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 yes/no [POLL INCLUDED]

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Do you support gay marriage?
    Yes
    720
    77.25%
    No
    212
    22.75%

    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
    If you think about it though, they aren't forcing their religion down your throat because it's your spontaneous action to approach a church asking for them to marry you. They aren't offering their service to you because of their principles - that isn't the same as them actively trying to seek you out and prevent you being gay. If religion and homosexuality are such bitter enemies, I don't see why gays would want to be married in a church.
    Sorry, I wasn't clear earlier; when I said about forcing religion sown our throats, I wasn't referring to marriage, I meant when people tell us being gay is wrong because God says so/homosexuality is condemned in the (insert whatever religious text here) blah blah blah.

    Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about getting married in a church, not sure whether I would or not if there was the possibility.

    I totally understand the resentment at being excluded, but the solution is not to force the church to marry you - this doesn't achieve what you really want, which is their acceptance. It's like a child being made to say sorry - it's meaningless if they're forced to say it. Marriage is a service that costs money - you can't force them to sell you it any more than I can force someone to sell me their car if they don't want to sell it to me because they don't like me.
    Erm, I don't believe in forcing the church to accept gay marriage, pretty sure I said that
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    But the thing is, it's not going to be being forced upon any religious establishment of any kind. Under the gay marriage law, no place of worship will be forced to permit gay marriages if they do not want to.
    Well then, they're wrong for two reasons!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darksideday)

    Official party's positions:
    - Conservative: Yes (although could be a big rebellion by backbenchers)
    - Labour: Yes
    - Lib dems: Yes
    - UKIP: No
    - Greens: Yes
    If only UKIP were more like Nigel Farage who should be the model MP for the party, he is for gay marriage and drug decriminalisation/legalisation of class B and C drugs.

    With labor, you would be suprised how many of the old labour backbencher types, unionits, and those from the religious sect are against gay marriage, I'd say labour on the whole are similar to the tories on the issue.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    If only UKIP were more like Nigel Farage who should be the model MP for the party, he is for gay marriage and drug decriminalisation/legalisation of class B and C drugs.

    With labor, you would be suprised how many of the old labour backbencher types, unionits, and those from the religious sect are against gay marriage, I'd say labour on the whole are similar to the tories on the issue.
    Does Nigel Farage support gay marriage? If so, he needs to have his PR team shot as they aren't doing him or the party any favours.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I voted no. You've got civil partnerships, which is legally and to all intensive purposes the exact same thing - minus the marriage certificate and ability to marry in (most) churches.

    I also think marriage is a ceremony based on religion and union of man and woman - historically. You'll be changing the meaning of it... marriage is just recognised by the church as well as legally that 2 people are together for all intensive purposes..

    Basically I just don't see the point. I mean if I was only 'allowed' to be in a civil partnership and not married, I wouldn't really care.

    In fact if it were possible, I'd make marriage MORE about Religion so that it was clear the difference...
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    I voted no. You've got civil partnerships, which is legally and to all intensive purposes the exact same thing - minus the marriage certificate and ability to marry in (most) churches.

    I also think marriage is a ceremony based on religion and union of man and woman - historically. You'll be changing the meaning of it... marriage is just recognised by the church as well as legally that 2 people are together for all intensive purposes..

    Basically I just don't see the point. I mean if I was only 'allowed' to be in a civil partnership and not married, I wouldn't really care.

    In fact if it were possible, I'd make marriage MORE about Religion so that it was clear the difference...
    I'm going to hazard a guess you're straight? If so, then you can't really understand why it is we want marriage equality. It is not just about the legal rights afforded by marriage; yes the rights are basically the same between civil marriage and civil partnerships, even if there are some small differences. However, being told that you cannot have something because of your orientation is inherently unfair; it is not right to deny something to someone based on something that cannot be changed, and wasn't chosen.

    The creation of civil partnerships basically meant, to me, that it was accepted that we deserved full marriage equality, but they still didn't really want to give it to us, which is just a form of making everyone 'separate, but equal' which as a policy doesn't work. If we deserve civil partnerships, which have pretty much the same rights as civil marriage, then it follows that we deserve civil marriage.

