Gay marriage thread

[Nick Armstrong]

Ah! So you fear the complexity of it! Well that's understandable. The answer is to take steps to understand it, not to ban it because you can't grasp it.

[scottycelt]

I mean popularity based on emotion (what feels right) rather than rationalism. Unhappily, too many 'emotional' arguments lead to disaster ("It's that group over there that's responsible for this..." Insert Jews, Blacks, Immigrants or whatever as appropriate.



Yes (see - another agreement!). But future calls will not succeed because of what has happened already, but will have to stand on their own merits (or else we should already have succumbed to allowing sex with minors and animals simply because of precedence).



Ah! So you fear the complexity of it! Well that's understandable. The answer is to take steps to understand it, not to ban it because you can't grasp it.



No, afraid not.

Okay, let's put it another way,in very simple terms, so that Thicko Scottycelt might begin to understand ...

As one who favours the continuing 'evolution' of the meaning of the word "marriage', presumably you would then have no intrinsic objection to eventually extending 'equal rights' in this field to everybody, including bisexuals, polygamists and zoophiliacs?

If not, on what basis would you deny these groups 'equal rights'? And if you do wish to deny them these rights will you then be as deserving of the 'intolerance and bigotry' label that our constantly foaming-at-the-mouth Mr GG currently pins on me?

Any chance of a clear, straight answer, Pab ... ?

[amateur51]

Okay, let's put it another way,in very simple terms, so that Thicko Scottycelt might begin to understand ...

As one who favours the continuing 'evolution' of the meaning of the word "marriage', presumably you would then have no intrinsic objection to eventually extending 'equal rights' in this field to everybody, including bisexuals, polygamists and zoophiliacs?

If not, on what basis would you deny these groups 'equal rights'? And if you do wish to deny them these rights will you then be as deserving of the 'intolerance and bigotry' label that our constantly foaming-at-the-mouth Mr GG currently pins on me?

Any chance of a clear, straight answer, Pab ... ?

That's a quite uncalled for slur on one of the clearest most straight-forward contributors to this Board and to this discussion, scotty. It's a trait you tend towards when you know that your case is weak, I've noticed.

Not being a clever as Pabs (or you, clearly ) I'm unable to answer your question re polygamists and zoophiles as I have never met any, know of none and so I don't know what their needs might be vis-a-vis marriage. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

In the case of bisexual people they can already marry their partner of the opposite gender. From my experience of bisexual men. their commitment to the gay side of their personality seems to be fixed entirely on one area of activity and I don't think they'd be interested in same sex marriage

[Pabmusic]

Okay, let's put it another way,in very simple terms, so that Thicko Scottycelt might begin to understand ...

Because I happen not to agree with you is no indicator that you are a 'thicko'. I have never - and would never - imply that.

As one who favours the continuing 'evolution' of the meaning of the word "marriage', presumably you would then have no intrinsic objection to eventually extending 'equal rights' in this field to everybody, including bisexuals, polygamists and zoophiliacs?

I neither favour nor (what's the opposite?) disfavour the continued evolution of the meaning of marriage, but I do recognise that what is occurring is a natural phenomenon - words change their meaning. About 500 years ago 'nice' meant almost the opposite of what it means now.

If not, on what basis would you deny these groups 'equal rights'? And if you do wish to deny them these rights will you then be as deserving of the 'intolerance and bigotry' label that our constantly foaming-at-the-mouth Mr GG currently pins on me?

It is spectacularly unhelpful to guess what I might think if something came to pass that has no immediate prospect of happening. And in any case, my views don't bind anyone else. But I do not hesitate to express my views of current issues especially when those with differing views base them on logical fallacies or other false arguments.

Any chance of a clear, straight answer, Pab ... ?

Not to a purely hypothetical proposition with insufficient information.

What I will say, though, is that my guiding principle is something like: 'Does this benefit people without harming others?' In the case of gay marriage I can answer only "yes".

