[tufc]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
You can't separate it from its history. You also wouldn't be changing the history or value if the institution as heterosexual relations would still be a part of it you would only be adding to the history and value.


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

No, because its history is based around its exclusivity. Would the KKK accepting black members be 'adding to' its 'history and value'?

When the English word 'marriage' explicitly defines 'the civil union between a man and a woman', to change that is not to add to its history and value, its to fundamentally redefine and reinvent it. Marriage Mach II.

[tufc]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Is the monarchy in this country still the monarchy? Because its much different now than it has been for most of its history.

Completely fallacious argument. The monarchy doesn't tie people together in families. Besides, I've said I'm not massively opposed to evolutionary change, it's only revolutionary change I oppose - of which there hasn't been any to the monarchy since 1660.

In any case, you're making an entirely relativist argument, that puts two completely different institutions side by side.

[Rachael]

(Original post by NB_ide)

Of course, because the institution of marriage has never been changed to, say, let people get divorced, or to give women equal rights...

Yes it has.

Surely, if we shouldn't change ancient institutions for the sake of inclusiveness, only men who own at least a certain amount of property should be allowed to vote, men should be allowed to "disipline" their wives and should own them as property, a woman should not be able to refuse sex to her husband...

Those are unusual views to hold in this day and age. I'm not saying they're "wrong", but they're thoroughly unfashionable right now.

Yes, they are unusual, and yes, my first statement was outright wrong - because this, as I'd hoped was obvious, was sarcasm. The point I'm trying to make is that marriage has already been redefined several times, and that change is not a bad thing - and I hope that it won't be too long before discrimination, institutionally and otherwise, due to sexuality is also thought of as "thoroughly unfashionable".

Nor will recognising the equality of people and their relationships.

Please be specific, you mean in particular disregarding the physical sex of the two partners, that's all. Many other pairs of people can not get married and no one gives a ****, so you shouldn't talk like you're OK with absolutely anyone marrying absolutely anyone and they're all the same and beautiful and equal.

No, I don't - I mean equality. Provided all the people involved are freely consenting adults, then yes, I'm ok with it. Since you're asking me to be specific, which pairs of people are you concerned with here? And maybe the generic person should give a ****, but it's same sex couples that are the biggest issue right now, and the one this thread is concerned with.

Many religious groups now do want the right to marry any two people in accordance with their beliefs

Who are these many religious groups?

Amoung others: Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews...

- why on earth should they be stopped from doing so?

I can think of no reason.

Exactly.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
Of course the state has to interfere to protect certain rights, such as to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc..
However, there's a difference between the state interfering to protect someone's right to life by having a police force that stops people killing each other, and the state interfering by changing one of its own institutions that affects only those who want to interact with the institution

I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean. Which intitution do you think is being changed? If you mean marriage, that has changed countless times throughout the course of history, and there's nothing wrong with changing it again for the better to create a more equal society.

[Gremlins]

(Original post by tufc)
It's not ill-thought out. Marriage IS heterosexual; it can be nothing else. It's like the KKK writing a new constitution for their group that embraces diversity - they might be the KKK in name, but they're definitely not by nature. You can't just separate something from 700 years of history.

I don't even understand how this makes sense. Once upon a time black people couldn't be citizens of the USA, now they can - does this mean the USA is no longer the USA?

And how many people are party to that knowledge? To your average couple, marriage is a heterosexual institution with thousands of years of history. To redefine it separates it from its history, and it loses the respect its history commands. The dichotomy here is that people know that marriage has always been a heterosexual institution; very few have intimate knowledge of its legal history.

And if we had gay marriage, it's likely that in a hundred years it probably wouldn't even occur to people that gays could marry each other I really don't understand your argument here - the general public, you claim, has a vague awareness of something (and I'm not sure you're right even here - people *are* aware how the dynamics of marriage have changed. Just compare, say, your grandparents' marriage to your parents and then to a married couple in their twenties), and we should base public policy on it. It used to be that people had a vague idea that women shouldn't work outside the home or be educated - to the extent that one writer claimed that their breasts would shrink if they went to university - and this was an idea with thousands of years of precedent which we now find unimaginable. Surely 'vague ideas the general public have' shouldn't be the basis for a legal system =/

I also really don't understand what you're getting at in general - are you trying to say that once gays are allowed to marry each other straight people won't bother marrying?

