Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Gay marriage...opinions

Announcements Posted on
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What I don't get about the whole gay marriage issue is this:

    When we're debating whether two people of the same gender should have the "right to marry one another", what exactly is it that we're talking about? What is the difference between a "married" homosexual couple and an "unmarried" one? What difference does it make whether homosexual people are given this right or not? Put it this way: Don't homosexuals already have the right to profess their feelings for each other in front of friends and family? Don't they already have a right to consider themselves committed to one another, in a monogamous manner? Don't they already have the right to make legally binding contracts with each other regarding property, living arrangements etc.? What new rights are they asking for, exactly?
    Or is it simply a terminology issue - that they just want people to start calling them "married"?

    I thought the whole point of heterosexual marriage was to legitimise sexual relationships - that is, a married couple are religiously permitted to have sex and produce offspring, while an unmarried couple are not. Clearly this does not apply to homosexual couples though. As far as religion goes, sexual relationships are prohibited regardless of whether or not you call yourself "married".
    But if we disregard religion - just as many heterosexual couples now consider marriage as "nothing more than a piece of paper" and don't really bother with it, isn't it nothing more than a piece of paper for homosexual couples as well? Or rather, a piece of paper with a different name?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I'd love to see how you came to that opinion.
    I saw it on a telly programme
    Tbh...it doesnt bother me....genuinely whatever floats your boat and whatever makes you happy
    at the end of the day you cant help your sexuality
    then again in certain cultures, to say it is frowned upon is understatement of the century....
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by omnomnom1234)
    I saw it on a telly programme
    Tbh...it doesnt bother me....genuinely whatever floats your boat and whatever makes you happy
    at the end of the day you cant help your sexuality
    then again in certain cultures, to say it is frowned upon is understatement of the century....
    I don't know what programme you were watching but it was seriously mis-informed.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I don't know what programme you were watching but it was seriously mis-informed.
    isn't most of the british media?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Petitioning against their requests for equal rights can very easily be seen as homophobic, it's bordering on being a textbook example in fact. And I'm pretty sure I'd rather have a slightly less interesting world if it meant true equality.
    i meant the world would be boring if we were all the same as in all staight etc. because its interesting to have diversity
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What I don't get about the whole gay marriage issue is this:

    When we're debating whether two people of the same gender should have the "right to marry one another", what exactly is it that we're talking about? What is the difference between a "married" homosexual couple and an "unmarried" one? What difference does it make whether homosexual people are given this right or not? Put it this way: Don't homosexuals already have the right to profess their feelings for each other in front of friends and family? Don't they already have a right to consider themselves committed to one another, in a monogamous manner? Don't they already have the right to make legally binding contracts with each other regarding property, living arrangements etc.? What new rights are they asking for, exactly?
    Or is it simply a terminology issue - that they just want people to start calling them "married"?

    I thought the whole point of heterosexual marriage was to legitimise sexual relationships - that is, a married couple are religiously permitted to have sex and produce offspring, while an unmarried couple are not. Clearly this does not apply to homosexual couples though. As far as religion goes, sexual relationships are prohibited regardless of whether or not you call yourself "married".
    But if we disregard religion - just as many heterosexual couples now consider marriage as "nothing more than a piece of paper" and don't really bother with it, isn't it nothing more than a piece of paper for homosexual couples as well? Or rather, a piece of paper with a different name?


    You assume gay people do not want children, also your argument seems to be that marriage only has one meaning; legitimation, but don't you think people get married for other reaons ie: love, commitment, tradition, legal reasons- why do you think gay people don't have the same motives as straight people when they choose to get married.

    Personally I am for gay marriage; gay people should have the right to be miserable as much as anyone else
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anomie)
    You assume gay people do not want children
    I'm not assuming they don't want children, I'm assuming that they can't produce children together.

