Is it homophobic to not be for gay marriage?
Personally I'd say in and of itself it isn't. I personally think that you can quite legitimately be of the opinion that while marriage has changed at it's core it defines a specific relationship between a man and a woman, and I don't think it is to say that same sex relationships are invalid just because you think of marriage as essentially being a special case reserved for specific criteria.
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Depends why.
I'm for it but only if it doesn't interfere with any religious practices. I believe the UK should adopt and promote a marriage system as part of the state that recognises almost any type of marriage. Now I know we pretty much have that but it should be promoted more as an alternative to religious marriages.
I don't think the church should feel obligated to carry out same sex marriages if its against their religion. We should keep it all separate to avoid favouring one sect of society over another.
I'm for it but only if it doesn't interfere with any religious practices. I believe the UK should adopt and promote a marriage system as part of the state that recognises almost any type of marriage. Now I know we pretty much have that but it should be promoted more as an alternative to religious marriages.
I don't think the church should feel obligated to carry out same sex marriages if its against their religion. We should keep it all separate to avoid favouring one sect of society over another.
Not for me
The state should have no say what the definition of marriage is at all.
Get the state out of marriage and let individual communities define it how they want it to be.
If a orthodox church says it is between a man and a woman then that is fine.
A liberal church can define it between same sex couples to if they wish it to be.
A ultra liberal progressive community may wish to include 2 women, a men and a transexual in their definition of marriage.
Get the state out of marriage and let individual communities define it how they want it to be.
If a orthodox church says it is between a man and a woman then that is fine.
A liberal church can define it between same sex couples to if they wish it to be.
A ultra liberal progressive community may wish to include 2 women, a men and a transexual in their definition of marriage.
Original post by Falcatas
The state should have no say what the definition of marriage is at all.
Get the state out of marriage and let individual communities define it how they want it to be.
If a orthodox church says it is between a man and a woman then that is fine.
A liberal church can define it between same sex couples to if they wish it to be.
A ultra liberal progressive community may wish to include 2 women, a men and a transexual in their definition of marriage.
Get the state out of marriage and let individual communities define it how they want it to be.
If a orthodox church says it is between a man and a woman then that is fine.
A liberal church can define it between same sex couples to if they wish it to be.
A ultra liberal progressive community may wish to include 2 women, a men and a transexual in their definition of marriage.
I can agree with you there. My personal opinion would be for the state not to discriminate in the legal rights it provides, but to leave the titles and nature of institutions to individuals. Why it didn't just have an overhaul and basically wash it's hands of the whole marriage thing I have no idea. It would have been the best compromise "I won't have any say in what the nature of marriage is, I will just give the same set of legal rights to any couple that wants them".
Being a christian myself it's the one thing I really couldn't understand the churches attitude to it. The state institution of marriage and the christian institution of marriage had drifted apart long ago. The christian institution of marriage is fundamentally a spiritual union ordained by God... State marriage certainly is not. It's further divergence from our definition of marriage doesn't actually matter they haven't been the same thing for a long time. The only thing I would fight against is the state then defining what OUR definition of marriage was, if the state started deciding what christianity was about. It's for this reason I'm against the established Church. I don't want the state to be able to say what the Church is about.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by limetang
I can agree with you there. My personal opinion would be for the state not to discriminate in the legal rights it provides, but to leave the titles and nature of institutions to individuals. Why it didn't just have an overhaul and basically wash it's hands of the whole marriage thing I have no idea. It would have been the best compromise "I won't have any say in what the nature of marriage is, I will just give the same set of legal rights to any couple that wants them.
Well I don't think marriage should provide any legal rights, those things could just be treated as typical business contracts between people.
Not really if it's against the religion of the church then why would they allow it.
I myself don't see why anyone would want to get married anyway. Spend thousands on one day, then its all over and you've not only lost money but what have you gained? do you love each other any more than before? no.
We should just have a registry office and you decide on the terms when you do it, and it be near enough free.
I myself don't see why anyone would want to get married anyway. Spend thousands on one day, then its all over and you've not only lost money but what have you gained? do you love each other any more than before? no.
We should just have a registry office and you decide on the terms when you do it, and it be near enough free.
Original post by Falcatas
Well I don't think marriage should provide any legal rights, those things could just be treated as typical business contracts between people.