[tufc]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean. Which intitution do you think is being changed? If you mean marriage, that has changed countless times throughout the course of history, and there's nothing wrong with changing it again for the better to create a more equal society.

I'm making a distinction between the state protecting people from other people violating their rights, and the state refusing to change an institution that it effectively owns.

When you want to get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state by making use of one of its institutions, which means the state can set its own terms on usage of that institution. That's very different from the state interfering in your individual rights, such as curtailing your right to freedom of speech.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
No, because its history is based around its exclusivity. Would the KKK accepting black members be 'adding to' its 'history and value'?

It's history is not based around exclusivity. Literally all the public had access to marriage. Unless they were homosexual and wanted to marry a partner. It's history rather seems to be around that of accessibility.

And the kkk having black members would e adding to its history. It wouldnt be a new group. It would have changed but it still has its history of white supremacy. Or do you think it magically disappears?

When the English word 'marriage' explicitly defines 'the civil union between a man and a woman', to change that is not to add to its history and value, its to fundamentally redefine and reinvent it. Marriage Mach II.

That is not a valid argument. Marriage used to be an exchange of property. Clearly what the definition is currently has no bearing on what it should be.


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

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
I'm making a distinction between the state protecting people from other people violating their rights, and the state refusing to change an institution that it effectively owns.

When you want to get married, you're voluntarily entering into a relationship with the state by making use of one of its institutions, which means the state can set its own terms on usage of that institution. That's very different from the state interfering in your individual rights, such as curtailing your right to freedom of speech.

Well the thing is, we're arguing that everyone should have the right to be married. These things CHANGE.
Yes the state can set its own terms on marriage... But at the end of the day the state serves us, and if the majority of the coutry want the institution of marriage to change to reflect society, then they should be able to argue that and the state should listen.

[gagaslilmonsteruk]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, some do. But only to prove a point, not because they want to immortalise their relationship in the house of God.

All gay marriage is wrong; marriage is explicitly one man and one woman. 'Gay marriage' cannot actually ever even exist, as it's a contradiction in terms.

The bible also says 'love another as you love yourself'

Also many non-religious people are choosing to move away from the church (heteroes too) and going into town halls etc.

[tufc]

[QUOTE=Gremlins;38632627]

(Original post by tufc)
It's not ill-thought out. Marriage IS heterosexual; it can be nothing else. It's like the KKK writing a new constitution for their group that embraces diversity - they might be the KKK in name, but they're definitely not by nature. You can't just separate something from 700 years of history.





And if we had gay marriage, it's likely that in a hundred years it probably wouldn't even occur to people that gays could marry each other

Yes, you're right. But would it still command the respect that its history affords it? I very much doubt it.

I really don't understand your argument here - the general public, you claim, has a vague awareness of something (and I'm not sure you're right even here - people *are* aware how the dynamics of marriage have changed. Just compare, say, your grandparents' marriage to your parents and then to a married couple in their twenties), and we should base public policy on it. It used to be that people had a vague idea that women shouldn't work outside the home or be educated - to the extent that one writer claimed that their breasts would shrink if they went to university - and this was an idea with thousands of years of precedent which we now find unimaginable. Surely 'vague ideas the general public have' shouldn't be the basis for a legal system =/

These vague ideas are what form the public's respect for an institution that's been the main source of familial stability for a thousand years!

I also really don't understand what you're getting at in general - are you trying to say that once gays are allowed to marry each other straight people won't bother marrying?

