Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Is it high time the UK equalised marriage for all? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the UK equalise marriage fully?
    No - it should remain as it has been for centuries - between one man and one woman.
    13
    30.23%
    Yes, but the line should be drawn at two people. And the ban should stay on close relatives.
    14
    32.56%
    Any two people - whether related or not.
    3
    6.98%
    Restricting it to two is polyphobic. Any number of people.
    4
    9.30%
    If someone wants to marry an object, why not? No harm is caused and the object can't object
    2
    4.65%
    Marriage should be abolished in a civil sense
    7
    16.28%

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    It is a lot easier for someone to 'groom' a younger person if they knew that person as a child. So, therefore, do we ban marriages, for instance where the older party is a friend of the younger party's family? What about a couple where one of the partners used to babysit for the other? There is a risk of grooming in these cases - how do we quantify this risk?

    But anyway this is all besides the point. We're never going to prevent people from marrying those they have groomed. It seems irrational (and prejudiced) to me to ban relatives from marrying - just because some instances of grooming have occured between relatives.

    The logical resolution to the point you've raised is to ban all marriages except where the parties are the same age.
    The logical resolution is a compromise between the two, which is to outlaw incest. You could argue that same age relatives could marry (e.g. twins or siblings not too distant in age), but even then I think it's 'good' to push people to explore the world rather than keep everything within their family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The ancient Greecs always said that humanity was to be devided in three groups.....

    *33,3% hetero sexuals
    *33,3% homesexuals males
    *33,3% lesbian woman

    For me this seems very normal so my answer is "Marry a pigg if u wanne for my concern just dont bother me with it ha ha"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    The logical resolution is a compromise between the two, which is to outlaw incest. You could argue that same age relatives could marry (e.g. twins or siblings not too distant in age), but even then I think it's 'good' to push people to explore the world rather than keep everything within their family.
    That's an outlandish and incestophobic assertion. You've not explained at all why criminalising relationships between loving people should be banned. And how this would be a 'compromise,' God only knows.

    I must repeat - this is not about forcing or encouraging people to marry relatives. It's purely about giving them the choice to, if they so desire. Sure, you may think it's creepy, but attitudes will evolve in terms of tolerance to sexual minorities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have more sympathy with the 'traditionalists' on this - those who want marriage to remain as a union between a man and a woman - than those who want to open it up to same sex couples but specifically exclude relatives.

    At least the traditionalists have a grounding for their placing of the goalposts. The 'modernists' have absolutely no reasoning behind their anti-equal views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    This is about marriage - not procreation. But even having said, there are severe risks of mutation when people with Cystic Fibrosis have children. Yet, we don't deny marriage to these people, so why should we deny it to those who are close relatives?
    Because its bloody revolting, theres a good reason it has been considered heinous for centuries...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst i want to see a loosening (bigamy is fine), i won't go as far as allowing family members to marry.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If we could remove the legal significance of marriage, then who marries whom wouldn't be an issue. The law shouldn't favour one type of relationship over another - it shouldn't have a stake in whether a couple marries or not. Neither should it have a preference for heterosexual relationships, nor for monogamy over polygamy. People's consensual love lives are their own business, not the government's.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    That's an outlandish and incestophobic assertion. You've not explained at all why criminalising relationships between loving people should be banned. And how this would be a 'compromise,' God only knows.

    I must repeat - this is not about forcing or encouraging people to marry relatives. It's purely about giving them the choice to, if they so desire. Sure, you may think it's creepy, but attitudes will evolve in terms of tolerance to sexual minorities.
    That's it, keep ignoring the issues and calling me incestophobic, that'll convince me you're being reasonable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Whilst i want to see a loosening (bigamy is fine), i won't go as far as allowing family members to marry.
    Why not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Because its bloody revolting, theres a good reason it has been considered heinous for centuries...
    That's a horribly insensitive remark. Homosexuality too was considered 'bloody revolting' and heinous by great swathes of the public for many centuries.
    What exactly is 'revolting' about consenting loving people being able to marry?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and civil partnerships should be extended to hetrosexuals
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    I understand it's about marriage and not procreation, I was simply highlighting why the law prohibits marriage within close family; at the time the law was drafted this was one of the main concerns, afaik.

    People should be be able to marry whomever you wish! I find it weird, and I'm slightly grossed out but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to.

    I'm curious however, would you allow kin to have children?
    Concerning people with diseases that can pass through genes, I don't think they should be able to have children unless they can be screened and checked for any abnormalities. I'm not disagreeing on the grounds of fairness but rather because its irresponsible and cruel to the child.

