[Closed] Gay Marriage

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Yes, but within a legal and ethical framework. It's also your duty to uphold the rights of all your constituants and not favour one group over another, if doing so impinges on the freedom and rights of others.

Many of the "against" campaign have their own reasons, and while I don't agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as "homophobic".

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it's not homophobia, what is it?

Simple solution would be to remove the privilege of all religious institutions to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and require that all marriages can only be fully legal if performed in a civil non-denominational secular 'ceremony'. By all means, get 'married' in a church etc, but that would have no legal weight. You'd still need to register the marriage at a civil level. This would equalise all marriages under law. Then, the Church of whatever can be free to hold ceremonies for whomever they choose, but everyone would still have the right to be 'maried'.

Cougar - Moderator

People are held equal, or they aren't. It's a fairly straight forward definition, n'est-ce pas? Not much wiggle room.

Is that your universal assumption for mankind ... I mean ... you know what I mean the little crawling thing?

So does that mean if they do not comply with your definition, you have the right to liberate their mind? i.e. help them understand and educate them in your "image"?

AdamW - Member

Chewkw: you are Kaesae and I claim my £5!

Are you trying to downgrade the status of Dear Leader?

Junkyard - lazarus

Isn't that similar to someone trying to tell someone else how to think?

What telling them how to act is telling them how to think? we make people think murder is wrong raoe is wrong - it is basically what laws do tell people right from wrong and impose it on the
Yes I do think it is very similar but what in earth is your point?

In certain countries they cut off the head of murders or they hang drug traffickers is that wrong? You might call that state murder ... I like the words "state murder" big word that ... 😀

My point is that your view is yours but when you try to educate others in your view aren't you like the guy who says everyone is created in my image? 🙄

JY, Grum and Donk - do we not agree on the ends, if not the means?

I was having an easy dig at the church, risk of swerving the thread sorry, yes it sounds like a reasonable compromise to me but I'm not religious.

Whether the church invented the word marriage (monogamy was around long before most current religions I believe) and the state pinched it, I'm not sure but either way it's not definitively religious anymore. Religions AFAIK aren't trying to claw back civil marriage and claim them null and void, they aren't demonstrating outside registry offices complaining about a couple of divorcees getting remarried citing it shouldn't be allowed as it's against god's laws. They're just trying to prevent a minority getting the same benefit that others have.

Do you reckon you'd be allowed to take over a disused church, and get a marriage license for civil ceremonies?

definitley a money earner, have you seen the cost of weddings. Oh yes you will have done 😉
Isn't there a raft of limitations on what you can do with old churches?
Wonder if you'd have trouble with a new build that looked just like a church but did civil weddings, some religion claiming you're doing counterfeit church weddings? 🙂

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn't stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons.

In addition to the rather hateful homophobia that some MPs have spouted, there has also been an inordinate amount of religious privilige in the debate has been astonishing. Having an MP who is heavily involved with the CofE complaining that it might end up with Pagan weddings was ridiculous. Why he thinks christianity is worthy of more respect than paganism is frankly beyond me.

In a free society you have to respect someone elses right to be wrong. I respect the rights of UKIP voters to hold their political views; it doesn't stop them being a bunch of misguided, racist, swivel eyed loons

Yes, you (and I) respect the RIGHT for them to have a "misguided, racist, swivel eyed" view. That doesn't mean you respect the view itself.

In the UK, it wasn’t until 1753 that a wedding [i]had[/i] to be held in a religious setting in order to be legally valid. Civil weddings were re-introduced in 1836.

I wonder if people complained back then that allowing civil, non-religious weddings would devalue the entire institution? The Church of England in particular has no right to grumble, it was set up by a man just so he could a) divorce his first wife, b) remarry five times and c) executed one of his wives. I think that takes a few more liberties with what I consider to be the value of marriage (lifelong commitment to a partner) than teh gays.