    They can want children, they can adopt, they can use surrogates etc. but they'd be able to do that equally well without being "married" as well. Whether or not they were "married" wouldn't have any effect on their ability or (religious) legitimacy to do this, nor their rights regarding the upbringing of children. Whereas for a heterosexual couple, being married would have implications upon producing children together.

    also your argument seems to be that marriage only has one meaning; legitimation, but don't you think people get married for other reaons ie: love, commitment, tradition, legal reasons- why do you think gay people don't have the same motives as straight people when they choose to get married.
    Well I'm saying that legitimation is the only material meaning of marriage. The difference between an unmarried couple and a married couple is that once married, it becomes (religiously) legitimate for them to have sexual/intimate relationships, produce offspring together, and have certain rights with regards to that offspring. But this is meaningless for a homosexual couple, whose relationship isn't endorsed by religion, and who cannot produce children together, regardless of "marriage".

    The other things you mentioned (love, commitment etc.) don't rely on marriage - they just happen to be associated with marriage. Homosexual couples already have the right love each other, consider themselves committed to each other, walk down the aisle of a fancy building and declare this in front of people, share their property, live together etc. The "right to get married" doesn't actually give them any rights that they didn't already have.

    As far as I can see, the only thing homosexual couples are lacking in this regard is simply the fact that we don't officially use the word "married" to describe them. We have different terminology, like "civil partnership". To me it seems much more like a language issue, without any real materiality. Besides terminology, it doesn't really seem to make any difference whether they're "married" or not. Even for most non-religious heterosexual couples, being "married" isn't much more than this.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I'm not assuming they don't want children...
    Can you clarify why you think hetrosexual people want to get married and then explain why their reasons are different to homosexual people. Because as far as I can see all of the points you made can apply just as equally to hetrosexual people as they could to homosexual people. Why is it that one needs to get married and the other doesn't? I just don't see what your point is.
    For example I don't see why it is important to get married if you produce children and why it is not if you adopt children? I think though you miss the point- whethere marriage actually makes a difference to a relationship or not, the whole point is that gay pople want the same rights as straight people. Thye want the oportunity to choose It's about equality, not the viablity of marriage.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I have no idea on which planet you've been living, but last I checked, separate was deemed to be inherently unequal.

    Let's have these water fountains for white people
    And let's have these pseudo water fountains for black people

    Clearly equal rights. :rolleyes:
    There is a huge distinction here that has to be made. Christians aren't against homosexual orientation. The concept of homosexual orientation wasn't around in Bible times and to be homosexually oriented is no more sinful than being heterosexually oriented. The issue is with sexual practice- God designed sex to be within heterosexual marriage and for marriage to be heterosexual. To be against redefining marriage is simply to be pro-heterosexual marriage, not specifically discriminatory against homosexual people.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    There is a huge distinction here that has to be made. Christians aren't against homosexual orientation. The concept of homosexual orientation wasn't around in Bible times and to be homosexually oriented is no more sinful than being heterosexually oriented. The issue is with sexual practice- God designed sex to be within heterosexual marriage and for marriage to be heterosexual. To be against redefining marriage is simply to be pro-heterosexual marriage, not specifically discriminatory against homosexual people.
    It doesn't matter if it's not specifically discriminatory against homosexual people - it is, by definition, discriminatory against homosexual people.

    Let's ask some questions here:

    (1) Not everyone is Christian, so why do we have to abide by your definition of marriage?

    (2) If separate is inherently unequal, why are okay with gay people not having the same rights as you?

    (3) What on earth do you think gives you the right to tell two people they cannot get married, merely because they are of the same sex. To make it more interesting, suppose they are atheist.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    Why will it compromise christian freedoms ? what will they lose because homosexuals can get married?
    Good question. Let me give you a few examples on how people's freedoms will be affected by a change in the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage (note this doesn't just impact upon Christian freedoms, as many people who aren't Christians have signed coalition for marriage's petition):

    Anybody in an education context (teacher, classroom assistant, lecturer etc) will be expected to teach that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Those who have a traditional view of marriage would have to teach this or risk losing their job.

    There could be marriage counsellors and other people who have careers relating to marriage (e.g. civil ceremony conducters, registrars) who will be expected to carry out homosexual weddings- again, those who disagree with homosexual marriage would risk losing their job for having that view.

