[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
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.

Why should a law be implemented stop those things? In other words, WHY should the marriage between 2 brothers be illegal (why is it wrong?). WHY is the marriage between a father and son wrong? I know its 'disgusting' but once you legalise gay marriage, you can't really oppose incestual marriage that doesn't result in offspring.

Your dodging the question..

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
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.

I said:

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

[Schmucks]

God said it was wrong through some hidden message despite others suggesting it isn't, homosexuals are icky and because 'then dey aint gettin' da pussy are dey?!'.

Amongst other mindless bull**** that doesn't warrant expulsion into the atmosphere. Gay marraige is fine, people need to grow up.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Why should a law be implemented stop those things? In other words, WHY should the marriage between 2 brothers be illegal (why is it wrong?). WHY is the marriage between a father and son wrong? I know its 'disgusting' but once you legalise gay marriage, you can't really oppose incestual marriage that doesn't result in offspring.

Your dodging the question..

No, I'm not. Realize the difference between legality and morality. You stated that if we allow homosexuals to marry than that would allow brothers and fathers or whatever. But, that's not true because we can and most likely the incest laws will apply, post-introduction of gay marriage. You might not like the fact that they apply but tough, they'll apply.

I don't really care whether incest is legalized or not. I don't think there are many rational arguments against it though.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
I said:

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

And you ask that on the basis they can't then have children?

Well then - should a man be allowed to marry his sister if one of them is infertile?


The basic principle here is the idea of equality in marriage - what the supporters of gay marriage want is for homosexual relationships to have the same legal status as heterosexual relationships - start then conditionalising incestuous relationships and all you've done is shift the dispute sideways.

[alex5455]

(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!

religion does not own marriage, marriage has been around since civilisation began, the ancient greeks and romans practised it, they werent religious as we know it today, your argument is stupid

[alex5455]

(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.

yes, because a cow has the legal standing to enter into a contract and sign a legal document doesnt it........ what an ignorant statement

[Clip]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
1. What's the problem with that?

There are a lot of things that are barred on the grounds of public policy. The problem is that the legal rationale for these things is not based necessarily on what we'd think. Prohibited degrees of relationship based on consanguinity is founded on the illegality of incest. This isn't my opinion - this is what the law-makers think. If you remove the necessity for sex - that's one thing - but then marriage becomes a very weak status. The whole point of the exercise is to have a strong union recognised by the state - otherwise why the clamor gay marriage in the first place?

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

Nothing. The marriage is voidable, though. Cohabitant provisions notwithstanding, were the union to break down, one party can try and have the marriage annulled for non-consumation; if successful, the financial provisions of marriage wouldn't apply.

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?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here - if you mean an ante-nuptial contract that would require sex - I can't see it working. ANCs just about got off the ground with financial provision - but a requirement for sex would be intolerable. It might be a contract for sexual services a la Sutton v Mishcon de Reya - or worse - even construed as compelling sexual activity.

There is only one ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Some of these things prove the behaviour fact, but it's very sketchy. It's also pretty much pointless to contest a divorce in any case.

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

Well, my position is that I believe it's completely unnecessary. I believe that CP is "good enough" and avoids all the problems that might come with gay marriage.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, I'm not. Realize the difference between legality and morality. You stated that if we allow homosexuals to marry than that would allow brothers and fathers or whatever. But, that's not true because we can and most likely the incest laws will apply, post-introduction of gay marriage. You might not like the fact that they apply but tough, they'll apply.

I don't really care whether incest is legalized or not. I don't think there are many rational arguments against it though.

The incest laws will apply but why should they? That is what I am trying to get at. The arguments against incest are similar to the arguments people used before homosexuality was legalised. You said it yourself, there aren't many rational arguments against it if you support homosexuality. I find it quite laughable how most pro-homosexuality people are so anti-incest..

(Original post by Alofleicester)
And you ask that on the basis they can't then have children?

Well then - should a man be allowed to marry his sister if one of them is infertile?


The basic principle here is the idea of equality in marriage - what the supporters of gay marriage want is for homosexual relationships to have the same legal status as heterosexual relationships - start then conditionalising incestuous relationships and all you've done is shift the dispute sideways.

Yes.

Incest isn't even legal yet, let alone incestual marriage. The reason I am bringing up incest is because the arguments against it are weak (if you are pro-legalisation of homosexuality)..

(Original post by alex5455)
yes, because a cow has the legal standing to enter into a contract and sign a legal document doesnt it........ what an ignorant statement

A cow doesn't have the legal standing to enter into a contract and be slaughtered yet that is seen as perfectly acceptable?

[alex5455]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
A cow doesn't have the legal standing to enter into a contract and be slaughtered yet that is seen as perfectly acceptable?

good made up argument there, it is not in law that a cow has to sign a contract to be slaughtered, it is in law you have to sign a contract to marry

[def-JAM-fuzion]

[Oli-Ol]

(Original post by Clip)
Well, my position is that I believe it's completely unnecessary. I believe that CP is "good enough" and avoids all the problems that might come with gay marriage.