This. Let churches marry whoever the hell they want, government interference is just unnecessary.
I think it is to be honest. If you view gays as equal in the same way other races are, it's hard not to. If a church refused to accept blacks should allowed to marry, would you still see them as racist? Christian homophobia is still homophobia. Are Christian Identity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity ) not racist because their white supremacist beliefs come from Christianity?
Yes, end of. If you were not homophobic, you would have no objections. If you are opposed to it, you have at the very least, slight homophobia.
Original post by limetang
Personally I'd say in and of itself it isn't. I personally think that you can quite legitimately be of the opinion that while marriage has changed at it's core it defines a specific relationship between a man and a woman, and I don't think it is to say that same sex relationships are invalid just because you think of marriage as essentially being a special case reserved for specific criteria.
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
Yes, it is.
If you didn't believe in interracial marriage, you would be a racist. If you don't believe in marriage equality, you are a homophobe. If you don't believe that any group of people should not be allowed to exercise the right to marry as two consenting adults, you are anti-that-group.
Original post by The_Duck
If you are against gay marriage, then you want to allow the government to provide services for one group and not for another.
It may not be homophobic, but it's definitely discriminatory, and discrimination is the only real reason homophobia is bad in the first place.
It may not be homophobic, but it's definitely discriminatory, and discrimination is the only real reason homophobia is bad in the first place.
I'm personally against state recognition of marriage. I think it would be better if there was a mechanism in place that would simply provide legal rights to any couple analogous to the rights they have now through marriage, and you can call it what you want.
But let's suppose I did think that all relationships should be afforded the same legal rights, but I thought only straight relationships could be eligible for marriage. Would that be homophobic to say that THIS definition is reserved for this special case of relationship. If I merely state a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman without actually denying gay couples any legal rights at all am I being homophobic? See I'd see it as this, if I am merely stating that there is a difference between gay and straight relationships (Ie saying one is eligible to be defined as marriage but the other isn't) but am making no judgements about the validity of same sex vs opposite sex relationships. If all I am doing I saying that here I have a definition and some fall under that and others don't am I homophobic?
See I'd say that often there is homophobic sentiment behind not wanting gay marriage, but I don't see it as having to neccessrily be so for the reasons I've stated.
(edited 9 years ago)
No but I'd certainly presume that the person is homophobic, yes. How about changing the law so that churches can make their own decision? It isn't up to people on the street to decide what marriage is and isn't. Plenty of churches want to conduct same-sex marriages but aren't legally allowed to.
I also agree that marriage or civil partnerships or whatever they call them should have no place in the legal system.
It should be a purely religious/cultural/symbolic thing that doesn't affect how the government treats us.
For example, why should an unmarried couple raising a child get less resources than a married couple?
Or if there is a group of consenting adults that want to practice polygamy, why shouldn't they be able to?
It should be a purely religious/cultural/symbolic thing that doesn't affect how the government treats us.
For example, why should an unmarried couple raising a child get less resources than a married couple?
Or if there is a group of consenting adults that want to practice polygamy, why shouldn't they be able to?
Well if you weren't against gays why would you be against gay marridge? Don't you think everyone should be allowed marry someone they love?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It appears to me it was the last bastion of legitimised discrimination in the UK. I used to have my (homophobic) reservations mind.
The real question is, why be against it? It affects no one other than those involved and there is no reason for it to be the business of a heterosexual person to try to prevent this special recognition of a relationship.
The real question is, why be against it? It affects no one other than those involved and there is no reason for it to be the business of a heterosexual person to try to prevent this special recognition of a relationship.
Original post by futuredoctorVSB
Yes, end of. If you were not homophobic, you would have no objections. If you are opposed to it, you have at the very least, slight homophobia.
What is your definition of "homophobia", exactly?
Original post by limetang
Personally I'd say in and of itself it isn't. I personally think that you can quite legitimately be of the opinion that while marriage has changed at it's core it defines a specific relationship between a man and a woman, and I don't think it is to say that same sex relationships are invalid just because you think of marriage as essentially being a special case reserved for specific criteria.
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
The argument from many seems to be one of people being perfectly fine for same sex relationships to be afforded the same legal rights as straight relationships (see civil partnerships) but just want to maintain a definition for marriage as something essentially being a special case definition of equally valid loving relationships.
