[Okashira]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
I'm curious to know what possible arguments people have against gay marriage. I can't think of any reason as to why it shouldn't be allowed. Certain people wish to maintain "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman only, but the introduction of gay marriage wouldn't nullify "traditional marriage". In my opinion, everybody in society deserves as equal amount of oppurtunity as each other, and telling a gay couple that they cannot marry, is simply restricting them of the equality they deserve.

So please feel free to leave any arguments for or against the availability of Gay marriage.

There are none. Those who have Christian values, and argue so adamantly about this issue, have little understanding about what God has said. Religious people want homosexual people to stop being homosexual, but they fail to realize they also must stop doing many things as well. They must stop lying for instance, because homosexuality and lying are on the same level in terms of sin.

Yet all in all, the Church shouldn't be concerned about governing the world. God didn't call us to do that. Enforcing people to keep God's sayings is counter productive to showing God's love. The loudest christians who want to make a law that states homosexual marriage should be banned, don't know what their doing.

[Clip]

One of my pet topics, and possibly the subject of my dissertation.

I'm not against gay marriage as a concept - but I personally don't see what's wrong with civil partnership.

My concern would be that gay marriage would open up a legal can of worms that would have knock-on effects for a lot of other things.

First off - it's clear that the law believes that sex (and not necessarily procreation) is an important part of marriage. A marriage is voidable if there has been no consumation. Now currently, there is no consumation requirement for a CP - this may be because of the technical difficulties in defining a perfect and complete sex act for lesbians, or because of a reluctance to consider anal sex as a consumation. In any case - there is no requirement.

Let's accept then, that gay marriage would have no consumation requirement. Half the arguments against CP are that equal status is insufficient -and that gay people should have exactly the same ceremony and legal status. In this case, the natural result is to remove the consumation requirement from heterosexual marriages.

Sounds ok - but I see this as a potential timebomb for further down the line. If there is no consumation requirement - this is effectively saying that sex - or rather proof of sex is no longer a requirement of marriage. A sexual relationship is legally viewed as that which separates a platonic friendship from a marriage-type partnership. Without the sex requirement - the door is now open to some unforeseen consequences:

1. Prohibition on grounds of consanguinity. Prohibitions on incest are what makes this part of the law tick. The prohibition against marrying ex in-laws were removed for this very reason. If it's not illegal to have sex, then it's not a void marriage. Following exactly the same rationale, the incest prohibition would go out the window, and presumably some closer relatives would be free to marry.

2. In the same vein - marriage may be defined as a non-sexual union. There would be no bar to platonic marriages - which people might freely enter for financial advantage. Brothers and sisters could marry for significant tax advantages. People who are simply friends may marry with no intention of sexual relationship.

3. What effect would this have on adultery and divorce? Surely this advances the idea of no-fault divorce? If sex is not a requirement of marriage, then why would adultery then be an issue? If adultery is no issue - then similarly what defines behaviour? We may end up with no-fault divorce on demand.

These things may suit the people marrying for "new" reasons, but would cause serious problems for couples (gay or straight) marrying for the "traditional" reasons.

[MrBlueMo0n]

(Original post by Wirral)
The answer is in Genesis chapter 2. God created the man and the woman for each other and instituted marriage between the two. Read that chapter for the very first wedding ceremony.

Lol you think it's right because the Bible says it...? I mean, you can read anything and 'justify' it that way, but that's stupid! Do you not sin at all? If you do, and others do, why cannot homosexuals? And if you think it's alright to do any random sin, then why cannot homosexuals? Plus, who does it actually hurt?

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Clip)
One of my pet topics, and possibly the subject of my dissertation.

I'm not against gay marriage as a concept - but I personally don't see what's wrong with civil partnership.

My concern would be that gay marriage would open up a legal can of worms that would have knock-on effects for a lot of other things.

First off - it's clear that the law believes that sex (and not necessarily procreation) is an important part of marriage. A marriage is voidable if there has been no consumation. Now currently, there is no consumation requirement for a CP - this may be because of the technical difficulties in defining a perfect and complete sex act for lesbians, or because of a reluctance to consider anal sex as a consumation. In any case - there is no requirement.

Let's accept then, that gay marriage would have no consumation requirement. Half the arguments against CP are that equal status is insufficient -and that gay people should have exactly the same ceremony and legal status. In this case, the natural result is to remove the consumation requirement from heterosexual marriages.

Sounds ok - but I see this as a potential timebomb for further down the line. If there is no consumation requirement - this is effectively saying that sex - or rather proof of sex is no longer a requirement of marriage. A sexual relationship is legally viewed as that which separates a platonic friendship from a marriage-type partnership. Without the sex requirement - the door is now open to some unforeseen consequences:

1. Prohibition on grounds of consanguinity. Prohibitions on incest are what makes this part of the law tick. The prohibition against marrying ex in-laws were removed for this very reason. If it's not illegal to have sex, then it's not a void marriage. Following exactly the same rationale, the incest prohibition would go out the window, and presumably some closer relatives would be free to marry.