But it's not good enough, that's the point. Why should homosexuals have to settle for something that's 'good enough' rather than being treated as equals? If you enter into a civil partnership then you have to admit this on insurance forms etc, and for a lot of people that can be extremely uncomfortable as they don't want to be forced to declare to the world that they are in a CP rather than married. Also, if a heterosexual couple get married and one of them later has sex-reassignment surgery, meaning that they become a homosexual couple, their marriage is void. They have to go through the whole process again in order to obtain a civil partnership. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the hugely complex feelings here, because you are part of the majority of people who will never have to deal with the fact that they are not allowed, by law, to marry the person that they love. Because they're not 'good enough'.

[Clip]

(Original post by Oli-Ol)
But it's not good enough, that's the point. Why should homosexuals have to settle for something that's 'good enough' rather than being treated as equals? If you enter into a civil partnership then you have to admit this on insurance forms etc, and for a lot of people that can be extremely uncomfortable as they don't want to be forced to declare to the world that they are in a CP rather than married. Also, if a heterosexual couple get married and one of them later has sex-reassignment surgery, meaning that they become a homosexual couple, their marriage is void. They have to go through the whole process again in order to obtain a civil partnership. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the hugely complex feelings here, because you are part of the majority of people who will never have to deal with the fact that they are not allowed, by law, to marry the person that they love. Because they're not 'good enough'.

I said that CP is good enough - not that gay people are not good enough.

You're also representing that there is some kind of united opinion on this for gay people. There isn't. A lot of gay people don't want to be "normalised" as marriage "is for breeders".

But the basis of what I am saying is that gay marriage could quite possibly produce the opposite result to that intended:

1. Some people want gay marriage because they want recognition of a strong legal union.

2. A likely effect of gay marriage is the removal of consumation as a condition.

3. Without consumation, there is no bar on non-sexual marriages.

4. Eventually, there is nothing to stop a large number of platonic or financial marriages - it could become a tax dodge. People will act rationally, and if marriage is hugely advantageous with little commitment - they will do it.

5. Marriage becomes a very weak status as friends, colleagues, siblings can all marry for "unromantic" and non-sexual purposes.

6. All married people, whether gay or straight are members of a weak legal union rather than a strong one.

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with rights, and I don't represent that anyone is inferior to anyone else. What I am saying is that the consequences of gay marriage are not simple due to the roots of matrimonial law.

[Space Jockey]

I have already rebuked these points, but you did not address my arguments.

I have summarised my previous arguments below, but if you choose to respond - it would make for a better debate if you provided a counter-argument to or at least consider my more detailed arguments in your response: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...8#post38552378

(Original post by Clip)
2. A likely effect of gay marriage is the removal of consumation as a condition.

No it is not. As consummation is not about procreation, there is no reason why the (already distorted) law regarding consummation cannot evolve to include homosexual sexual intercourse. Why must consummation involve penetration by the penis only? Or even penetration at all?

3. Without consumation, there is no bar on non-sexual marriages.

There are a number of exceptions to consummation in heterosexual marriages already, including companionate marriages. And, in practice - many couples simply refrain from petitioning for a decree of nullity.

4. Eventually, there is nothing to stop a large number of platonic or financial marriages - it could become a tax dodge. People will act rationally, and if marriage is hugely advantageous with little commitment - they will do it.

Again, such marriages are already possible.

5. Marriage becomes a very weak status as friends, colleagues, siblings can all marry for "unromantic" and non-sexual purposes.

Friends and colleagues can already marry either in a companionate marriage (albeit usually applying to elderly couples) or by refraining from petitioning for a decree of nullity. Yes, there is always the chance that a party can render the marriage voidable - but the effect of their marriage if they choose not to do this is still the same (a platonic marriage yielding financial advantage).

[Clip]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
No it is not. As consummation is not about procreation, there is no reason why the (already distorted) law regarding consummation cannot evolve to include homosexual sexual intercourse. Why must consummation involve penetration by the penis only? Or even penetration at all?

Ok. How are you going to define a lesbian consumation? Yes, the law on consumation has it's problems - that's the whole point. Take away this block and there are serious repercussions for the rest of marriage.

There are a number of exceptions to consummation in heterosexual marriages already, including companionate marriages. And, in practice - many couples simply refrain from petitioning for a decree of nullity.

Not in this jurisdiction, they're not. And these things are never a problem until there is conflict. If there are finances at stake - you can bet that a petition for a decree on nullity will be the first item on the shopping list if there has been a non-sexual marriage.

Again, such marriages are already possible.

Of course they are - but they're the exception. Marriage is still viewed as a large, sexual and "romantic" commitment. Take that away, and as soon as brothers and sisters, business partners, platonic friends start getting married, it may very well become commonplace.

