I see no credible arguments against legalising gay marriage in the UK....

http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/benefits_of_marriage_and_commitment/index.php

http://www.centraltexasfatherhood.org/the-7-benefits-of-marriage-for-men/

Original post by thunder_chunky

If there truly isn't a huge difference between civil partnerships and marriage there's no real reason to oppose it.
Furthermore what proof do you have that men live longer, children more likely to go to uni yadda yadda. What's that based on?
Where is the proof that society would do well to stay the same?

How temporary the government is, is irrelevant. If the people want it, if they are happy for the definition of marriage to change that's the important part.

Reply 144

Original post by minimarshmallow

And women should still be property and black people should not be allowed to get married either.
Newsflash: this isn't the first time marriage has changed, and it probably won't be the last.
And why should the government determine how something do with the government and the law is? Well I just don't know. Let's let false tradition deal with that should we?

Your 'argument' has been done to death.

Just fyi on the bold as well, this is pro gay marriage, you seem to be against it.

You proved my point, the reason why Blacks and Whites in the USA, Aparthied South Africa and Nazi Germany couldn't get married was because the government at the time intervened and passed laws making it illegal thus DEFINING what marriage is or what it ought to be, I'm saying goverment shouldn't be able to. Ultimately marriage should be between one Man and one Woman, just my opinion.

Reply 145

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!

You proved my point, the reason why Blacks and Whites in the USA, Aparthied South Africa and Nazi Germany couldn't get married was because the government at the time intervened and passed laws making it illegal thus DEFINING what marriage is or what it ought to be, I'm saying goverment shouldn't be able to. Ultimately marriage should be between one Man and one Woman, just my opinion.

Why though? Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? Marriage isn't a religious institution, nor was it originally. And why do you believe it should be between one man and one woman?

Reply 146

Sovr'gnChancellor£

OP

17

Original post by kbilly

I'm sorry, you are bound to be outraged, but let's face it, the truth hurts -

It's ironic how you use the term 'gay marriage'. 'Marriage'? The Bible clearly states in several instances that marriage is the unification, the coming together of a Man and a Woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Therefore, it's completely ironic, and quite impossible to even put the words 'gay' and 'marriage' next to each other, because the two just don't go together.
I'll say it again - The definition of 'marriage' itself is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife coming together to form one.

Just go ahead and make your own rules up why don't you.

The Bible??? But mankind - and might I say marriage - had been around long before this black book came into being. Marriage is a legal contract/union between two human beings who contract to be together/do certain things etc. Even same-sex marriage has shown up intermittently in history.

In any case, this is civil marriage we are talking about.

Reply 147

Alexander94

2

If I want to spend the rest of my life with a boy then I would like it to be with the blessing of my (accepting) church and my God (Not getting into an argument about their existence). I cannot understand an argument against it, the only real one's I can see here is "what is the point?" to which I say that if a seperate but "equal" system exists (which it does) then it needs to be removed, and "it infringes on the rights of religion" (which was an argument used against the end of segregation) but doesn't it infringe on the rights of those religious institutions that wish to perform them?

Also, the equalisation of marriage would greatly help those who suffer from GID (a Medical condition), who must dissolve their marriages before paperwork and treatment necessary to continue their lives as normal will be issued.

Second section contains information about Dissolvation of marriage: http://www.gires.org.uk/GRA.php
GID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GID

Reply 148

.eXe

All of those arguments can be used to legalize incest and bestiality.

I mean, who are we to say that man/dog love is not a real thing? Who are we to say that a father can't love his daughter as a wife?

(Note: I do not condone any of the above, I am just using the analogies to illustrate a parallel point)

Seriously OP, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Reply 149

Original post by Jester94

Do you realise that in the first phrase you agreed with the OP, then proceeded to include an opinion which directly contradicts that of the OP?

When you are forced to stick to civil partnerships and are denied marriage because of your sexual orientation, then you will see 'what's wrong with sticking to CPs'.

Straight people are very welcome to hold your own Pride, but there is really no need for it. Pride is a way of saying that we will not be oppressed, we will not be discriminated against because of our sexual orientation; heterosexual people have never been persecuted/oppressed/discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, thus there is no real need to hold a Pride in the same way we do. However, once full equality is achieved, then Pride will most likely become redundant (though unfortunately I can't see that happening anytime soon)

CPs =/= Marriage.

