The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RandZul'Zorander
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.


Ah the classic "If you don't want a same-sex marriage then don't get one" argument. We live in a society, where the actions of others could very much have effect on our own lives; we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner which is respectful to one another and of course, productive towards society. I’m against fox hunting, oh but wait...I’m not a fox! Nor do I hunt! So according to your thought process, you’d probably say, “If you don’t want fox-hunting then don’t hunt foxes”, quite frankly I don’t see the benefit it brings to society.

Bestiality, unfortunately, does happen, but how about if a Father wants to marry his adult daughter or a Mother her Son? My point being, no matter how abstract you might find my points are, we have to be pragmatic about same-sex marriage
Reply 161
Original post by .eXe
Well done, did you make that all by yourself?

I know what challenges homosexuals face, I for one am not against homosexual relationships/marriage/whatever. What people do behind closed doors is not my business and frankly I have more important things to worry about. In my earlier post the 2 analogies I made were to show that others too can use the same arguments to justify their positions.

Additionally, just because two adults are of consenting age and able to make their own decisions, doesn't necessarily make those decisions good/moral/acceptable/etc. Your montage seems to suggest otherwise.


Well if others can justify their positions then what's the problem? If there are arguments for legalising group-marriage, for example, and none against then shouldn't group-marriage be legal?

If two adults are consenting, competent, and not harming third parties then I would consider whatever they're doing is sufficiently moral to be getting on with. That seems to be the cartoon's assumption too.
Reply 162
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.


Initial reasons for marriage were tied to property, not reproduction.

So you're saying then that the reason homosexual people are only allowed civil partnerships is because of principle and historical example? I don't see how denying a certain sector of society a human right (for marriage has been declared a human right by the UN) because of their sexual orientation okay 'in principle'.

Also, historical example? Oh, I guess we should return to a woman becoming the property of her husband, interracial marriages and divorce being forbidden etc. For, after all, that is the historical example of marriage.

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.


Nobody is advocating forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages against their will, and that will never be forced. The only change I ever foresee regarding religious same-sex marriage is, instead of maintaining a blanket ban on religious same-sex marriage ceremonies, churches and religions will be given the choice as to whehter or not they perform them. Hardly the evil gays forcing their lifestyle upon the poor religious people of the world, is it?

Lastly, I wonder what your opinions are on polygamy? Or polyandry?


Nothing to do with this debate.

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.


Marriage pre-existed religion - it was a cultural institution entirely devoid of religion, until the world's religions appropriated marriage and claimed a monopoly on it. This is why people believe marriage to be a religious institution, because for so long the world's various religions claimed ownership over the institution of marriage, when in reality marriage predates religion.

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


Your slippery slope argument is ridiculous, please stop bringing it up.

Who are you to suggest the system is not broken, when you are not the one relegated to an inferior institution on the basis of something you cannot change?

Also: I don't assume that famous/prominent heterosexual people speak for all the heterosexual people in the world, so please stop assuming that prominent gay people speak for us all. If a group of prominent heterosexual people began saying that they didn't agree with heterosexual marriage, would you think that heterosexual marriage should be made illegal? No, you wouldn't.
Original post by Mbob
I think it's very hard to find a good argument against it - which is why catholic bishops and other people have generally ended up sounding like idiots on the radio/TV when they've tried to argue why it shouldn't be allowed.

The only argument that I think holds any weight, is to argue that saying that both gay and straight marriages are allowed is just as arbitrary as saying only straight marriages are allowed. For example:

Why can't three people who love each other have a tri-marriage?


Polyamory has anarchic/anti-establishment roots and so people who approve and practice it do not want very much to do with the state usually @ marriage.

Original post by Mbob

Why can't a man marry more than one woman?


Mormon, Muslims and I'm sure some other belief system condone it.

Original post by Mbob

Why can't close relatives get married (and not have children)?


Romanis and in the past, those of royal pedigrees. If the wife is infertile then the condition "not have children" would be fulfilled.

Original post by Mbob
If we say all those things shouldn't be allowed then we are creating a 'definition' of marriage to suit our own beliefs on what is right and wrong, and then imposing it on a minority. Which is no different to saying that only a man and a woman can get married.


Yes. Everything at the interest of the state, or the people according to the state. Or something like that.

Original post by Alexander94
(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.