    Also, there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage; are you also against civil marriage for heterosexual (I'm not attempting to start an argument here, genuinely interested in what you think)? Religious marriage will still, for the foreseeable future at least, remain off limits to gay people, so no change will be made to the religious definition of marriage. Marriage predates religion, it was a separate institution before it was appropriated by religion, so the question of religion shouldn't be the be all and end all when it comes to marriage equality.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm sort of for and against it.
    I voted yes because Spain allows same-sex marriage and they're a Catholic country. If they allow it, shouldn't the UK?
    Then again, why would same-sex couples go through the hatred of same-sex marriage from Catholic priests just to say they're married if they have the option of civil partnership?
    If it happens though, it happens. Can't really complain if it's made legal or not, since It doesn't affect me.
    (Yes, I'm a Catholic ).
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fool In The Rain)
    I'm sort of for and against it.
    I voted yes because Spain allows same-sex marriage and they're a Catholic country. If they allow it, shouldn't the UK?
    Then again, why would same-sex couples go through the hatred of same-sex marriage from Catholic priests just to say they're married if they have the option of civil partnership?
    If it happens though, it happens. Can't really complain if it's made legal or not, since It doesn't affect me.
    (Yes, I'm a Catholic ).
    Just to clarify, the proposed changes in the UK to the marriage law are to allow gay people CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage; that would still remain off limits to gay people. Also, the Church of England is the main church in the UK, certainly within England, so although both hold views on gay marriage, it is slightly different to Spain, a country predominantly Catholic.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Just to clarify, the proposed changes in the UK to the marriage law are to allow gay people CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage; that would still remain off limits to gay people. Also, the Church of England is the main church in the UK, certainly within England, so although both hold views on gay marriage, it is slightly different to Spain, a country predominantly Catholic.

    Thanks for the info, I'm slowly understanding what's going on (properly) :rolleyes:. Don't know the Church of England's views, but our school said their was a petition from Catholic Bishops to stop it from happening. But, I don't think that'll do anything, it's likely same-sex marriage will happen (albeit some controversy) and most definitely in the future it will be more tolerable, if it happens .
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    I'm going to hazard a guess you're straight? If so, then you can't really understand why it is we want marriage equality. It is not just about the legal rights afforded by marriage; yes the rights are basically the same between civil marriage and civil partnerships, even if there are some small differences. However, being told that you cannot have something because of your orientation is inherently unfair; it is not right to deny something to someone based on something that cannot be changed, and wasn't chosen.

    The creation of civil partnerships basically meant, to me, that it was accepted that we deserved full marriage equality, but they still didn't really want to give it to us, which is just a form of making everyone 'separate, but equal' which as a policy doesn't work. If we deserve civil partnerships, which have pretty much the same rights as civil marriage, then it follows that we deserve civil marriage.

    Also, there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage; are you also against civil marriage for heterosexual (I'm not attempting to start an argument here, genuinely interested in what you think)? Religious marriage will still, for the foreseeable future at least, remain off limits to gay people, so no change will be made to the religious definition of marriage. Marriage predates religion, it was a separate institution before it was appropriated by religion, so the question of religion shouldn't be the be all and end all when it comes to marriage equality.
    Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough let me try again:

    I'm pretty sure you should have been able to deduce that I was straight from the fact I said 'if I was not allowed to get married'. If I wasn't straight, wording would be' I'm not allowed to get married and I don't care'.

    I'm not exactly against civil marriage I'm actually saying there should only be civil partnership and religious marriage. I think gay and straight people if not religious should be have a different definition of 'marriage' than religious perhaps of the same (or otherwise) inclined. I think 'civil partnership' is also a bit too ... cold a term for me and I'd like it renamed. The two things - marriage (civil) and marriage (religious) should be completely separate regardless whatever sexual preference you are.

    IMO - that's how I think it should be.

    You can't have a civil partnership if you're 'straight', by the way... so, it's not all about you! :P jk... but only about the last bit, the former is true.

    --

    I say all this about religion because put all homophobia aside I think this is about religion and the associations marriage has with that and the fear it will blur the two lines that are already blurred.

    --

    Also, I take your point what I said about religion historically - again I wasn't being very clear. marriage as it is today, has a lot of traditions and ceremonial activities that stemmed from religion... so marriage as it is today isn't the same any more and it isn;'t just laws that need to change.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fool In The Rain)
    Thanks for the info, I'm slowly understanding what's going on (properly) :rolleyes:. Don't know the Church of England's views, but our school said their was a petition from Catholic Bishops to stop it from happening. But, I don't think that'll do anything, it's likely same-sex marriage will happen (albeit some controversy) and most definitely in the future it will be more tolerable, if it happens .
    No problem Yeah, not too sure on the specifics but I imagine the CofE position is roughly the same as the Catholic position; I mean, both churches will have conservatives against it.

    I remember reading about a Catholic protest to it, and I know some clergy left the C of E to join the Catholic Church because they felt the church's views on the issue were becoming too liberal, but we just have to see what happens in the long run!

    Personally, I think civil marriage should definitely be legalised, but I don't believe in forcing churches to perform a marriage they are not comfortable with. However, I imagine there are some churches (not majore ones) that might not have a problem with the idea, so perhaps in the future it would be an idea to allow each religion/church to make their own decision on the matter.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough let me try again:

    I'm pretty sure you should have been able to deduce that I was straight from the fact I said 'if I was not allowed to get married'. If I wasn't straight, wording would be' I'm not allowed to get married and I don't care'.

    I'm not exactly against civil marriage I'm actually saying there should only be civil partnership and religious marriage. I think gay and straight people if not religious should be have a different definition of 'marriage' than religious perhaps of the same (or otherwise) inclined. I think 'civil partnership' is also a bit too ... cold a term for me and I'd like it renamed. The two things - marriage (civil) and marriage (religious) should be completely separate regardless whatever sexual preference you are.

