[Retrodiction]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
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.

So you in theory support the right of the Church to refuse to wed interracial couples?

[desijut]

(Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
You could say exactly the same to African Americans in the past - can't that separate fountain do?

BRB, going to force a gay person to get up from their seat on a bus.
BRB, going to send gay people to a different school

(Original post by ohirome)
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.

No clue, was being an *******, any studies/data on the subject?

(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!

What's the difference specifically? (genuine question) Different names =/= different. Analogy since people are loving them. I know a person as Dave, you know his name as Paul. We know him as two different names... he must be a different person.

(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?

Yes, your choice where you get married. Why get married in a place they reject you?

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
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.



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.



Using an alternative means there is an inequality. This sentence makes no sense.

BRB, going to force a gay person to get up from their seat on a bus.
BRB, going to send gay people to a different school

what's pansexual?

alternative does not mean they're not equal. Two types of music are different. That must mean are not equal?

(Original post by Retrodiction)
Marriages =/= civil partnerships.
'=/=' denotes inequality.
Ergo, denying full marriage rights to gay couples is a form of inequality.

What's the difference?

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by desijut)
Yes, your choice where you get married. Why get married in a place they reject you?

Erm, what? That's like asking "why eat in a place that won't serve you?"... You can't, and that's my point.

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
So you in theory support the Church's right to deny to wed interracial couples?

You're putting words in my mouth. I support the right for churches to choose who marries in their church and who doesn't. I highly doubt that any church would deny interracial marriage, but if they do, its the same with same sex marriage, they can marry in lots of other places.

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
You're putting words in my mouth. I support the right for churches to choose who marries in their church and who doesn't. I highly doubt that any church would deny interracial marriage, but if they do, its the same with same sex marriage, they can marry in lots of other places.

So it would also be acceptable for a big supermarket chain to refuse to serve people of a certain race, and for public transport companies to make the same discriminatory policies? After all, these people can go elsewhere for their shopping and find other means of reaching their destination.

[Jester94]

(Original post by desijut)
What's the difference specifically? (genuine question) Different names =/= different. Analogy since people are loving them. I know a person as Dave, you know his name as Paul. We know him as two different names... he must be a different person.

Some legal differences (mostly regarding inheritance I think). You're right, different names do not necessarily mean something is different; however, this is not, as in your analogy, a case of having two different names for the same thing, but having two different institutions, when we want the same institution for us all.

However, why CPs =/= equality is more than just the fact that they do not grant all the rights that marriage does, but is also a matter of principle. Read through this/various other threads on the topic, and you will see various examples of what I mean.

[2ndClass]

same, I feel sorry for the churches that have been co-opted into this nonsense

[ohirome]

(Original post by desijut)
No clue, was being an *******, any studies/data on the subject?

A quick leap onto ye olde wikipedia carries a good explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
So it would also be acceptable for a big supermarket chain to refuse to serve people of a certain race, and for public transport companies to make the same discriminatory policies? After all, these people can go elsewhere for their shopping and find other means of reaching their destination.

It would be morally wrong, but libertarianism is very much at home with natural law and a supermarket chain refusing to serve (and presumably employ) people of a certain race is more likely to go bankrupt than one which places no importance on race.

[desijut]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
Erm, what? That's like asking "why eat in a place that won't serve you?"... You can't, and that's my point.

You know the church is against gay marriages. Why would you follow Christianity and get married in a church when you're not following it? It's like going to a halal meat butchers and asking for non halal meat. Or even going to a place that only serves meat when you're a vegetarian

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by desijut)
You know the church is against gay marriages. Why would you follow Christianity and get married in a church when you're not following it? It's like going to a halal meat butchers and asking for non halal meat. Or even going to a place that only serves meat when you're a vegetarian

Because not all churches refuse to marry homosexuals? There are churches who have explicitly stated already that should it be legalized they are willing to marry homosexuals. Not to mention that you don't need to be christian to get married in a church. Atheists do it all the time. Or do you think they shouldn't do that either?

[SacredPhoenix]

The only reasonable argument against same sex marriage is that marriage is a religious union. In that case, I don't have a problem with marriage being defined as a union between man and a woman. What I have a problem with is state recognizing it.

