Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[quisquose]

Not sure you can expect the millions of people to change there views on marriage just to suit a few people that can unite in the same way as a married couple but with a different name attached to it. Gay marriage is a new concept which doesn’t need to be called marriage to be equal to marriage.

 

I'm not expecting millions of people to change their views on marriage, their views can be whatever they want them to be. But there are millions of different views, and it's futile for all of those different views to lay claim on a word that has been in existence for as long as people have become married to each other, which is possibly as long as humanity itself.

 

You can have whatever view of marriage you want, I accept that. I also accept that others, including gay people, can have whatever view of marriage they want, as long as it fits within the basic notion that it is an intimate union between two or more people.

 

So who is being reasonable here? You want to refuse people access to a word even, never mind the legal right to call themselves married in the same way as everybody else. You want them to be less happy for what possible reason?

[DerbyTup]

I want to marry my dog / fish / toaster. When will this be possible?

 

If we can change the marriage laws, why not make them entirely all inclusive!

 

PS. I really do fancy my toaster!

 

then you should pop the question, not the toast.

[maxmaximus]

I'm not expecting millions of people to change their views on marriage, their views can be whatever they want them to be. But there are millions of different views, and it's futile for all of those different views to lay claim on a word that has been in existence for as long as people have become married to each other, which is possibly as long as humanity itself.

 

You can have whatever view of marriage you want, I accept that. I also accept that others, including gay people, can have whatever view of marriage they want, as long as it fits within the basic notion that it is an intimate union between two or more people.

 

So who is being reasonable here? You want to refuse people access to a word even, never mind the legal right to call themselves married in the same way as everybody else. You want them to be less happy for what possible reason?

 

No I don't and the word marriage is relatively new in terms of how long humans have existed.

[harvey19]

Maybe a point to cause clarification or more confusion in the same and equal but different debate.

In the army a soldier of the basic rank can be a private, trooper, gunner, signalman, guardsman, craftsman, ranger etc.

All are of an equal rank and status but are called by different titles.

The different titles refer to their different regiment or corps in which they could be employed in the same capacity.

[maxmaximus]

Maybe a point to cause clarification or more confusion in the same and equal but different debate.

In the army a soldier of the basic rank can be a private, trooper, gunner, signalman, guardsman, craftsman, ranger etc.

All are of an equal rank and status but are called by different titles.

The different titles refer to their different regiment or corps in which they could be employed in the same capacity.

 

That’s like men and women, equal but different and we wouldn’t want to call all humans men would we.

[esme]

Why do you need to call them by the same name ?

 

Because they are the same thing, calling them by different names introduces an unnecessary distinction between the two.

 

No one needs to know if a married couple is same sex or not, yet this can be determined just by reading words on a page.

 

Sexual orientation is not an important distinction yet on every form, such as a job application, where marital status is queried members of same sex couples are required to declare their sexual orientation by saying they are in a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

 

Having two names for the same thing is discriminatory, unnecessary and only of use to people who wish to be able to tell the two unions apart without actually meeting the people involved.

 

That's why I need to call them by the same name.

[maxmaximus]

Because they are the same thing, calling them by different names introduces an unnecessary distinction between the two.

 

No one needs to know if a married couple is same sex or not, yet this can be determined just by reading words on a page.

 

Sexual orientation is not an important distinction yet on every form, such as a job application, where marital status is queried members of same sex couples are required to declare their sexual orientation by saying they are in a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

 

Having two names for the same thing is discriminatory, unnecessary and only of use to people who wish to be able to tell the two unions apart without actually meeting the people involved.

 

That's why I need to call them by the same name.

 

Good point and one way to solve that dilemma would be to allow heterosexuals to have a civil partnership.

[lil-minx92]

Because they are the same thing, calling them by different names introduces an unnecessary distinction between the two.

 

No one needs to know if a married couple is same sex or not, yet this can be determined just by reading words on a page.

 

Sexual orientation is not an important distinction yet on every form, such as a job application, where marital status is queried members of same sex couples are required to declare their sexual orientation by saying they are in a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

Having two names for the same thing is discriminatory, unnecessary and only of use to people who wish to be able to tell the two unions apart without actually meeting the people involved.

 

That's why I need to call them by the same name.

 

I can understand the problem with that. Although of course, as it stands the hetrosexual is also declaring their sexuality in ticking the married box. The answer therefore is to do away with all the boxes.

[quisquose]

Maybe a point to cause clarification or more confusion in the same and equal but different debate.

In the army a soldier of the basic rank can be a private, trooper, gunner, signalman, guardsman, craftsman, ranger etc.

All are of an equal rank and status but are called by different titles.

The different titles refer to their different regiment or corps in which they could be employed in the same capacity.

 

I can think of reasons why somebody might reasonably want to know if somebody is a signalman or a gunner.

 

In light of esme's excellent post just above, what possible reason can you think of why you might need to know if somebody is married or in a civil partnership?

[esme]

Im sure you dont mean the two groups of people's plights were/are the same.

Oh I intended the comparison.

 

Discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual orientation is no different from discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their gender or their ability or even their religion.

 

"You people, you go and have this ceremony which we aren't going to allow you to call a marriage over there somewhere subject to this list of restrictions"

 

You reckon this isn't discriminatory ?