    IMO - that's how I think it should be.

    You can't have a civil partnership if you're 'straight', by the way... so, it's not all about you! :P jk... but only about the last bit, the former is true.

    --

    I say all this about religion because put all homophobia aside I think this is about religion and the associations marriage has with that and the fear it will blur the two lines that are already blurred.
    Whoops, forgive me, I do tend to skim read at times!

    Fair enough if you think that marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, should only exist as a religious institution, each to their own. I am inclined to disagree, because marriage predates religion and for certain couples, a religious marriage ceremony is not what they want (nor is it always possible for couples of mixed religions), so I think civil marriage is necessary. However, I appreciate that your views aren't really based on homosexuality but on your views as marriage as an institution in general

    Oh, you can't have a civil partnership if you're straight because you can have a civil marriage; it doesn't make sense to offer a slightly lesser institution as well
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Whoops, forgive me, I do tend to skim read at times!

    Fair enough if you think that marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, should only exist as a religious institution, each to their own. I am inclined to disagree, because marriage predates religion and for certain couples, a religious marriage ceremony is not what they want (nor is it always possible for couples of mixed religions), so I think civil marriage is necessary. However, I appreciate that your views aren't really based on homosexuality but on your views as marriage as an institution in general

    Oh, you can't have a civil partnership if you're straight because you can have a civil marriage; it doesn't make sense to offer a slightly lesser institution as well
    Yeah thanks for being understanding by the way I'm glad you haven't taken huge offense to this granted my opinions are not to many's likings but -

    I think that there should be 2 definitions for marriage one that is based on and initiated by or because or whatever - of religion, because of many reasons that are too many to list. I think there should be something else for everyone else including myself. So, e.g. if I was of X religion I would be married by marriage 1 in the way as required by religion X, if I was gay or straight and not religious - marriage 2.

    Marriage 2 though would mean that should a church refuse you the right to marry in it, then you should respect that.. Also part of this is that I believe churches and any other religious institutions should not be forced into letting people do something by the government or law or whatever - the two have nothing to do with each other.

    It's so much more complicated than I think most of us can think of all the reasons for or against this change... and because marriage has been around for so long as you say... that is what makes it even more of a touchy, deeply rooted, traditional.. beast.

    I should mention I'm not in any way religious lol.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    Yeah thanks for being understanding by the way I'm glad you haven't taken huge offense to this granted my opinions are not to many's likings but -

    I think that there should be 2 definitions for marriage one that is based on and initiated by or because or whatever - of religion, because of many reasons that are too many to list. I think there should be something else for everyone else including myself. So, e.g. if I was of X religion I would be married by marriage 1 in the way as required by religion X, if I was gay or straight and not religious - marriage 2.

    Marriage 2 though would mean that should a church refuse you the right to marry in it, then you should respect that.. Also part of this is that I believe churches and any other religious institutions should not be forced into letting people do something by the government or law or whatever - the two have nothing to do with each other.

    It's so much more complicated than I think most of us can think of all the reasons for or against this change... and because marriage has been around for so long as you say... that is what makes it even more of a touchy, deeply rooted, traditional.. beast.

    I should mention I'm not in any way religious lol.
    Haha, no problem - I don't actually think your views are hugely offensive to be honest, even if I don't agree with all of them myself.

    Yeah, I suppose marriage is a difficult thing to discuss from a completely unbiased point of view because everyone has their own feelings about it, as it plays a fairly big part in our lives still and has been around forever.

    I think the idea that thera can be two different kinds of marriage, with equal weighting/legal rights etc, is what is seen in the fact that we have both religious marriage and civil marriage in the UK. The proposed changes to the marriage law would allow gay people to have a civil marriage, but not a religious marriage, which would still remain prohibited. I don't really have much of a problem with this; yes it would be nice if all religions could accept us, but that isn't going to happen, and to force churches to perform a service like gay marriage against their will is fairly hypocritical of us. However, as I said in another post, I imagine eventually some churches/religions would like to able to perform gay marriage ceremonies, so when that moment comes, the marriage law should be changed again to allow individual religions and churches to make their own decision.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just read the first couple of pages of this and had to cringe at the sheer number of people who mentioned religion in their replies, as if religion has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. LOL.

    In answer to the question: yes - if only to save the ink used in printing "in a civil partnership" as well as "married" as an option on application forms.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    If only UKIP were more like Nigel Farage who should be the model MP for the party, he is for gay marriage and drug decriminalisation/legalisation of class B and C drugs.

    With labor, you would be suprised how many of the old labour backbencher types, unionits, and those from the religious sect are against gay marriage, I'd say labour on the whole are similar to the tories on the issue.
    Farage ! Farage is the biggest arse of them all.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darksideday)
    Also I believe that marriage belongs to religion and not the state
    If marriage belongs to religion not the state why not let christian denominations that want to provide same sex marriages conduct them?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes gay marriage harms no one and backwards religious views should have no place in politics.

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 5, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

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.