    Unfortunately it's not gonna happen; gay marriage discussions took ages to get to where they are now and they have a pretty big community of support. The law won't pass if it's deeply unpopular and marriage involving kin is pretty unpopular.

    Tyranny of the masses. Most people i speak to are all like 'it's none of your business what goes on behind closed doors' then go ahead and say 'polygamy is evil, incest is repugnant'
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    Why not?
    It's honestly unnatural.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage shouldn't have to be sanctioned by the state at all, really. It's the only way to stop the institution being shaped by people's subjective sense of morality at a given time (other than a very unpopular bill of rights or something).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    I'm upset that I am (and still will be) denied the right to marry someone - purely on the basis of consanguinity.
    Marrying relatives is in no way the same as marrying someone of the same sex.
    For a start, incest is illegal and homosexuality is not. And there are good reasons for this.

    Since marriage is generally the foundation of starting a family, allowing relatives to marry would encourage inbreeding which leads to defected offspring... How is that moral?
    Are you from the middle ages?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    Marrying relatives is in no way the same as marrying someone of the same sex.
    For a start, incest is illegal and homosexuality is not. And there are good reasons for this.

    Since marriage is generally the foundation of starting a family, allowing relatives to marry would encourage inbreeding which leads to defected offspring... How is that moral?
    Are you from the middle ages?
    Intentionally giving birth to 'defected offspring' (where the alternative is abortion) is not illegal and is common practice. That is another argument however (since its basically eugenics) which most are not willing to discuss. To be consistent in denying incest on this basis (and this would only be male/female incest, since gay incest wouldn't be at risk of producing a child), you would also have to sterilize eg Down syndrome or other risk groups. Inbreeding is rife amongst Muslims in the UK anyway, why is that fact generally ignored?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennieboy94)
    That's a horribly insensitive remark. Homosexuality too was considered 'bloody revolting' and heinous by great swathes of the public for many centuries.
    What exactly is 'revolting' about consenting loving people being able to marry?
    Oh god forbid... Insest is illegal for a damn good reason and to compare it to homosexuality of a perversion of logic at the very least.
    Nothing, the fact they're blood relations is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed-)
    Marrying relatives is in no way the same as marrying someone of the same sex.
    For a start, incest is illegal and homosexuality is not. And there are good reasons for this.

    Since marriage is generally the foundation of starting a family, allowing relatives to marry would encourage inbreeding which leads to defected offspring... How is that moral?
    Are you from the middle ages?
    People with or carriers of hereditary disabilities aren't banned from marrying on the principle that their children would be disabled. So why should incest?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Individual rights do have to be limited by societal responsibilities, so I favour traditional marriage, which on a societal level seems to be the most stable and healthy sort of relationship [with obvious individual exceptions of course], at least in a society like ours (which isn't necessarily the most stable and healthy sort of society!). I also favour civil partnerships for those who want them and have no problem with homosexuality. I do, however, have a problem with the kind of atomized and self-seeking society that the sexual [counter-]revolution (along with the Thatcherite economic revolution) has left us with, and the statistics show that gay people are on average considerably more promiscuous than even straight people -- that's not prejudice, that's fact (and some people might not even see that as a bad thing, I'm sure many of you don't). There is an argument, which David Cameron seems to favour, that supporting gay marriage is supporting stable relationships and so is a socially conservative move, but I'm not quite sure that's right, I think it would be likely to further destabilize tradition. That argument might apply to civil partnerships, but not marriage, as then issues of children come more to the fore, and I think the evidence does show that gay parenthood unfortunately does tend to have some negatives for the children, whose interests should be paramount. As I say, I have gay friends and family and don't disagree with their sexuality or with them as people, my argument is more nuanced than that, as I hope I've got across.

    In short, I'm not an economic libertarian, so I don't see why I should be a social one.

    EDIT: None of this, of course, is to say that I'm not a hypocrite (at least in terms of heterosexual promiscuity), as most social conservatives are. It's simply to say that I'm wrong, just as the rest of you are! Be damned, the lot of us.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    People with or carriers of hereditary disabilities aren't banned from marrying on the principle that their children would be disabled. So why should incest?
    Maybe they should be... I don't know I've not really thought about it.

    Either way how can you advocate incest? Do you fancy your sister?
    Even liberalists would admit that legalising incest has the potential to cause harm to any potential children...
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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