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

Do you think The UK will legalise same sex marriage? Watch

    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    and also civil partnerships for opposite sex couples?

    I've heard a lot of talk of The UK and Scotland if it becomes independent legalising this but never actually heard how likely it is to actually happen.

    I hope it does happen
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really see the need. We already have equal rights in that a couple can have a ceremony to formalize their love and commitment towards each other.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I do think it will happen.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When do you think it'll happen? Within the next five years? Maybe even sooner?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It should be much sooner, given that the current bill to do so is into its 3rd reading (Basically just has to pass through the House of Lords). Although there will still be no REQUIREMENT for churches to perform the ceremonies (I have a feeling that would not be well-received at all), the bill would make same-sex marriage ceremonies completely legal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    I don't really see the need. We already have equal rights in that a couple can have a ceremony to formalize their love and commitment towards each other.
    I disagree. Essentially forcing people to say "We have a civil partnership" rather than "We are married" is a fairly blatant form of discrimination, which suggests that same-sex couplings are somehow less than man/woman ones. Gay Christians would also probably gain significant comfort from feeling that their union was justified in their religion.

    OP: I think opposite-gender couples can opt for a purely civil ceremony if they wish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel R)
    I disagree. Essentially forcing people to say "We have a civil partnership" rather than "We are married" is a fairly blatant form of discrimination, which suggests that same-sex couplings are somehow less than man/woman ones.
    It's not discrimination because it isn't a marriage. If a girl on the street claims she's the King of England would you agree with her, even though she isn't? Seems like it would be discriminatory not to, along those lines.

    It's like a child coming last in a race and starts to weep, and his mother patting him on the head saying "don't worry son, you're still a winner to me";
    "even though you're not actually getting married, we'll still call it one, since you're crying about it", to paraphrase. Enshrining such a pretense in law would be farcical.

    And yet David Cameron plans to change the definition of a marriage, to "correct" this "inequality". Would you believe him if he said 2 + 2 = 5? That's in essence what you're asking the public to do, when you claim two men make a marriage.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    It's not discrimination because it isn't a marriage. If a girl on the street claims she's the King of England would you agree with her, even though she isn't? Seems like it would be discriminatory not to, along those lines.

    It's like a child coming last in a race and starts to weep, and his mother patting him on the head saying "don't worry son, you're still a winner to me";
    "even though you're not actually getting married, we'll still call it one, since you're crying about it", to paraphrase. Enshrining such a pretense in law would be farcical.

    And yet David Cameron plans to change the definition of a marriage, to "correct" this "inequality". Would you believe him if he said 2 + 2 = 5? That's in essence what you're asking the public to do, when you claim two men make a marriage.
    Bit circular, innit? You claim marriage can't be that, when really marriage (as a legal construct) is simply what we define it to be, and as a religious construct, should have no bearing on the law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel R)
    I disagree. Essentially forcing people to say "We have a civil partnership" rather than "We are married" is a fairly blatant form of discrimination, which suggests that same-sex couplings are somehow less than man/woman ones. Gay Christians would also probably gain significant comfort from feeling that their union was justified in their religion.

    OP: I think opposite-gender couples can opt for a purely civil ceremony if they wish.
    I am not inherently against 'gay' people being together , but i am not a supporter of 'gay' marriage. Personally, marriage helps build stable societies allowing couples to procreate. The institution of marriage allows legal and financial obligations between spouses and towards children.

    Now, Gay couples can adopt (but it is not the same thing as straight couples adopting). Knowing society today, the children would get teased, some would find it 'hard to identify' with others, 'different', 'confused'. It is not right to say 'don't adopt because others will tease you' but the fact is, those children are seriously going to find it hard.

    Just to ask guys, i have no idea how many people identify as LGBT in this country. What percentage is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    Bit circular, innit? You claim marriage can't be that, when really marriage (as a legal construct) is simply what we define it to be, and as a religious construct, should have no bearing on the law.
    If marriage is nothing more than a 'simple subjective religious term of unison' , why is there such a fiasco?

    Clearly marriage , for societal, legal, and political reason is very significant and very important to society.

    Commitment: spoken legal commitment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It better happen; I don't want to stay single forever.

    :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    It's not discrimination because it isn't a marriage. If a girl on the street claims she's the King of England would you agree with her, even though she isn't? Seems like it would be discriminatory not to, along those lines.

    It's like a child coming last in a race and starts to weep, and his mother patting him on the head saying "don't worry son, you're still a winner to me";
    "even though you're not actually getting married, we'll still call it one, since you're crying about it", to paraphrase. Enshrining such a pretense in law would be farcical.

    And yet David Cameron plans to change the definition of a marriage, to "correct" this "inequality". Would you believe him if he said 2 + 2 = 5? That's in essence what you're asking the public to do, when you claim two men make a marriage.
    My definition of a marriage is when two people come together to hopefully procreate, under the legal and social commitment of a marriage which in turn enables stable , steady families to develop and a stronger society from on all fronts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel)
    It better happen; I don't want to stay single forever.

    :cool:
    How will you remain single?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I don't think there should be any legal definition of marriage - it's none of the governments business.

    If a Church or organisation wants to get two men or women together and call it a marriage then they can do just that. If they don't want to then that's their choice as well and I respect that.

    Awarding benefits based on whether or not a couple have their relationship in writing is stupid quite frankly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    Bit circular, innit? You claim marriage can't be that, when really marriage (as a legal construct) is simply what we define it to be, and as a religious construct, should have no bearing on the law.
    Certainly they can redefine it as anything they want under law, but without the support of religion you may as well just create a new entity. How about civil partnerships? Open them up to all possible combinations of consenting adults, and has not equality been achieved?

    It's the arrogant "I want it to be called marriage" thing that is haemorraghing public support for the homosexuals.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it will happen eventually.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    How will you remain single?
    I don't believe in sex before marriage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Edit: Lots of people made the same points while I was writing. Sorry about that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel)
    I don't believe in sex before marriage.
    Would you identify as L G B T?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I thought it already got voted through the commons a few weeks ago? There's no way the Lords will vote against it, so surely it's essentially already passed?

    And I thought opposite-sex couples could get civil partnerships?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.