David Cameron: "The time has come for gay couples to marry"

Scroll to see replies

Reply 320

Mad Vlad

Original post by mmmpie

Although my favourite one is this (partly because they guy is cute)

Oh what a cheeky scamp he is :teehee:

Reply 321

RJ555

Original post by Miracle Day

He's basically reaffirming his support to this cause. Personally I think it's going to be legalised in the near future. Thoughts?

Read it here

I found the news on a Twitter trend, and there are other articles online if you question the reliability.

The quote ""The time has come for gay couples to marry" did make me laugh, just had an image of this: http://stickerish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NowKissBlackSS.png I'd hope gay couples have a say in the matter first!
:tongue:

Reply 322

Jester94

mmmpie

This one always makes me giggle too

82 years.jpg

We make the best signs

Reply 323

oldham_fran

Why are people making the assumption that homosexuals are being 'relegated' to civil partnerships? It's not an inferior institution. As it's been pointed out, CP's and marriages offer all of the same rights so it's not a case of one being superior over the other. Please don't quote me and say that a name change makes it inferior, because it really really doesn't. If that is the arguement you want to use, you can say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different names for the same thing. We all find other members of the human race sexually attractive, but you don't want us all to be labelled the same way in that context. Gender cannot be disregarded that easily. You want to enter a legally binding, committed relationship to someone of the same sex, you have a civil partnership. If you want to do the same with someone of the opposite sex, it is a marriage. The terminology does not change the nature of the relationship, it just denotes the genders of the participants.

And please don't throw the whole 'black people + water fountain' arguement at me either. That was an integral aspect of segregation and was based on horrenous levels of racism hence the forced use of different fountains. And, in almost all cases, the 'same' services and facilities that were offered to black people was of lower quality. But that is not the case regarding CP's and marriages, and a CP isn't based on homophobia. So the example is incompatible with the arguement at hand.

And I resent the fact that I have to write this. But I am not homophobic. The fact that I do not agree with the concept of gay marriage (because the definition of marriage, as a legal union between a man and a woman, makes it an oxymoron) does not, in any way, make me a raving, bigoted homophobe, or whatever other insult that's been levied at those who are anti-gay marriage.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 324

Jester94

Original post by oldham_fran

- Separate = inherently unequal
- CPs do not have all the same rights
- Legal definitions can, and do, change
- Homophobia = discrimination, racism = discrimination, thus the two are comparable
- While it may seem that granting CPs can't have anything to do with the homophobia, because they were granted, they do, because marriage was not granted
- The problem with CPs isn't only that they deny gay people the right to marry: it is a matter of principle for some, whereas others resent that fact that having to declare you are in a CP on official forms means having to reveal your sexuality, something straight people do not have to do (and all the other reasons people have against CPs)
- I resent the fact that, under current laws, I will not be able to marry the woman I fall in love with (but hey I can ask her to 'civil partner me', which just sounds like I want to go into business with her)

Reply 325

mmmpie

Original post by oldham_fran

There are more differences than the name, although I agree that for 99.9%+ of people there won't be much practical effect. If they are so similar however, where is the logic in maintaining an entirely arbitrary distinction?

Original post by oldham_fran

Please don't quote me and say that a name change makes it inferior, because it really really doesn't. If that is the arguement you want to use, you can say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different names for the same thing.

They are different names for the same thing, and ideally we wouldn't draw a distinction. However, the terms homosexual and heterosexual are loosely defined classifications of natural human behaviour, they aren't social institutions regulated by law.

Original post by oldham_fran

We all find other members of the human race sexually attractive, but you don't want us all to be labelled the same way in that context.

Actually, I would prefer this.

Original post by oldham_fran

Gender cannot be disregarded that easily.

Why not? What difference does it make?

Original post by oldham_fran

You want to enter a legally binding, committed relationship to someone of the same sex, you have a civil partnership. If you want to do the same with someone of the opposite sex, it is a marriage. The terminology does not change the nature of the relationship, it just denotes the genders of the participants.

