[Carter78]

(Original post by Scarface-Don)
However when two homosexual individuals get married in the UK they nearly always follow the procedure that is complementary to the Christian faith, i.e. going to church and saying the vows.

Not true. That's the point, homosexuals cannot go to church and get married so how would they have been able to up until now as you claim?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Scarface-Don)
Yes I agree that marriage is not exclusively religious since two individuals, regardless of sexuality, can live together, adopt children and be recognised as partners by organisations and government bodies. However when two homosexual individuals get married in the UK they nearly always follow the procedure that is complementary to the Christian faith, i.e. going to church and saying the vows. This is where the religious element comes in. I'm pretty sure most religious people have nothing personal against homosexuality because most religions teach that after death we're going to be judged based on our own deeds and not someone else's. However when homosexuals try to incorporate religion into their lives, a religion such as Christianity that is completely opposed to their ideology, then we have Christians standing up since they see it as a direct attack on their religion and idealogy.

I don't know of a single homosexual who's gotten married in a church, I didn't think they could. And if they did, that would have only occurred with the permission of the church involved. So if you're against that, don't go to that church.
Nobody is trying to force churches that are against homosexuality to perform gay marriages. I would understand the problem if they were - but that isn't the case.

[Steezy]

You're giving these people too much credit... They don't have the brainpower to get a valid, logical argument together.

"I don't like it, that's that."

Their most popular argument is based on religion ffs. That's how stupid these people are.

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
So it may be costly to have kids, if indeed they decide to have kids and then if they have them by IVF or with a surrogate.
I don't see how that makes homosexuality 'inferior'.

Its inferior because it comes with price tag that may run into the thousands. I'm not saying that all gay people are inferior to myself, I'm well aware that many are smarter/taller/better looking etc etc than me, but in terms of pure biology homosexuality endows homosexuals with costs that in general aren't a feature of heterosexuality. Anyone that was prepared to be honest would recognise it as a disadvantage.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
Its inferior because it comes with price tag that may run into the thousands. I'm not saying that all gay people are inferior to myself, I'm well aware that many are smarter/taller/better looking etc etc than me, but in terms of pure biology homosexuality endows homosexuals with costs that in general aren't a feature of heterosexuality. Anyone that was prepared to be honest would recognise it as a disadvantage.

So things that are more expensive for the same thing are inferior?
Lamborghinis are inferior to old Fords? They both just get you from A to B, but the Ford doesn't have as much cost involved.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Firstly, there are some things that civil partnerships do not offer that marriages do - inheriting titles for example.

Fair enough. But then if this is what gay people are looking for, the right to inherit titles, then this is what they should be campaining for. They should be petitioning the government to allow them to inherit titles. That's how they would end up with equal rights.
At the moment, what they're campaigning for is effectively to scribble out the words "civil partnership" from every legal document, and replace it with the word "marriage". But I don't see why that would then enable them to inherit titles. They still wouldn't have equal rights.

Secondly, if they're the same, why call them different things?

Well they're not the same. The difference is that one is between members of opposite genders, and one is between members of the same gender. In order to refer to this difference in every day language, we have terminology to enable us to do so. That's like asking "If black people are equal to white people, why call them different things"?

[CJKay]

(Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*

There's your answer, mate.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
So things that are more expensive for the same thing are inferior?
Lamborghinis are inferior to old Fords? They both just get you from A to B, but the Ford doesn't have as much cost involved.

Lamborghinis and Fords aren't the "same thing", are they? One is more prestigious than the other, and so the extra cost reflects that. Though I've never heard of expensive routes to parenthood being more prestigious than the usual method, or anything like that...

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
So things that are more expensive for the same thing are inferior?
Lamborghinis are inferior to old Fords? They both just get you from A to B, but the Ford doesn't have as much cost involved.

If being homosexual meant you had to pay £30k for a brand new Ford Focus whereas heterosexuals only had to pay £20k the cost attached to homosexuality would be £10k. In other words it would put you at a hefty financial disadvantage. I understand that you reject the word 'inferior' because its not PC but logically I don't think you have much a point. Emotionalism doesn't trump reason and appeals to the evidence.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Fair enough. But then if this is what gay people are looking for, the right to inherit titles, then this is what they should be campaining for. They should be petitioning the government to allow them to inherit titles.

At the moment, what they're campaigning for is effectively to scribble out the words "civil partnership" from every legal document, and replace it with the word "marriage". But I don't see why that would then enable them to inherit titles.

They want the things to be equal. I don't know if there are any other things that are different, I just know that one for a fact. But why can't they just be equal?

Well they're not the same. The difference is that one is between members of opposite genders, and one is between members of the same gender. In order to refer to this difference in every day language, we have terminology to enable us to do so. That's like asking "If black people are equal to white people, why call them different things"?

Sex, not gender. There's a difference.
It's very easy to refer to the difference between gay people and straight people - gay and straight. Why does their marriage need to be called something different? If we've acknowledged that they are deserving of the same rights, then why call it something different if we've already got a way of discriminating? All that is doing is making them different, and there's no reason to do so.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
If being homosexual meant you had to pay £30k for a brand new Ford Focus whereas heterosexuals only had to pay £20k the cost attached to homosexuality would be £10k. In other words it would put you at a hefty financial disadvantage. I understand that you reject the word 'inferior' because its not PC but logically I don't think you have much a point. Emotionalism doesn't trump reason and appeals to the evidence.

