Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
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
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    I think gays should be happy with civil partnerships. Come at me bro :cool:
    (Original post by desijut)
    Wouldnt a civil partnership do?
    You could say exactly the same to African Americans in the past - can't that separate fountain do?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by desijut)
    Wouldnt a civil partnership do?



    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)
    Im not really an expert or anything, but isn't it fairly common for children born from blood relatives to have health issues, defects etc? I doubt it happens in all cases, but its not exactly an unreported theory.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    (Original post by A level Az)
    I think gays should be happy with civil partnerships. Come at me bro :cool:
    (Original post by desijut)
    Wouldnt a civil partnership do?
    Civil partnerships are not the same as marriages, there are differences in the rights of inheriting titles in terms of the legal differences, they also have different names!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    I think gays should be happy with civil partnerships. Come at me bro :cool:
    We should settle for inequality? Why do the rights of religious people overrule those of homosexuals?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    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:
    It annoys me that you've acquired so many negs but nobody is effectively arguing against all of the points you've raised.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If civil partnerships grant all (which they don't) the legal rights and privileges of marriage, why not just get rid of the other title and call it marriage (you know, call a spade a spade and all that jazz?). Legalising gay marriage is forcing anyone to change the way they think about relationships at all, it is merely recognising that it is wrong to deny somebody something on the basis of something they cannot change.

    And also, I would much rather ask a woman to marry me than to civil partner me - 'civil partner' makes it sound like I want to go into business with her.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    "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.
    In Soviet Russia, vodka drinks YOU.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There are no credible arguments against it, but since when has that ever meant anything? One word: cannabis
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XxelliexX)
    It annoys me that you've acquired so many negs but nobody is effectively arguing against all of the points you've raised.
    That's because homophobes are incapable of reasoned argument
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    You could say exactly the same to African Americans in the past - can't that separate fountain do?
    The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is small, and you're comparing that to having seperate places for black people. That's pretty offensive.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Civil partnerships are not the same as marriages, there are differences in the rights of inheriting titles in terms of the legal differences, they also have different names!
    It's good enough. The fact is that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK is a minority, so we shouldn't be giving them more than necessary. Why alter a traditional thing to accommodate a group of people who already have something that is pretty much the same thing?

    (Original post by ohirome)
    We should settle for inequality? Why do the rights of religious people overrule those of homosexuals?
    It's not inequality. It's an alternative that works and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    It's not inequality. It's an alternative that works and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.
    Are you being asked to accept that alternative? No.

    Are you going to be in any way harmed by other people not having to accept that alternative? No.

    Do you have any reason why a distinction needs to be made in the first place? No.

    Guess what follows...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
    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.
    Does this mean that churches should be allowed to partake in other forms of discrimination too? Like refusing on the grounds of some tenuous biblical evidence to marry interracial couples?
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is small, and you're comparing that to having seperate places for black people. That's pretty offensive.
    It's the same principle. You're being given something that is 'pretty much the same' because of a characteristic outside of your control that does not cause you to be a better or worse person.

    It's good enough. The fact is that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK is a minority, so we shouldn't be giving them more than necessary. Why alter a traditional thing to accommodate a group of people who already have something that is pretty much the same thing?
    Well, there isn't a way of knowing the exact percentage of homosexuals in the UK. And do you include bisexuals and pansexuals, because they might also marry someone of the same sex? Because your statistic is going up.
    The 'tradition' of marriage has been altered before, but I don't hear you saying that women should still be property of their husbands and white people should only marry other white people or that divorce should not exist. And, straight marriage would not be in any way affected, so I don't really see the problem.

    It's not inequality. It's an alternative that works and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.
    Using an alternative means there is an inequality. This sentence makes no sense.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is small, and you're comparing that to having seperate places for black people. That's pretty offensive.



    It's good enough. The fact is that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK is a minority, so we shouldn't be giving them more than necessary. Why alter a traditional thing to accommodate a group of people who already have something that is pretty much the same thing?



    It's not inequality. It's an alternative that works and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.
    Marriages =/= civil partnerships.
    '=/=' denotes inequality.
    Ergo, denying full marriage rights to gay couples is a form of inequality.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A level Az)
    The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is small, and you're comparing that to having seperate places for black people. That's pretty offensive.
    It's the same principle.

    It's good enough. The fact is that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK is a minority, so we shouldn't be giving them more than necessary. Why alter a traditional thing to accommodate a group of people who already have something that is pretty much the same thing?
    You realise the objections to gay marriage you're using are all equally applicable to racial minorities, yes? And that they were all used as arguments against inter-racial marriage, yes?

    It's not inequality. It's an alternative that works and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.
    Marriage =/= CPs, thus this is inequality.

    When you are the one being forced to accept the alternative, then maybe your opinions on the matter would carry more weight.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Though I think it would be a step further to stamping out discrimination, I don't think it will go through. Conservative politicians, religious groups - there's simply too much controversy around it, and after all he's had through his prime minister role, I am sure David Cameron wants to get out off of the beach before the storm arrives. I would like to see equality, I'm just doubting whether they will allow for it
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrodiction)
    Does this mean that churches should be allowed to partake in other forms of discrimination too? Like refusing on the grounds of some tenuous biblical evidence to marry interracial couples?
    The point is it should be the churches choice who marries in their church and who doesn't.

    Hypothetically, if someone you didn't like wanted to come into your house, would you let them in? It's not discrimination if you say no.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there should be gay marriage.

    There should be marriage regardless of sexuality.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, yes.

    But not under religious marriage ceremonies. I don't really want to impede on any part of a secular society.

    We should just create another ceremony of marriage which is not under religious grounds. After all marriage isn't defined by religion despite them thinking so; marriage has been around for much longer than the current monotheism's.

    The definition is just a union of two people, regardless of sex. The only definition for two people of opposite genders are that of the Oxford dictionary, or other christian influenced diction's.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, yes.

    But not under religious marriage ceremonies. I don't really want to impede on any part of a secular society.

    We should just create another ceremony of marriage which is not under religious grounds. After all marriage isn't defined by religion despite them thinking so; marriage has been around for much longer than the current monotheism's.

    The definition is just a union of two people, regardless of sex. The only definition for two people of opposite genders are that of the Oxford dictionary, or other christian influenced diction's.
    This already exists (civil marriage) but remains off limits to homosexual people; it is the legalisation of gay civil marriage which is currently being debated, which is why any religious objections to it have no place in the debate, as civil marriage is an entirely secular institution.
Updated: May 11, 2012
New on TSR

'Stalking pages' have changed!

Find other uni applicants with University Connect

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.