[Flosshilde]

no intrinsic objection to eventually extending 'equal rights' in this field to everybody, including ... polygamists

I don't know why polygamous marriage (& polyandrous, if that means a woman having several husbands) should be viewed with such distaste*. It is, after all, endorsed by the Bible, and would simply give legal sanction to something that already occurs. It would have the advantage that legalising an existing situation would also give governments an element of control, particularly in the situation that so exercises the Daily Mail - a woman receiving child benefit for children by several different fathers.

*perhaps Scotty finds one Mrs SC enough; or he's worried about his position in the household if he had to compete with another Mr SC for Mrs SC's attention.

[DavidP]

Forgive me for once again not being true to my word and staying out of this debate. However, I have no intention of indulging in any slanging-match with the usual suspects, and think reasonable-sounding posts such as the above need to be challenged if only on the grounds of simple logic.

So exactly where would you draw the line, Mary? If you say that there is no reason for the meaning of an ancient institution like marriage not to be subject to periodical change presumably, therefore, you would draw no "red lines" as that would destroy your own argument? In other words, there would be no reason to bar, say, polygamous marriage in the future? As many of us are no doubt well aware marriage is much, much more than 'two people who just happen to love each other' as the teenage witterings of Yvette Cooper & Co seem to indicate.

Another poster talked about the fallacy of 'slippery slopes'. Like 'the thin end of the wedge' these time-honoured phrases derive from the wealth of human experience. In recent memory, when the first shop broke the then trading laws and opened on a Bank Holiday, we were assured this wouldn't become the norm for every Bank Holiday in the future. The same with Sundays. PM Cameron once assured us faithfully that CPs would not lead to 'Gay Marriage'. Whatever our views on either subject the 'slippery slope' argument in each case has been thoroughly vindicated.

Those who think demands for further change in matters of sexual morality will somehow miraculously disappear, and everyone will live happily ever after, might wish to take a closer look at the recent bizarre experience of one of our very close European neighbours. Though the parallels are not exact, change does not necessarily mean 'good' or 'better'. Sometimes it might even have unintended consequences deplored by everyone here, not least by those passionately in favour of the proposed new laws on the grounds of 'equality'.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20130201-47711.html

Of course it would never happen here ... of course not.

Ah, the slippery slope - "They've legalised homosexuality in my state, I'm going to get out before they make it compulsory" - argument! We really are getting desperate, aren't we? Anyway, what's wrong with polygamy? It would be brilliant for the kids - just think of all the pocket money!

We are getting perilously close to the arguments of the increasingly deranged Norman Tebbitt (Did the blast give him early onset dementia or does he have an even livelier sense of humour then any of us thought?), the odious Gerald Howarth (Who asked what were the "aggressive homosexual" lobby 'signalling' in their pursuit of equal marriage - Um, maybe they were signalling they wanted equal marriage, you numpty!) and Melanie “not just Barking but halfway to Upminster” Phillips (It's all a plot by "The Left" to undermine Western Civilization although what motive would prompt anyone to embark on this quixotic, and surely self-defeating, quest is never explained.)

[scottycelt]

Because I happen not to agree with you is no indicator that you are a 'thicko'. I have never - and would never - imply that. .

I didn't think you would. A genuine disagreement here has little to do with an inability to 'grasp' the other's point of view.

I neither favour nor (what's the opposite?) disfavour the continued evolution of the meaning of marriage, but I do recognise that what is occurring is a natural phenomenon - words change their meaning. About 500 years ago 'nice' meant almost the opposite of what it means now..

'Nice' is just a word, 'Marriage' is a centuries-old institution. A bit like 'Parliament'. We wouldn't change its meaning to allow anyone to speak there on the grounds of 'equal rights', would we? Now there's a cool new idea for Dave 'n' Ed!

It is spectacularly unhelpful to guess what I might think if something came to pass that has no immediate prospect of happening. And in any case, my views don't bind anyone else. But I do not hesitate to express my views of current issues especially when those with differing views base them on logical fallacies or other false arguments..

It may well seem 'spectacularly unhelpful' on your side of the argument, I can well understand that! You appear to be simply declaring these views/arguments false despite the huge evidence to the contrary. You could turn out to be right, of course, and the fears of others unfounded. As I said previously, only time will tell, but, based on historical evidence, many will not share your confidence.

Not to a purely hypothetical proposition with insufficient information.