Well yes, that would be a problem. But that doesn't happen.
I'm not rejecting the term 'inferior' due to being politically correct, I'm rejecting your idea that they are inferior because of something that won't affect everyone. And the idea that money is the one thing that'll make them inferior.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Lamborghinis and Fords aren't the "same thing", are they? One is more prestigious than the other, and so the extra cost reflects that. Though I've never heard of expensive routes to parenthood being more prestigious than the usual method, or anything like that...

In basic terms, they do the same thing.
It's just an example of how a more expensive thing isn't inferior.

[Carter78]

(Original post by chefdave)
If being homosexual meant you had to pay £30k for a brand new Ford Focus whereas heterosexuals only had to pay £20k the cost attached to homosexuality would be £10k. In other words it would put you at a hefty financial disadvantage.

This is perhaps the best ever statement I have ever heard regarding the gay marriage debate

What physical disadvantages of homosexuality are you talking about btw? Higher HIV rates?

Because if you're talking about the inability to have kids (easily) thus they must spend more money on IVF etc. Then you could also argue that not being able to have children saves on childcare costs, education fees etc.

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Well yes, that would be a problem. But that doesn't happen.
I'm not rejecting the term 'inferior' due to being politically correct, I'm rejecting your idea that they are inferior because of something that won't affect everyone. And the idea that money is the one thing that'll make them inferior.

Money is just the way we calculate and measure the disadvantage, its not important in itself. But your point is that just because some people have to pay £000's to achieve X whereas other only have to pay pennies this doesn't mean that the first group are at a disadvantage. I would suggest they are. Don't allow political correctness prevent you from coming to the right conclusion; facts cannot be altered by ideology.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
They want the things to be equal. I don't know if there are any other things that are different, I just know that one for a fact. But why can't they just be equal?

Well that's my point. Simply changing the term "civil partnership" into the term "marriage" doesn't make them equal. It doesn't automatically afford gay people the right to inherit titles, nor any other rights that they may currently be lacking. Two things don't become equal just because you call them by the same name. Whereas if gay people campained for the right to inherit titles etc. then they would end up with equal rights under their contracts, despite them not being called "marriage".

Sex, not gender. There's a difference.

A whole different debate altogether. But I think you understand what I mean.

It's very easy to refer to the difference between gay people and straight people - gay and straight. Why does their marriage need to be called something different? If we've acknowledged that they are deserving of the same rights, then why call it something different if we've already got a way of discriminating?

Simply because "civil partnership" and "marriage" are already what we call them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with calling it "straight marriage" and "gay marriage". I just don't see why it matters either way. Why go to the trouble of changing it? People's contractual rights are not affected by the name of the contract.

All that is doing is making them different, and there's no reason to do so.

It's not making them different. It's acknowledging that they are different. And they are different. One couple is gay, and one is straight, which is a difference.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Carter78)


This is perhaps the best ever statement I have ever heard regarding the gay marriage debate

What physical disadvantages of homosexuality are you talking about btw? Higher HIV rates?

Because if you're talking about the inability to have kids (easily) thus they must spend more money on IVF etc. Then you could also argue that not being able to have children saves on childcare costs, education fees etc.

Perhaps you should read my other posts before jumping in with inane comments about AIDS and the like.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
Money is just the way we calculate and measure the disadvantage, its not important in itself. But your point is that just because some people have to pay £000's to achieve X whereas other only have to pay pennies this doesn't mean that the first group are at a disadvantage. I would suggest they are. Don't allow political correctness prevent you from coming to the right conclusion; facts cannot be altered by ideology.

Yes, they're at a financial disadvantage if they choose to have children.
It doesn't make gay people inferior.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well they're not the same. The difference is that one is between members of opposite genders, and one is between members of the same gender. In order to refer to this difference in every day language, we have terminology to enable us to do so. That's like asking "If black people are equal to white people, why call them different things"?

I don't generally call black people black people and white people white people; unless it's directly relevant for some reason then they're just people. For most purposes the difference is trivial.

Similarly, for most purposes, the difference between same-sex and mixed-sex couples is trivial. So why extend an unnecessary distinction into places where it isn't relevant?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well that's my point. Simply changing the term "civil partnership" into the term "marriage" doesn't make them equal. It doesn't automatically afford gay people the right to inherit titles, nor any other rights that they may currently be lacking.

Yeah, and both this should be fixed and the same should be changed.

A whole different debate altogether. But I think you understand what I mean.

It's not a debate, it is what it is. But I did understand you.

Simply because "civil partnership" and "marriage" are already what we call them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with calling it "straight marriage" and "gay marriage". I just don't see why it matters either way. Why go to the trouble of changing it? People's contractual rights are not affected by the name of the contract.
It's not making them different. It's acknowledging that they are different. And they are different. One couple is gay, and one is straight, which is a difference.

Fine, but I propose a compromise. Seeing as how straight people keep saying it doesn't make a difference and gay people want their union to be called marriage, we call the straight one 'civil partnership' and the gay one 'marriage'. Why not?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
In basic terms, they do the same thing. It's just an example of how a more expensive thing isn't inferior.

But the fact that you have chosen to put it into "basic terms" has oversimplified the argument. We already know that more expensive things aren't necessarily inferior to less expensive things, because people might actually want to pay more money, because the like the expensive thing more than the less expensive thing.

chefdave's point is that more expensive things are inferior to less expensive things in situations where you would prefer to take the less expensive option, but you are unable to.