Could be a good money-spinner I reckon

This is the kind of enterprise culture from a striver that can rescue us all from this mess

Whats the expression, FTFY?

Rolls eyes. My view of marriage is if you want to get married you can. Their view is it is up to them to decide if you can get married. What exactly am I imposing here beyond the right to choose for yourself? As far as I can see only the religious are telling others what they can and cannot do. You are bright enough to see the distinction in positions so either engage or dont engage but repetition is pointless.. Obviously when two groups want differing things you will favour one side and I choose the side of equality and letting folk do as they please as long as it does not affect others. You seem to choose what exactly?

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

Pretty sure he stated that he respected the views of those who disagreed with him - he did not say he respects those who are homophobic.

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it's not homophobia, what is it?

Well you're asking me to expand on viewpoints and arguments that I don't believe, but okay...

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don't think this will happen but worry that it somehow "dilutes" the definition of "marriage" (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other - they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

I'm sure someone could explain some of the other arguments against if you were really interested.

So much of this is a joke,

I personally don't think churches/businesses should be forced into marrying anyone the don't want to, irrelevant of sexual orientation, religion etc. But the institute of marriage should be open.

I know a few gay guys who's main comment on the CofE is Why would anyone want to get married somewhere that they don't feel welcome or have any interest in. I think that's a fair point, look at how many straight couples who get married in hotels etc.

On the other hand, I have a gay friends who's very much CofE and just views their official position as being out of touch with much of the membership and he's working to change it from within.

they argue that marriage is for procreation and for children so therefore you need to be different genders
It denies a child a father and a mother
The majority have rights - ie we can impose on minorities
Slippery slope - what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike
Some ill defined human nature /nature/natural order of things is for marriage and between genders

They are all pretty weak tbh and not my view

I think the law on gay marriage should be you don't have to marry a gay person if you don't want to

Courtesy of @MooseAllain on that twitterer

In the majority of civilisations, for as long as we have evidence, marriage has [b]not[/b] been between one man and one woman, exclusively for the procreation of children.

It's actually quite a modern idea - the majority of societies throughout history have been a lot more flexible. 😀

Same sex/gender marriage is as old as the idea of marriage itself.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase 'I'm not a racist, but.....'.
They don't actually want people to be happy.
They're just scared & insecure.

Happiness is massively underated.

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don't think this will happen but worry that it somehow "dilutes" the definition of "marriage" (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other - they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

Homophobia then.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

So why aren't they making a fuss about 'straight' marriages of convenience then? Bogus argument.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase 'I'm not a racist, but.....'.
They don't actually want people to be happy.
They're just scared & insecure.

It's all about power and control. Certain organisations (like the CofE) want to retain as much societal control as possible, to serve their own ends. This is ultimately divisive, unjust and against any notion of true equality. Why should those who choose (for, unlike a person's sexuality, their religion is a choice) to follow a particular religion get to dictate what everyone else can and cannot do?

Slippery slope - what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike

What a load of bollocks.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

You know this argument puzzles me because as far as I can tell this option already exists, provided the flatmates are of different genders so I can't see the problem with extending it to flatmates of the same gender.

the pink pew.

Just cleaning the tea off my keyboard. Defo favourite phrase of the week.

allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes

Actually, this is the bit that really boiled my wee when they did the fudge over the civil partnership. I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business. It is absolutely commonplace to see people sharing property and signing up to legally binding agreements, but there isn't any real legal basis for it, so it always ends up being one or other being liable for whatever it is. Most especially now that most people have figured out that the religious structures are an utter crock and don't bother with getting married. Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO. The current debate is the right one for them IMHO and generally I'm in favour of it.

Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO.

The debate was always about about allowing a union[ marriage or civil partnership] between same sex people they never changed it -it was not a campaign to allow your "healthy idea" that got stolen by gays

As far as I can see only the religious are telling others what they can and cannot do.

is that right? Of those opposing this are any of them atheists who think homosexuality is just a bit "ewww" for whatever reason? I'm assuming most opponents are atleast nominally CoE/catholic/whatever (in the special way the UK seem to have of self identifying as religious without ever darkening the door of a place of worship or indeed following any of the rules)
Genuine question I have no idea.

