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

Is it a waste of public money that an MP calls for gay marriage referendum? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Quite a condescending tone, I didn't imply that the ECtHR has said anything about gay marriage and I have studied EU law this year. I would imagine it would be classed as discriminatory in the same way it is in employment, though, and my tutor has expressed agreement to this.

    [e] Just seen you've done law also. I assumed you were going to start saying I only believe the media or something, a surprising amount of non-law students like to try and tell me things I already know/aren't true about law..
    What is the relevance of studying EU law to what the ECtHR says?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    What is the relevance of studying EU law to what the ECtHR says?
    Really...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Really...
    Really.There is of course a reasonable answer to that question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Well we could but I'd like to think in 10 years time we will be sitting and laughing at how ridiculous it was
    I doubt that very much.


    (Original post by infairverona)
    once upon a time, black people weren't allowed to sit down on the bus...
    That was ridiculous, but based on a physical attribute - skin colour - so not the same.


    (Original post by infairverona)
    the year might mean nothing to you but every year that passes and this hasn't changed probably means a lot to gay people. Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly so you can't see past it :rolleyes:
    Regardless of what year it is, it is always a pointless argument. Gays may have been saying years ago 'It is 1975 for crying out loud' or they may say in 20 odd years time 'It is 2035 for crying out loud' - but again, it means nothing - only numbers.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    I doubt that very much.




    That was ridiculous, but based on a physical attribute - skin colour - so not the same.




    Regardless of what year it is, it is always a pointless argument. Gays may have been saying years ago 'It is 1975 for crying out loud' or they may say in 20 odd years time 'It is 2035 for crying out loud' - but again, it means nothing - only numbers.

    :rolleyes:
    You seem to have misunderstood my point. The year was not my argument and you clearly do not grasp this. My point was that it has been an injustice which has been going on far too long and that by now it should have already been rectified. I merely used the 2013 sentence to further emphasise my point. Well done in missing it entirely when others have clearly understood what I meant. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    2013 - Good year for a referendum on gay marriage
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We actually have referenda very rarely in this country, and only ever on key constitutional points like "do we want to rewrite the electoral system". The idea of calling for one every time something controversial comes along is very new. The government doesn't need a "popular mandate" for a particular policy; we do not elect a definitive policy agenda, we elect people.

    It is not appropriate to put specific rights of minorities to popular vote. To do so invites tyrrany of the majority.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    It is not appropriate to put specific rights of minorities to popular vote. To do so invites tyrrany of the majority.
    Yet it is appropriate to attempt to engage and enshrine in law a massively sweeping social change which the voters were not consulted on and was not addressed in the party's election manifesto? Effectively deceiving the punters.

    To do the above invites tyranny of the voters, so it is understandable where this dissent within the party itself has partially arisen from.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Yet it is appropriate to attempt to engage and enshrine in law a massively sweeping social change which the voters were not consulted on and was not addressed in the party's election manifesto? Effectively deceiving the punters.

    To do the above invites tyranny of the voters, so it is understandable where this dissent within the party itself has partially arisen from.
    How is it a big social change? As many people say, it's just civil unions but with a new name.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Yet it is appropriate to attempt to engage and enshrine in law a massively sweeping social change which the voters were not consulted on and was not addressed in the party's election manifesto? Effectively deceiving the punters.

    To do the above invites tyranny of the voters, so it is understandable where this dissent within the party itself has partially arisen from.
    It was the policy of both governing parties at the time of the last general election, and the underlying principles (equality before the law, etc.) have been endorsed again and again by all parties and the public. Again, specific rights of minorities do not require a popular mandate, only the general principle does.

    In what way is this a "massively sweeping social change"?

    The dissent within the party has more to do with the generation gap within the Tory party than anything else. The reason Mr Burrowes is so prominent is because he's one of the youngest Tory MPs to oppose this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Just legalise it if you think it'll win you more votes than it will lose you - that time's coming anyway with 'old-fashioned' people dying off. What I don't understand is the fervour on each side of the argument - the government recognising gay marriage won't suddenly make those who oppose it also recognise it as 'true' marriage, and the government not recognising it won't suddenly make those who support it dismiss same sex couples. I suppose what I'm saying is that the law in this area ought to be reflective of society, rather than trying to lead it, because in practice there's little to no difference in how people will be treated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Just legalise it if you think it'll win you more votes than it will lose you - that time's coming anyway with 'old-fashioned' people dying off. What I don't understand is the fervour on each side of the argument - the government recognising gay marriage won't suddenly make those who oppose it also recognise it as 'true' marriage, and the government not recognising it won't suddenly make those who support it dismiss same sex couples. I suppose what I'm saying is that the law in this area ought to be reflective of society, rather than trying to lead it, because in practice there's little to no difference in how people will be treated.
    Except same sex couples are given more equality if it does pass. Not letting it pass will be such an embarrassment for the UK after the series of EU countries and USA states that have legalised it in the past decade if not this past year!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    We actually have referenda very rarely in this country, and only ever on key constitutional points like "do we want to rewrite the electoral system". The idea of calling for one every time something controversial comes along is very new. The government doesn't need a "popular mandate" for a particular policy; we do not elect a definitive policy agenda, we elect people.

    It is not appropriate to put specific rights of minorities to popular vote. To do so invites tyrrany of the majority.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well said. I can't help people have forgotten the point of representational democracy nowadays...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    In what way is this a "massively sweeping social change"?
    As someone once said before, 'the fact that you ask that is just... meh'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    As someone once said before, 'the fact that you ask that is just... meh'.
    If it's such a trivial question, it shouldn't be difficult for you to answer...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eljamaispa)
    Not letting it pass will be such an embarrassment for the UK after the series of EU countries and USA states that have legalised it in the past decade if not this past year!
    Not really, just shows democracy at work and at least some have the guts to stand up against those making all the noise!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eljamaispa)
    Except same sex couples are given more equality if it does pass. Not letting it pass will be such an embarrassment for the UK after the series of EU countries and USA states that have legalised it in the past decade if not this past year!
    What are the differences between civil partnerships and civil marriages? The things I've read about are either things given to married couples which I think shouldn't be (pension stuff), or an extra hoop to jump through for someone who would have had to jump through so many hoops already that another isn't significant (transsexuals changing sex).

    I don't think our laws should be dictated by other countries, we ought to do what is right by our people. Note too that one of the countries you mention has the death penalty and the others don't, who do you think we should follow there?

    Socially, do you think such a change in the law will have an effect? Possibly it'd polarise society, but in general those who oppose gay marriage will still think "That doesn't count" when they see a gay marriage, and if it weren't passed then those who support gay marriage will still think "Aww, what a lovely wedding" when they see a gay marriage.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The point of electing people is becoming so diluted now. Next week we'll get a referendum on whether we should change the colour of bins to blue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    If it's such a trivial question, it shouldn't be difficult for you to answer...
    Not even worth wasting time answering.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Not even worth wasting time answering.
    You mean you don't have an answer.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.