@Frags

Quote:

Furthermore, the difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy has victims - women. A woman married to a polygamous man does not get to enjoy the feeling of being the sole object of another`s affection and the man does. This is discriminatory and unfair.

The same argument can be used to justify the need for a child to have it's biological mother and father bring it up if at all possible or failing that; one natural parent and an opposite sex guardian preferably in married relationship with the natural parent. But hey that's a different discussion. The 'Should homosexual couples adopt?' issue has already been and passed. Let's see the result of that social experiment in 20 years time!!!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

That`s exactly what my mum used to say - "we`ll find out in twenty years" !

Last edited by Frags on 24-Mar-2012 at 03:40 PM.

_________________
Fraggle

- insert profound text here -

@BigD

Quote:

The same argument can be used to justify the need for a child to have it's biological mother and father bring it up if at all possible or failing that; one natural parent and an opposite sex guardian preferably in married relationship with the natural parent. But hey that's a different discussion. The 'Should homosexual couples adopt?' issue has already been and passed. Let's see the result of that social experiment in 20 years time!!!

Even people stick gender roles to sexes, mother and father are roles where child adopted and brought up by gays wouldn`t be disfunctional in any way, if they are caring couple. Neither child would be necessary gay because dominant is heterosexuality.

Far better then children living in institutions.

Off course homosexuals can`t be majority and never will, but is interesting that majority deprives minority of simple right.

Gouverment expense can be put to cost of those who marry as tax, and administrative reform would happen anyway. Maybe its best to combine it with some other social reform or organizational one needed.

Its not repression to majority if you grant existing right to minority that has been without it. Its just interesting to see arguments people will find to fight something that doesn`t influence them bad in any way e.g. no new taxes, or no restriction in their rights.

Last edited by vox on 24-Mar-2012 at 05:22 PM.

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

This entire thing makes me sick to my boots. Why can't two people who love each other, regardless of gender or anythign else for that matter, get married. I thought we were all supposed to be equal in the eyes of what ever god you beleive in.

We are told we shouldn't be sexist, racist, homophobic and we should uphold peoples civil rights and liberties. Yet we are breaking this by not allowing same sex couple to get married.

I was never an advocate of marriage as I coulnd't see the point. Yet when I got married to my wife last November I realised that you are making a commitment to that person. You are making it clear infront of witnesses that you are willing to make that life long vow to the person that you love. It does alter things. We joke about it been a piece of paper, but it is actually more than that. It's a deeper thing.

Why can't same sex couples not be granted this aswell. I support them in trying to get this passed.

Last edited by CritAnime on 24-Mar-2012 at 05:40 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@CritAnime

Quote:

Why can't same sex couples not be granted this aswell. I support them in trying to get this passed.

These are the best reasons I've found not to redefine marriage; HERE

And copied below;

1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman

Throughout history in virtually all cultures and faiths throughout the world, marriage has been held to be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage existed thousands of years before our nation began and has been recognised in our laws as the ‘voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde v Hyde 1866). The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by a man and a woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution.

2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships

All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not and should not be ‘one size fits all’.

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic

None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done.

4.Equality does not mean uniformity

In a free democratic society we accept that many human activities are not open to everybody. Not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, cast a vote, own a firearm, attend university, visit Buckingham Palace or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. This does not mean that those who are not eligible for these activities are in any way denigrated or demeaned, but just that there are eligibility criteria. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life.

5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society

Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. Though death and divorce may prevent it, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Whilst single parents or same sex couples may do a good job in raising children, social policy has to be concerned with what is normally the case, and children have a right if at all possible to have a married mother and a father involved in their upbringing. In general the evidence shows that marriage provides a stability for adults and children which is hard to beat in terms of outcomes. There is considerable evidence to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence. By contrast sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually and other models of the family have not been shown to have the same stability as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model.

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship

Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. It takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising the technological instrumentalisation of reproduction and increasing the number of families where there is confusion of biological, social and family identity.

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive

Redefining marriage could cost billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word 'marriage' appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing same sex marriage is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it(eg. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. According to an assessment done for gay rights group Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing one favoured option would be around £5 billion. This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits. This is simply not a priority for government at a time of economic recession as it will confer no new rights.

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage

Under existing education law schools will be required to teach children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, between two men or between two women. This will confuse children whose parents may wish to teach them according to their own values and worldview. Those parents who object could be undermined in their children’s eyes, stigmatised as homophobics and bigots and prevented from full involvement in schools.

9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage

In Mexico same sex marriage was followed by two year fixed term marriage. In Canada legalising same sex marriage has led to supporters of polygamy demanding in the courts for their unions to be recognised. If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages. The best defence against this is to keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’.

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination

We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation.. If same sex marriage is legalised faith-based employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’. They would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action - no matter how modest - against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. Faith-based adoption and fostering services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’. Marriage counsellors from faith backgrounds would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counselling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships. All these moves would place faith groups in the invidious position of being forced to act against their consciences or face marginalisation, exclusion and litigation and would further fuel social fragmentation, sectarianism, antagonism and civil unrest.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD
Good to see I'm not the only one here who thinks this is bad legislation.