2. In the same vein - marriage may be defined as a non-sexual union. There would be no bar to platonic marriages - which people might freely enter for financial advantage. Brothers and sisters could marry for significant tax advantages. People who are simply friends may marry with no intention of sexual relationship.

3. What effect would this have on adultery and divorce? Surely this advances the idea of no-fault divorce? If sex is not a requirement of marriage, then why would adultery then be an issue? If adultery is no issue - then similarly what defines behaviour? We may end up with no-fault divorce on demand.

These things may suit the people marrying for "new" reasons, but would cause serious problems for couples (gay or straight) marrying for the "traditional" reasons.

Those arguments are both insightful and intriguing. I can't argue against any of the points right now, but if you do choose the topic for your dissertation, then i'm sure you'll pass.

[Wirral]

(Original post by MrBlueMo0n)
Lol you think it's right because the Bible says it...? I mean, you can read anything and 'justify' it that way, but that's stupid! Do you not sin at all? If you do, and others do, why cannot homosexuals? And if you think it's alright to do any random sin, then why cannot homosexuals? Plus, who does it actually hurt?

You've lost me here. What has this to with the institution of marriage in Genesis chapter 2? Who is saying it is OK to sin?

[Clip]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
Those arguments are both insightful and intriguing. I can't argue against any of the points right now, but if you do choose the topic for your dissertation, then i'm sure you'll pass.

Anyone who has the words "anal sex"in their dissertation title deserves to pass.

[cl_steele]

Dude use the damn search function this topic has been done over so so many times!

[MrBlueMo0n]

(Original post by Wirral)
You've lost me here. What has this to with the institution of marriage in Genesis chapter 2? Who is saying it is OK to sin?

It's not OK to sin. I'm saying that you do, and so does everybody else. Being homosexual is a sin (or doing homosexual stuff - you know what I mean) so that should mean that it's OK.

You know what, forget it. Basically, who gets hurt from somebody being or doing homosexual stuff?

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Clip)
Anyone who has the words "anal sex"in their dissertation title deserves to pass.

Damn right :')

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Clip)
1. Prohibition on grounds of consanguinity. Prohibitions on incest are what makes this part of the law tick. The prohibition against marrying ex in-laws were removed for this very reason. If it's not illegal to have sex, then it's not a void marriage. Following exactly the same rationale, the incest prohibition would go out the window, and presumably some closer relatives would be free to marry.

2. In the same vein - marriage may be defined as a non-sexual union. There would be no bar to platonic marriages - which people might freely enter for financial advantage. Brothers and sisters could marry for significant tax advantages. People who are simply friends may marry with no intention of sexual relationship.

3. What effect would this have on adultery and divorce? Surely this advances the idea of no-fault divorce? If sex is not a requirement of marriage, then why would adultery then be an issue? If adultery is no issue - then similarly what defines behaviour? We may end up with no-fault divorce on demand.

These things may suit the people marrying for "new" reasons, but would cause serious problems for couples (gay or straight) marrying for the "traditional" reasons.

1. What's the problem with that?

2. What's to stop people currently merely lying and stating they had sex with each other for financial advantages?

3. Why not recognize pre-nups that can include sex as part of the marriage? Also, is emotional commitment a part of marriage, officially? If not, aren't emotional absence/rejection grounds for divorce? Why could it (if it does) apply to that yet not sex?

Legal can worms aren't necessarily bad in of itself.

[fuze-mo25]

Lol lemme state im not a homophobe this is a general point. The thing y'all dont comprehend is that marriage is a religious concept between man and women however homosexuality isn't allowed in these religions ergo a gay marriage is actually an oxymoron!

[Dinnes]

(Original post by fuze-mo25)
Lol lemme state im not a homophobe this is a general point. The thing y'all dont comprehend is that marriage is a religious concept between man and women however homosexuality isn't allowed in these religions ergo a gay marriage is actually an oxymoron!

marriage isn't inherently religious, it's just Christianity has hijacked it somewhat. Marriages/partnerships/whathaveyou have been recorded several years before the first part of genesis was written.

[xXxiKillxXx]

Once 'marriage' is no longer defined as between a man and a woman, a man could marry his cow, brother etc..

If you want to challenge this view, QUOTE me.

btw I don't care bout negs.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Once 'marriage' is no longer defined as between a man and a woman, a man could marry his cow, brother etc..

If you want to challenge this view, QUOTE me.

btw I don't care bout negs.

Nope, you simply change the definition to "marriage = union between two humans". Then, when the polygamy brigade start rallying, we change it to "marriage = union between human(s)".

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Nope, you simply change the definition to "marriage = union between two humans". Then, when the polygamy brigade start rallying, we change it to "marriage = union between human(s)".