Basically, I don't think there is a need for same sex marriage. What we need is a legal system that allows civil unions between any two persons, and recognizes only these civil unions. If a couple in a civil union also wants to be married by the church, it is between them and the church. It should not make a difference to the state whether a couple is actually married or not.

The bad thing about current stance on same sex marriages is that state does recognize the marriage and grants certain rights to married couples. These rights are not available to the same sex couples, and that is not the way things should run.

[desijut]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Because not all churches refuse to marry homosexuals? There are churches who have explicitly stated already that should it be legalized they are willing to marry homosexuals. Not to mention that you don't need to be christian to get married in a church. Atheists do it all the time. Or do you think they shouldn't do that either?

up to the person who runs the church. Live and let live. I didnt know that. That changes my answer to forcing someone to marry two people if they disagree to a marriage. Go to another church then lol. So what if they are atheists getting married? The guy in the church is against to people of the same sex getting married, not to non-believers getting married. It's up to the dude who runs the church, let him express his beliefs, it's not harming anyone else if they can go to another church and get married. I'm merely against forcing them to marry people when they're against it. If they're for it then i see no problem

btw im not even christian

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by SacredPhoenix)
The only reasonable argument against same sex marriage is that marriage is a religious union. In that case, I don't have a problem with marriage being defined as a union between man and a woman. What I have a problem with is state recognizing it.

Basically, I don't think there is a need for same sex marriage. What we need is a legal system that allows civil unions between any two persons, and recognizes only these civil unions. If a couple in a civil union also wants to be married by the church, it is between them and the church. It should not make a difference to the state whether a couple is actually married or not.

The bad thing about current stance on same sex marriages is that state does recognize the marriage and grants certain rights to married couples. These rights are not available to the same sex couples, and that is not the way things should run.

Marriage predates religion as an institution.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by desijut)
up to the person who runs the church. Live and let live. I didnt know that. That changes my answer to forcing someone to marry two people if they disagree to a marriage. Go to another church then lol.

I don't see anyone trying to force churches to marry people of the same sex. In fact I believe that lawmakers are specifically addressing that. That doesn't mean though that churches that wish to perform such marriages shouldn't be allowed to.

So what if they are atheists getting married? The guy in the church is against to people of the same sex getting married, not to non-believers getting married. It's up to the dude who runs the church, let him express his beliefs, it's not harming anyone else if they can go to another church and get married. I'm merely against forcing them to marry people when they're against it. If they're for it then i see no problem

btw im not even christian

All I was saying is you don't need to be religious or agree with that particular religion to want to get married somewhere. So your argument that if you aren't a Christian you shouldn't want to get married in a church is irrelevant. There are many reasons to get married in a church. They are far more than just places of worship and religion.

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
So it would also be acceptable for a big supermarket chain to refuse to serve people of a certain race, and for public transport companies to make the same discriminatory policies? After all, these people can go elsewhere for their shopping and find other means of reaching their destination.

Churches should have the right to choose who to marry and who not to; shops/supermarkets should have the right to serve who they want to and who they don't want to. It doesn't matter if morally they are right or wrong, you have to protect their rights because it is their property.

If a couple wanted to marry inside your house, it would be your choice whether to let them or not. It would be wrong to force you to allow it. See my point?

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
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...

Yea, basically everyone already calls it marriage, though. Gay couples I know are "married" and everyone refers to it as such.

Personally I don't give a ****, because it doesn't actually change anything whatsoever. My main objection is that once the pro-gay/pro-everything crowd (mostly straight people) win this symbolic victory they will have to hunt around for some other irrelevant issue to complain about and we'll have to go through it all again.

[FinalMH]

Lets undermine religion for the sake of the minority.

[CurlyBen]

Surely this is a matter of semantics. Marriage confers no legal rights that a civil partnership doesn't, and there's no law prohibiting people from referring in conversation to a civil partnership as marriage. The only difference is the bit of paper that confirms it.

Having said that, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years, and I don't really see a need to change that. Equality is satisfied by a civil partnership, why the obsession over the word? If a marriage and a civil partnership aren't equal because they're different words, are the words man and woman next on the agenda?

[1mattyw]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
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.

Like a Sir.