There must be an atheist somewhere opposing this but the vocal opposition is religious. It is still a deep irony that they want to tell others what to do and when we say they cannot we are "discriminating"

I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business

been mentioned on here by several people, thinking about it it's possibly not a bad shout, tho I think there would be a lot of opposition. Too much scope for abuse? Of course it opens the argument of why should a couple "in love" qualify for special legal status when a platonic couple cannot - inequality?

Homophobia then.

🙄 No, not really.

Some religions don't eat pork. That doesn't mean they are swinophobic.

(You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at. I'd suggest that coaxing other people to recite arguments that they themselves don't believe in just to give you someone to shout at is perhaps not the right answer)

You know this argument puzzles me..

Indeed - it is a fairly crap argument. I guess they would argue that just because a loophole already exists doesn't mean the next step should be allow better access to that loophole.

But I'm with Berm Bandit there. Why shouldn't platonic relationships be able to benefit in the same was a married partners. In fact, why should married people get [i]any[/i] special benefits?

Junkyard - lazarus
so either engage or dont engage

Sorry, did I miss the bit where you have become the arbiter on who can and cannot engage? The same yesterday with telling another poster that, "no one agrees or finds you funny"? Has this become JYWorld? What happened to tolerance - or is the underlying intolerance of alternative views becoming exposed?

There really is no need for "Rolls eyes...you are bright enough....engage or dont engage...you seem to chose what exactly." We both agree that gay people shpuld not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. We appear to disagree on how to deal with those who disagree with this point. As made clear, I will chose to disagree but be happy to let them have their views if that is OK with you. And to be clear, for that reason I will repeat that the current legislation appears to get the balance broadly correct in allowing respect and tolerance for different views. So for that, at least, well done Cameron.

SS - good point {see grum, its not me "just guessing!"]

GrahamS - Member
(You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at. I'd suggest that coaxing other people to recite arguments that they themselves don't believe in just to give you someone to shout at is perhaps not the right answer)

+1

No, not really.

So what is it then, that forms a rational basis for the objection to Gay marriage, if not homophobia? If the principle of Occam's Razor is applied, I can't see anything but homophobia ultimately, personally. The argument about 'procreation' is null and void as it's not an obligation under religion or law to do so. So stripped right down, the argument against comes back to homophobia.

You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at

Not really; I'm just challenging anyone who believes there is a justification to oppose the right of Gay people (or indeed anyone) to get married and have equal rights in society, to come forward and do so. So far, no-one has. Ergo, we in a so-called 'civilized' society shouldn't even be having this debate.

THM you do a fair bit of claiming that people are playing you and not the ball- what would you call this?
Still your consistency is one of your many charms

or is the underlying intolerance of alternative views becoming exposed?

You really miss TJ to goad and react dont you

Chewkw: Apologies.

After keeping hearing you talk about 'Dear Leader' (I guess that's David Cameron? Very odd phrase) I amend my comment:

You are Nigel Farage, and I claim my £5!

JY - you are doing the goading and I am asking you to stop. Simple and consistent. No more reaction from this end required as to coin a phrase, "you are bright enough".

😀
I am not TJ but nice try

So what is it then, that forms a rational basis for the objection to Gay marriage, if not homophobia?

Why does it have to be rational? Plenty of religious beliefs aren't [i]rational[/i] (see pork) - that doesn't make it phobic.

If the principle of Occam's Razor is applied, I can't see anything but homophobia ultimately, personally.

Well if you apply Occam's Razor then anyone who isn't actually a practising homosexual [i]must[/i] be homophobic - since they are dismissing it as an option 😆

anyone who isn't actually a practising homosexual must be homophobic -

So how the hell do you practice being Homosexual,with a mirror lots of pink and mens fitness magazine on the bed.

