contract of marriage is sealed by consummation and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consummation.

Not so:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consummation+of+marriage

No, you have the same right to marry a woman as any other man.

I didn’t want to marry “a woman” I wanted marry the person I fell in love with*. Luckily I’m straight so I was allowed to do that. If I was gay I wouldn’t be allowed to marry the person I loved. A bit of wordplay is not going to get you out of the discrimination on grounds of sexuality hole religion is currently in.

*and who reciprocated obviously

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Assuming consent, anyway.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn’t complicated stuff.

irelanst
under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consummation.

So what’s the definition? My dictionary says “sexual intercourse”.
There’s no good reason for any of this anti-gay discrimination. It’s vulgar, anachronistic bigotry, full stop.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn’t complicated stuff.

Except that you have made 4 presumptions without any basis

Why would a straight man only want to marry a woman?

You’re clutching at straws.

It’s a bit pathetic, to be honest.

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consummation and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consummation.

I don’t remember reading that in the terms of my marriage contract?
In fact I don’t recall ever reading a marriage contract at all.

Presumably this also excludes severely disabled people from getting married?
And some elderly folk. And well, any folk who just don’t particularly want to consummate for whatever reason.

There is no unique relationship between a ‘man’ and a ‘women’ for marriage to describe. This is because there is no such thing as a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’, everyone is different.

Bang on.

There are more differences between people of the same sex than there are between people of different sexes. To say otherwise is to define someone by their gender, rather than as an individual.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it’s also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women. Your argument holds no water.

I’m the eldest of five:

I was allowed to marry the person I love.
The older of my brothers was allowed to marry the person he loves.
The older of my sisters was allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my sisters was not allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my brothers is single. He may or may be not allowed to marry the person he loves when he finds them. (We’re not too sure about him.)

If you can’t see the issue here, there’s probably no hope for you.

You’re clutching at straws.

It’s a bit pathetic, to be honest.

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don’t you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it’s also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women. Your argument holds no water.

You are suggesting that our attraction to others stems from our sexuality.
It is the other way round – it is exactly our attractions that define our sexuality.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it’s also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women.

What nonsense.

Your argument holds no water.

But if a bearded sky wizard told me in my dreams?

I was allowed to marry the person I love

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

you can change “love” for “wanted to” in that line if you want, I was just offering a real example not a definitive one.

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don’t you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

trying to define marriage as equal by carefully wording it was a bit clutch-y/straw-y

What nonsense.

Seems to make sense to me, if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

Why would a straight man only want to marry a woman?

I am going to go out on a limb here but is it for money 🙄

FFS that is beyond clutching at straws and into the realms of the ludicrous

if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

I suggest you look at them naked

HTH

Also, Grimy:

it’s also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight

Which would logically mean I, as a straight man, find every woman attractive.

Do you find every woman attractive?

you can change “love” for “wanted to” if you want.

then we are back to the original question of “How can you say who anyone would want to marry”

FFS that is beyond clutching at straws and into the realms of the ludicrous

so i keep hearing, but always in place of an argument

You seem to be saying that a straight man could only ever want to marry a woman. What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

Your argument has been destroyed several times over.
Seriously.

Heterosexual couples may marry. Gay couples may not.
Discrimination, pure & simple.

Boring troll is bring no one else could drive down such a pointless blind alley

i go for another 5 pages of this

When you present one that is not ridiculous i will bother to respond with something other than chuckling/mocking it.

I may have some wait

Still you are certainly pulling them in so enjoy you ” fame”

then we are back to the original question of “How can you say who anyone would want to marry”

twisting it round in circles here, i thought the argument was about letting someone marry whoever they wanted to (assuming reciprocity) I wasn’t suggesting who they should want to marry, that was the religious factions wasn’t it?

Ok, so just answer these 2 questions satisfactorily and I’ll stop this line of questioning.

What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

Incidentally, ‘for love’ is not clear enough an answer on its own

I wasn’t suggesting who they should want to marry, that was the religious factions wasn’t it?

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

I hope I’m not missing something when I say: By definition of the word ‘straight’.

What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

I don’t think there is one central tenet to marriage there’s lots of reasons and no two couple will have the same ones.
Love
company
feeling of security
display of commitment
for money
just cos they want to
etc
etc

I know several religions want that central thing to be “between 1 man and 1 woman” and they can keep that for their place of worship based rituals/services but for legality and everything else’s sake nope sorry they can’t.

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

no I didn’t I said I was lucky enough to be able to do what I happened to want to do.

You keep trying to twist peoples arguments, is this where I claim you are someone else and claim my cash gift?

ok and for most / any on those reasons a straight man might want to marry another man.

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason
no I didn’t I said I was lucky enough to be able to do what I happened to want to do.

Ok then, are you saying that a straight man might want to marry another man?

I’m not twisting arguments, I’m trying to understand other people’s views

Bloody hell, can you not edit your posts? It’s very bad form on a forum to double post, let alone triple…

overcomes the new page glitch issue, sorry if you find it confusing