    It's only a matter of time before the law forces religious groups and churches to hold marriages. Already it's been commented on by key campaigners of the redefinition that it is a shame that this would only be for civil marriage. The changes are for civil marriage only- for now- but who's to say what the law will be like in a few years time? When civil partnerships were introduced in 2004, that government promised that nobody would touch the definition of marriage- and now the current government have swooped in and are trying to change the definition of marriage without having a proper consultation. None of the leading parties even mentioned changing marriage in their manifestos, what's happening at the moment is profoundly undemocratic. Do we really think they won't try to change the law again to make churches and religious bodies perform gay marriages, despite it being completely contrary to their faiths?

    So those are a few examples of how the law being changed would affect those who disagree. We've already seen that since civil partnerships were introduced (I'm not against civil partnerships by the way, but it's interesting that since they were introduced there have been various cases where Christians have been prosecuted for trying to live their lives according to Biblical principles).
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It doesn't matter if it's not specifically discriminatory against homosexual people - it is, by definition, discriminatory against homosexual people.
    I don't agree. There's a difference between being against homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. You can disagree with someone's actions without being against that person.

    Let's ask some questions here:

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    (1) Not everyone is Christian, so why do we have to abide by your definition of marriage?
    You don't. There are plenty of non-Christians who have signed the petition. I personally disagree with the issue from a Christian viewpoint, but that's not everyone's reason. It's not a case that we simply add homosexuals into the Christian definition- it's changing the definition for everyone, so a lot of people's argument is to ask why the definition needs changing if homosexuals already have exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage in civil partnerships- and when the previous government promised that marriage wouldn't be redefined when they introduced them.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    (2) If separate is inherently unequal, why are okay with gay people not having the same rights as you?
    The point is they do. Civil partnerships already afford homosexuals with all the same rights as heterosexuals.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    (3) What on earth do you think gives you the right to tell two people they cannot get married, merely because they are of the same sex. To make it more interesting, suppose they are atheist.
    I don't have it on my own authority, I follow the Bible as my authority- and the Bible teaches certain things about sex and marriage. Whether the individuals are Christians or not, the Bible teaches that God is the creator of the world and we are accountable to Him in the way that we live. The Bible teaches that everyone will be judged according to how they have lived, whether they have rebelled against Him or followed Him- and the only way to be saved from that judgement is to trust in Jesus and in His death on the cross, taking the punishment we deserve in our pl
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Although they are admittedly only minor, there are still some differences between civil partnerships and civil marriage. However, even if the two were to share exactly the same rights, it would still be unfair for civil marriage to be denied to gay people. 'Separate but equal' is NOT a fair system to live by; it didn't work with black people, because it was still inherently racist, and it won't work with us, because it is inherently rooted in homophobia.

    These people are being called homophobic because that is what they are. Homophobia can be defined as a fear or ANTIPATHY towards gay people or homosexuality, which means instinctiveness opposition to gay people or homosexuality (which is what the opposition to gay marriage is) is homophobic. I won't pretend that it's in the same league as people who still want to see gay people imprisoned or killed, but it is still a form of homophobia.

    If institutions had never evolved, our modern society would have never been possible, so arguing against gay marriage because it would change what marriage is is a ridiculous argument.
    There's a difference between being against gay marriage and being against homosexuals- it's not rooted in homophobia, it's simply rooted in wanting to keep heterosexual marriage the way it is. Homophobia as you say is fear or antipathy against homosexual people- being against homosexual practice is not the same thing.