Then what sort of award do you get if you qualify.

Edited. Can't be bothered getting into a pointless argument.

Perfectly 'rational' therefore to considerpork an 'unclean' meat andto forbid it's consumption

Doesn't exactly apply in today's society though does it?

See also: no women allowed in when they are on the blob, no cutting your beard, no fish on a Sunday, no foreskins allowed, etc etc etc

Religions are full of [i]irrational[/i] beliefs and rules - some of which may have once been rational and some of which are just there because their chosen deity "said so" (the most irrational belief of all).

So it is probably the wrong place to look for rationality. That doesn't mean they are homophobic though.

So one's sexuality is an 'option' now, is it? What a stupid thing to say.

Of course it is stupid - that was rather my point!

The fact that I don't find men attractive is [i]not[/i] rational. It's just the way I am. That doesn't make me a homophobe.

Y'see?

Edited. Can't be bothered getting into a pointless argument.

Fair enough. But you came here obviously spoiling for one.

I'm glad to have sated your lust 😉

AdamW - Member

Chewkw: Apologies.

After keeping hearing you talk about 'Dear Leader' (I guess that's David Cameron? Very odd phrase) I amend my comment:

You are Nigel Farage, and I claim my £5!

You shall not claim £5 ! (in the tone of LOTR ... you shall not pass ...)

Are you trying to downgrade Dear Leader to maggots kind?

The status of Dear Leader is even higher than Vlad the Impaler.

🙄 <- not the one as described by some maggots as swivel-eyed loons.

The debate was always about about allowing a union[ marriage or civil partnership] between same sex people they never changed it -it was not a campaign to allow your "healthy idea" that got stolen by gays

What I actually said was that the civil partnership thing was a fudge and not the real issue, it was actually about "gay marriage" which is where we are now. Thus the very sensible idea of being able to form a legal entity to deal with joint ownership of property became waylaid by that argument.

i.e. civil partnership is in reality a non gender issue of some value, which was used by the politicos to fudge the larger issue of gay marriage, which is where we are, (quite rightly IMHO), now.

So thank you very much for putting me right, but please keep your accusations of homophobia to yourself.

been mentioned on here by several people, thinking about it it's possibly not a bad shout, tho I think there would be a lot of opposition. Too much scope for abuse?

But I'm with Berm Bandit there. Why shouldn't platonic relationships be able to benefit in the same was a married partners. In fact, why should married people get any special benefits?

I’m not sure how this would achieve special benefit or could be abused. The point is simple. There is no easy civil legal form for the joint ownership of property without being married. The concept of a civil partnership should IMHO be about two or more people forming an agreement to take joint responsibility in law for something or other, no more, no less. So for example a student let. Generally the agreements will be between one individual and the owner, not with the complete group. If there is a problem the owner goes after the lead name, not the entire group. It’s then down to the lead name to sort it out with the members of the group. If you try to buy a house likewise, generally there will be a lead name on the documents. The idea is that in a partnership you are jointly and severally liable for whatever it might be. This is not a one way transaction though, as it makes it easier and more equitable for people to enter into a project together. That is all, there are no undertones to it. As I say the problem is the concept has been used for something that it shouldn’t be, and as can clearly be seen can’t be discussed without getting into ludicrous accusations.

I could be wrong, I have scanned it quite quickly, but I find it most amusing that this topic has so far run for 7 PAGES without any fundamental differences in opinion. Yeah there has been some discussions on semantics, but I have failed to spot a single poster who has come out and put across an honestly held argument opposing gay marriage. (I'm actually somewhat reassured, yet disappointed at the same time).

What IS amusingly ironic, is that some of the earliest points made were along the lines of 'its obviously the right thing to happen; why waste the time debating it...' 😀

v8ninety - Member

I could be wrong, I have scanned it quite quickly, but I find it most amusing that this topic has so far run for 7 PAGES without any fundamental differences in opinion. Yeah there has been some discussions on semantics, but I have failed to spot a single poster who has come out and put across an honestly held argument opposing gay marriage. (I'm actually somewhat reassured, yet disappointed at the same time).