Man and animal do not have the same kind of consciousness (re: Wittgenstein). So consent would be philosophically tricky. Unless we are talking about man almost direct related species like chimps and bonobos.

How about necrophilia? I assume if a person gets asked to fill in a survey of some sort before their death and ticks a box which says "do not care what is done with my body" then necrophilia could be made legal..

I can understand making a case for sibling incest (due to this story I once read regarding separated siblings meeting each other through a dating site without realising they were related) but parent/child is too much..

Not all single sexed relationships are of equal footing. For example in Riyadh, to be a "bottom" is sincerely despised.

Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£
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.


Marriage is historically a covenant though, not a contract per se.
(edited 11 years ago)
A friend of my always argued that marriage is a religious term and we shouldn't intervene with what the church does. A pretty poor excuse I think.
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Ah the classic "If you don't want a same-sex marriage then don't get one" argument. We live in a society, where the actions of others could very much have effect on our own lives; we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner which is respectful to one another and of course, productive towards society. I’m against fox hunting, oh but wait...I’m not a fox! Nor do I hunt! So according to your thought process, you’d probably say, “If you don’t want fox-hunting then don’t hunt foxes”, quite frankly I don’t see the benefit it brings to society.


Are you implying that homosexuals getting married somehow affects everyone else's lives? Or that in some way infringes on their rights? That is the only reason for which you can limit them out of marriage is if it would somehow infringe on another groups rights and even then you'll be hard-pressed to defend the current mode of segregation.

Bestiality, unfortunately, does happen, but how about if a Father wants to marry his adult daughter or a Mother her Son? My point being, no matter how abstract you might find my points are, we have to be pragmatic about same-sex marriage


And in what way are you being pragmatic and I am not? Bestiality is not the same as marriage. Incestuous relationships are more complicated true, however the examples you give are similar to that of a teacher marrying or entering a relation with the student. It is a power play/abuse issue. But those are irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex marriage. Those are separate issues and don't detract from the validity of same-sex marriage.
Reply 166
Original post by mmmpie
Well if others can justify their positions then what's the problem? If there are arguments for legalising group-marriage, for example, and none against then shouldn't group-marriage be legal?

If two adults are consenting, competent, and not harming third parties then I would consider whatever they're doing is sufficiently moral to be getting on with. That seems to be the cartoon's assumption too.


Well the problem is people will always try to justify themselves and their actions, no matter how wrong or how foolish they may seem to the rest of the world. A man who shoots and kills his cheating wife will try to justify his actions and for many, his actions will be correct. But we live in a society, and just because some actions are justifiable, does not mean that they are acceptable.

In the same way, yes there are arguments for both sides, some valid some invalid, but the mere existence of such arguments for justification does not mean that automatically gay marriage should be legalized. I am apathetic to this entire debate, my only argument is that the justification that proponents of gay marriage use to push for gay marriage can also be used to push many other forms of unions, which the majority of society would disagree with.
Reply 167
Gay marriages just doesn't seem right to me. I mean I don't have a problem with gay people in general. I just don't feel comfortable with the whole marriage thing.
Reply 168
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Ah the classic "If you don't want a same-sex marriage then don't get one" argument. We live in a society, where the actions of others could very much have effect on our own lives; we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner which is respectful to one another and of course, productive towards society. I’m against fox hunting, oh but wait...I’m not a fox! Nor do I hunt! So according to your thought process, you’d probably say, “If you don’t want fox-hunting then don’t hunt foxes”, quite frankly I don’t see the benefit it brings to society.

Bestiality, unfortunately, does happen, but how about if a Father wants to marry his adult daughter or a Mother her Son? My point being, no matter how abstract you might find my points are, we have to be pragmatic about same-sex marriage


So how would my marrying a woman affect you in any way, shape or form, or affect your rights?


Original post by Ajibola
Gay marriages just doesn't seem right to me. I mean I don't have a problem with gay people in general. I just don't feel comfortable with the whole marriage thing.


Why?
Is this about:

- having one's union be blessed and certified by a certain church or religious denomination

or


- having one's union be legitimised by the state in the exact same way as a man and a woman's

or

- entering a contract with a significant other who has assets and vice versa

or

- tax

or

- making a political statement of some sort

or

- wanting to have the romantic bandwagon at your disposal


Because marriage is legal in some countries already and it won't be long before till Britain catches up. Debates about ideology will always be around regardless.