    I don't see it as a ridiculous argument- some change is good for the evolution of society I agree, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with every potential good. There are lots of people (many not Christians) who like marriage the way it is- and that doesn't automatically make them homophobic or against change.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    In the last 200 years, over 40 acts have been passed in the UK that amended the prior definition of marriage. Compared to acts like the ones that created civil marriage, allowing people to marry outside the church for the first time in 1836 (Prior to this point the only non-CoE ceremony that could legally be performed was Jewish or Quaker, everybody else had to go through an Anglican ceremony), the inclusion of homosexuals is relatively minor. Your precious concept of the sanctity of marriage has endured losing it's stranglehold over the entire UK, it can survive one last element of inequality being removed.
    Marrying outside the church was a big change- but that doesn't mean any further changes are minor. God makes it clear in the Bible that sex and marriage are huge important issues and He chose to include it in the perfect Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve rebelled against Him and our world was fractured by our rebellion against God. I know Christianity would survive the change, but that's not the point- it's simply about being able to express freedom of speech about this issue- which a lot of non-Christians are also sharing (so people of other faiths and people of no faith at all).
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    ...
    Keep fighting these pro-gay fascists! They want to redefine marriage, no matter how badly it affects the rest of us. Be sure that if gay marriage is legalized, churches WILL be forced to marry the homosexuals. It is already happening in certain areas that gays are lobbying different governments to remove tax breaks on churches that refuse to marry homosexuals. It is disgusting and is essentially the government working on behalf of a minority, to take away our freedoms.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anomie)
    Can you clarify why you think hetrosexual people want to get married and then explain why their reasons are different to homosexual people.
    Well some heterosexual people need to get married because unless they do, they won't be permitted by their religions to have sex or have children. Clearly this line of reasoning doesn't apply to homosexual people though.

    Because as far as I can see all of the points you made can apply just as equally to hetrosexual people as they could to homosexual people. Why is it that one needs to get married and the other doesn't? I just don't see what your point is.
    Well, religion and childbirth aside - I'm not saying one needs to get married and the other doesn't. Having a piece of paper saying "married" is equally unnecessary for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
    Though heterosexual people might still want to be comitted to each other, live together, exchange rings and have other traditions etc. Homosexual people might want to do that too. But they already have the right to do all those things. So where does the inequality come into it?

    I think though you miss the point- whethere marriage actually makes a difference to a relationship or not, the whole point is that gay pople want the same rights as straight people. Thye want the oportunity to choose It's about equality, not the viablity of marriage.
    Well they already have the same rights. As I said, they have a right to walk down an aisle of a fancy building and say "I take you as my wedded gay husband" if they want to. Nobody's going to arrest them for that, are they? They also have the right to be committed to each other, adopt each other's surnames etc. So when they want equal rights, I am unsure as to what rights they are talking about exactly. They already have the right to do anything heterosexual couples do. We just don't call it "marriage", that's all.

    If you want to debate this point, tell me: What does marriage actually involve, that homosexual people don't already have the right to do?

    What they don't have is the same wording. And if that's what all the fuss is about, it seems quite pointless to have this big argument and campaign over semantics.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    I don't agree. There's a difference between being against homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. You can disagree with someone's actions without being against that person.
    That's not at all what I said, or what you originally said either.
    Being 'pro-heterosexual marriage', as you put it, is inherently advocating against equal rights for homosexuals - which is, in a sense, being agains them.


    (Original post by jmj)
    You don't. There are plenty of non-Christians who have signed the petition. I personally disagree with the issue from a Christian viewpoint, but that's not everyone's reason. It's not a case that we simply add homosexuals into the Christian definition- it's changing the definition for everyone, so a lot of people's argument is to ask why the definition needs changing if homosexuals already have exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriage in civil partnerships- and when the previous government promised that marriage wouldn't be redefined when they introduced them.
    'We'll have these water fountains for white people'
    'And then we'll have these, essentially the same thing fountains, for black people'

    Wow, really equal. Go back to basic to the basic of legal theory - separate is inherently unequal.