@all
Although, the money side of this does bother me it is certainly not the only thing, as some hear have picked up on!

Having Studied Sociology quite a few years back, I take perhaps a little more interest than most in the changing nature of society. Throughout recorded history marriage for the most part has been exclusively between males & females, with the intention to procreate and form a new family unit (in preindustrial societies this unit was often highly integrated in to the extended family e.g. cousins, grandparents etc). Males & Females have always brought gender specific functions & abilities to marriage. This provides the best practical arrangement of support to function productively in society.

In the UK in December 2005 the government at considerable expense introduced Civil Partnerships to insure homosexual couples could have all the same rights & responsibilities as heterosexual couples have with marriage. The government estimates that approximately 5% of the U.K. population are homosexual. Over time Civil Partnerships will become more established as an institution much like marriage is now, but still be distinctive, in that many but not all (e.g. procreation) of the intended functions of marriage are part of it.

Research has suggested that romantic love fades after a few years, if it remains it becomes companionate love and it seems certain biological factors play a role (e.g. neurotrophins). So if the only reason couples marry is for romantic love, divorce is not a big surprise. Obviously quite a few couples actually like each other, experience companionate love & see the other good & important aspect of being married! I like many have watch British society deteriorate. The U.K. now has the accolade of being top or near to it for - numbers of abortions, teenage pregnancy rates, single mothers, divorce rates, obesity… the list goes on. Why has this happen to Britain? I would suggest government social policy has certainly played its part e.g. change in divorce laws, the way the benefits system works (making single motherhood a relatively attractive option). This social experiment to me is yet further watering down of the importance & meaning of marriage.

for more specific issues see BigD posts!

Last edited by Tpod on 24-Mar-2012 at 10:27 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 24-Mar-2012 at 10:24 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 24-Mar-2012 at 10:22 PM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

All of these arguments seem to boil down to `we shouldnt change the staus quo, because it`s the status quo`.

_________________
Fraggle

- insert profound text here -

@CritAnime

Quote:

CritAnime wrote: This entire thing makes me sick to my boots. Why can't two people who love each other, regardless of gender or anythign else for that matter, get married. I thought we were all supposed to be equal in the eyes of what ever god you beleive in.

Those against this are simply afraid of things that for whatever their reasons they find repulsive or offensive and in some cases because they object to the public money being spent on it or a mixture of both...

But the real word for such an outcry is HYPOCRISY...

_________________

@Franko

Interestingly this issue has the ability to colour the debate on Scottish independence!

SNP puts independence vote at risk with focus on gay marriage

A lot of people feel there is no mandate for this and that there is too much time, money and effort focused on this issue which is hugely disproportionate to the limited 'benefits' it is supposed to bring society.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

The Scottish Catholic Observer... Now there's a publication with its finger on the pulse of Scottish public opinion!

I think the simple fact is there are far more people either unopposed to equal marriage rights or simply don't care one way or the other.

Either way, you just form part of a vociferous minority.

AndyC

Last edited by AndyC on 25-Mar-2012 at 12:22 PM.

@Thread

I will strenuously and vehemently oppose "gay marriage" as soon as the powers that be try to make it compulsory.
Other than that I can see no reason why anybody who wants to put their relationship on to a contractual basis for the purpose of future financial security should be prevented. And if the word for that is "marriage" then so what?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@AndyC

Quote:

Either way, you just form part of a vociferous minority.

However much you'd like that to be the case it simply isn't true!! Over 70% of the British public are against the redefinition of marriage as already mentioned in this thread!

Telegraph: Poll shows 70% of British public is against the redefinition of marriage

The petition to stop the redefinition of marriage stands at 303,345 whereas the equivalent pro-redefinition petition stands at 35,951. I let the stats speak for themself. I don't need to invent them!

The pro-redefinition crowd seem incapable of debating this issue beyond a weird pseudo 'Martin Luther King' type stance equating gay marriage to the struggle for African-American civil rights! This isn't about gay rights, the homosexual lobbyists are attempting to redefine a valuable and culturally important institution because they 'feel' excluded. They have Civil Partnerships which are unique in their own way but at the same time granting the same legal/inheritance rights etc. If they want to get married I suggest they look at dating someone of the opposite sex, other than that they should accept that their relationship does not equate in every way to the traditional building block of society. However much they clamour for them some equalities are impossible to obtain in practice and undesirable for society to grant if it was possible. Homosexual couples will never be able to have their own children as they are 6,000 Civil Partnerships a year and falling doesn't warrant changes to our laws, culture, etc on the scale that this redefinition would require!

Also, just because it was reported by the Scottish Catholic Observer it doesn't make the independent Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll any less reliable.