Original post by Jester94
So how would my marrying a woman affect you in any way, shape or form, or affect your rights?




Why?



Because it'll force him to redefine his notion of what is normal and acceptable lol. It would be like a total paradigm shift except in global proportions
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 170
OP, do you believe that gay marriages should be allowed in civil society or are you also a proponent that homosexuals be allowed to marry in churches if they desire?
Original post by mmmpie
We remember our part in the crusades, that doesn't require us to repeat them.



Tyranny of the majority is offset by jurisprudence and the concept of individual rights. Basic political theory.



Yeah, you have no idea what the law says about this, do you? At present, we have marriages (subdivided into a choice of civil and religious) which are an option for straight couples, and civil partnerships (which do not have a religious form) for gay couples. There are different institutions governed by different laws, with different names and cultural connotations.



Actually, historically it's about property rights and in contemporary society it's about love. This idea that it's about begetting children is rather 19th century.



We don't compel religions to obey equality law when conducting any other of their religious rites, why should this be any different? Besides, religions will be prohibited absolutely from conducting same sex marriages - something which some religions are very upset about because they want to, but the prohibition is required if there's going to be any chance of getting the Lords to accept it.



The law can not assume that any religion is right.

And if, on rational consideration, there are arguments for but not against marriage extending to other forms of relationships then marriage should be extended to other forms of relationships.



Offensive, hyperbolic nonsense.



It is broken, hence the fixing.

Name some prominent gay people who are against same-sex marriage. There are some who say same-sex marriage should not be the priority right now, and there are some who are against marriage in any form, but I know of none who simply oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage.



1. Jurisprudence isn’t a political theory, it’s legal theory and if you knew anything about jurisprudence you’d know that Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law (and democracy) is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group, hence, a ‘tyranny of the majority’.
.
2. And as far as the political theorist John Rawls is concerned, in order for society to be completely just, the Social Contract theory must apply at all costs. The Social Contract theory is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions, first, that of the origin of society (In Britains case, Pagan & Christian foundations), and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual, Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms (Negative freedoms) and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate in exchange for protection of their natural rights. If an individual has to live in a society where their opinions are consistently dismissed simply because they are in the minority then that society is inherently undemocratic.

3. As I explained earlier, Christianity in this country predates the 19th Century, and as far as property rights go, the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly altered English law regarding the property rights granted to married women, allowing them to own and control their own property. Before then women hardly ever owned property because of their lack of access into politics, business, the professions and so on, completely different issue. To somehow imply that people have only started marrying each for love recently is ridiculous.

4. “We don't compel religions to obey equality law when conducting any other of their religious rites, why should this be any different? Besides, religions will be prohibited absolutely from conducting same sex marriages - something which some religions are very upset about because they want to, but the prohibition is required if there's going to be any chance of getting the Lords to accept it.” What on earth are you on about? Evidence?

5. Christopher Biggins is one Prominent gay who opposes same sex marriage can’t think of any other famous homosexuals
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 172
Original post by zosolobos0
Is this about:

- having one's union be blessed and certified by a certain church or religious denomination

or


- having one's union be legitimised by the state in the exact same way as a man and a woman's

or

- entering a contract with a significant other who has assets and vice versa

or

- tax

or

- making a political statement of some sort

or

- wanting to have the romantic bandwagon at your disposal


Because marriage is legal in some countries already and it won't be long before till Britain catches up. Debates about ideology will always be around regardless.






Because it'll force him to redefine his notion of what is normal and acceptable lol. It would be like a total paradigm shift except in global proportions


I'm not forcing him to change his notion on anything. I wasn't aware that everybody automatically agreed wholeheartedly with whatever the government did, I must have missed the memo...

Also, could you please explain to me why a heterosexual person's rights take precedence over mine? Why is it that my rights take a backseat, purely because I am a lesbian?
Original post by Jester94
So how would my marrying a woman affect you in any way, shape or form, or affect your rights?




Why?


Put it this way:

Man + Woman = Children.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.

