The Student Room Group

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

- Do you have any?

Here are some common ones (and responses to them):

"It's immoral. Marriage is between a man and a woman."

As that newbie said (and as I too believe), morality is relative. To say it is immoral is to have a Christian/Muslim etc morality in the background. This is the UK. We do not let religion dictate our policy.

In response to that latter half of the statement - marriage predates the Big Three religions. It is a social union or legal contract created by man, not a deity. Therefore, as rulers of this planet (and indeed, soon the Solar System), we can dictate what is and is not. If some of us deem marriage to be between any human being (regardless of sexual orientation etc) as permissible, then so shall it be. We do not wait upon a sign from the heavens whether or not we should permit marriage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. We created this union, therefore we can do with it as we please. Marriage is not created by a deity and it does not hold some special or mystical aura. It is a human construct.

"It's indecent."

According to whose standards? If it's the anal intercourse you refer to or other sexual activities, I can confidently say that such activities are also widely practised amongst heterosexual people as well. As long as intercourse (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is not conducted in the open public, then we should have no problem with what individuals privately partake in.

"God deems it wrong."

Leviticus 18:22 states that 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'

Leviticus 20:13 states that 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'

Many other chapters also talk of primitive offerings to the Christian God (such as killing of animals in a certain manner to offer it to God etc) and also sin offerings (i.e. offerings to for forgiveness from and appeasement of God :lol: ).

Adulterers and disobedient children should also be killed too, as mentioned in various areas (e.g. Leviticus 20:9-10).

Many 'modern' Christians say this should not be taken literally, but yet again that's picking and choosing. Shall we put homosexuals to death or not? If you say no, that means the rest of the verse and indeed book is invalid, therefore rendering the status of homosexuality as abominable invalid.

The Qu'ran, although giving no such explicit verses about homosexuality, still has various backward interpretations and indirect verses.

Such primitiveness has no place in modern society anyhow.

"I can't have my children impurified by all of this."

Your children had better learn to realise that planet Earth is full of seven billion humans who have different desires, feelings, thoughts and opinions amongst other things.

"But gays are immoral, base and depraved."

And black people steal cars, all English men wear top hats and an eye glass and all Russian people drink vodka all day long.

Are there any credible arguments against the equalising of homosexual people with heterosexual people?

Thoughts?

Assertions with backed up arguments?

I see no reason why homsexual marriage thus shouldn't be legalised.

P.S.

(edited 11 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

You don't see any because they don't exist.


Anybody who isn't stuck in the past would have no problem.
Well, because gay partnerships already have all the legal rights and privileges of marriage in civil partnerships. So any attempt to introduce gay 'marriage' is an attempt to change the way people think about relationships, which is something I'm not sure the state should be doing.
My, already three negs. Clearly there are some angry people who are frustrated that their twisted views can't be implemented in public policy. My reply to them is that not only will we legalise gay marriage, we'll also go to the moon again, get to Mars and generally progress! Ha - the Human Race will bypass all of you lower deluded fools! :lol:
Original post by dreiviergrenadier
Well, because gay partnerships already have all the legal rights and privileges of marriage in civil partnerships. So any attempt to introduce gay 'marriage' is an attempt to change the way people think about relationships, which is something I'm not sure the state should be doing.


Well you can't have homosexual people having civil partnerships and heterosexual people having marriages. If they have all the legal rights and privileges of marriage, then you might as well call it marriage. Oh wait...

Even better, what's more romantic and epic - "Will you marry me?" or "Will you civil union me?" Right...
(edited 11 years ago)
I think its about time they legalise incest too!
Reply 6
The only argument with an ounce of credibility that I have heard is that to change the definition of 'marriage' is quite a big practical task. Marriage is currently defined as the union between a man and a woman, and always has been, so to go and change all the legal documents, dictionary definitions, legal definitions etc is a lengthy process.

Not that I'm saying for a second that the logistics of it should stop it actually happening. Just that it is kind of a relevant point!
You have no authority to say what others can or can't do. You can not decide how they live their lives or who they find attrative. This is the morale I am talking about:

LIVE AND LET LIVE!
The only ground I've heard peddled which isn't based on the perpetuation of prejudice is "it debases the traditional definition of what marriage is," which effectively amounts to "it's a change in the law". Well derpity derp derp.
Reply 9
Original post by PeterOkenla11
I think its about time they legalise incest too!


Yet one of the common arguments against homosexuality is that we can't produce children (which, y'know, we can)...yet some happily argue that incest should be legalised, even though its common knowledge that having children with blood relatives can lead to all sorts of issues. Strange.

