[Closed] I've always liked the idea of gay marriage and this why....

Is this you coming out of the closet?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

It was the obvious response Julian!

I hope I'm not coming out....my wife would be most upset.

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

You're a bloody idiot sometimes TJ.

We're talking about marriage for crying out loud. Of course it's based on sentimentality otherwise what's the point?

People love each and want to get married. That's the whole ball game.

The equality issue is not unimportant, but it's the effect that it has on peoples' lives that really makes this subject come alive.

Geeteee - no

I am an idoit for having a diffent view to you?

I have a view that is that laws should be made on a rational basis. let mawkish sentimentality cloud the issues and you get bad law. To me that says a lot about how the US gets such bad law -by letting the heart rule the head

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law

Seriously? 😯

Looks like this attempt is drifting even quicker than the first one

Yes

I've always liked the idea of gay marriage and this why....

Can't say it appeals to me

What business is it of the state to get involved in anyone's relationships, gay or straight, with their bogus unenforceable marriage contracts?

I have a view that is that laws should be made on a rational basis.

•It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
•It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down
•Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned
•In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants
•The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen
•It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing
•It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour (3%)

yes TJ when getting married you should pay no attention to your feelings..i am sure we all sat down did a pros and cons list and then a risk benefit analysis and then decided to get married or not...well anything else would be mawkish sentimentality obviously and if there is one area where you should pay no heed to your heart I am sure we all agree it is in whom you should marry.

Good call

Are you competing for al's BS of the week thread?

I am an idoit for having a diffent view to you?

No because I am 99.9% sure that you are in favour of gay marriage as well and if you want that as an outcome here, there, wherever, then mawkish sentimentality is what gets it done.

You don't win election, change the world or make people think differently by being rational and you don't change people's minds without changing their hearts first.

That's why I think you're being a bloody idiot - not because you disagree with me (I've said it before and I will say it again, I love your ideas even if I don't always agree with them!)

I think STW needs a new law. It should state that everytime someone posts on a thread it should be preceded by "in my opinion". I think that would save us a whole lot of hassle.

In my opinion there was nothing mawkish about that speech. Sentimental yes, but totally sincere with it. She strikes a good balance between heart and head and I'm sure more people would take an interest in politics if there were more politicians like that.

I'm kind of with TJ on this, why should marriage have anything to do with the state or the law, gay or not? It's an agreement between two people, hopefully made for loving reasons but sometimes not, but it shouldn't be recognised in law or idolised by society as anything other than that.

Junkyard - you can be as sentimental as you like when getting married - however[i] making laws[/i] on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

See, I agree with TJ on that too.

I'm kind of with TJ on this, why should marriage have anything to do with the state or the law, gay or not?

OK, I can see your point but it does sound like you're saying we should abolish marriage altogether, at least in its current form. You would just end up with something that two people agree informally with each other. Is that what you're advocating?

If two people are in love and want to get married, I don't think its really up to anybody but them.

I could be way off here since I've not followed the back story, but isn't the issue that the law does NOT allow gay marriage to happen and that is what they want to overturn?

WHat TJ/IHN seem to be saying for is nothing to do with gay/straight, simply that marriage has no place in law. That's another debate entirely.

I'm with TJ too
Where possible the emotion needs to be kept out of law making

re the VT: She's goes on about twice as long as I'm prepared to listen to it TBH

however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

OK let me give a scenario and tell me what you think about it.

Let's say that as a result of that speech in the clip above, enough people in the House feel moved to vote in favour of gay marriage. Let's say that they hear those words and they realise that the experience of an individual, in love with another individual, is all that matters and on that basis who are they to deny the union of marriage.

So the law gets passed and (it being a state not a federal issue notwithstanding) the USA now allows and recognises gay marriage.

Is that a good, bad or indifferent outcomes (Oh and feel free to take a completely different perspective, I'm genuinely interested).

I think the best basis for making law is when it literally could be a childs face next time!

