Turn on thread page Beta

This is the result of gay marriage watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Oh come on.

    I believe X and I'm right about X because lots of other people believe X is the weakest form of self-justification.

    If the majority of American believed that inter-racial marriages should be illegal, would you support that?

    Stop hiding behind other people's beliefs and at least give some arguments for you case.
    I believe your opinions (not necessarily faulty) are based on too simplistic a foundation.
    We all do the 'x thinks this and I'm right about x because lots of other people believe x is the weakest form of self-justification' whatever side of the argument we represent!
    There is a world of difference between inter-racial marriages and same-genital 'marriages' that you cannot use them as a comparison.
    The question of gay marriage started out as 'my long-term partner can't make any legal decisions about my estate/pension/health-care etc. so the prospect of a legal agreement was suggested. Not good enough so now they are baying for marriage which was their original, covert intention.
    What next - I want my marriage with my dog, cat, monkey etc to be recognised? Where will it end? We must come to the realisation that we can't always have everything we want but content ourselves with what we have. It's good for the soul
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The question of gay marriage started out as 'my long-term partner can't make any legal decisions about my estate/pension/health-care etc. so the prospect of a legal agreement was suggested. Not good enough so now they are baying for marriage which was their original, covert intention.
    But what is so bad about two people being in love and wanting to be married? How does this harm anyone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suz19)
    But what is so bad about two people being in love and wanting to be married? How does this harm anyone?
    Because sometimes 'being in love' is not a good enough reason to change the status quo when it has the potential to harm someone - like society!
    Love is not always good - it can be all-consuming, passionate and leads to inappropriate actions. It can result in the destruction of people, society and nations.
    We do many things in the name of love and they are not all good and often harmful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The marriage issue is more about legal rights than love. Why should a man and a woman who have only know each other for a few months be allowed to get married, so then if the husband dies his widow has full legal rights, when a same-sex couple who have been in a stable relationship for 20 years have no rights in a similar situation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alocin)
    The marriage issue is more about legal rights than love. Why should a man and a woman who have only know each other for a few months be allowed to get married, so then if the husband dies his widow has full legal rights, when a same-sex couple who have been in a stable relationship for 20 years have no rights in a similar situation?
    Exactly. I know a gay couple who've been together for over thirty years and it really annoys them that they are classed as 'single males'. I don't see what harm a gay couple being married could do to society or anyone else for that matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    I believe your opinions (not necessarily faulty) are based on too simplistic a foundation.
    We all do the 'x thinks this and I'm right about x because lots of other people believe x is the weakest form of self-justification' whatever side of the argument we represent!
    Well, I try not to. It's an appalling way to justify your opinions.


    There is a world of difference between inter-racial marriages and same-genital 'marriages' that you cannot use them as a comparison.
    In fact, the issues are almost identical. Inter-racial marriages were thought wrong because non-whites were thought inferior. Gay marriage is thought wrong because homosexuality is thought inferior.

    The question of gay marriage started out as 'my long-term partner can't make any legal decisions about my estate/pension/health-care etc. so the prospect of a legal agreement was suggested. Not good enough so now they are baying for marriage which was their original, covert intention.
    I struggle to see the relevance of how the movement started, even less bizarre insinuations of subterfuge.

    As with inter-racial marriages, it is an issue of equality. Why should anyone accept anything less than equality as "good enough"?

    What next - I want my marriage with my dog, cat, monkey etc to be recognised? Where will it end? We must come to the realisation that we can't always have everything we want but content ourselves with what we have. It's good for the soul
    Well, the comparison with animals is hugely insulting, but never mind that for the moment.

    Human/animal marriage would be inferior to human/human marriage, not least because of the issue of consent.

    There is no reason, however, for one consenting marriage between adults to be considered inferior to any other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    I have no problems with civil unions for gay couples.
    What is the difference between a "civil union" and a civil- non-religious- marriage?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)

    Every major poll has suggested that the vast majority of Americans do NOT wish to change the definition of the word "marriage". I don't see how it's any of your concern....
    The vast majority of Americans aren't gay. I don't see how it's any of their concern.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The crux of your argument just seems to be 'most Americans support it'. At points in History most Americans supported slavery and other forms of legalised racism, that doesn't such policies 'right'. It's the responsibility of a represenative government to insure that the rights of all (not jus the majority) are respected. Banning gay marriages is discrimination without foundation, plain and simple.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, the vast majority of Americans NEVER supported slavery.

    ....and comparing this situation to slavery does an injustice to people who have been TRULY oppressed. Gays in my country are celebrated, not oppressed.

    "Oh come on.

    I believe X and I'm right about X because lots of other people believe X is the weakest form of self-justification.

    If the majority of American believed that inter-racial marriages should be illegal, would you support that?" - llama

    I believe that it's up to the PEOPLE of my country to write the laws, not some unelected activist judge.

    "But what is so bad about two people being in love and wanting to be married? How does this harm anyone?" - suz19

    As far as government is concerned, nothing is wrong with people being in love.....it's their right to be in love if they want. It's not their right to change the definition of a word just because they don't like it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is. If you are gay, get a civil union and you'll have the same rights and you can let the word "marriage" keep it's definition.

