Gay Marriage

[bacon]

Gay Marriage
This is a mature discussion so please no spam. Think Synopsis here.

Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status, such as a civil union, which is usually more limited, or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied.

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships.

Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, and tradition. -Wiki

• Do you think gay marriage is morally okay
• Do you think gay marriage is legally okay
• What makes gay marriage acceptable/unacceptable. Explain
• What other factors do you think contribute to the ban of gay marriage
• Are children affected by this. How so
• Does this set a bad example in society
• What can be done to legalize/ban same sex marriage
• What are the laws in your country. Why

Feel free to add your own questions and whatnot to this. You don't have to answer every question, these are just guidelines to help encourage answers.

 

[gunga1]

As I see it, there is no compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed. All I've seen is 'homoseckshulism iz sin :angel: ', 'it's not natural' and 'this is the way it's always been', none of which have any real evidence behind them that should be applied in lawmaking. Their incapability to bear children is pretty much irrelevant in today's world, and regardless of relevance we still allow infertile people to marry so childbearing can't be a defining attribute of marriage.

On the other hand, in my opinion it's in contradiction with equal rights to deny the benefits gained through marriage(some of which are not granted by civil unions) from people based on sexuality. Some homosexuals would also undoubtedly want religious affirmation of their unions, since --believe it or not-- some of them are religious people.

I am still undecided on whether they should be allowed to adopt as I am unaware of the possible effects of not having a model of one gender close during childhood. I'll come back to it if I decide to read up on it.

 

[bashful crobat]

The UK's stance on the differentiation between marriage and civil partnership is that marriage is an age-old institution which is understood as a relationship between a man and a woman, which while understandable is still a pretty poor reason. The current government (Labour) have no intention to phase out civil union in favour of removing gender restrictions from marriage, but competing parties (LibDem and some others that matter even less) are using it as a bargaining chip, trying to get their feet in the door of #10. There is no good reason to disallow it, but there's not a whole host of good reasons for allowing it either.

There's barely any difference between the two so idg the fuss; the rights are essentially the same, but you can't get hitched in a church or by a minister, and a civil union doesn't actually require you to say anything during the ceremony (no vows etc are necessary but couples opt for it anyway just like anyone else who marries at a registry office). You lose all the inherently religious aspects of the occasion, and you get a different word. Not that big a deal.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

There's barely any difference between the two so idg the fuss; the rights are essentially the same, but you can't get hitched in a church or by a minister, and a civil union doesn't actually require you to say anything during the ceremony (no vows etc are necessary but couples opt for it anyway just like anyone else who marries at a registry office). You lose all the inherently religious aspects of the occasion, and you get a different word. Not that big a deal.

"So the schools are basically the same thing, they are going to be learning the same things, just we are going to treat half of them like they are not good enough to be in the other schools... separate but equal right?"

My example is much more extreme, but I hope you at least see where they are similar. You basically just said that a civil union is like a marriage only without all of the romantic ideas people associate with a marriage. It's like "Ehh, we'll give you tax the tax benefits. That's all you really wanted, right?"

In my opinion it's laughable in a sad kind of way that people are so adamant against same-sex marriage being legal. One of the most common arguments I hear is that they gay people are going to turn everyone's kids gay. That in itself is, again, funny in a sad way. However, even if it were true (I've had more people trying to convert me to their religion than people trying to make me gay. The count is about 5 - 0 :P) it's basically saying "We're trying to force the kids to do what we want, we can't let them try to force the kids to do what we want."

Another argument I hear a lot is that making it legal is like saying it's OK. Even if by your religion it's not (I haven't seen any religion that says it's not OK. I've read the bible cover to cover, it definitely does not say there's anything wrong with same sex marriage. It basically just doesn't mention it) but even if your religion does say it's not ok, what about separation of church and state. When the US Constitution built in a separation of church and state, a lot of people misunderstood what that meant. It didn't mean that the government couldn't tell you what religion to follow. Well, it did, but not directly. What it meant directly was the other way around. Religion is not supposed to interfere with the government (And since the government decisions are not influenced by religion, their are no laws specifically about which religion you can practice. Case in point, it is legal to practice a religion where it is customary to kill someone for not following your religion. However, it is not legal to actually kill someone, so you would go to jail for that. As you can see, in this case the law does interfere with you fully practicing that religion, but that law is not based on religion. The same rules apply to all killing.)