Like the dangerous dogs act

How about keeping laws on the basis of homophobia. Because thats what it seems to me. One law for straight, one for gay.

stilltortoise - no i am saying laws need to be made rationally not on the basis of emotion

geetee - that would be a good outcome from a bad process and I would rather the process was robust and good so as to get good law in all circumstances

TJ how about

'most laws need to be made on a rational basis but some laws are by their nature deeply emotive and it would be impossible and in many cases undesirable to keep the emotion out'.

To what extent could you agree with that statement?

Just leave marriage as a rite/ritual/sacrament of religions, where it came from. The state doesn't do or legally recognise a version of communion, bar mitzvah, dastaar bhandi or deathbed ceremonies, so why marriage? Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

[i]you're saying we should abolish marriage altogether, at least in its current form.[/i]

Not at all.

[i]WHat TJ/IHN seem to be saying for is nothing to do with gay/straight, simply that marriage has no place in law[/i]

[i]If two people are in love and want to get married, I don't think its really up to anybody but them.[/i]

This is what I mean.

However, given that the state does have to give permission for one type of person to marry another, then they should allow gay people to marry. If that's more likely 'cos of the lady's speech (which I haven't watched cos I'm at work) then good on her.

I'm really confused now.

Are the gayers allowed to get wed or what?

Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

since I turned 50 the NHS seems particularly interested in mine 😯

Fair enough TJ. That's not how I'd read it. I still maintain that there is room for heart/emotion when campaigning for changes in the law. Do you think Pankhurst was all head and no heart?

The gay marriage issue is interesting since for many there is NO rational reason why gay people should not have the same rights in marriage as straight people. If the head argument is nullified, where do you turn?

Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

That's great. But when one of you dies it's going to be very messy.

The simple fact is that the most valuable aspect of marriage (or civil union) is that it is recognised as binding by the state. That recognition, which cannot easily be undone, is why marriage is both a sentimental and a rational engagement.

What I mean is, making a commitment to your partner is one thing, standing up and saying to everyone else, formally, and with a binding contract to it, is another. I am not saying that everyone needs or should make that extra degree of commitment, but I am saying that for a lot of people, it's that very public statement that makes it special.

[i]Are the gayers allowed to get wed or what?[/i]

Sort of. Would you like to feel my ring on your finger? 😉

Mods - it's a joke, I'm not homophobic, it's not even a homophobic joke...

Conversely, while having no desire to get married, we'd probably be up for a civil partnership, as it would be a heck of a lot easier for contractual, next of kin issues, parental responsibility and inheritance planning than cohabitation. That's not an option for us because of our sexuality.

😆

Rational law - Costs £35k a year to keep a convicted muderer in jail per year. 40 years = £1,400,000. Rational solution - execute him.

Emotional law - Executing is wrone morally. Morals being part of our human emotional baggage, therefore emotional law is jail for life and no executing.

geetee1972 - Member

TJ how about

'most laws need to be made on a rational basis but some laws are by their nature deeply emotive and it would be impossible and in many cases undesirable to keep the emotion out'.

To what extent could you agree with that statement?

Disagree 100%

[i]The simple fact is that the most valuable aspect of marriage (or civil union) is that it is recognised as binding by the state. [/i]

Surely the most valuable aspect of a marriage is the loving bond between two people, who shouldn't really give a to$$ whhat the state, or anyone else thinks?

[i]That's not an option for us because of our sexuality. [/i]

Really? Not wishing to get personal, but why? Or are you not in the UK?

The only valuable thing is the loving bond between [s]two [/s]as many people as want it, free to move on without impediment when one or more of them gets to be too much of a dick.

Surely the most valuable aspect of a marriage is the loving bond between two people, who shouldn't really give a to$$ whhat the state, or anyone else thinks?

I agree with that to some degree and for sure there are people for whom that is 100% true but I find it quite an insular perspective; we're not hermits after all, we are part of something.