Last edited by BigD on 25-Mar-2012 at 05:49 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 25-Mar-2012 at 05:48 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Franko Interestingly this issue has the ability to colour the debate on Scottish independence! SNP puts independence vote at risk with focus on gay marriage A lot of people feel there is no mandate for this and that there is too much time, money and effort focused on this issue which is hugely disproportionate to the limited 'benefits' it is supposed to bring society.

WTF... how on earth can a poll of 1004 Scots be considered by anyone (especially that dumb article) as being "Majority of Scots"...

That's a bit like me claiming that because I asked 1004 Scots a question and 53% gave one answer that somehow I can claim that to represent the "Majority of Scots", just like that ludicrous poll and article are trying to blatantly misrepresent...

Surprise, surprise it's by the "Scottish Catholic Observer", there a good honest production for you... NOT

When 53% of 1004 people asked out of a population of nearly 5.2 Million and that makes it officially a majority decision of those 5.2 Million people, then that's the day I paint me face blue with a white St Andrews cross on it, nail a haggis to me napper, fill me pockets with Irn Bru and go on the rampage with my best Mel Gibson accent shouting Freeeeedooooom frae ra bampots...

I know the Catholic church has enough problems but heck they can't even work out a simple sum that 1004 people out of nearly 5.2 million don't make a majority, gawd I'm glad to be an atheist...

_________________

@Franko

Read my previous post. Do the words"independent Opinion Research Business (ORB) Poll" mean anything to you? Do you think it was catholic priests conducting the polling in Glasgow highstreet? If you have a larger poll that is contrary to this evidence then please link to it otherwise stop insinuating that the Scottish/British people are pro-redefinition when you have nothing to back it up!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Thread I will strenuously and vehemently oppose "gay marriage" as soon as the powers that be try to make it compulsory.

OMG... you telling me they're trying to make gay marriages COMPULSARY

Crap... I'm off to grab as many birds as I can and have damn good time before that law comes in...

Where's me best pulling shirt...

(There aught to be a law against that law, it's just not right)...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Franko Read my previous post. Do the words"independent Opinion Research Business (ORB) Poll" mean anything to you? Do you think it was catholic priests conducting the polling in Glasgow highstreet? If you have a larger poll that is contrary to this evidence then please link to it otherwise stop insinuating that the Scottish/British people are pro-redefinition when you have nothing to back it up!

Doesn't matter who conducted the poll, the views of 53% out of 1004 people mean nothing when compared the views of almost 5.2 million...

If you believe poll results like that based on such a tiny fraction of the numbers it's meant to represent, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that I believe taking such an unrepresentative poll means nothing, so I won't even bother to try...

_________________

@Franko

For a single question with a yes or no answer, 1000+ sample out of a population of 5.2 million is perfectly acceptable in Quantitative Research, as an indicator (if carried out by unbiased research group like ORB). Sure it may be more accurate with a larger sample size so could go up or down slightly. This however doesn't detract for the fact that there would still be a significant proportion & very likely over 50% against the change.

Last edited by Tpod on 25-Mar-2012 at 06:56 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 25-Mar-2012 at 06:41 PM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Tpod

Quote:

Tpod wrote: @Franko For a single question with a yes or no answer, 1000+ sample out of a population of 5.2 million is perfectly acceptable in Quantitative Research, as an indicator (if carried out by unbiased research group like ORB). Sure it may be more accurate with a larger sample size so could go up or down slightly. This however doesn't detract for the fact that there would still be a significant proportion & very likely over 50% against the change.

Happy to say I take no notice of polls like that when based on such a tiny fraction of the people their meant to represent, as time and time again they have proven to be for the most part wildly inaccurate...

I go on that subject by what people I know personally or people I has spoken to have to say on the matter and have discussed it with. At a low reckoning I would say 65 to 70% of the people I have spoken to on the subject are in favour of Scottish independence...

_________________

87.6% of all statistics are made up entirely on the spot.

AndyC

@BigD

Quote:

However much you'd like that to be the case it simply isn't true!! Over 70% of the British public are against the redefinition of marriage as already mentioned in this thread! Telegraph: Poll shows 70% of British public is against the redefinition of marriage

I think I can see where you've gone wrong there.

What you of course mean to say is that over 70% of the Telegraph's poll respondents are against equal marriage.

Pardon me if I don't bother getting all worked up over that.

And I'm sure you've noticed the leading question that the poll used. What neither you nor the Catholic pressure group commissioning the poll understand is the fact that believing your own marriage should remain a lifelong exclusive commitment to your wife is not mutually exclusive with believing that some other man can marry his boyfriend and have equal rights to you.

@Tpod

My, you're right, this whole gay marriage thing will cost a couple of million to run. But crikey if all the other marriages don't cost a whole lot more!

The only sensible thing to do, therefore, is to abolish marriage entirely - its clearly a bureaucratic waste from which only divorce lawyers profit.

And of course, since you are only worried about the financial costs of gay marriage, I'm sure you'll be only too happy to support me in this.

Will you heck.

Last edited by T-J on 26-Mar-2012 at 12:58 AM.