    "when a same-sex couple who have been in a stable relationship for 20 years have no rights in a similar situation?" - alocin

    They would with a civil union.

    "In fact, the issues are almost identical. Inter-racial marriages were thought wrong because non-whites were thought inferior. Gay marriage is thought wrong because homosexuality is thought inferior." - llama

    This is simply not true. Gays are everywhere on television and in the mainstream pop culture....and the image is a positive one.

    "As with inter-racial marriages, it is an issue of equality. Why should anyone accept anything less than equality as "good enough"?" - llama

    Apples and Oranges......is there a difference to you? Look at the definition of the word "marriage". Gays simply don't qualify. Why is that so hard to accept? I don't qualify to be a host on "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" and I'm O.K. with it.

    "There is no reason, however, for one consenting marriage between adults to be considered inferior to any other." - llama

    Soooo, .....you're o.k. with polygamy?

    "The vast majority of Americans aren't gay. I don't see how it's any of their concern." - Frances

    That's easy.....because it's our country and WE, THE PEOPLE will decide what law will be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If the majority of American believed that inter-racial marriages should be illegal, would you support that?" - llama

    I believe that it's up to the PEOPLE of my country to write the laws, not some unelected activist judge.

    -Even if those laws deprive one group of people equal rights. Be they gay, black, Jewish or whatever

    "But what is so bad about two people being in love and wanting to be married? How does this harm anyone?" - suz19

    As far as government is concerned, nothing is wrong with people being in love.....it's their right to be in love if they want. It's not their right to change the definition of a word just because they don't like it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is. If you are gay, get a civil union and you'll have the same rights and you can let the word "marriage" keep it's definition.

    -In your opinon 'marriage' is between a man and a women. In the opinion of others it can be between two men or two women as well. The difference is that their definition doesn't deprive anybody of equal rights whereas your definition does.

    ""In
    "As with inter-racial marriages, it is an issue of equality. Why should anyone accept anything less than equality as "good enough"?" - llama

    Apples and Oranges......is there a difference to you? Look at the definition of the word "marriage". Gays simply don't qualify. Why is that so hard to accept? I don't qualify to be a host on "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" and I'm O.K. with it.

    -And you're the one talking about Apples and Oranges? You've failed to justify at any point why 'Gays simply don't qualify'

    "There is no reason, however, for one consenting marriage between adults to be considered inferior to any other." - llama

    Soooo, .....you're o.k. with polygamy?

    -Again, your favourite idea of 'apples' and 'oranges' once more. One man and one woman or one man and one man, why should the latter be considered 'inferior'

    "The vast majority of Americans aren't gay. I don't see how it's any of their concern." - Frances

    That's easy.....because it's our country and WE, THE PEOPLE will decide what law will be.

    -Even if those laws deprive one group of people of equal rights? YOU, THE PEOPLE decided that racial segregation and legalised racism should be the law. Do you believe that that made those laws 'right'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "-Even if those laws deprive one group of people equal rights. Be they gay, black, Jewish or whatever" - Kildare

    That's simply not the case here. What you have are a small group of people who are attacking an institution that's been around for thousands of years. Now all this sudden, marriage as we know it is bigotry?!? We're just not going to let that happen.

    "-In your opinon 'marriage' is between a man and a women. In the opinion of others it can be between two men or two women as well. The difference is that their definition doesn't deprive anybody of equal rights whereas your definition does."

    Wrong. Their's deprives polygamists their supposed right to marriage. It's apples and oragnes.

    "-And you're the one talking about Apples and Oranges? You've failed to justify at any point why 'Gays simply don't qualify'"

    Maybe to you....not the vast majority of Americans who should be allowed to decide this issue. That's how it works in my country, the PEOPLE write the laws.

    "-Again, your favourite idea of 'apples' and 'oranges' once more. One man and one woman or one man and one man, why should the latter be considered 'inferior'"

    It shouldn't be as far as government is concered. A civil union isn't inferior to marriage....it's just different.

    "-Even if those laws deprive one group of people of equal rights?"

    It's not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    As far as government is concerned, nothing is wrong with people being in love.....it's their right to be in love if they want. It's not their right to change the definition of a word just because they don't like it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is. If you are gay, get a civil union and you'll have the same rights and you can let the word "marriage" keep it's definition.
    The definition of 'marriage' is no longer 'till death do us part', or hadn't you noticed? A lot of gay people probably wouldn't want to get married and those that would would take the decision very seriously- far more seriously than heterosexual couples seem to. Therefore, gay couples would probably be closer to fulfilling the true definition of marriage than 2/3's of heterosexual marriages.
    I'm assuming that since you're so concerned with the sanctity of marriage, you were outraged at Britney Spears' druken wedding??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    what marriage would collapse because of two other random, irrelevant people having the same certificate as you do.
    and three people? and two men and a dog? 3 kids and their mom?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suz19)
    The definition of 'marriage' is no longer 'till death do us part', or hadn't you noticed? A lot of gay people probably wouldn't want to get married and those that would would take the decision very seriously- far more seriously than heterosexual couples seem to. Therefore, gay couples would probably be closer to fulfilling the true definition of marriage than 2/3's of heterosexual marriages.
    I'm assuming that since you're so concerned with the sanctity of marriage, you were outraged at Britney Spears' druken wedding??
    tripe and irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    "But what is so bad about two people being in love and wanting to be married? How does this harm anyone?" - suz19

    As far as government is concerned, nothing is wrong with people being in love.....it's their right to be in love if they want. It's not their right to change the definition of a word just because they don't like it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is. If you are gay, get a civil union and you'll have the same rights and you can let the word "marriage" keep it's definition.