I think it's hard for humans to achieve that degree of self confidence. Most peoples' natural inclination is to be accepted by their peers and society in general.

IHN - civil partnerships are only available for gay folk.

Let's not get into semantics again. Civil marriage and civil union, in my view they're the same thing that differ by virtue of one word and absolutely no material difference to the outcome.

Disagree 100%

I wouldn't have pegged you as an 'absolutist' TJ; I thought you would have allowed 1% because nothing is 100% certain. I am almost sure of this.

Good on her.

Would have been a better if her daughter wasn't a lesbian and she wanted to have a wedding for her as some people will see that as a vested interest and use it to pick it apart but her argument is completely valid to me.

Yeah, but as Maggie so succinctly put it, there is a difference between society and the state.

I fully understand the desire to stand up in front of all one's peers and say "I love this person (or indeed these people I suppose) and I'm going to love him/her/them for the rest of my life". I've done it. I also recognise the desire for that relationship to be recognised by your peers and wider society as particularly 'special'.

However, it should not confer and particular rights, or indeed restrictions, in law, and one should be able to do it with whomever they like.

It's just not the state's business.

I am an idiot for having a different view to you?

The TJ standard response rears its head again.

You're not an idiot for having a different view. Just an idiot.

Surely if people were to base laws on emotional basis then ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits would be allowed to have proper weddings, not just civil partnerships. And quite right too.

[img] [/img]

Aaaawwwwwwwww bless 😀

Really? Not wishing to get personal, but why? Or are you not in the UK?

In UK. Straight couple. Want nothing to do with religion, seeing marriage as a sacrament within religion, and a registry office version as just a sad shadow of that. It's a bit hypocritical, I know, to then say that we'd opt for civil partnership, and also a bit of a slap to those who see CP exactly as a marriage. I believe if marriage exists, anyone should be free to give it a go. It would purely be a pragmatic decision for us, saving on wills, registration of parental authority, IHT issues and others. The document/day out(can you do it online?) wouldn't mean anything to me, neither would marriage if we chose that route. As it is, we just deal with the paperwork.

If I get married in a registry office, you know, not in the eyes of god, allah, vishnu, jebus etc... isn't that basically a civil partnership?

Ah, gotcha. You're right, the fact that hetero couples can only get married and homo couples can only have CP's is ridiculous.

It comes back to my point that none of it should have any basis, rights or restrictions in law.

Agreed, the two tier/exclusivity of names for what is basically the same thing is discriminatory.

isn't that basically a civil partnership?

Well I would think so; they're unbelievably strict about keeping any reference to any kind of religion out of registry offices.

I know a lot of people still think that because the word marriage is involved therefore it something religious associated with it. I don't know where that comes from though, perhaps just the use of the word?

However, it should not confer and particular rights, or indeed restrictions, in law, and one should be able to do it with whomever they like.

INH I'm not sure why that causes you a problem and I don't think I've understood what your argument is or what you're unhappy about?

They are your rights that you subscribe to voluntarily no one forcibly confers them on anyone. If you want them they are there for you, if you don't then you don't have to get married. But you can't confer the right of kin without there being a means to back it up, hence marriage is a legally binding contract.

Agreed, the two tier/exclusivity of names for what is basically [s]the same thing is discriminatory[/s] what allows us to get around the thorny issue of forcing the church to undertake something its not comfortable with, even if we don't agree with the church and think its anachronistic, nevertheless, there are people who hold views different to ours and we shouldn't prejudice against them just because we don't agree with them.

FIFY

That vidoe wasn't that sentimental. She supports gay marriage and thought it was cruel to deny it. Pretty straightforward to me.

Funny, after the last time we did this, I realised I'm baptised, and I'll bet they'd be happy to bury me, shame about the one in the middle. 🙄

TandemJeremy - Member
Junkyard - you can be as sentimental as you like when getting married - however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

Surely a lot of laws are based on emotion, like caring for the undertrodden, being fair, allowing people human rights etc. Treating people with dignity and respect. It is allegedly our human emotion that seperates from other species, so lets use it wisely.

