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

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because that's their names. I know certain believe in the statement that "separate means unequal" or whatever, but clearly this isn't the case. I can't use a female toilet, but that doesn't mean I'm inferior or superior to them, and vice versa.

    I see a civil partnership as being of as much value as a marriage. I know the law has yet to modernize by giving civil partnerships the same legal recognition as marriages, but I believe they are equal, because of my belief in equal rights. I think people who genuinely believe that a gay civil partnership is in any way inferior to a heterosexual marriage are the people with a problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    You could sum up my reasoning with the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, so if someone wants to change that then it's up to them to give me a reason why I should change my mind. I'm not ruling out changing my mind, but I think it's unlikely, because so far no one has given me what I consider a good enough reason to change my mind
    You seem to be under a grave misapprehension that you can just cross your arms and say "I haven't been convinced" and that's that. In case you haven't noticed, the law is changing, your views will be at odds with the law of the land and established social structure.

    If you're going to claim any credibility for your point of view, you need to provide a reason, any reason, for why we should change what will be the law in favour of your radical, minority view that gay married couples should be deprived of their legal rights, as they will exist when this bill passes the lords.

    The reason I am reluctant to get into a long debate about this is because in the past, people who have had it so heavily drummed into them that their opinion is the "correct" one literally seemed to short-circuit when I expressed a different view
    I'm sorry, we've repeatedly and politely opened the floor for you to express your view. You'll have to forgive us if we conclude that there is no justifiable, rational basis for your viewpoint.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    They can go ahead and formalize their love, in either a marriage if they are heterosexual or a civil partnership is they are homosexual. Surely we can all agree that both these unions mean the same
    Non-sense. Civil partnership confers none of the historic, social legitimacy inherent in marriage. Why should my future presumable children be born out of wedlock, be subject to some lesser legal status?

    Separate but equal is a bigots' charter.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    Because that's their names. I know certain believe in the statement that "separate means unequal" or whatever, but clearly this isn't the case. I can't use a female toilet, but that doesn't mean I'm inferior or superior to them, and vice versa.

    I see a civil partnership as being of as much value as a marriage. I know the law has yet to modernize by giving civil partnerships the same legal recognition as marriages, but I believe they are equal, because of my belief in equal rights. I think people who genuinely believe that a gay civil partnership is in any way inferior to a heterosexual marriage are the people with a problem.
    I'd be happy to compromise. Civil partnerships for everyone under law. If you or the religious organisation you are a member of want to call your relationship a marriage you're free to do so. But according to the law they would all be the same thing with the same name, hetero or homo sexual.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    If you're going to claim any credibility for your point of view, you need to provide a reason, any reason, for why we should change what will be the law in favour of your radical, minority view that gay married couples should be deprived of their legal rights, as they will exist when this bill passes the lords.

    I'm sorry, we've repeatedly and politely opened the floor for you to express your view. You'll have to forgive us if we conclude that there is no justifiable, rational basis for your viewpoint.
    As you are repeating some of the traits of others I've discussed this with (claiming that it's not "rational" or "valid" for me to have a different opinion, and trying to insult me to discredit my views), I'm going to have to call it a day here.

    Who do you think you are to call a view "radical" and accuse it of not being rational, just because it doesn't conform to your view of the world? Sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for you behaving the way you did there. You have confirmed my initial suspicion that you could be one of those politically correct people who get taught nothing but the "correct" view, and literally can't handle the fact that another person just as qualified as yourself to give an opinion, may have a different view than yours. It's very noticeable in the way that you handle disagreement - You don't seem to appreciate the idea that it's alright to "agree to disagree", the idea that other people are allowed to have different beliefs than your own, and the very important universal agreement that you always show courtesy. I have shown you nothing but courtesy, and you have behaved appallingly in return. I suspect you may respond to this with yet another barrage of how it's "irrational" or "not justifiable" for me to disagree with you, and if that's how you've been taught to handle disagreement, then that's up to you. But as your actions are demonstrating that you don't appear able to have a disagreement without resorting to making personal insults, I think I'm done responding to you here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage of any kind should not be legalised. The nationalisation of marriage was the most Stalinist, illiberal legislation ever passed through the House of Commons. The idea that the State has to determine that you love someone is vile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who do you think you are to call a view "radical" and accuse it of not being rational, just because it doesn't conform to your view of the world? Sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for you behaving the way you did there.
    Absolute moral relativism. I'm sorry, but when it comes to human rights, this isn't a relative issue where we can sit around debating the merits of whether our fellow citizens should be denied their human rights.

    You can as much have a reasonable debate about this issue as you can about "whether" black people should have civil rights. I'm also guessing that suddenly realising that you are, effectively, part of a radical minority seeking to overturn what will be the law of the land and established social structure, was cognitive dissonance slapping you in the face.

    You have confirmed my initial suspicion that you could be one of those politically correct people who get taught nothing but the "correct" view, and literally can't handle the fact that another person just as qualified as yourself to give an opinion, may have a different view than yours.
    Do you have a different viewpoint? It's hard to tell, you won't even share it. And no; your view deserves 0 respect, not only because it has as much legitimacy as racist views, but at least many racists will extend a stand up debate and actually get down to the granular debate about the issue. You are unwilling or incapable.