    (Original post by jmj)
    The point is they do. Civil partnerships already afford homosexuals with all the same rights as heterosexuals.
    Again,

    'We'll have these water fountains for white people'
    'And then we'll have these, essentially the same thing fountains, for black people'

    Wow, really equal. Go back to basic to the basic of legal theory - separate is inherently unequal.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I don't have it on my own authority, I follow the Bible as my authority- and the Bible teaches certain things about sex and marriage. Whether the individuals are Christians or not, the Bible teaches that God is the creator of the world and we are accountable to Him in the way that we live. The Bible teaches that everyone will be judged according to how they have lived, whether they have rebelled against Him or followed Him- and the only way to be saved from that judgement is to trust in Jesus and in His death on the cross, taking the punishment we deserve in our pl
    But, clearly no everyone believes in Christianity, so why are you forcing us all to abide the rules of Christianity? That seems a lot like forcing us to abide by religious beliefs when we have no desire to do such.

    You're going to back and say 'gays are trying to force us to agree with homosexual marriage' - which isn't true, nor is it the same as Christians trying to advocate for 'pro heterosexual marriage'

    In the case of what you advocate for, you're saying that the right of marriage cannot be extended to homosexuals based on your religious beliefs - you're forcing people to NOT get married.

    In the case of equal rights, we're saying that the right of marriage should be extended to homosexuals AND religious people can still get married, etc.

    We aren't depriving you of any rights; whereas you're depriving people of rights. We're not forcing anything on you - you don't have to like gay marriage, nor do you have to participate in one.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Keep fighting these pro-gay fascists! They want to redefine marriage, no matter how badly it affects the rest of us. Be sure that if gay marriage is legalized, churches WILL be forced to marry the homosexuals. It is already happening in certain areas that gays are lobbying different governments to remove tax breaks on churches that refuse to marry homosexuals. It is disgusting and is essentially the government working on behalf of a minority, to take away our freedoms.
    It is because of things like this and people like you that the US has such a horrible name both on this forum and to the world
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Keep fighting these pro-gay fascists! They want to redefine marriage, no matter how badly it affects the rest of us. Be sure that if gay marriage is legalized, churches WILL be forced to marry the homosexuals. It is already happening in certain areas that gays are lobbying different governments to remove tax breaks on churches that refuse to marry homosexuals. It is disgusting and is essentially the government working on behalf of a minority, to take away our freedoms.
    Oh I'm a fascist now? Awesome...
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    That's not at all what I said, or what you originally said either.
    Being 'pro-heterosexual marriage', as you put it, is inherently advocating against equal rights for homosexuals - which is, in a sense, being agains them.
    I disagree, I don't think this is advocating aganist gay rights because allowing the definition of marriage to change to include homosexual couples wouldn't give homosexual people any more rights than civil partnerships already give. I'm not against homosexual orientation at all, I simply disagree with homosexual practice.


    (Original post by NYU2012)
    'We'll have these water fountains for white people'
    'And then we'll have these, essentially the same thing fountains, for black people'

    Wow, really equal. Go back to basic to the basic of legal theory - separate is inherently unequal.
    In the case of your example above, then yes I agree it is definitely unequal to discriminate on the basis of skin colour. But I don't believe that this issue of redefining marriage is the same sort of thing. The thing I'm against is purely homosexual practice- not anything to do with who homosexuals are as people- so I don't know if it is this 'separate' thing.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    But, clearly no everyone believes in Christianity, so why are you forcing us all to abide the rules of Christianity? That seems a lot like forcing us to abide by religious beliefs when we have no desire to do such.

    You're going to back and say 'gays are trying to force us to agree with homosexual marriage' - which isn't true, nor is it the same as Christians trying to advocate for 'pro heterosexual marriage'

    In the case of what you advocate for, you're saying that the right of marriage cannot be extended to homosexuals based on your religious beliefs - you're forcing people to NOT get married.

    In the case of equal rights, we're saying that the right of marriage should be extended to homosexuals AND religious people can still get married, etc.

    We aren't depriving you of any rights; whereas you're depriving people of rights. We're not forcing anything on you - you don't have to like gay marriage, nor do you have to participate in one.
    I've already explained how it's not just Christians- many non Christians have signed the petition. How am I forcing anything? I'm not involved in any lobbying, I'm simply expressing views on a forum where my opinions have been invited. I disagree with your last point too- I believe that the marriage redefinition would impact greatly the freedoms of those who agree with traditional marriage (not necessarily Christians).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.