I suppose my main point is that state should not be able to say who can and cannot get married. It's just not their business.

By extension, I think that it should not bring with it any particular rights because these too denote that the state somehow 'approves' of the union and, again, it's none of their business.

My first thought on watching the video was that it is refreshing to see a politician, especially an American, talking honestly and presumably from the heart.

I find some of the macho posturing posts ie. laws should only be made on a rational basis, frankly ludicrous and quite possibly sexist. The speaker appeared to be rational AND emotional and I would rather have someone like that with strong principals and views than your typical vote catching politician.

Good on her, I used to be really intolerant.............but I'm not now.

making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

So you'll be supporting us in the proposed repeal of the Hunting act then TJ? 😆

Hows about the pistol ban? can us "violent fantasists" get that one repealed as well? 😉

By extension, I think that it should not bring with it any particular rights because these too denote that the state somehow 'approves' of the union and, again, it's none of their business.

OK I think I get it now.

I think that the state's relationship with the contract of marriage is that it '[i]approves it[/i]' rather than 'it approves [i]of [/i]it' .

It's a very subtle difference. Approving it, the state says we accept the commitment you've made to each other and we agree to stand by the legal commitment (and the rights to each party) that this agreement confers.

Whereas by 'approving of it' the state would be saying marriage is something that is better than something else/preferable to non-union etc.

I agree with you 100% that the state should not dictate who can and can't marry, within reason (i.e. you have to be an adult, you have to able to consent to it voluntarily, you can't do it with more than one person).

yeah americans are awesome oo-raa!

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9073459/US-Marines-posed-with-banner-of-Nazi-SS.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9073459/US-Marines-posed-with-banner-of-Nazi-SS.html[/url]

Kimbers?!?!? is that real??

isn't that a nazi thing or something?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the subtle differences 🙂

[i] legal commitment (and the rights to each party) that this agreement confers. [/i]

It shouldn't be a legal commitment and it should confer no rights, because this means that non-married people have less rights, and why should they? Marriage should be nothing to do with the state, as should not being married.

[i]you can't do it with more than one person[/i]

as long as all parties agree, why not?

however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

I thought you would have allowed 1% because nothing is 100% certain. I am almost sure of this.

Seems to me that for laws like this it's the issue of personal freedom vs. whether the state approves (including influence by church and secular homophobia).

The difference to the individuals effected, which cannot not contain an emotional reaction to no longer being discriminated against, is wholly valid.

I can't say I've researched/wiki'd/thought about it extensively tho.

Just wondering out loud, can you be a civil partner polygamist? If not why not? AFAIK it's only certain religions that say 1man 1 woman.

What do other "marry who you want" people think of polygamy?

[i]What do other "marry who you want" people think of polygamy?[/i]

To quote myself:

[i]as long as all parties agree, why not?[/i]

Admittedly, many of, the current legal rights and recognitions that come with marriage only make sense on a 1-1 basis, but, as I've said, they shouldn't be there anyway.

emsz - Member
Kimbers?!?!? is that real??

isn't that a nazi thing or something?

The Nazis were a superstitious bunch and a lot of their symbology comes from ancient runes. The SS symbol is actually 2 'sig' runes.

Black people took back a word that society used to shun them, why can't the rest of the world take back ancient symbols that pre-date the massacres of the second world war by thousands of years.

swastika has and comntinues to be used in architecture all over the world.

The Hitler tache should be forgiven also.

cynic-al - Member
The Hitler tache should be forgiven also.

dunno about that... 😉

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

+1

On the same day as 3 muslims get prison sentances for handing out homophobic literature in Derby.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16985147

and the god fearing couple get told they have lost their case about not allowing 2 gay men to share a bed in their B and B.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223

Just what are hte benefits of being gay, you get lots of media attention and it seems as if the law is on your side, at last.