My point is this:
Marriage - in this country anyway - is an institution whose respect is gained from its history - a history defined by its heterosexual exclusivity. If you redefine it, you separate it from that history, and you lose it all the respect that that history affords it. I am in fact saying the converse: marriage will be so cheapened that more people will get married when they're not suited to each other, because they just see it as a cool thing to do, and not a permanent, lifelong commitment. On the other side of the coin, married couples who really are suited to each other won't work through the difficulties present in every marriage there is, and they'll seek divorce because it's an easy way out.
They won't have the same perception of the serious nature of marriage, because it's been separated from the history that earns it its respect.

My argument, despite many accusations to the contrary, is nothing to do with denying homosexual people anything. If the government introduced legislation to make marriages a 10-year, fixed-term commitment, rather than a lifelong commitment, I would oppose it just as vehemently, because marriage only works as an institution when it's left alone. It's somewhat anachronistic nature is essentially what preserves its strength.

[tufc]

(Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
The bible also says 'love another as you love yourself'

I have no idea what that has to do with this debate. That refers to benevolence; and in fact, I don't approach this debate from a religious perspective, rather from a perspective praising the value that religion has added to marriage.

Also many non-religious people are choosing to move away from the church (heteroes too) and going into town halls etc.

I know, and I think it's a great travesty, symptomatic of a decline in society's perception of marriage that needs to be halted, not encouraged by redefining it.

[tufc]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Well the thing is, we're arguing that everyone should have the right to be married. These things CHANGE.
Yes the state can set its own terms on marriage... But at the end of the day the state serves us, and if the majority of the coutry want the institution of marriage to change to reflect society, then they should be able to argue that and the state should listen.

Sometimes, a democratically elected government has to act against the people's wishes to act in their interests.

[tufc]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
It's history is not based around exclusivity. Literally all the public had access to marriage. Unless they were homosexual and wanted to marry a partner. It's history rather seems to be around that of accessibility.

And the kkk having black members would e adding to its history. It wouldnt be a new group. It would have changed but it still has its history of white supremacy. Or do you think it magically disappears?

I was talking about its exclusivity in terms of sexuality

That is not a valid argument. Marriage used to be an exchange of property. Clearly what the definition is currently has no bearing on what it should be.


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

As I've said, that's not something the general public know. The reality of marriage's history is not the important thing here, rather the public's perception of it.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
Sometimes, a democratically elected government has to act against the people's wishes to act in their interests.

Well that wouldn't be in their interests. If you disagree, please feel free to give an actual argument rather than just making comments with nothing to back it up.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Scienceisgood)
There is NO evidence homosexuality is the result of a genetic mutation because there has been no "gay gene" discovered.

I thought someone claimed they had discovered the "gay gene" a few years ago?

[constantmeowage]

You say it's redefining marriage, yet I just checked my (British English) dictionary which gave me -

"the act of taking a husband or wife; to join or to give in marriage; to unite closely"

So in fact it doesn't seem we're changing the definition at all.

I still don't get it. Christians are told to 'love thy neighbour'. That love conquers all. And that if thou lovest everyone like thy brother, thou shalt inherit the kingdom of God. And yet amidst all this Christian teaching, they continue to spread messages of hate, even in this vountry - not out of fear for their welfare and if they'll end up in hell, but for their own insecurities because LGBT people are different, and 'supposedly' a threat to the church. It makes me sad that people don't even have the integrity to practice what they preach, which is to love everyone regardless of what who they are; to accept and take everyone in equal regard - and instead choose to love whomever they think deserves it (which isn't what Jesus would have done...).

Hence why I think the CoE should GTFO of the state and be an entity by itself. Because it's feeling clearly threatened by love. -.- Silly hypocrites.


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

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Rachael)
Yes, they are unusual, and yes, my first statement was outright wrong - because this, as I'd hoped was obvious, was sarcasm.

I see. Why not just say what you mean instead of something you don't mean?

The point I'm trying to make is that marriage has already been redefined several times, and that change is not a bad thing

Not necessarily, no.

- and I hope that it won't be too long before discrimination, institutionally and otherwise, due to sexuality is also thought of as "thoroughly unfashionable".

Ah, now this is a common mistake. There is no discrimination here on the grounds of sexuality at all. As a gay man, I can go and get married if I want. In a church, even. So long as I marry a woman.