The term 'marriage' carries with it cultural connotations which 'civil partnership' lacks, and vice versa. For this reason some couples may prefer 'marriage' and some may prefer 'civil partnership'. Since there's no compelling reason not to, we might as well give all couples the choice of both.

Original post by oldham_fran

That is precisely the point.

Original post by oldham_fran

And, in almost all cases, the 'same' services and facilities that were offered to black people was of lower quality. But that is not the case regarding CP's and marriages, and a CP isn't based on homophobia. So the example is incompatible with the arguement at hand.

Civil Partnerships only exists because of institutionalised homophobia - other countries had already legalised same-sex marriage when we brought those in, but our rather conservative culture and the fact that we have an established church made it politically impossible for us to do the same thing at the time.

Original post by oldham_fran

And I resent the fact that I have to write this. But I am not homophobic. The fact that I do not agree with the concept of gay marriage (because the definition of marriage, as a legal union between a man and a woman, makes it an oxymoron) does not, in any way, make me a raving, bigoted homophobe, or whatever other insult that's been levied at those who are anti-gay marriage.

I don't think you're being homophobic, although I do think you're rather ill informed on a couple of the above points.

Oh, and "marriage must be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman" is hideously circular and doesn't really count as much of an argument.

Reply 326

minimarshmallow

Here's an idea. The vast majority of straight people I have argued with on this thread and others say that civil partnerships are exactly the same but with different names, whereas the gay people and gay supporters say they want to call their union a marriage marriage. The logical thing to do then, is to flip them. Gay people will be happy because they get to call their union marriage. Straight people won't be bothered, because as they keep saying, they're just the same thing.
If you wouldn't agree to this, stop saying gay people should be happy with civil partnerships when straight people get marriage, because you wouldn't be happy if the tables were turned.

Reply 327

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by oldham_fran

Why are people making the assumption that homosexuals are being 'relegated' to civil partnerships?

Were they allowed access to marriage? No. Was there a new institution made for them because they weren't 'worthy' of marriage? Yes. That's called relegating.

It's not an inferior institution. As it's been pointed out, CP's and marriages offer all of the same rights so it's not a case of one being superior over the other.

They don't offer all the same rights, and if they do then please tell me why you are arbitrarily assigning homosexuals to one and heterosexuals to the other. Explain to me why you have two separate institutions to fulfill the same purpose/function.

Separate is inherently not equal. And many would prefer that people see sexuality the exact way you described.

We all find other members of the human race sexually attractive, but you don't want us all to be labelled the same way in that context. Gender cannot be disregarded that easily.

Why can't it? What makes it so important?

But again why the separate institutions? Why do you feel this need to denote the genders of the participants by segregating them into a different institution. If it's all the same anyway why keep them separate and why do you care?

And please don't throw the whole 'black people + water fountain' arguement at me either. That was an integral aspect of segregation and was based on horrenous levels of racism hence the forced use of different fountains. And, in almost all cases, the 'same' services and facilities that were offered to black people was of lower quality. But that is not the case regarding CP's and marriages, and a CP isn't based on homophobia. So the example is incompatible with the arguement at hand.

Racism was discrimination...this is also discrimination. The two are completely congruous.

Also..the water fountain example perfectly exemplifies, as both water fountains got the same water supply but blacks were still relegated to a different fountain. Same with buses. They got the same ride, but they had to sit in a different section.

And another thing, civil partnerships are based on homophobia. Why do we have them? Because religious people argued that homosexuals were immoral and are not equal to heterosexuals and therefore not worthy of being allowed to participate in the institution of marriage. Similar to how religious people used to denounce interracial marriage as inferior. The ban on interracial marriage was based on racism, just as the ban on same-sex marriage, and the subsequent creation of civil partnerships are based on and founded in homophobia.

I don't think you are homophobic. But that can change. I will ask why you think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Why should they settle for civil partnerships? Why shouldn't they have a choice of which they want? Your argument about the 'definition' of marriage is silly. The definition of marriage used to be the giving of a daughter in exchange for land or goods...but I don't see you trying to go back to that. :rolleyes:

Marriage has and is evolving. So how about you give me an actual reason why it shouldn't be expanded, as it was in the past for interracial couples, to include homosexual couples?