I see no credible arguments against legalising gay marriage in the UK....

Polyamory has anarchic/anti-establishment roots and so people who approve and practice it do not want very much to do with the state usually @ marriage.



Mormon, Muslims and I'm sure some other belief system condone it.



Romanis and in the past, those of royal pedigrees. If the wife is infertile then the condition "not have children" would be fulfilled.



Yes. Everything at the interest of the state, or the people according to the state. Or something like that.




Man and animal do not have the same kind of consciousness (re: Wittgenstein). So consent would be philosophically tricky. Unless we are talking about man almost direct related species like chimps and bonobos.

How about necrophilia? I assume if a person gets asked to fill in a survey of some sort before their death and ticks a box which says "do not care what is done with my body" then necrophilia could be made legal..

I can understand making a case for sibling incest (due to this story I once read regarding separated siblings meeting each other through a dating site without realising they were related) but parent/child is too much..

Not all single sexed relationships are of equal footing. For example in Riyadh, to be a "bottom" is sincerely despised.



Marriage is historically a covenant though, not a contract per se.

Jurisprudence isn’t a political theory, it’s legal theory and if you knew anything about jurisprudence you’d know that Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law (and democracy) is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group, hence, a ‘tyranny of the majority’.

Man + Woman = Children.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.

On a more sophisticated level, Children who grow up in marriage, tend to be better disciplined, are more like to go university and are less likely to end up in prison then their peers who don't grow up in stable, functioning marriages.
Good families = Good society; the statistics show exactly that, why anyone would want to sabotage a good thing is beyond me! Civil partnerships are a good enough, but 'marriage' should remain heterosexual for all the rights reasons.

Just read all my other responses, they'll answer your questions; I'm just being asked the same questions over and over again.

However, about your last point, 'who am I to...' I grew in a loving, caring and disciplined environment where I had learned different things from both my Mother and Father, I have a great education (currently doing my masters at LSE), respect for women and a great, full pictured perspective on life etc.. I have many peers who didn't grow in heterosexual married homes and got involved with drugs, didn't go to university and so forth. My point being, I have seen what marriage (and the absence of it) has done and for all the right I wouldn’t like to see it sabotaged.

However, about your last point, 'who am I to...' I grew in a loving, caring and disciplined environment where I had learned different things from both my Mother and Father, I have a great education (currently doing my masters at LSE), respect for women and a great, full pictured perspective on life etc.. I have many peers who didn't grow in heterosexual married homes and got involved with drugs, didn't go to university and so forth. My point being, I have seen what marriage (and the absence of it) has done and for all the right I wouldn’t like to see it sabotaged.

Just read all my other responses, they'll answer your questions; I'm just being asked the same questions over and over again.

However, about your last point, 'who am I to...' I grew in a loving, caring and disciplined environment where I had learned different things from both my Mother and Father, I have a great education (currently doing my masters at LSE), respect for women and a great, full pictured perspective on life etc.. I have many peers who didn't grow in heterosexual married homes and got involved with drugs, didn't go to university and so forth. My point being, I have seen what marriage (and the absence of it) has done and for all the right I wouldn’t like to see it sabotaged.

Some pro-gay marriage people are resorting to "initial reasons for heterosexual marriage was for property not love", how ludicrously ridiculous, (heterosexual) marriage is a universal phenomena, well how about the Masai tribe of east Africa, who don’t own any private property but share all of their land. Now how earth does property rights affect marriage within the Masai (a community 500,000)?

Some pro-gay marriage people are resorting to "initial reasons for heterosexual marriage was property not love", how ludicrously ridiculous, (heterosexual) marriage is a universal phenomena! well how about the Masai tribe of east Africa, who don’t own any private property but share all of their land. Now how on earth does property rights affect marriage within the Masai (a community 500,000)?

1. Jurisprudence isn’t a political theory, it’s legal theory and if you knew anything about jurisprudence you’d know that Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law (and democracy) is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group, hence, a ‘tyranny of the majority’.

2. And as far as the political theorist John Rawls is concerned, in order for society to be completely just, the Social Contract theory must apply at all costs. The Social Contract theory is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions, first, that of the origin of society (In Britains case, Pagan & Christian foundations), and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual, Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms (Negative freedoms) and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate in exchange for protection of their natural rights. If an individual has to live in a society where their opinions are consistently dismissed simply because they are in the minority then that society is inherently undemocratic.

3. As I explained earlier, Christianity in this country predates the 19th Century, and as far as property rights go, the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly altered English law regarding the property rights granted to married women, allowing them to own and control their own property. Before then women hardly ever owned property because of their lack of access into politics, business, the professions and so on, completely different issue. To somehow imply that people have only started marrying each for love recently is ridiculous.

4. “We don't compel religions to obey equality law when conducting any other of their religious rites, why should this be any different? Besides, religions will be prohibited absolutely from conducting same sex marriages - something which some religions are very upset about because they want to, but the prohibition is required if there's going to be any chance of getting the Lords to accept it.” What on earth are you on about? Evidence?

5. Christopher Biggins is one Prominent gay who opposes same sex marriage can’t think of any other famous homosexuals

Msc Law and Accounting

I did a law degree before that, where I studied topics such as Jurisprudence (natural law, individual rights, sociology of law, justice)

So actually, it's very relevant.

Unless they were the first people to ever get married and we all copied them, I'm not sure they're relevant.
You also kind of just proved our point, some people had property as reasons, and this tribe wouldn't have, so marriage is constantly different and changing across cultures and time. So you shouldn't have a problem with this change because you don't have a problem with those changes.

My point was, it was never primarily over property. Tradtion, money, love, certainly, but not property.

Law and accounting? Those are not relevant...especially when you are making claims about the outcomes of homosexual and heterosexual families. Maybe when talking about marriage but you haven't used either of those as arguments. You want to argue law, then quote some law as a reason why marriage shouldn't be changed or can't be changed. Accounting has nothing to do with it

My point was, it was never primarily over property. Tradtion, money, love, certainly, but not property.

Law and accounting? Those are not relevant...especially when you are making claims about the outcomes of homosexual and heterosexual families. Maybe when talking about marriage but you haven't used either of those as arguments. You want to argue law, then quote some law as a reason why marriage shouldn't be changed or can't be changed. Accounting has nothing to do with it

You missed my point, I answered your question, you asked what masters I was doing and I told you; Msc Law and Accounting.

With regards to your point about relevancy, My law degree which I completed last has everything to do sam-sex marriage as far "natural law, individual rights, sociology of law and justice" are concerned.

But it was. Maybe not in some societies but it still was about property in many.

I didn't miss the point. As I didn't ask. And your masters was not relevant.

And with regards to the relevancy of your law degree. then how about you actually start using that degree. Seeing as you haven't used law at all for your arguments. Is there any legal reason that marriage shouldn't/can't be changed?