Yes your right I misread the OP, by law, ALL marriages are 'civil partnerships', hence the equal recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages/civil partnership. The name change has more to do with principal and history, marriage is regarded as an age-old institution that is by longstanding definition and acceptance a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.
Besides, where does it stop? It’s only matter of time before religious places of worship are forced to marry gay couples, going against their religious which stretch back thousands of years.
Lastly, I wonder what your opinions are on polygamy? Or polyandry? Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God (or natural law and tradition) and thus unchangeable, or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.
If the first conclusion is correct, the rules of marriage are as inflexible as the rules of mathematics. Just as 1 plus 1 always equals 2, so must marriage always equal the union of one man and one woman.
If the second conclusion is correct, there are no limits at all on what "marriage" could mean.

“Man and Woman, Man and Man, Man and Women, Man and Dog….” As one Republican put it.
I know that sounds harsh, but if it’s not broken, why fix it? Or change and rearrange it? Besides there many gay people, prominent ones too who are against gay marriage

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 150

Original post by .eXe

All of those arguments can be used to legalize incest and bestiality.

I mean, who are we to say that man/dog love is not a real thing? Who are we to say that a father can't love his daughter as a wife?

(Note: I do not condone any of the above, I am just using the analogies to illustrate a parallel point)

Seriously OP, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

You realize that was addressed in the OP? it may be real but not necessarily reciprocated, not to mention a dog has no legal standing, cannot consent, or anything like that.

Your example of incest is a bit more tricky, but is still not exactly congruous but thats for a different thread :smile:

.

Reply 151

Alexander94

2

Original post by .eXe

All of those arguments can be used to legalize incest and bestiality.

I mean, who are we to say that man/dog love is not a real thing? Who are we to say that a father can't love his daughter as a wife?

(Note: I do not condone any of the above, I am just using the analogies to illustrate a parallel point)

Seriously OP, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

(as a side note: I have no issue with incest between two people of a similar age who do not intend to, and are prepared to ensure that the never do, have children)

Man/Dog love involves a non consenting party (you cannot get consent from a dog and even if you can most dogs only live till about 15 maximum so if we treat them like humans it is statutory rape anyways!)

Father/Daughter relationships involve power relations (in the same way teacher student relationships do) and for that reason alone shouldnt be compared to homosexual realtionships between two people on equal footing.

Reply 152

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!

Yes your right I misread the OP, by law, ALL marriages are 'civil partnerships', hence the equal recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages/civil partnership. The name change has more to do with principal and history, marriage is regarded as an age-old institution that is by longstanding definition and acceptance a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.
Besides, where does it stop? It’s only matter of time before religious places of worship are forced to marry gay couples, going against their religious which stretch back thousands of years.
Lastly, I wonder what your opinions are on polygamy? Or polyandry? Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God (or natural law and tradition) and thus unchangeable, or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.
If the first conclusion is correct, the rules of marriage are as inflexible as the rules of mathematics. Just as 1 plus 1 always equals 2, so must marriage always equal the union of one man and one woman.
If the second conclusion is correct, there are no limits at all on what "marriage" could mean.

“Man and Woman, Man and Man, Man and Women, Man and Dog….” As one Republican put it.
I know that sounds harsh, but if it’s not broken, why fix it? Or change and rearrange it? Besides there many gay people, prominent ones too who are against gay marriage

That is hardly an argument. There are plenty of straight people for it. And many gay people for it as well. If you don't want a same-sex marriage then don't get one :rolleyes:

Now as far as your definition goes, marriages have been happen before religion has defined it. Not too mention you can reasonably limit what a marriage is or isn't.

For your little quote, the bestiality and slippery slope argument it entails are fallacious arguments, and besides that have been dealt with extensively. Dogs cannot consent, etc.

Reply 153

mmmpie

12

Original post by .eXe

All of those arguments can be used to legalize incest and bestiality.

I mean, who are we to say that man/dog love is not a real thing? Who are we to say that a father can't love his daughter as a wife?

(Note: I do not condone any of the above, I am just using the analogies to illustrate a parallel point)

Seriously OP, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Reply 154

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Why though? Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? Marriage isn't a religious institution, nor was it originally. And why do you believe it should be between one man and one woman?

Marriage in this country certainly has its roots in Pagan and Abrahamic teaching particularly that of Christianity, just like the rule of law and several institutions (such as the monarchy) do, to deny Christianity’s lasting contribution to British society would be to deny history. On the issue of governments, goverments come and go, each one having its own thought process, function and agenda, we're lucky enough to live in a 'democracy', how about the several dictatorships around the world? Even in democracies, there's inevitably a 'tyranny of the majority', meaning many peoples opinions are excluded.