Why would a gay man want to marry a woman? Well that's beside the point, and frankly none of our business anyway. But the fact is that gay people can get married and marriage is available to them. The "discrimination" is on the grounds of sex, not sexuality. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, in between, asexual, or a horse ****er, you can get married but only to someone of the opposite sex.

Straight men can't marry other men. Gay men can't marry other men. Same rules for both, see? So what you want is infact marriage blind to the sex of the partners, since it already disregards their sexuality.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
I was talking about its exclusivity in terms of sexuality



As I've said, that's not something the general public know. The reality of marriage's history is not the important thing here, rather the public's perception of it.

The public seems to be very aware of it. And now the reality of marriage is t important but perceptions of it. Well what evidence is there that the perceptions are you are predicting will change will? Why do you think people all of a sudden will value marriage less?


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

[ufo2012]

(Original post by tufc)
The 1960s liberalisation of divorce laws is one of the biggest roots of the ills of today's society.

Divorce rates have rocketed since the 1960s liberalisation of divorce laws; we have seen the nuclear family attacked live never before. Britain's society is fractured because the nuclear family has been attacked by successive governments. Thatcher knew how important the nuclear family was, but everyo government since has attacked it ruthlessly, through measures such as massively reducing tax credits for married couples.

Have to give the man credit he is correct with this. The worry is obviously that legalising gay marriage would increase such attacking on the nuclear family.

Unfortunately Thatcher had too many other interests and the Nuclear family was not a priority so it was let slide, but the biggest game changers however were probably Labour with their changes brought about since the late 90's by giving greater priority for couples living together, or single parent families and the like.

None of this was any encouragement to those in/part of a traditional nuclear family - not even to the extent of (if they had existed) encouraging a gay family, for they would actually have still been worse off credit wise (and income support wise if jobless) than if they just lived together.

If in the end they legalise gay marriage, the government will be heroes for a day, but villains tomorrow - because what they give with one hand you will find they will take something else with the other.

As I mentioned before, legalising gay marriage will mean that the tax system will take a hit - those missing taxes will have to be found somewhere.

(Original post by tufc)
If the government introduced legislation to make marriages a 10-year, fixed-term commitment, rather than a lifelong commitment, I would oppose it just as vehemently, because marriage only works as an institution when it's left alone. It's somewhat anachronistic nature is essentially what preserves its strength.

They had suggested this very possibility just a few years ago, but obviously it died a horrible death.

[Gremlins]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, you're right. But would it still command the respect that its history affords it? I very much doubt it.

Judging from how many people since forever have had affairs or abused their spouses I'm pretty sure it's never really commanded as much respect as you imagine anyway.

These vague ideas are what form the public's respect for an institution that's been the main source of familial stability for a thousand years!

And you think the fact it's reserved for straight people is what makes it stable? Do gay people not have families or stable relationships?

My point is this:
Marriage - in this country anyway - is an institution whose respect is gained from its history - a history defined by its heterosexual exclusivity. If you redefine it, you separate it from that history, and you lose it all the respect that that history affords it.

And if you were in 1882 you'd be saying that marriage is defined by a woman's total submission to her husband and any redefinition away from that would make it lose respect.

I am in fact saying the converse: marriage will be so cheapened that more people will get married when they're not suited to each other, because they just see it as a cool thing to do, and not a permanent, lifelong commitment. On the other side of the coin, married couples who really are suited to each other won't work through the difficulties present in every marriage there is, and they'll seek divorce because it's an easy way out.

]

Do you have any evidence for this from other countries that now have gay marriage? Because it sounds incredibly spurious.

My argument, despite many accusations to the contrary, is nothing to do with denying homosexual people anything. If the government introduced legislation to make marriages a 10-year, fixed-term commitment, rather than a lifelong commitment, I would oppose it just as vehemently, because marriage only works as an institution when it's left alone. It's somewhat anachronistic nature is essentially what preserves its strength.

So marriage has worked up till now apart from all the times it's been legally changed but changing it again will stop it working?