Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    And the vast majority of lgbt individuals bore straight children. (I think.)
    I'm pretty certain of it that yes. I'm not sure what percentage of people are LGBT though. There will always be a difference in number between those who are lgbt and people who identify as lgbt.

    I'm a bisexual man and I've definitely spent more than one romantic evening with men who self identifies as straight.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The strongest support for gay marriage is among 18-34 year olds, while the weakest is among the elderly. That suggests the opposite of your claim.

    Moreover, I suspect people will simply cease to care. For example, UKIP was the most prominent party to oppose gay marriage becoming law, but since it was passed they've stated they have no desire to repeal it.
    Why are you bringing age into this?

    What I said is true. Even if you bring age into this, the support amongst the young lies with young whites, especially white Anglo-Saxons, Celts, and French etc. Those groups are shrinking mainly as a result of migration.

    You cannot deny demographic facts.

    Support for gay marriage is very low amongst Muslims, and is also much lower amongst Eastern Europeans, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and those from the Far East.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BefuddledPenguin)
    I'm pretty certain of it that yes. I'm not sure what percentage of people are LGBT though. There will always be a difference in number between those who are lgbt and people who identify as lgbt.

    I'm a bisexual man and I've definitely spent more than one romantic evening with men who self identifies as straight.
    This following bit is a bit irrelevant, but yesterday something provoked an interesting thought..

    Do you know when people say "his/her sexuality doesn't define him?" Well, it does; sexuality defines a rather large part of yourself.

    So instead it should be "They are more than just their sexuality"? perhaps.

    (In the context of film & TV.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Why are you bringing age into this?

    What I said is true. Even if you bring age into this, the support amongst the young lies with young whites, especially white Anglo-Saxons, Celts, and French etc. Those groups are shrinking mainly as a result of migration.

    You cannot deny demographic facts.

    Support for gay marriage is very low amongst Muslims, and is also much lower amongst Eastern Europeans, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and those from the Far East.
    We're not going to deny civil rights just because some people don't like other people having them.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    We're not going to deny civil rights just because some people don't like other people having them.
    Yes "we" can.

    That is what democracy is about, should enough MP's be voted in that have a particular belief any single demographic or group of people can be denied certain rights.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Yes "we" can.

    That is what democracy is about, should enough MP's be voted in that have a particular belief any single demographic or group of people can be denied certain rights.
    So you believe that because black people only make up 3% of the population, if enough MPs voted to bring back slavery it would be acceptable?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    wholeheartedly
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm bisexual myself - either way I don't think it matters... but a marriage should surely be between a man and a woman :/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a Man and a Woman.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    So you believe that because black people only make up 3% of the population, if enough MPs voted to bring back slavery it would be acceptable?
    *****Loaded question alert*****

    I notice how you use the word "acceptable", which is linking what I said to moral issues, when I am talking about legality.

    My answer to your question is that if most MP's supported slavery, it would once again become legal.

    I also noticed that you somehow link blackness with slavery, a rather racist example.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I also noticed that you somehow link blackness with slavery, a rather racist example.
    I've been discussing the 'superhero representation' issue a lot lately, so the 3% statistic is fresh in my mind. Do you deny slavery happened?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    I've been discussing the 'superhero representation' issue a lot lately, so the 3% statistic is fresh in my mind. Do you deny slavery happened?
    What kind of question is that? Its like asking if WW2 ever happened, of course it did.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    What kind of question is that? Its like asking if WW2 ever happened, of course it did.
    Exactly. You see my point?

    The slavery example was just one. If you object to it so much, I can give another, though I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Exactly. You see my point?

    The slavery example was just one. If you object to it so much, I can give another, though I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
    No,

    I really don't see what your point is here.

    I am saying that anything can become legal if enough MP's support it, and you ask me if slavery ever occurred.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    No,

    I really don't see what your point is here.

    I am saying that anything can become legal if enough MP's support it, and you ask me if slavery ever occurred.
    You really missed the point then.

    You said that if enough MPs vote for something, it could be criminalised. I don't think that even if a large amount of MPs voted to bring back something like slavery, it would be allowed to be passed. If it was, there would be riots on an unprecedented scale, and anybody in power surely knows that.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    You really missed the point then.

    You said that if enough MPs vote for something, it could be criminalised. I don't think that even if a large amount of MPs voted to bring back something like slavery, it would be allowed to be passed. If it was, there would be riots on an unprecedented scale, and anybody in power surely knows that.
    "Would not be allowed" - Nobody would have the legal right to stop it.

    In the example we are using, if so many MP's were voted for that supported bring back slavery, that would mean that a large amount, probably the majority of the population also supported it, any protests would be short lived and could easily be beaten down.

    As I have said, any law can be made.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    "Would not be allowed" - Nobody would have the legal right to stop it.

    In the example we are using, if so many MP's were voted for that supported bring back slavery, that would mean that a large amount, probably the majority of the population also supported it, any protests would be short lived and could easily be beaten down.

    As I have said, any law can be made.
    That's called Tyranny of the Majority and it is generally a bad thing. It's the reason Proposition 8 was shot down in California, because people don't get to vote on other people's rights, that's kind of the point of us having them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I'm bisexual myself - either way I don't think it matters... but a marriage should surely be between a man and a woman :/
    (Original post by TimeTravel_0)
    I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a Man and a Woman.
    Any particular reason why you think this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We live in a secular society so what right does anybody have to deny another individual (or two individuals) who happens to be gay the same rights as others who are straight?

    You may have a particular view based on your own religious views or personal prejudice which is fine to have and your right but this doesn't mean your view should mean a whole section of society should be denied access to marriage.

    I have no issue with it specifically on the basis that all members of our community deserve 100% equality no mater what way they choose to live their life.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    That's called Tyranny of the Majority and it is generally a bad thing. It's the reason Proposition 8 was shot down in California, because people don't get to vote on other people's rights, that's kind of the point of us having them.
    I never said if it was a good or a bad thing, I'm just saying that it can occur and that gay marriage will be repealed in the future.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.