Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    Put it this way:

    Man + Woman = Children.

    Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.
    We have enough children as it is. We now need a curbing of population so why not passively curb it (e.g. promote homosexuality for instance)? Society is still preserved but the growing population is also curbed - it is predicted that the population may pass 9-10 billion humans by 2050 - that is too much considering resources; although Planet Earth can sustain way more that 10 billion, but current widespread human behaviour and shaky inter-human relations do not back this up, so we need to maintain the numbers of beings on the Planet.
    • 19 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's a good idea. I just don't.

    Obviously churches would not have to marry gay people, but some would anyway. And then there'd be another debate, churches would be pressured to marry their gay members. Those that do marry gays, will be pressured too. It could never be clear cut, there will always be rows over these things.

    The whole idea of changing the definition of marriage, to me, is dangerous.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I don't think it's a good idea. I just don't.

    Obviously churches would not have to marry gay people, but some would anyway. And then there'd be another debate, churches would be pressured to marry their gay members. I could go on.

    The whole idea of changing the definition of marriage, to me, is dangerous.
    Marriage between two people of the same-sex has existed previously in history -- so no, it would not be changing the definition of marriage. It would rather be changing the current legal definition of marriage from being exclusionary to inclusionary.

    It's not dangerous -- look at the countries where it has been legalized -- are they in civil turmoil? Revolution? Etc.? No. They legalized gay marriage and gay people got married.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zosolobos0)
    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.
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)

    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’.
    + espousing the views you do:

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    = IRONIC.

    Good luck in year 2 & 3 @ jurisprudence module. Derrida was gay.

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    Once again, JODIE FOSTER. Wiki + IMDB + youtube her.

    Okay whatever I'll just summarise:

    worked full time (supported herself and her family) + studied at yale (possibly on a scholarship too.. not sure) + fluent in French + acts in quality pictures + directs quality pictures + has a son + respected everywhere + has a great personality.

    google triple oppression. How can you be pro Malcolm X and all that yet fail so miserably when it comes to gender?!! If I were lil Jon, I'd be growlin by now
    • 20 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    And I know a guy who has two lesbian mothers who has also grown up fine and is about to start studying engineering (although I can't remember where).
    Anecdotes are not evidence. Research is evidence. Research says gay parents are as good as straight parents. Children do not make an argument against gay marriage.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    You realize that all of the data and research indicates that people who grow up in same-sex parent homes turn out just as well as those in heterosexual parent homes, yes?

    Or have you conveniently not read any of the research on same-sex parenting? :rolleyes:

    And no, you cannot compare single-parent family home studies to same-sex parenting, because they are entirely different things......

    Lastly, unless your masters in is sociology or psychology, I don't think going to LSE has any sort of relevance on this subject.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    ahahaahah your claim for the absence of marriage leading to all these things is not backed by any kind of solid evidence. Studies have already shown that children growing up with homosexual parents are in no way 'harmed' or disadvantaged. They have the same kinds of outcomes as those of heterosexual parents.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree with the point of the thread starter!

    Just hope that will become possible in Italy too!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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 of 500,000)?
    • 20 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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)?
    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.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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)?
    The point is that marriage, as is understood in much of the modern world today, is not the way marriage has always been. Rather, in our modern day society, we've taught that marriage, as a social institution, should be entered into on the basis of love for the partner -- and with marriage comes certain normative expectations and stipulations, such as long-term commitment, family, children, etc.

    If marriage has not always been the way that it is espoused to be, why must we keep it the way it currently is, especially when same-sex marriages have been permitted previously in various points in history?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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)?
    The point is that marriage has been ever changing and your reasons for keeping it between one man and one woman are that we have no right to change it. But then who does? Seeing as it has historically been changing since its beginnings. Not to mention there were plenty of societies where homosexual marriages existed. So what is your reason for limiting marriage to only one man and one woman?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You realize that all of the data and research indicates that people who grow up in same-sex parent homes turn out just as well as those in heterosexual parent homes, yes?

    Or have you conveniently not read any of the research on same-sex parenting? :rolleyes:

    And no, you cannot compare single-parent family home studies to same-sex parenting, because they are entirely different things......

    Lastly, unless your masters in is sociology or psychology, I don't think going to LSE has any sort of relevance on this subject.
    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.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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’.
    You are confusing legal theory with political theory. In political theory jurisprudence has a role, consideration of that political role is not to be confused with consideration of the nature of jurisprudence.

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    I am familiar with the idea of the social contract. It has little to do with perpetuating traditions of religious authorities - on the contrary Rousseau originally devised it to counter such arguments in the early days of republican France. However, as you point out, it does in it's most basic form trade the subjugation of the individual to the state for certain guarantees of rights and other protections.

    I'd like my contractual rights please.

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    It is, and that wasn't quite what I meant. My point was that in as much as there is a utilitarian basis for marriage, it has traditionally been property and not the rearing of children. Now, it's not even that.

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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?
    Which part confused you?

    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    5. Christopher Biggins is one Prominent gay who opposes same sex marriage can’t think of any other famous homosexuals
    I didn't know that. Although it appears that he does so because of his religious views. Once again, the views of one religion cannot be privileged to the point where they restrict the lives of others- we are not a theocracy.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    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.
    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
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    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.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    My point was, it was never primarily over property. Tradtion, money, love, certainly, but not property.
    But it was. Maybe not in some societies but it still was about property in many.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    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 year has everything to do with same-sex marriage as far as "natural law, individual rights, sociology of law and justice" are concerned.
    • 20 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RevolutionIsNear!)
    My point was, it was never primarily over property. Tradtion, money, love, certainly, but not property.
    I don't claim to know exactly what came when, but I know that it has been about property, it has been about money (which is pretty similar to property), it has been about children, it has been about love. It once was only between people of the same race. The point is that it has changed. And if you agree with those changes and don't think marriage should go back to whatever was the first form of marriage (whatever that may be), then you have no reason to disagree with this change.
Updated: May 11, 2012
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.