What IS amusingly ironic, is that some of the earliest points made were along the lines of 'its obviously the right thing to happen; why waste the time debating it...'

Yup.

The last time we did this, the swivel eyed religious loons(tm) were out in force.

They'll be polishing their warheads (sic) & praying for out souls as we speak.

...praying for out souls...

I see what you did there. 😉

Has anyone bothered to ask the old bloke who lives in Rome for his opinion, and no matter what his opinion, all his brainwshed followers will obey.

Doesn't exactly apply in today's society though does it?

Of course it does. How ignorant. For example, millions of Muslims live in areas with poor sanitation, lack of electricity for refrigerations, an where the production and storage of pork wouldn't be advisable on health grounds. So, still rather relveant to an awful lot of people.

Religions are full of irrational beliefs and rules - some of which may have once been rational and some of which are just there because their chosen deity "said so" (the most irrational belief of all).

So it is probably the wrong place to look for rationality. That doesn't mean they are homophobic though.

Your first point is correct; there's a load of nonsense wrapped up in religion (as well as plenty of good stuff). But certainly the main Abrahamic religions do forbid homosexuality, with no historical or current justification. Ergo, they are inherently homophobic. And anyone using such religious doctrine to oppose Gay marriage is espousing homophobic ideology.

Fair enough. But you came here obviously spoiling for one.

Seems that I'm simply correcting your mistakes, is all.

But certainly the main Abrahamic religions do forbid homosexuality, with no historical or current justification.

IIRC they all have [i]plenty[/i] of justifications why they regard homosexuality as "bad".

Including, but not limited to, the good old [i]"the invisible sky fairy said so"[/i] one.

Ergo, they are inherently homophobic.

No, sorry, but someone can regard homosexuality as a sin without being a homophobe.

Just like they can regard eating pork as a sin without being a swinophobe.

Or the may regard adultery as a sin, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have an irrational hatred of adulterers.

That's the whole [i]"hate the sin not the sinner"[/i] thing.

As I say, it's not a viewpoint that I agree with, or have anything in common with. Nor is it one that I wish to defend any further, even as a [s]Devil's[/s] [i]Saint's[/i] Advocate.

But I do think that you greatly diminish your own argument by pointing a great big "Homophobia" foam-finger at anyone that disagrees, rather than listening to their concerns.

(also you are clearly still spoiling for an argument amongst people who largely agree with you - so I'm out)

IIRC they all have plenty of justifications why they regard homosexuality as "bad".

They may think they do. The law states otherwise:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work
in education
as a consumer
when using public services
when buying or renting property
as a member or guest of a private club or association
You are legally protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.

You’re also protected from discrimination if:

you’re associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, eg a family member or friend
you’ve complained about discrimination or supported someone else’s claim

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination

I notice religious organisations appear to be missing from places where your rights are protected.

No, sorry, but someone can regard homosexuality as a sin without being a homophobe.

So, if they are prejudiced against homosexuals, they aren't homophobic? Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. Homosexuality is a fact. Beleiving homosexuality is a 'sin' is a fiction.

But I do think that you greatly diminish your own argument by pointing a great big "Homophobia" foam-finger at anyone that disagrees, rather than listening to their concerns.

What 'concerns' are these? I've yet to hear anything that makes any real sense.

Or the may regard adultery as a sin, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have an irrational hatred of adulterers.

Not quite the same though, is it? Adultery is a choice that, although a consenting act between two people, is a betrayal that causes considerable emotional harm to a third. Homosexuality is an innate part of a person that they're born with, that in itself harms no-one.

A more accurate analogy would probably be, "One might think of black people as being less than white people, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have an irrational hatred of black people". Which is plainly cobblers.