By law, ALL marriages are 'civil partnerships', hence the equal recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages/civil partnership. The name change has more to do with principal and history, marriage is regarded as an age-old institution that is by longstanding definition and acceptance a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.
Besides, where does it stop? It’s only matter of time before religious places of worship are forced to marry gay couples, going against their religions which stretch back thousands of years.
Lastly, I wonder what your opinions are on polygamy? Or polyandry? Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God (or natural law and tradition) and thus unchangeable, or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.
If the first conclusion is correct, the rules of marriage are as inflexible as the rules of mathematics. Just as 1 plus 1 always equals 2, so must marriage always equal the union of one man and one woman.
If the second conclusion is correct, there are no limits at all on what "marriage" could mean.

“Man and Woman, Man and Man, Man and Women, Man and Dog….” As one Republican put it.
I know that sounds harsh, but if it’s not broken, why fix it? Or change and rearrange it? Besides there many gay people, prominent ones too who are against gay marriage.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 155

Jester94

Original post by FinalMH

This is religion not democracy or human rights. Religion is quite clear on this issue and it shouldn't be undermine for the sake of the minority.

I have stated this many times on the thread, but the current debate revolves around civil marriage, thus religion has nothing to do with it.

Original post by kbilly

I'm sorry, you are bound to be outraged, but let's face it, the truth hurts -

It's ironic how you use the term 'gay marriage'. 'Marriage'? The Bible clearly states in several instances that marriage is the unification, the coming together of a Man and a Woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Therefore, it's completely ironic, and quite impossible to even put the words 'gay' and 'marriage' next to each other, because the two just don't go together.
I'll say it again - The definition of 'marriage' itself is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife coming together to form one.

Just go ahead and make your own rules up why don't you.

See above.

Original post by FinalMH

People are quoting me at different points in my argument. I've clearly stated in a previous post that i have no problem with it as long as it doesn't undermine religion.

What do I mean by undermining religion? Forcing religiously places to marry people which the religion don't agree with.

We have to see the distinction between the state and the church. The state grants the marriage not the church. So you still get married but not in church.

Nobody has advocated forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages against their will, so please do not put words into our mouths.

Reply 156

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!

Marriage in this country certainly has its roots in Pagan and Abrahamic teaching particularly that of Christianity, just like the rule of law and several institutions (such as the monarchy) do, to deny Christianity’s lasting contribution to British society would be to deny history.

By law, ALL marriages are 'civil partnerships', hence the equal recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages/civil partnership. The name change has more to do with principal and history, marriage is regarded as an age-old institution that is by longstanding definition and acceptance a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.
Besides, where does it stop? It’s only matter of time before religious places of worship are forced to marry gay couples, going against their religious which stretch back thousands of years.
Lastly, I wonder what your opinions are on polygamy? Or polyandry? Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God (or natural law and tradition) and thus unchangeable, or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.
If the first conclusion is correct, the rules of marriage are as inflexible as the rules of mathematics. Just as 1 plus 1 always equals 2, so must marriage always equal the union of one man and one woman.
If the second conclusion is correct, there are no limits at all on what "marriage" could mean.

“Man and Woman, Man and Man, Man and Women, Man and Dog….” As one Republican put it.
I know that sounds harsh, but if it’s not broken, why fix it? Or change and rearrange it? Besides there many gay people, prominent ones too who are against marriage.

Thank you for reposting the exact thing I responded to :colonhash:

My response still stands. Marriage as an institution is much larger than just 'this country' and has its roots farther back than religion. So that argument is still moot. Not to mention we are talking about civil marriage so any religious definition is still moot. The institution of marriage has its roots in trading daughters for land and goods :smile:

I don't see you advocating for that traditional practice of marriage :rolleyes:

Again it can be reasonably determined where the limits of marriage are. For example marriage would require consenting parties. Being such that a dog, or toaster, or whatever other ridiculous examples people come up with, cannot give consent, they cannot marry. It's really not all that complicated or slippery as you would like it to be. As I said the slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. It is not a valid argument. :smile:

Please try again.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 157

Agrippa

8

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!

If the first conclusion is correct, the rules of marriage are as inflexible as the rules of mathematics. Just as 1 plus 1 always equals 2, so must marriage always equal the union of one man and one woman.

Please stop attempting to justify your bigotry by appealing to mathematics. This statement is utter rubbish.

Reply 158

.eXe