* * * *

I do wish people would stop thinking that legalising gay marriage will affect the meaning and purpose of marriage. Do people really get married primarily because they think its a bond between a man and a woman? No, they get married because they're in love and want to bond their relationship through a formal marriage ceremony. Thats all gay people want. Its pretty simple. Equality has to mean equality...not one version for one section of society and another for the rest.
Original post by sammy-lou
The only argument with an ounce of credibility that I have heard is that to change the definition of 'marriage' is quite a big practical task. Marriage is currently defined as the union between a man and a woman, and always has been, so to go and change all the legal documents, dictionary definitions, legal definitions etc is a lengthy process.

Not that I'm saying for a second that the logistics of it should stop it actually happening. Just that it is kind of a relevant point!


My Collins dictionary states that marriage is the "state of being married" with 'marry' being "take as a husband or wife". Therefore, nothing need be changed here for example - a man can take another as his husband, a woman can take another as her wife; nothing changed.

Marriage is simply a union of two people with various factors involved. It is only historically that it has been traditionally seen as between a man and a woman. As marriage is a human construct, we can tamper with it as we please. After all, it's not as if we'll be struck down by lightening if we say a man and a man can marry...
Original post by ohirome
Yet one of the common arguments against homosexuality is that we can't produce children (which, y'know, we can)...yet some happily argue that incest should be legalised, even though its common knowledge that having children with blood relatives can lead to all sorts of issues. Strange.

* * * *

I do wish people would stop thinking that legalising gay marriage will affect the meaning and purpose of marriage. Do people really get married primarily because they think its a bond between a man and a woman? No, they get married because they're in love and want to bond their relationship through a formal marriage ceremony. Thats all gay people want. Its pretty simple. Equality has to mean equality...not one version for one section of society and another for the rest.



Your back again!? :tongue:
I see you've come back stronger and with your guns on!
Wohooo
I still think incest should be legalised! I dont see anything wrong in it :/
Original post by patrickinator
You have no authority to say what others can or can't do. You can not decide how they live their lives or who they find attrative. This is the morale I am talking about:

LIVE AND LET LIVE!


Are you agreeing with me or what?

Are you saying that homosexual people should be allowed to marry if they want to then
Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£
My Collins dictionary states that marriage is the "state of being married" with 'marry' being "take as a husband or wife". Therefore, nothing need be changed here for example - a man can take another as his husband, a woman can take another as her wife; nothing changed.

Marriage is simply a union of two people with various factors involved. It is only historically that it has been traditionally seen as between a man and a woman. As marriage is a human construct, we can tamper with it as we please. After all, it's not as if we'll be struck down by lightening if we say a man and a man can marry...


My Oxford dictionary specifies man and woman - I guess it depends on where you look. But yes, I agree with you.

In fact, I would quite like to tempt a higher being to strike us down with lightening for allowing two men or two women to marry!
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Your back again!? :tongue:
I see you've come back stronger and with your guns on!
Wohooo
I still think incest should be legalised! I dont see anything wrong in it :/


Really? So a father should be allowed to have sexual relations with his teenage daughter? Or would that be incestual peadophilia or peadophilic incest, hence rendering it statutorily illegal?
I think gays should be happy with civil partnerships. Come at me bro :cool:
Reply 16
Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£


Wouldnt a civil partnership do?

Original post by ohirome
Yet one of the common arguments against homosexuality is that we can't produce children (which, y'know, we can)...yet some happily argue that incest should be legalised, even though its common knowledge that having children with blood relatives can lead to all sorts of issues. Strange.


Having kids at all can lead to issues. What kind of issues are you talking about (i'm against incest, i'm just being pedantic)
Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£
Really? So a father should be allowed to have sexual relations with his teenage daughter? Or would that be incestual peadophilia or peadophilic incest, hence rendering it statutorily illegal?


I said incest, not peadophilic incest. Thats a pretty lame excuse dude. Wait lets make being straight illegal! 60 year old men are having sex with underage girls! Erm yeah that makes loads of sense mate.
I would rather have you think before you comment and come up with something Sensible :smile:
Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£
Are you agreeing with me or what?

Are you saying that homosexual people should be allowed to marry if they want to then


yes, they should be allowed to marry. I haven't read the text but if getting married you mean in the church then that is up to the church to decide but if you are talking about civil marriages then definately they should be allowed to marry.
No-one should tell other people how to live their lives. Except when this may cause harm to other people. Gay people marrying will not cause harm to other people.
anyway just chill to this music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfFQuhWaA_k
Gays should be able to marry, I agree. But churches shouldn't be forced into it if they don't want to. There are lots of other places that gay couples can marry, just get the state out of it completely.

Latest