Why can't a man marry his brother ? Why can't a father marry his son?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Why can't a man marry his brother ? Why can't a father marry his son?

Because you'd make a clause that prohibits incestual marriages.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by Clip)
My concern would be that gay marriage would open up a legal can of worms that would have knock-on effects for a lot of other things.

The slippery-slope argument is peddled far too much, rarely with rational substantiation.

First off - it's clear that the law believes that sex (and not necessarily procreation) is an important part of marriage. A marriage is voidable if there has been no consumation. Now currently, there is no consumation requirement for a CP - this may be because of the technical difficulties in defining a perfect and complete sex act for lesbians, or because of a reluctance to consider anal sex as a consumation. In any case - there is no requirement.

Frankly, I put this down to laziness on the part of Parliament.

The archaic law surrounding consummation has continually been distorted by the courts to reflect changing attitudes, such as allowing contraception.

If consummation is not about procreation, then I do not see why it cannot evolve to include homosexual sex.

Why must consummation involve penetration by the penis only? Or even penetration at all? I can only put this down to oral sex and other 'deviant' sexual acts being historically frowned upon.

Let's accept then, that gay marriage would have no consumation requirement. Half the arguments against CP are that equal status is insufficient -and that gay people should have exactly the same ceremony and legal status. In this case, the natural result is to remove the consumation requirement from heterosexual marriages.

There are a number of exceptions to consummation in heterosexual marriages already, including companionate marriages.

Also, the authorities do not enter the matrimonial bedroom and record consummation. Couples who do not engage in sexual intercourse can simply choose not to petition for a decree of nullity. If I married my female friend and we just had a marriage of platonic friendship and no sexual intercourse - we would still be married unless one of us petitioned for a decree of nullity. Thus, in theory consummation is required, but in practice it can be easily avoided in heterosexual marriages.

Sounds ok - but I see this as a potential timebomb for further down the line. If there is no consumation requirement - this is effectively saying that sex - or rather proof of sex is no longer a requirement of marriage. A sexual relationship is legally viewed as that which separates a platonic friendship from a marriage-type partnership.

I disagree. I do not believe that sex is the defining point of marriage. Companionate marriages are an example, or even couples who gradually stop having sex with each other but still retain the element of love and kinship - clearly, sex is not the defining point of their marriage.

1. Prohibition on grounds of consanguinity. Prohibitions on incest are what makes this part of the law tick. The prohibition against marrying ex in-laws were removed for this very reason. If it's not illegal to have sex, then it's not a void marriage. Following exactly the same rationale, the incest prohibition would go out the window, and presumably some closer relatives would be free to marry.

This is a non-sequitur.

Consanguinity is prohibited on the grounds of relationship, regardless of sexual intercourse. A brother and a sister cannot marry, even if they never engage in sexual intercourse.

If consummation is removed as a requirement, I don't see how this would enable marriages between relatives - because they would still be unable to marry purely on the grounds of their relationship.

If you are saying that it would lead to such marriages being legalised, that's a slippery-slope argument with no substantiation. As mentioned - there are marriages where a lack of consummation is allowed, yet this has not led to the legalisation of marriages between blood relations.

2. In the same vein - marriage may be defined as a non-sexual union. There would be no bar to platonic marriages - which people might freely enter for financial advantage. Brothers and sisters could marry for significant tax advantages. People who are simply friends may marry with no intention of sexual relationship.

Again, platonic marriages are already possible, both in the law (companionate marriages) and in practice (simply refraining to petition for a decree of nullity for wilful refusal to consummate).

3. What effect would this have on adultery and divorce? Surely this advances the idea of no-fault divorce? If sex is not a requirement of marriage, then why would adultery then be an issue? If adultery is no issue - then similarly what defines behaviour? We may end up with no-fault divorce on demand.

Because for many, adultery is just part of the wider marital sin of having sexual or romantic relations with a third party. For most, there is the same outrage regardless of whether their partner penetrated the third party or engaged in fellatio. I don't believe the end of consummation would mean a party to a marriage could go off and sleep with third parties without any legal recourse. Many argue that for those in a civil partnership, such acts would come under the unreasonable behaviour heading.

And many argue that no-fault divorce is a positive step forward, due to the vitriol that comes with fault-based divorce. Arguably, it's only present because the Government want to make it more difficult to divorce to window-dress divorce rates.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Because you'd make a clause that prohibits incestual marriages.

Yes but why should that be prohibited? On what grounds?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Yes but why should that be prohibited? On what grounds?

Why do you need any grounds? You stated that it could lead to those things yet a law can stop it leading to those things and it will. Your point is thus invalid.

Why is it prohibited currently? On those grounds.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Yes but why should that be prohibited? On what grounds?

Incestual marriages would still be wrong because incestual sex can cause genetic problems for later generations, i.e. harmful to any children that'd come from such a relationship.
Not exactly an issue with gay marriage is it?