[ufo2012]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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.

Undecided, so I am listening to and weighing up the main arguments for and against.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Undecided, so I am listening to and weighing up the main arguments for and against.

Well I don't see what the argument countering mine could be to be honest. It's just logical, and draws obviously parallels with discrimination of black people (although not as extreme, as I've said).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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?

Who said anything about equal? It's a comparison. Comparisons don't necessitate "equal".


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

[ScheduleII]

(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 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.

Well then I disagree with you.

I don't agree with the "marriage equality" concept. I think it wrong to re-define legal marriage as a free-for-all. I prefer marriage as a specific relationship of a man complemented by his wife.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well then I disagree with you.

I don't agree with the "marriage equality" concept. I think it wrong to re-define legal marriage as a free-for-all. I prefer marriage as a specific relationship of a man complemented by his wife.

complemented by his wife? That sounds odd, what does that mean?

It doesn't really matter if you'd prefer to keep it a certain way, because the majority of the country realises that the current system isn't equal and we all know that inequality is wrong, therefore it is changed.
The definition and rules around marriage have changed countless times throughout history, it's not a big deal to do it again.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
I don't agree with the "marriage equality" concept. I think it wrong to re-define legal marriage as a free-for-all. I prefer marriage as a specific relationship of a man complemented by his wife.

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
complemented by his wife? That sounds odd, what does that mean?

It doesn't really matter if you'd prefer to keep it a certain way, because the majority of the country realises that the current system isn't equal and we all know that inequality is wrong, therefore it is changed.
The definition and rules around marriage have changed countless times throughout history, it's not a big deal to do it again.

I think I understand what ScheduleII means though not sure how to explain it. Probably what they simply mean is man + woman = better.

Might be "no big deal" to change the definition of marriage, but the change is a pretty "big deal" alright.

The other thing is it isn't quite certain yet, we've got until 2015 maybe by that time the current government may be out for all we know.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I think I understand what ScheduleII means though not sure how to explain it. Probably what they simply mean is man + woman = better.

Might be "no big deal" to change the definition of marriage, but the change is a pretty "big deal" alright.

The other thing is it isn't quite certain yet, we've got until 2015 maybe by that time the current government may be out for all we know.

But it's not better. There is no reason to think that, no logic to back that up, and no evidence to support it. There is nothing "better" about a man and woman being together than two men or two women.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Just because something is natural doesn't make it inherently right, but there is not one good reason to oppose gay rights. Not one. As for gay adoption, there is a shortage of couple willing to adopt children in this country and I think that it would be much better for a child to live in a home with two loving parents, regardless of gender, than living in a childrens home.

Please point out how that is hypocritical?

Two words: freak show.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well then I disagree with you.

I don't agree with the "marriage equality" concept. I think it wrong to re-define legal marriage as a free-for-all. I prefer marriage as a specific relationship of a man complemented by his wife.

Why do you think it wrong to redefine marriage? It has been done throughout history many times.


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

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Two words: freak show.

Wow what a great and intelligent criticism/point you made there


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

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Why do you think it wrong to redefine marriage? It has been done throughout history many times.

The overwhelming norm has been man/woman, however. This argument is not infallible in itself, as it would justify slavery and anti-woman policies to go by what the majority of all societies across recorded history have done. (It would also justify capital punishment, which is something I am ambivalent about.)

Here though, unlike with those issues, I believe there is something special in nature about a man's connection with a woman, which can naturally produce children (whether or not homosexual adoption is OK is a different argument.) I believe marriage should reflect the two sexes complimenting each other, who can engage in natural intercourse and produce children of their own without assisted reproductive technologies.

[iSoftie]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

This relates to my thread
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2059003

(Original post by prog2djent)
Some gay rights people are idiots. They are like religious fanatics in that they either use circular logic, ad homs, scary words, or contradict themselves.

You know! It gets ridiculous or they threat...

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
The overwhelming norm has been man/woman, however. This argument is not infallible in itself, as it would justify slavery and anti-woman policies to go by what the majority of all societies across recorded history have done. (It would also justify capital punishment, which is something I am ambivalent about.)