At the same time I can understand the other point of view of essentially asking "well what's the harm in changing the definition", and more of people wanting the change to happen because an enforced change in language which essentially makes us call all loving relationships by the same name making it harder to discriminate against them in the way we think about them.
Personally though I think we should be braver and admit that there are differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that fundamentally we should respect them all the same and embrace the differences instead of trying to pretend that they're the exact same thing. It perpetuates an idea that you should only tolerate things similar to you.
Anyway thoughts?
Hello!
Whilst I understand your points, the way I see it, it is homophobic because you are denying someone their civil rights purely due to their sexuality and that is homophobic.
I don't see why marriage should be between a man and a woman exclusively, what about biracial marriages? Why are those ok? They're marrying people from different ethnicities!
Also, the only reason why certain definitions are being modified is because as we progress as a society we change what is oppressive and wrong thus changing laws to make equality real rather than a dream.
This thread very well highlights how the objective isn't some legal equality for gays, it's the acknowledgement of their unions as good. A lot of people here have expressed the sentiment that if you do not support homosexuality, then you're a homophobe. This sort of rhetoric only confirms that to not be a homophobe, you have to think that homosexuality is the best thing ever since sliced bread. Not being a homophobe means enthusiastic endorsement of gay marriage and gay everything really.
It's basically become a dogma of its own that cannot be discussed without the other side smearing you. If I make a public statement that I support traditional marriage, then that apparently makes me a wretched gay hater (lol). No, it doesn't. Most people who are against gay marriage do not want to hang gays, nor do they even wish to illegalize homosexual relationships in general. It's a reality that gays exist and that they have sexual relationships with one another. But when they begin to ask for drastic redefinition of the marriage and family and by that recognition for their orientation and union, then I will use my right to speak out against that and if that apparently makes me into a homophobe, then fine.
It's also not discrimination when I don't want to extend marriage to gays. Equal treatment doesn't mean that everybody, without exception, must be treated equally. It means that equal people must be treated equally and unequal people must be treated unequally. It's only discrimination, if the different treatment is unjustified and arbitrary. In the case of gay unions, which are inherently infertile and thus in no way are even capable of contributingto the perpetutation and continuation of society, the State has no interest in advocating and supporting these types of unions. For the same reason the State hasn't institutionalized friendships. The only reason marriage is regulated is to encourage heterosexual unions, that are open to reproduction, to form.
So, to automatically call me a bigot is unjustified and nothing more than cheap rhetorical jab.
It's basically become a dogma of its own that cannot be discussed without the other side smearing you. If I make a public statement that I support traditional marriage, then that apparently makes me a wretched gay hater (lol). No, it doesn't. Most people who are against gay marriage do not want to hang gays, nor do they even wish to illegalize homosexual relationships in general. It's a reality that gays exist and that they have sexual relationships with one another. But when they begin to ask for drastic redefinition of the marriage and family and by that recognition for their orientation and union, then I will use my right to speak out against that and if that apparently makes me into a homophobe, then fine.
It's also not discrimination when I don't want to extend marriage to gays. Equal treatment doesn't mean that everybody, without exception, must be treated equally. It means that equal people must be treated equally and unequal people must be treated unequally. It's only discrimination, if the different treatment is unjustified and arbitrary. In the case of gay unions, which are inherently infertile and thus in no way are even capable of contributingto the perpetutation and continuation of society, the State has no interest in advocating and supporting these types of unions. For the same reason the State hasn't institutionalized friendships. The only reason marriage is regulated is to encourage heterosexual unions, that are open to reproduction, to form.
So, to automatically call me a bigot is unjustified and nothing more than cheap rhetorical jab.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 3 minutes ago
KPMG Audit Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of the West of England, Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1043
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
SQA Higher French - Reading and Directed Writing - 26th April 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 8 minutes ago
DWP EO Job Centre Work Coach - March 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 10 minutes ago
Can I switch to a placement year on the same course?Last reply 10 minutes ago
Schroders apprenticeship 2024Posted 10 minutes ago
Rejected from 4/5 unis, don’t want to attend the one I have an offer forLast reply 10 minutes ago
SQA Higher Physics - Paper 2 - 25th April 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 7 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 10 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 7 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 10 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