    I suspect you may respond to this with yet another barrage of how it's "irrational" or "not justifiable" for me to disagree with you, and if that's how you've been taught to handle disagreement, then that's up to you. But as your actions are demonstrating that you don't appear able to have a disagreement without resorting to making personal insults, I think I'm done responding to you here.
    I think what other people will see is not only you got spanked, but you also dropped your musket and fled the battlefield without firing a shot. What does Bart1331 feel is the basis for his desire to deprive gay people of legal and social status? We'll never know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Absolute moral relativism. I'm sorry, but when it comes to human rights, this isn't a relative issue where we can sit around debating the merits of whether our fellow citizens should be denied their human rights.
    Well see you feel that allowing gay people the right to marry, and heterosexual people the right to civil partnerships, is a "human right", and I disagree.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You can as much have a reasonable debate about this issue as you can about "whether" black people should have civil rights.
    Nope, because your civil rights aren't up for debate (at least, in my opinion, they are not up for debate).

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I think what other people will see is not only you got spanked, but you also dropped your musket and fled the battlefield without firing a shot. What does Bart1331 feel is the basis for his desire to deprive gay people of legal and social status? We'll never know.
    I'm not depriving gay people of legal and social status, so I can't answer that question.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flemingt)
    Marriage of any kind should not be legalised. The nationalisation of marriage was the most Stalinist, illiberal legislation ever passed through the House of Commons. The idea that the State has to determine that you love someone is vile.
    ^Most sensible post I've seen today.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    Well see you feel that allowing gay people the right to marry, and heterosexual people the right to civil partnerships, is a "human right", and I disagree.
    By this argument, I can say I disagree with your having a right to breathe - and that would be sufficient justification to stop you from doing so. Assuming you're not implying that gay people are sub-human.

    Justification is only necessary when we want to restrict rights, not when we want to extend them. That's kinda the point...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    By this argument, I can say I disagree with your having a right to breathe - and that would be sufficient justification to stop you from doing so. Assuming you're not implying that gay people are sub-human.
    No - He's accusing me of not wanting people to have human rights, because he thinks that it's a human right for gay people to get married, when it isn't. I was correcting his mistake.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    Well see you feel that allowing gay people the right to marry, and heterosexual people the right to civil partnerships, is a "human right", and I disagree.
    Nobody has the right to get married per se, but the opportunity is being given and we have the right not to be discriminated against based on sex and sexual orientation (and race and religion and any other non-relevant characteristic etc. but those are the relevant ones here). We 'discriminate' (I use the term because a lot of people bring it up, it doesn't actually apply) against children/animals etc. because they cannot consent, and consent is necessary for marriage (or I'd be married to Novak Djokovic).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    No - He's accusing me of not wanting people to have human rights, because he thinks that it's a human right for gay people to get married, when it isn't. I was correcting his mistake.
    It's a human right for straight couples to get married. So the question is, why is it not a human right for gay couples?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Nobody has the right to get married per se, but the opportunity is being given and we have the right not to be discriminated against based on sex and sexual orientation (and race and religion and any other non-relevant characteristic etc. but those are the relevant ones here).

    We 'discriminate' (I use the term because a lot of people bring it up, it doesn't actually apply) against children/animals etc. because they cannot consent, and consent is necessary for marriage (or I'd be married to Novak Djokovic).
    No one has any control over how old they are, yet we deny people below a certain age the right to get married. No one sees that as discrimination against young people.

    I think it would only be discrimination if we didn't have civil partnerships. That would be because gay couples wouldn't be able to have any ceremony that they could formalize their union with a partner, and heterosexual couples could, and I think that would be unfair. As it stands, both heterosexual and homosexual couples are able to formalize their love and commitment to a partner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    It's a human right for straight couples to get married. So the question is, why is it not a human right for gay couples?
    They do have the right to get married i.e a union with someone of the opposite sex. But as they are gay, they obviously aren't going to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    You're definition of marriage includes gay couples, so it's obvious you're going to feel differently on this than I do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think people are getting to caught up in the legality of it all and taking away from what a marriage really is. Yes, I think gay couples should have the same rights as straight people be that under the title of a civil partnership or a marriage. But, really does it matter what the government think about your relationship, if you love someone and they love you, and you're lucky enough to have the support of your friends and family then surely that's a bigger issue.

    Maybe I'm just not getting it, I don't know. I think people are getting so caught up on the word marriage that they are taking away from what a marriage really is.

    As a completely off topic side note, I just want to put out that I don't believe that you have to marry someone to show that you love them, I for one don't believe in marriage as I think the sanctity of marriage has been destroyed by modern society anyway.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    No one has any control over how old they are, yet we deny people below a certain age the right to get married. No one sees that as discrimination against young people.
    Did you just not read the part of my post where I pointed out why that happens?

    I think it would only be discrimination if we didn't have civil partnerships. That would be because gay couples wouldn't be able to have any ceremony that they could formalize their union with a partner, and heterosexual couples could, and I think that would be unfair. As it stands, both heterosexual and homosexual couples are able to formalize their love and commitment to a partner.
    Gay people don't have equal opportunities to get married, and straight people don't have equal opportunities to get civilly partnered - this should be changed because it is against human rights of equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination (I know the current legislation doesn't open up civil partnerships - or it didn't last time I checked - but I think it should).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    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.
    What about couples who can't have or don't want children?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    What about couples who can't have or don't want children?
    They have the natural potential to procreate, or are biologically designed to do so, even if they are 'infertile'. In addition, if they adopt, a child will have a mother and father. That to me allows the child to feel normal, in the sense that the childs adopted parents are male and female, that which would naturally lead to a child. I would not want two fathers or two mothers. I would just feel confused, out of place ect, let alone the social trauma that would afflict me.

    This is my view, and i respect someone with a different view, though i would agree to disagree.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well yes, it's already been voted through the Commons
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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.