Here though, unlike with those issues, I believe there is something special in nature about a man's connection with a woman, which can naturally produce children (whether or not homosexual adoption is OK is a different argument.) I believe marriage should reflect the two sexes complimenting each other, who can engage in natural intercourse and produce children of their own without assisted reproductive technologies.

It having been a norm obviously doesn't make it right as you pointed out. However claiming that because it is 'natural' also doesn't make it right. You also say that it should reflect that men and women can have children together without assistance so does that mean sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? They aren't putting forward the message of procreation without assistance. What about couples who don't have children. Their marriage doesn't reflect the idea of having children as they never have any. Marriage currently is about love and commitment between two individuals (mostly) as our culture has started to make that the priority for getting married. And love and commitment have nothing to do with children or natural procreation nor is it something exclusive to heterosexual relationships.


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

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well then I disagree with you.

I don't agree with the "marriage equality" concept. I think it wrong to re-define legal marriage as a free-for-all. I prefer marriage as a specific relationship of a man complemented by his wife.

1 - Marriage has been redefined many times in its history. I fail to see why that was fine, but this is not.
2 - No one is saying it would be a free for all.
3 - It would be a specific relationship. One of two consenting adults regardless of gender.

[Podcaster]

Yeah but it's not just about 2 consenting adults in this case, it's about a child. I personally think a kid would get a lot of hassle at school if their 'parents' were gay. Also they don't get that 'mother's touch' unless one dresses in a wig or something.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Podcaster)
Yeah but it's not just about 2 consenting adults in this case, it's about a child. I personally think a kid would get a lot of hassle at school if their 'parents' were gay. Also they don't get that 'mother's touch' unless one dresses in a wig or something.

1 - I was talking about specifically marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with kids.

2 - The whole "the child will get bullied" argument is complete and utter rubbish. If that is the case then you punish the bullies. Also note the same argument has been made in the past for interracial marriage, and it is as wrong now as it was then.

3 - Total rubbish. There is no such thing as a "mothers touch". Kids who are raised mostly by their dad are no different to those raised mostly by their mother.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Podcaster)
Yeah but it's not just about 2 consenting adults in this case, it's about a child. I personally think a kid would get a lot of hassle at school if their 'parents' were gay. Also they don't get that 'mother's touch' unless one dresses in a wig or something.

What does marriage have to do with a child?? Nothing, people can get married and never have children.

If you think a kid will get bullied for having two same-sex parents, then address the bullying not the loving family, unless you think the kid should be bullied for that. In which case I must question your moral compass.

What is this 'mother's touch' you speak of? And who is it necessary to a child? There are plenty of children who grow up without a mother. They turn out fine. A mother and her 'touch' is not a necessity for a child.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Podcaster)
Yeah but it's not just about 2 consenting adults in this case, it's about a child. I personally think a kid would get a lot of hassle at school if their 'parents' were gay. Also they don't get that 'mother's touch' unless one dresses in a wig or something.

Yup, and we'll start telling smart kids to act stupid, gingers to dye their hair and make parents lose weight or lose their kids instead of teaching tolerance.
'Mother's touch', well firstly you don't need a mother's touch, research shows same-sex parents are as good as opposite sex ones. Secondly, a 'mother's touch' would be a gender role, and therefore not sex specific. Thirdly, there would be a double 'mother's touch' with a lesbian couple.

Not to mention none of this is really relevant to the current debate, because we're not talking about children.

[HARRY PUTAH]

teehee they gheys like it up the backdoor.

[donuticus]

One of the only things that annoys me with regards to this is Gay bars. Living and working in Soho, as I do, many bars refuse me entrance due to me not being Gay.

Surely equality work both ways. A bar is a bar. If I want to go and watch the footy with mates why shouldn't we just be able to go and sit in the pub and watch?

If the boot was on the other foot and Gay men were refused entry for being Gay they would rightly be up in arms about it. I don't understand the hypocrisy of saying don't discriminate against us but we can discriminate against you.