Extending marraige to gays ONLY is illogical.
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheGuy117
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Your starting point is what is currently accepted in law, though. If you change your starting point to a totally neutral one, whereby you imagine marriage doesn't exist and you have to decide who should be granted access to it, there's no rational argument that can lead you to the conclusion that same-sex couples should be forbidden access whilst heterosexual couples are granted access.
Take the voting system as an analogy. It was once the case that only white landowning males over a certain age were allowed to vote. Opponents of equality in voting rights would argue that in order to prevent voting rights being extended to children, dogs etc, we must block any and all extensions of the rights in place at that specific time. A neutral stance is always best in approaching these issues - it allows clarity of thought.
(edited 10 years ago)
Agreed, if marriage exists it should be open to all unions, polygamous, between a person and an object anything
Of course there should be the possibility of a monogamy contract if either party is unwilling to marry if the other has plans for a number two
Of course there should be the possibility of a monogamy contract if either party is unwilling to marry if the other has plans for a number two
Original post by TheGuy117
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
People in prison are able to marry, including those who have committed awful crimes. Do you disagree with this, if the couple is heterosexual?
gay marriage is not hurting anyone
Original post by GoldGhost
People in prison are able to marry, including those who have committed awful crimes. Do you disagree with this, if the couple is heterosexual?
I don't really see where you are going with this but no, I would not disagree if they were heterosexual.
Original post by chocolatesauce
gay marriage is not hurting anyone
How is this even remotely an argument? Straight marriage hurts people sometimes and sometimes it doesn't...same with gays as you've said and relationships involving pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Original post by TheGuy117
Oh please, marriage has been "extended" to various groups since the dawn of British law, whether this be by age, divorce status, etc. Outside the British context, marriage across the world and throughout time has also been between varying groups.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce.
Well, under your slippery slope logic then, this would include polygamy as it is in fact more beneficial to reproduction than monogamous marriage.
The key difference is that LGBT couples are consenting adults, and therefore should have the same rights as other consenting, but straight, adults.
Paedophillia is wrong because a child is less able to give informed consent, and so such marriages would not be appropriate. Incest is considered wrong because of the potential for genetic issues within children conceived from such couples - which is not fair on the child. Bestiality is considered wrong because an animal is unable to give informed consent.
I have not yet met a good reason against equal marriage, and somehow I doubt I ever will.
Paedophillia is wrong because a child is less able to give informed consent, and so such marriages would not be appropriate. Incest is considered wrong because of the potential for genetic issues within children conceived from such couples - which is not fair on the child. Bestiality is considered wrong because an animal is unable to give informed consent.
I have not yet met a good reason against equal marriage, and somehow I doubt I ever will.
Original post by TheGuy117
How is this even remotely an argument? Straight marriage hurts people sometimes and sometimes it doesn't...same with gays as you've said and relationships involving pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
yeah but they have the choice of opting out
The propaganda phrase "equal marriage" used is of course completely disingenuous since it excludes all sorts of arrangements despite its fluffy name. Marriage was at least well defined before they butted in, now its a nonsense.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by TheGuy117
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Marriage should be abolished for everyone it terms of any privileges and protections that are afforded to couples of any nature. I would like someone to explain why having a romantic connection affords couples to state recognized entitlements, that others without such a connection do not qualify for. Marriage should be reduced to a symbolic commitment that is only worth the significance that those participating in it assign to it. Then anyone can marry whoever or whatever they wish.
Original post by TheGuy117
I don't really see where you are going with this but no, I would not disagree if they were heterosexual.
So you would allow those who are convicted of awful crimes (e.g murder or other heinous crimes) the right to marry? Yet, you would deny two consenting (most likely moral citizens) adults who happen to be of the same gender? Your logic is slightly flawed.
Original post by GoldGhost
So you would allow those who are convicted of awful crimes (e.g murder or other heinous crimes) the right to marry? Yet, you would deny two consenting (most likely moral citizens) adults who happen to be of the same gender? Your logic is slightly flawed.
You are approaching this from the wrong standpoint unless you want to continue trying to convince people that 2+2 = 5 (aka man + man = marriage). Call it something else, how about a civil partnership, and there'll be few arguments since we're decadent enough a society to tolerate that it seems.
Original post by thesabbath
The propaganda phrase "equal marriage" used by the homosexual mafia is of course completely disingenuous since it excludes all sorts of arrangements despite its fluffy name. Marriage was at least well defined before they butted in, now its a nonsense.
Really? You know that marriage has changed a lot in the pst, interracial marriage used to be illegal.
The difference between two gay people marrying them and someone practising paedophilia is that one of the parties in the latter situation would be a child, meaning they're likely being forced or taken advantage of and not truly consenting.
In my family law module, we were discussing whether we should allow adult family members to marry in order to get tax breaks. Sex isn't a requirement of marriage, loads of old straight couple don't have sex, so I can see an argument to allow adult family members tax breaks by getting married, as long as they weren't having sex/reproducing.
As for beasiality... you realise human rights don't apply to animals right?
In my family law module, we were discussing whether we should allow adult family members to marry in order to get tax breaks. Sex isn't a requirement of marriage, loads of old straight couple don't have sex, so I can see an argument to allow adult family members tax breaks by getting married, as long as they weren't having sex/reproducing.
As for beasiality... you realise human rights don't apply to animals right?
Original post by TheGuy117
=Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce.
No it doesn't, because some straight couples are sterile. So basically, your entire post has just been debunked. That, of course, leaves aside the fact that gay couples can reproduce.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
Original post by MostUncivilised
No it doesn't, because some straight couples are sterile. So basically, your entire post has just been debunked. That, of course, leaves aside the fact that gay couples can reproduce.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
Which is why I added the word theoretical.
Try a little harder to read next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
Original post by thesabbath
You are approaching this from the wrong standpoint unless you want to continue trying to convince people that 2+2 = 5 (aka man + man = marriage). Call it something else, how about a civil partnership, and there'll be few arguments since we're decadent enough a society to tolerate that it seems.
Why should we call it something else? Marriage is a social construct that has been created, marriage is extremely unnatural. A consenting relationship between a couple of the same sex does not harm you or others.
I don't understand your 2+2= 5 analogy, please elaborate.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