    -In your opinon 'marriage' is between a man and a women. In the opinion of others it can be between two men or two women as well. The difference is that their definition doesn't deprive anybody of equal rights whereas your definition does.

    and your right as a man to have a child? everyone has a right to everything? regardless of its effect on society?


    ""In
    "As with inter-racial marriages, it is an issue of equality. Why should anyone accept anything less than equality as "good enough"?" - llama

    Apples and Oranges......is there a difference to you? Look at the definition of the word "marriage". Gays simply don't qualify. Why is that so hard to accept? I don't qualify to be a host on "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" and I'm O.K. with it.

    -And you're the one talking about Apples and Oranges? You've failed to justify at any point why 'Gays simply don't qualify'
    because history, nature, society say so.

    "There is no reason, however, for one consenting marriage between adults to be considered inferior to any other." - llama

    Soooo, .....you're o.k. with polygamy?

    ?[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v_for_vendetta)
    tripe and irrelevant.
    What a well thought out arguement :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "-Even if those laws deprive one group of people equal rights. Be they gay, black, Jewish or whatever" - Kildare

    That's simply not the case here. What you have are a small group of people who are attacking an institution that's been around for thousands of years. Now all this sudden, marriage as we know it is bigotry?!? We're just not going to let that happen.

    -Yes it is the case. The fact that instituion has been around a thousand of years is irrelevant unless you give a real reason why broadening your definition of it is a 'bad thing'.

    "-In your opinon 'marriage' is between a man and a women. In the opinion of others it can be between two men or two women as well. The difference is that their definition doesn't deprive anybody of equal rights whereas your definition does."

    Wrong. Their's deprives polygamists their supposed right to marriage. It's apples and oragnes.

    -Answer my question. Polygamy is a different issue, there is no difference between 'straight and 'gay' marriage other than the sexuality of the people involved. Why is this sexuality important, or for that matter, any buisness of the state.

    "-And you're the one talking about Apples and Oranges? You've failed to justify at any point why 'Gays simply don't qualify'"

    Maybe to you....not the vast majority of Americans who should be allowed to decide this issue. That's how it works in my country, the PEOPLE write the laws.

    -O.K, so because you can't justify it you're just going to reiterate the majority rules o.k., even if it deprives a sizeable minority of equal rights. If I get a majority of people who are in favour of killing you I suppose I'm well within my rights if I carry that out then?

    "-Again, your favourite idea of 'apples' and 'oranges' once more. One man and one woman or one man and one man, why should the latter be considered 'inferior'"

    It shouldn't be as far as government is concered. A civil union isn't inferior to marriage....it's just different.

    -Why is it 'different'.
    "-Even if those laws deprive one group of people of equal rights?"

    It's not.

    -Straight people are allowed to marry their lovers. Gay people are not. Therefore different people do not have equal rights. It's not a difficult concept.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suz19)
    What a well thought out arguement :rolleyes:
    it wasnt an argument. an argument wasnt required or suitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    comparing this situation to slavery does an injustice to people who have been TRULY oppressed. Gays in my country are celebrated, not oppressed.
    hahahaha!!!!

    come back and tell me that when:

    a) homosexuality, let alone homosexual marriage, is legal in all 50 states.
    b) the majority aren't hell bent on discriminatory laws. (as you yourself described)

    I believe that it's up to the PEOPLE of my country to write the laws, not some unelected activist judge.
    Well, the premise of liberal democracy is that there are certain inalienable rights that the government should not override, ever. In the case of America, those rights are enshrined in the constitution.

    I must say I find it quite unusual that an apparent flag waving american such as yourself seems keen to waive the letter and ideals of the constitution. Yet, that is the clear implication of what you just said.


    "In fact, the issues are almost identical. Inter-racial marriages were thought wrong because non-whites were thought inferior. Gay marriage is thought wrong because homosexuality is thought inferior." - llama

    This is simply not true. Gays are everywhere on television and in the mainstream pop culture....and the image is a positive one.
    Heh, at best the image is a stereotyped one. Gays are currently permitted access to the media as long as they a) are utterly camp and thus provide no threat to the heterosexual male ego and b) abstain totally from boyfriends/sexual activity, etc. Lesbians are only permitted as a function of heterosexual male fantasies.

    I would not deny that there are large elements of America that are not homophobia. However, this does not prove that those who oppose gay marriage do not consider it inferior.

    However, interesting as that topic is, it is irrelevant to this discussion. If they weren't thought inferior, they wouldn't be discriminated against.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.