Friends and colleagues can already marry either in a companionate marriage (albeit usually applying to elderly couples) or by refraining from petitioning for a decree of nullity. Yes, there is always the chance that a party can render the marriage voidable - but the effect of their marriage if they choose not to do this is still the same (a platonic marriage yielding financial advantage).

A companionate marriage in the sense that you are describing does not exist in this jurisdiction and is not recognised. Ante-nups have only just made it over the first hurdle - the idea that they could override nullity is at this time rather far-fetched.

[YahRah]

If I had a pound for every time I saw a new thread on this topic on TSR I would have enough money to open my own chapel and start conducting gay marriages ceremonies.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by Clip)
Ok. How are you going to define a lesbian consumation? Yes, the law on consumation has it's problems - that's the whole point. Take away this block and there are serious repercussions for the rest of marriage.

Defining lesbian consummation would be a task for Parliament, but my point is that it is arbitrary to define consummation purely by penile penetration if procreation is not central to consummation.

Not in this jurisdiction, they're not. And these things are never a problem until there is conflict. If there are finances at stake - you can bet that a petition for a decree on nullity will be the first item on the shopping list if there has been a non-sexual marriage.

Look at the case law. It has clearly been stated that, in the case of elderly couples, marriages of companionship may not be voidable. So, there is a legal exception to the consummation requirement and that has not led to an avalanche of elderly couples of different relationships marrying purely for financial gain.

The only way to truly enforce purely sexual marriages is for the state to invade the marital bedroom.

My point still stands that the same practical effect is evidenced when couples enter into a platonic marriages, gain the tax and financial benefits, and simply refrain from petitioning for a decree of nullity with regards to a wilful refusal to consummate. Removing the consummation requirement would merely legitimise this on the statute books.

Of course they are - but they're the exception. Marriage is still viewed as a large, sexual and "romantic" commitment. Take that away, and as soon as brothers and sisters, business partners, platonic friends start getting married, it may very well become commonplace.

Sex and romance are two very different things. Like I mentioned previously: many couples stop having sex but still retain an element of love and kinship.

You're presenting a black and white argument. You are saying that if we keep the consummation requirement then marriages will stay between 'lovers' (although this can already be avoided both in law and in practice), and if we remove the consummation requirement then marriages will open up to family members, friends, etc. I see no reason why marriages cannot require an element of romance as you describe, but no requirement of consummation. The Home Office already assesses 'marriages of convenience' with regards to immigration and looks at a variety of factors. If a court is prepared to delve into a couple's sex-life, then I see no why reason why a court cannot engage in assessments similar to that of the Home Office.

[c_newman]

I love the people quoting Leviticus, The chapter of the bible which also forbids the eating of shellfish (I bet you've had a prawn cocktail, haven't you ), and the touching of the flesh of a pig (bet you are beginning to regret that ham sandwich, aren't you), oh, and my favorite part: "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29. Have you eaten the flesh of your sons and daughters?

What gives you the right to come on a Forum like this quoting parts of the bible against homosexuality, and yet you wont take any other sections into consideration. If you have eaten pork or prawns, if you haven't eaten your children, you are just as bad as us homosexuals.

And as far as Homosexual Marriage, I believe it should be allowed. I personally would not want a religious marriage to my husband, but rather a civil marriage such as that a man and a woman can have in a registry office, purely because of the horrendous attitude of some religious believers, but I agree that the choice should be available for people.

And lastly, who is it that keeps having gay children? ALL YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE!! Want to eradicate homosexuals? Stop having kids... Simple

[gltw]

(Original post by c_newman)
I love the people quoting Leviticus, The chapter of the bible which also forbids the eating of shellfish (I bet you've had a prawn cocktail, haven't you ),

Levitical law was transformed by Jesus Christ, who re-affirmed much of its teaching and eradicated laws that were no longer necessary.

Biblically homosexual intercourse is sin. Romans 1:26-27

Spoiler:

Show

ESV For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

All forms of lust are sinful, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Yet what is not deemed as sinful is an individual who has homosexual desires. The identity of the person with homosexual desires is not in homosexuality.

But back to the topic. There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is simple, changing that undermines the value of marriage, the union of one man and one woman before God. If homosexual marriage is legalised no evangelical church will carry out these marriages which may result in court-cases because of their position. This is therefore a very serious issue and simply saying the church should ignore it is not an option because it will have serious repercussions on us.

It strikes me that many homosexuals complain of intolerance by the church yet they are intolerant with people who believe something different from them.

[Dinnes]

(Original post by gltw)
There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is simple, changing that undermines the value of marriage, the union of one man and one woman before God.

It strikes me that many homosexuals complain of intolerance by the church yet they are intolerant with people who believe something different from them.

Just because the church hijacked marriage it doesn't mean that it has the rights to define it. Also, since when has the church been tolerant of homosexuals?