EDIT: Oh, and if I didn't already make it clear, I believe same-sex marriage should be legal because there's no legal reason for it to be illegal. It's troubling that it's taking this long for the government to figure that out. But of course the pricks are more concerned with their votes than what is actually right.

 

[bashful crobat]

"So the schools are basically the same thing, they are going to be learning the same things, just we are going to treat half of them like they are not good enough to be in the other schools... separate but equal right?"

My example is much more extreme, but I hope you at least see where they are similar. You basically just said that a civil union is like a marriage only without all of the romantic ideas people associate with a marriage. It's like "Ehh, we'll give you tax the tax benefits. That's all you really wanted, right?"

That really is an extreme comparison, so much so that they are only vaguely alike on the ground-floor decription "this thing is like this thing only different". Schools vary depending on lots of situational variables; the staff, the staff's experience and training, the students, the location, the community, funding, etc. The only differences I can actually see between unions and marriages (in the UK at least) are what I stated before: the religious aspects are gone, and you can't call it a marriage. Civil unions have all other rights that marriage has in the UK, covering things like life insurance, tenancies, child custody, seperations and even presumption of death orders. It's a lot more than just tax perks.

I like I said, I don't get the fuss. Your ceremony can be exactly like that of anyone who marries at a registry office if you like, and there is barely any difference between the two (unlike your analogy, where Luton university and, say, Oxbridge are incomparable (Luton are so desperate for graduate output that you can fail your first two years and still return for your last year and still get a degree lol)). It annoys me when people whinge about how it's "an injustice" and how "it's just a dog bone to keep things quiet". People should really look at the lining; you have your rights as a couple, and there is official recognition of your relationship. No, it isn't marriage, but yes, it is good enough. If gay marriage happens here then great. If not, it's not something to get riled up over.

But then, there's no point opposing it either. Christianity, equality, tolerance, kindness to your fellow man, etc.

 

[Ellie]

Marriage vs Civil Partnerships -

Marriage is religiously based and is a Christian ceremony. The Christian religion says lots of shit against gay people and that they can't marry.

So er... why are you a Christian then? And why do you want a Christian wedding? Get a civil partnership - it's exactly the same just not religiously based and therefore x religion's laws and practices don't affect who you can marry...

If you are still "religious" then that doesn't make any difference either because you are still going to a Christian practicioner to get married. If you have your own religious views that are nonconformist, then... you either need to find a priest who shares those views and is one of you (again, NOT A CHRISTIAN), or get a civil partnership.

I am not arguing whether or not Christianity should bias. I am simply saying that since it does bias why do you follow it? Well, you don't follow it, because you're gay; so why do you want to have a marriage as part of that religion?

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Wyatt, the thing is that the Christian religion, or more specifically the text that is the basis for it, doesn't actually say anything against same-sex marriage. I mean, the specific Christians who are against same-sex marriage (Even if it's a lot of them) are not the embodiment Christianity. You can be Christian and not agree with other Christians. Also, the idea that it is non conformist Christianity to think that being gay is OK is just ignorant homophobia. The bible itself does not say anything against same-sex marriage, and the modern day view against it is just from ignorant people, not from the religion itself. In truth, there's nothing genuinely religious behind it, because anyone who's actually read the bible knows that there's almost no mention of same-sex marriage at all.

Legally, same-sex marriage needs to be OK, because there is absolutely no legal reason for it to be illegal. If individual churches are not going to marry them, fine, but that's up to the individual church to decide form themselves, not for a mass of idiots to decide for everyone else.