What I will say, though, is that my guiding principle is something like: 'Does this benefit people without harming others?' In the case of gay marriage I can answer only "yes".

Well 'not harming others' is a very moot point. However, even if true, surely exactly the same applies to the other groups mentioned? By the same rule, if it doesn't directly affect others anything is possible, including polygamy and zoophilia?

That confirms exactly the point I'm making!

[Serial_Apologist]

'Marriage' is a centuries-old institution.

So is 'music'.

Or perhaps 'music' too should have forever remained unchanged at the time of... Mozart? Perotain? Name your favourite period before things in general just went too, too far.

[french frank]

I have now had a complaint about certain posts and would invite everyone to decide whether they want to continue in this vein or withdraw.

Thread closed for 'cooling off' period.

[Mr Pee]

I don't know why polygamous marriage (& polyandrous, if that means a woman having several husbands) should be viewed with such distaste*. It is, after all, endorsed by the Bible, and would simply give legal sanction to something that already occurs. It would have the advantage that legalising an existing situation would also give governments an element of control, particularly in the situation that so exercises the Daily Mail - a woman receiving child benefit for children by several different fathers.

There we go. It's started already.....your point proven, I think, Scotty......

[french frank]

There we go. It's started already.....

That quote was from 11.11am, so you are the one who has restarted it. I was hoping if people had nothing to add they'd be quiet.

[Mr Pee]

That quote was from 11.11am, so you are the one who has restarted it. I was hoping if people had nothing to add they'd be quiet.

I have been out at work all day, so haven't looked at the thread since about 8:30 this morning. It seemed to be open again, so I posted. I don't think there is anything objectionable about my post. I am stating an opnion and I'm not using any sort of derogatory or insulting language.

Either the thread is open or it's closed. If it's open, presumably one can post on it.

[MrGongGong]

'Nice' is just a word, 'Marriage' is a centuries-old institution.

You can't get away with that old nonsense
i'm no historian
but it's certainly NOT that in the sense that the churches practice these days
and was historically more about power, land and politics than anything else
It's meaning HAS changed fundamentally from the time when women would be married off to seal a deal to do with power and ownership etc
But I guess you would rather that this was reversed as well as it's the "thin end of the wedge" isn't it

[Stephen Whitaker]

This is my main concern— IF this Bill is highly offensive to many decent, tolerant and moderate Christians and to many decent, tolerant and moderate Muslims, and indeed to many others, including people of no religion at all, who see it understandably as an attack on something they hold very special and very dear etc, etc.

WHY have they been so silent about the fact that most heterosexual couples (especially the ones who are parents) are NOT MARRIED and those that are, frequently commit adultery or divorce each other and re-marry after divorce (eg Prince Charles and Boris Johnson) contrary to their Holy Writ?
Not to mention the abuse of children and spouses that is often a feature of opposite sex partnerships.

If these decent, tolerant and moderate Christians and decent, tolerant and moderate Muslims, etc, wish to describe same sex couples' desire to get married as an attack on something they hold very special, LET THEM PUT THEIR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER !

Why should faith in a fictional rationale of our existence sanction the denial of same sex couples' right to be legally considered as "Next of kin" to mention just one of the ways in which civil partners are unequal..

[Ferretfancy]

I don't know why polygamous marriage (& polyandrous, if that means a woman having several husbands) should be viewed with such distaste*. It is, after all, endorsed by the Bible, and would simply give legal sanction to something that already occurs. It would have the advantage that legalising an existing situation would also give governments an element of control, particularly in the situation that so exercises the Daily Mail - a woman receiving child benefit for children by several different fathers.

*perhaps Scotty finds one Mrs SC enough; or he's worried about his position in the household if he had to compete with another Mr SC for Mrs SC's attention.

I've been lucky enough to visit Nepal a couple of times, and in the Everest region polyandry is common. It actually makes sense in a potentially dangerous environment for a woman to have two or more husbands. Husband number one can be travelling away tending livestock while husband number two stays to safeguard the home.
There are tensions of course, as there can be in any relationship, but the system works. Where sexual matters are concerned, the Sherpa people have great tolerance, perhaps they could teach us something.