El Cid Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 'Can you think of any reasons why gay people shouldn't be able, or won't be able to get married?' Anything that harms or has a negative affect on marriage is not good. Things are still unsure from the link thay I posted. But there is a thought that marriage will surrer by extending it to other groups. Marriage is less important than it was, it may die out, it may change conciderably. Perhaps we have reached a point where we need to decide what marriage is for. Is it a religious matter, a legal matter, something about love or something about children; or a mixture of all. I cant see the UK suffering the trouble that the french have had, but it seems its quite an import issue - and the public need to discuss it, without calling people biggots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300; I dont think that equal rights had been even thought about back then. I am sure marriage has change since then, and it may change in the future. Whether it is centred around children, or is a right for everyone remains to be seen. In the time of Julius Caesar, marriage was a recognised ceremony, even if not by that name. In the time of Biblical Patriarchs, marriage was recognised under whatever language and writing system was used then. It was always an issue of the rights of the children; children of a king's concubine could not inherit his throne, only a child of his lawful wife,that is, a woman united to him in an accepted ceremonial. I understand that in some polygamous societies, there was distinction between children of a "wife" and those of a "concubine". It is unlikely that any children of James I & VI and George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) would have been allowed to inherit the British throne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I didn't ask you how many people oppose gay marriage did I. Look we can all throw numbers around to support our claims, that's easy, and not very clever. I asked you 'Can you think of any reasons why gay people shouldn't be able, or won't be able to get married?' All you've done is say 'x' % of people are opposed to it. That didn't answer the question, I asked for reasons why gay people shouldn't get married. What are the reasons 'x' amount of people are against it. A % of people being against it (and as I've already shown, polls are somewhat subjective) isn't in and of itself a reason. I also asked you 'Should those gay people with children be allowed to marry and the straight ones have to have a civil partnership?' You replied that most gay people don't have children and most straight people do - that's totally irrelevant to the question - the important thing is presented in the question itself, I'll highlight it for you and perhaps you could have another go at answering it. 'Many gay couples have children. Many straight couples don't. Should those gay ones with children be allowed to marry and the straight ones have to have a civil partnership?' So please try again, this time by actually answering the questions rather than trying to squirm out of them. You know as well as I do from experience that the people (who take part in these threads) who are against same-sex marriage are unable to explain themselves. Taken from this thread and also this thread, the most common "reasons" they give for not allowing same-sex marriage are... -1.Marriage is clearly not meant for gays, as they are different (eh?) -2.Gays can't reproduce (what does reproduction have to do with marriage?) -3.They already have civil partnerships, which are equal but different (which they aren't, but some people don't want to acknowledge this) -4.They will be imposing their beliefs on others (how so?) -5.There will be knock-on effects in society (like what?) So far nobody has put an explanation forward to back up any these opinions as an argument. There have been half-efforts made but when the holes are pointed out to them under scrutiny, the anti-gay marriage posters clam up or say things like "you have your answers, you just don't like them", or they just throw a tantrum. I see the "equal but different" rhetoric reared it's moronic head again with Harvey19's help. Just to remind those who try to cling to it... (from here) MrSmith What rights does a married couple have that civil partners do not have? This has been explained to you several times on the other thread. -They don't have the right to a religious marriage -They don't have the right to honestly call each other "husband" or "wife" -They don't have the right to join the "great institution of marriage" -The civil partner of a Knight, Baron or other honour gets no title of their own -They have the right to equality, but it is denied by the above In addition, as already explained to you previously, the more important issue is social and symbolic equality... I only touched on this briefly, but I think the social and symbolic aspect of having a different word for a same sex union than for an opposite sex union, is the most important issue. Back to the comparison of blacks on the back of the bus and civil partnerships, which some say cannot be fairly compared; -Gay man, can't marry his lover, he can have a civil partnership which is almost the same. He gets almost the same rights and experience. The difference is trivial, minute, so it doesn't matter. Equal but different. -Black man, allowed to sit on the second row of the middle seats, but not the first. His seat is only a few inches back from the white man's seat, he can see the same things, has the same quality of seat, the same ride experience. Equal but different, right? I mean the difference of a few inches is trivial, minute. Okay, now let's pretend for a minute that there is NO difference between a marriage and a civil partnership, only the name given to it. -Gay man has a civil partnership with his lover, exactly how he wants it, no problems, just as if they got married. It's equal, but different, right? Nobody can deny that, right? Now let's also pretend that black people never had to sit in a designated section, they were free to sit on any seat they wanted, the same seats as white people. The only difference was the name for it. -White man sits in a "seat" for his journey, then gets up and leaves. Black man sits down on the same seat, but because he is black it is not called a seat. While ever there is a black person using it, it must be referred to as a "place". The white man sits in his "seat" while the black man sits in his "place". Equal but different, right? No problems there then So do you think "equal but different" is okay? Would it be okay for black people to have to sit in a "place" while whites can sit in a "seat" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 You know as well as I do from experience that the people (who take part in these threads) who are against same-sex marriage are unable to explain themselves. I know, I know, but I always hold hope out that one day, just one day, someone might come on here who at least attempts to be honest instead of sidestepping the questions or giving purposefully cryptic answers. After all, if I didn't hold on to that faint glimmer of hope I would simply stop visiting the forum - and that would be no fun at all. ---------- Post added 30-05-2013 at 15:41 ---------- Anything that harms or has a negative affect on marriage is not good. Things are still unsure from the link thay I posted. But there is a thought that marriage will surrer by extending it to other groups[/Quote] What do you consider harming or having a negative affect? Two people in love getting married? Why is that in any way harmful or negative? Marriage is less important than it was, it may die out, it may change conciderably. Perhaps we have reached a point where we need to decide what marriage is for[/Quote] That's a reasonable discussion to have, it doesn't however have anything at all to do with gay people wanting to get married. Is it a religious matter, a legal matter, something about love or something about children; or a mixture of all[/Quote] Again, good questions to ask, so let's look at them, in fact I'll ask you (in addition you understand, not instead of my previous questions). What does marriage entail religiously in Britain? What does marriage entail legally in Britain? What does marriage entail regarding love and commitment in Britain? What does marriage entail regarding children in Britain? I'm sure when we investigate each question on its own we can come up with an amalgamated understanding containing all the questions. I cant see the UK suffering the trouble that the french have had, but it seems its quite an import issue - and the public need to discuss it, without calling people biggots. I've never called people bigots for being against gay marriage - but on an equal ground I've never received a reasonable argument against it, and when I push, as both you and Harvey have demonstrated avoidance tactics are the usual line of defence. So let's go into it, really, deeply, look at and analyse the arguments against gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Gay marriage shouldn't happen because the Churches don't want it It's got nothing to do with them. Problem sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Man and woman get wed, it really ought to be called by another name for same sex couples. Then everybody might be happy. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Man and woman get wed, it really ought to be called by another name for same sex couples. Then everybody might be happy. Angel. It should be called "you're not allowed to get married you big poof, now shut up". Different but equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 according to some feminists marriage has been the state recognition of the enslavement of women, they become the chattels & possessions of their master the husband; a truly evil institution and one we should all be working to abolish in its entirety, not to spread.they seem to have gone very quiet on this one:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 according to some feminists marriage has been the state recognition of the enslavement of women, they become the chattels & possessions of their master the husband; a truly evil institution and one we should all be working to abolish in its entirety, not to spread.they seem to have gone very quiet on this one:suspect: They've no reason to be quiet. In marraige women are regularly slapped around, beaten, raped and sometimes killed. I don't have the figures, but they are jaw dropping Peter Tatchell is quite right when he writes: "Marriage equality is now the focus of many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) campaigns worldwide. It is fast becoming the litmus test in the battle for equality. How ironic. At the very moment that heterosexual couples are deserting marriage in droves, lesbian and gay couples are rushing to embrace it. Straight partners are falling out of love with matrimony. Provisional statistics for England and Wales show that the number of marriages in 2009 was the lowest since they were first calculated in 1862. Far from weakening or undermining marriage, as homophobes claim, many same-sex couples seem hell-bent on shoring up an institution that is, for many heterosexuals, failing, discredited and irrelevant. While the push for same-sex marriage is an issue of equality, which I support, it also signifies the rising conservatism of the LGBT community and a loss of radical vision. It reeks of assimilationism and conformism with the straight status quo. As we celebrate gay pride in London this Saturday, with its calls for marriage equality, the sceptical, questioning attitudes of the early lesbian and gay liberation pioneers will be almost entirely absent. Marriage has a long history of sexism and patriarchy; being originally devised to ensure the male sexual control of women and the inheritance of property through the male line, from father to son. Even the language of marriage is misogynistic. An alternative meaning for the word husband is "to manage", which sums up the relationship between men and women in many marriages, past and present. Traditionally, the father of the bride gives away his daughter to her husband-to-be, symbolising the passing of women from one man to another. For all these reasons, I am not a great fan of marriage." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jul/01/same-sex-marriage-gay-straight-couples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Except of course that Peter Thatchell has his "facts" wrong. Marriage has a long history of sexism and patriarchy; being originally devised to ensure the male sexual control of women and the inheritance of property through the male line, from father to son. No. Marriage originated when mankind originated or very soon thereafter. As we celebrate gay pride Nothing to celebrate there. Doesn't pride come before a fall? For all these reasons, I am not a great fan of marriage No, he wouldn't be. But so what? That's merely his personal preference; and he's never actually been married anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.