On a more sophisticated level, Children who grow up in marriage, tend to be better disciplined, are more like to go university and are less likely to end up in prison then their peers who don't grow up in stable, functioning marriages.
Good families = Good society and the best familes tend to be heterosexual and married; the statistics show exactly that, why anyone would want to sabotage a good thing is beyond me! Civil partnerships are a good enough, but 'marriage' should remain heterosexual for all the rights reasons.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Man + Woman = Children.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.

On a more sophisticated level, Children who grow up in marriage, tend to be better disciplined, are more like to go university and less likely to end up in prison then their peers who don't grow up in stable, functioning marriages.
Good families = Good society; the statistics show exactly that, why anyone would want to sabotage is beyond me! Civil partnerships are a good enough, but 'marriage' should remain heterosexual for all the rights reasons.


So no marriage for infertile people.
Also, lesbians who have children from donated sperm should be allowed to get married. And gay men who impregnate surrogates should be able to get married. I'm just thinking about the children, same as you.
That's what your post says to me up until the last two sentences.
Original post by Jester94
I'm not forcing him to change his notion on anything. I wasn't aware that everybody automatically agreed wholeheartedly with whatever the government did, I must have missed the memo...


Maybe you prefer this answer instead of my summary:

Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Man + Woman = Children.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.

On a more sophisticated level, Children who grow up in marriage, tend to be better disciplined, are more like to go university and are less likely to end up in prison then their peers who don't grow up in stable, functioning marriages.
Good families = Good society; the statistics show exactly that, why anyone would want to sabotage a good thing is beyond me! Civil partnerships are a good enough, but 'marriage' should remain heterosexual for all the rights reasons.


to which I say:

- Jodie Foster

& He belongs to the Pavlovian Mel Gibson camp it seems. lmao @ "sabotage a good thing". Chilll.


Original post by Jester94


Also, could you please explain to me why a heterosexual person's rights take precedence over mine? Why is it that my rights take a backseat, purely because I am a lesbian?


You have answered your own question. "everybody", "automatically agree", "government". Everybody will always view their rights as taking a backseat to everyone else's and everyone in the world except for this one tribe in madagascar is governed one way or another. If it weren't so the world would be a utopia.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 176
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Man + Woman = Children.


I'm gay. That doesn't make me infertile.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.


Yep, because our population's in a real bad state now isn't it? You do realise that gay people have always existed, yet our society has continued to flourish, so I really don't think we're having that much of an impact. And even if every single gay person in the world decided not to have children, given that the number of heterosexual people vastly outweighs the number of homosexual people, we'd still be fine. Obviously, that would never happen, but I'm sure you see the point I'm making.

On a more sophisticated level, Children who grow up in marriage, tend to be better disciplined, are more like to go university and are less likely to end up in prison then their peers who don't grow up in stable, functioning marriages.


-Stereotyping
-Not actually an argument against gay marriage.

Good families = Good society; the statistics show exactly that, why anyone would want to sabotage a good thing is beyond me! Civil partnerships are a good enough, but 'marriage' should remain heterosexual for all the rights reasons.


Who are you to say that a family with two parents of the same-sex is not a good family? And I don't want to sabotage anything, I merely would like to know that, at some point in the future, I will be able to marry a woman.

And you do not get to say CPs are 'good enough' until you are the one forced to accept them.
Reply 177
Original post by zosolobos0
You have answered your own question. "everybody", "automatically agree", "government". Everybody will always view their rights as taking a backseat to everyone else's and everyone in the world except for this one tribe in madagascar is governed one way or another. If it weren't so the world would be a utopia.


You do realise I was being sarcastic, yes?
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Put it this way:

Man + Woman = Children.

Children whom one day will grow up and have their own children, thus ensuring the preservation of our society.



We have enough children as it is. We now need a curbing of population so why not passively curb it (e.g. promote homosexuality for instance)? Society is still preserved but the growing population is also curbed - it is predicted that the population may pass 9-10 billion humans by 2050 - that is too much considering resources; although Planet Earth can sustain way more that 10 billion, but current widespread human behaviour and shaky inter-human relations do not back this up, so we need to maintain the numbers of beings on the Planet.
Reply 179
I don't think it's a good idea. I just don't.

Obviously churches would not have to marry gay people, but some would anyway. And then there'd be another debate, churches would be pressured to marry their gay members. Those that do marry gays, will be pressured too. It could never be clear cut, there will always be rows over these things.

The whole idea of changing the definition of marriage, to me, is dangerous.
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest