[ufo2012]

(Original post by Dinnes)
It's linked to the state but tufc gives the impression that the most important thing is that relationship. And it is only linked so far as you put your name on a form. The fact is is that Marriage means much more about the two individuals and the relationship they have between eachother than the relationship between the subsequent couple and the state. If we held a poll on TSR asking whether marriage meant more as a relationship between two people or as a relationship between a couple and the state then the former would win.

I get what you are saying about tufc's statement, but don't fool yourself.

It is linked to more than just that form, considering the state is a combination of a mass of different departments (Health and Social Services, Revenue, Jobs and Benefits, need I go on) if you are in any way reliant on the state for anything then yes what you write on the form can be and is often linked to so many other things.

While I can imagine the results of such a poll, it is obviously not necessary as we can guess the likely results. The fact remains however that whether you are married or not is important to the state for one reason or another and that is all I am trying to highlight.

[Dinnes]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I get what you are saying about tufc's statement, but don't fool yourself.

It is linked to more than just that form, considering the state is a combination of a mass of different departments (Health and Social Services, Revenue, Jobs and Benefits, need I go on) if you are in any way reliant on the state for anything then yes what you write on the form can be and is often linked to so many other things.

While I can imagine the results of such a poll, it is obviously not necessary as we can guess the likely results. The fact remains however that whether you are married or not is important to the state for one reason or another and that is all I am trying to highlight.

By all means it is important to the state, of course . But I'd like to think we both agree that it is still more important to the two individuals, despite that.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
.

And you ignored my reply again lol, when I went and found the posts for you. I would seriously like a logical answer to my points, unless I am to assume that you can't argue against it and therefore back down from the debate?

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
And you ignored my reply again lol, when I went and found the posts for you. I would seriously like a logical answer to my points, unless I am to assume that you can't argue against it and therefore back down from the debate?

You wrote "The State is there to serve society"- you gave no reason why "society" cannot cope with marriage being man/woman and gays having the freedom they currently do, including to have their relationship legally recognised in the form of a civil partnership. It quite clearly can.

That does not equate to marriage being a civil right.

Not everything which is legal and/or accepted by the State is a "civil right". That term should be reserved only for the most important things, which it would be fundamentally unjust to deny, second only to a human rights violation.

Human rights are God-given/ inherent in nature and are not granted by the state, but can only be recognised by it, and are best guaranteed by living under a stable government. IE freedom from torture, slavery, degrading treatment etc.

Civil rights relate directly in some way to the state and cannot pre-exist organised political activity: the right to vote, to freedom of assembly, to criticise one's government, to protest peacefully against a law one considers unjust, to a fair trial without discrimination or prejudice, etc. If any of these are not provided there is a significant oppression and/or loss of freedom for the citizens denied them. If a homosexual couple are legally permitted to set up home together, to have a sexual relationship and to provide for state-controlled benefits under the same restrictions as heterosexuals (must be 16+, not close relatives, etc.) there is no injustice taking place and no significant government denial of liberty.

Heck, if the UK authorities wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals, they would have never allowed civil partnerships or passed the Equality Act 2010 which includes all four of LGBT as protected characteristics.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
You wrote "The State is there to serve society"- you gave no reason why "society" cannot cope with marriage being man/woman and gays having the freedom they currently do, including to have their relationship legally recognised in the form of a civil partnership. It quite clearly can.

That does not equate to marriage being a civil right.

Not everything which is legal and/or accepted by the State is a "civil right". That term should be reserved only for the most important things, which it would be fundamentally unjust to deny, second only to a human rights violation.

Human rights are God-given/ inherent in nature and are not granted by the state, but can only be recognised by it, and are best guaranteed by living under a stable government. IE freedom from torture, slavery, degrading treatment etc.

Civil rights relate directly in some way to the state and cannot pre-exist organised political activity: the right to vote, to freedom of assembly, to criticise one's government, to protest peacefully against a law one considers unjust, to a fair trial without discrimination or prejudice, etc. If any of these are not provided there is a significant oppression and/or loss of freedom for the citizens denied them. If a homosexual couple are legally permitted to set up home together, to have a sexual relationship and to provide for state-controlled benefits under the same restrictions as heterosexuals (must be 16+, not close relatives, etc.) there is no injustice taking place and no significant government denial of liberty.

Heck, if the UK authorities wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals, they would have never allowed civil partnerships or passed the Equality Act 2010 which includes all four of LGBT as protected characteristics.

I've said before, homosexuals having civil partnerships is not the same and is not equality. It's on par with when black people had seperate schools and seperate toilets; they all had schools and toilets, but the ones for black people weren't as good, and the fact that they were being singled out and seperated was wrong.
This is along the same lines (although toned down, obviously). There is no reasons that they should have something completely seperate, with a different name, that doesn't give them exactly the same rights as marriage. That isn't equality, and they are fighting for equality.

I haven't called it a civil right. But it IS a civil right to be protected against discrimination by sexual orientation; but that's not what I've been discussing anyway.

Just becuase homosexuals can currently do SIMILAR things to herterosexuals, doesn't mean it's fair. It still isn't equal.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I've said before, homosexuals having civil partnerships is not the same and is not equality. It's on par with when black people had seperate schools and seperate toilets; they all had schools and toilets, but the ones for black people weren't as good, and the fact that they were being singled out and seperated was wrong.

This is definitely pushing it a little far. In no way currently are homosexuals treated in the same way as the black people were nor were they ever, as the black people were fully discriminated against.

They weren't even allowed to drink from the same water fountains as the whites, effectively you could go as far as to say they were barely allowed to breathe the same air.

The same can in no way be said for homosexuals, who are accepted as equal to heterosexuals (legally) since 1967, or if you want to be more precise 1994 for over 18's or 2001 for everyone (over 16 that is).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
This is definitely pushing it a little far. In no way currently are homosexuals treated in the same way as the black people were nor were they ever, as the black people were fully discriminated against.

They weren't even allowed to drink from the same water fountains as the whites, effectively you could go as far as to say they were barely allowed to breathe the same air.

The same can in no way be said for homosexuals, who are accepted as equal to heterosexuals (legally) since 1967, or if you want to be more precise 1994 for over 18's or 2001 for everyone (over 16 that is).

Homosexuals are given a separate and lesser institution. Similar to how blacks were one given separate but lesser educations. The comparison is valid.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
This is definitely pushing it a little far. In no way currently are homosexuals treated in the same way as the black people were nor were they ever, as the black people were fully discriminated against.

They weren't even allowed to drink from the same water fountains as the whites, effectively you could go as far as to say they were barely allowed to breathe the same air.

The same can in no way be said for homosexuals, who are accepted as equal to heterosexuals (legally) since 1967, or if you want to be more precise 1994 for over 18's or 2001 for everyone (over 16 that is).

I'm said it's more toned down and not as extreme, but it's the same kind of thing. It's wrong for them to have to being civil partners seperately to heterosexuals who get married; there is no logical reason for it, and until this is rectified (which thankfully is happening in the next few years) things will not be equal.
Homosexuals being singled out as having to do this seperately is a form of discrimination. Just because in most other areas they are treated equally doesn't mean that this is insignificant and shouldn't be fixed.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Homosexuals are given a separate and lesser institution. Similar to how blacks were one given separate but lesser educations. The comparison is valid.

The comparison may be valid in your eyes, but is not equal - and this is what I am trying to explain.

Blacks were discriminated against much more than homosexuals ever have been or ever will be.

There is yet to be anything that can equal the segregation they suffered and considering today's society is it ever likely to be repeated?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
The comparison may be valid in your eyes, but is not equal - and this is what I am trying to explain.

Blacks were discriminated against much more than homosexuals ever have been or ever will be.

There is yet to be anything that can equal the segregation they suffered and considering today's society is it ever likely to be repeated?

I didn't say it was equal, but the comparison is valid and that is the point.
The only reason homosexuals haven't encountered something far more similar is because it's not obvious that someone IS gay, so they've mainly elluded detection in the past.

That's not really the point though. Whether the comparison is equal is irrelevent to the point I made.

[martinix]

(Original post by tufc)
That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

Almost all pressure groups trying to "prove" their point do that all the time...

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
That's not really the point though. Whether the comparison is equal is irrelevent to the point I made.

I know, I was quoting RandZul, the reply was meant for him.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I know, I was quoting RandZul, the reply was meant for him.

Erm yes, but he was backing up MY point. You were saying talking about MY comparison, so I am defending it.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Erm yes, but he was backing up MY point. You were saying talking about MY comparison, so I am defending it.

Fine, although you both 'claim a valid comparison', I already stated to begin with it was pushing it too far. My issue being it is not an equal comparison.

You believe it is valid, I believe it is not equal.

Whether it is equal or not is of course relevant because you are trying to equate the suffering black people had with homosexuals - it is not even close to being on a par.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Fine, although you both 'claim a valid comparison', I already stated to begin with it was pushing it too far. My issue being it is not an equal comparison.

You believe it is valid, I believe it is not equal.

Whether it is equal or not is of course relevant because you are trying to equate the suffering black people had with homosexuals - it is not even close to being on a par.

(1) They are not being equated on what you're taking to mean strict identity.

(2) Equating things does not mean that they must be equal (identical). I can equate something for its similarity, without it being equal (in an identical sense)

(3) You change it from 'equating' to 'comparing', if you don't like the use of the word 'equate' because you think it implies strict identity equality.

(4) As someone previously stated, they are comparing the situations, not equating them.

In this case the grounds for comparison is discrimination suffered by these out groups, and what can be drawn from that. No more, no less

[ufo2012]

(Original post by NYU2012)
In this case the grounds for comparison is discrimination suffered by these out groups, and what can be drawn from that. No more, no less

Which is precisely all that can be inferred from it...

Both parties were discriminated against, no more, no less.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Which is precisely all that can be inferred from it...

Both parties were discriminated against, no more, no less.

They were discriminated against for similar reasons - immutable characteristics.
They were discriminated against unjustly (as the case with black discrimination shows). Etc.

A lot more can be drawn and compared than merely that they were discriminated against.

Were they discriminated against to the same extent? Depends on what point in history you examine and what geographic region you're examining. But that doesn't make the comparison 'invalid' --- if it were invalid it would somehow mean that the logic of comparison were wrong; but the logic isn't wrong, so it cannot be an invalid comparison.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Fine, although you both 'claim a valid comparison', I already stated to begin with it was pushing it too far. My issue being it is not an equal comparison.

You believe it is valid, I believe it is not equal.

Whether it is equal or not is of course relevant because you are trying to equate the suffering black people had with homosexuals - it is not even close to being on a par.

I wasn't trying to equate their suffering at all.
I would like you to address my actual point within the post, because it wasn't that their suffering was equal at all. It was that the nature of making homosexuals "marry" in a seperate institution with a seperate name that isn't as good is the same, and it is equally wrong (although not equally terrible).

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I wasn't trying to equate their suffering at all.
I would like you to address my actual point within the post, because it wasn't that their suffering was equal at all. It was that the nature of making homosexuals "marry" in a seperate institution with a seperate name that isn't as good is the same, and it is equally wrong (although not equally terrible).

I had no issue with and had no comment to offer on this point - my sole issue was regarding whether the treatment of blacks and homosexuals was "equal" or not but you have just said "I wasn't trying to equate their suffering at all".

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I had no issue with and had no comment to offer on this point - my sole issue was regarding whether the treatment of blacks and homosexuals was "equal" or not but you have just said "I wasn't trying to equate their suffering at all".

So you agree with my main point? Homosexuals having civil partnerships isn't enough, because it's just another form of discrimination where they are being singled out and given a similar but not as good system to "marry" in.