• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Marriage Equality in the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.

I don't really think anyone can sum it up better than this. If anyone thinks their own marriage has been devalued by gay marriage, then I really fear for the state of their relationship.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,759
Location
Chester
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.

I completely agree with you 100% on both points. I think the point about wanting your partner - regardless of whether they are the same or opposite gender to yourself - to become a part of your family is really a important one and it's a value that I share as well

My partner and I are planning to get married in the next few years (I'm actually planning to propose to her next week) once we've decided where we would like to settle down and spend some time living together before we get married. I want to marry her not only because of the love between us both but I want my her to become a part of my family as well as my wife. Whilst I think that love is indeed an important part in a marriage I think there's so much more to a successful marriage than simply loving your partner
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
I can't help thinking that recent news from Charleston dwarfs this news: you can change laws, but not people's entrenched attitudes. I attended a gay 'marriage' in 1969 in Amsterdam when I was living there. It would not of course have been recognised legally, but I suspect it was a landmark occasion, in retrospect. I am sure I was not the only non-gay there,it didn't matter a damn your sexuality, just how you lived your life.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,128
Location
Redcar
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.

I thought Justice Kennady did a very good job illustrating that point in the Opinion of the Court:

Opinion of the Court said:
Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.

And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment. Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.” He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives.

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden.

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined by its bond.

Source

I'm not clear how, having read those three stories (especially the first two), anyone can suggest anything other than marriage needs to be for two people regardless of gender.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.

I don't think that long time unmarried couples are considered to be in "invalid" relationships. If I meet someone who says they are married, I don't think that's anything special, given I've been in a relationship for over 20 years, albeit unmarried.

I'm now middle-aged, so I've seen a lot of different relationship patterns among my friends over the years. One friend has been married twice and has had a few other seemingly idyllic relationships, but yet they all end for one reason or another. I had a gay school friend who's life I monitor on Facebook. I watched him get married, saying all kinds of lovey dovey things, but within a year it was all over acrimoniously. Acrimony is highly undesirable.

Just because you love someone now doesn't mean you will for the rest of your life.

I also don't think family is a particularly good thing. I'm lucky in not having much of a family, but some of my friends have to endure sibling rivalry and horrible parents. Friendship is far more important than family.
 
Last edited:

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,411
Location
Glasgow
I'm not clear how, having read those three stories (especially the first two), anyone can suggest anything other than marriage needs to be for two people regardless of gender.

Ah, for some people at least, that appears to be the next battle. :D
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-marriage-to-more-than-one-person-be-legal

79% in favour?

Never heard of debate.org before BTW, but in all seriousness I have heard a number of people opine that a marriage between more than 2 people should be allowed.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, I can't see that working. Getting two people to agree is hard enough!
 
Last edited:

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,588
Location
Leeds
[*]The first is the right to not be discriminated against. We've won on marriage equality, but in many (I think most) US states it is still legal to fire someone just because they're gay, and states are moving the wrong way on this, passing laws which forbid cities from passing anti-discrimination laws.
There's also issues with access to housing, welfare, government services including the police. It's the same with transgender individuals. However large companies seem to realise that alphabet people's rights are the way forward, and many have stringent discrimination policies as a result. I'd hope that they indirectly encourage smaller business to follow suit.

[*]The second is trans and queer rights. This is trickier, because for this to be fully implemented it means an end to patriarchy and the gender binary. It means acknowledging that people (like Miley!) may not identify as being either male or female, and that people may identify as a gender which is different to their sex. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people, because it's something not many people experience. You are born, and, for 99.999% of people, you have a penis xor a vagina. That is your sex. Your gender is your mental view of yourself, and this may not align to your sex. People who want to change from one to the other, or be identified as neither, are pretty rare, and so many people may never meet someone like that. But the past few years have been good - we've had the entry onto the public consciousness of trans people like Laverne Cox, and that helps take public perception of trans people away from drag queens. Miley is also helpful as identifying as neither male nor female.
"Xor a vagina"? I'll have you know my vaginal pronouns are xe/xem/xyr! ;) Gender is an incredibly difficult subject to contend with when gender roles are still being enforced at young ages. I've dealt with a few nursery carers who have forced children to play with toys that are "right for their gender". Bear in mind these are very young children who don't even have a societal definition of gender yet! It follows through into later education as well. My secondary school made it clear expressing myself in the opposite gender wouldn't be tolerated.

I do think Britain a whole is relatively liberal about transgenderism compared to a lot of European countries though. It's way too easy to get the gender flag in your records switched through the NHS, and by extension everything else, plus discrimination laws aid self-confidence significantly when doing even relatively minor things like shopping or using toilets.

The distinction between sex and gender is an important one. In an ideal world, certain forms - I'm looking at you, NHS Blood Service - wouldn't use gender when they mean sex. Ideally, in suitable cases, they'd use both for ease of use.

[*]After all that I think will come poly rights, that is rights for people who form loving relationships of more than two people, or who simply have more than one love in their life (eg A and B are in love, as are B and C, but A is not in love with C). This I think will be hardest because it's the biggest departure from "normal", and there are no role models for it. But I hope it will come in the not too distant future, as we should all be open to love in its many and varied forms.
I think this one is going to be the trickiest. The idea of a union between more than two people is still predominantly sexual in the minds of most people; associated with swinging and certain kinks. I've been in a consensually polyamorous relationship before with someone I loved greatly (but not sexually) and somebody I had a romantic friendship with benefits situation with; with rather more emphasis on the romantic friendship rather than the benefits before anyone suggests it was purely for sex.
There's also the ethical difficulties like cheating and polygamy to contend with, plus the risk of abuse that that entails.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
I don't really think anyone can sum it up better than this. If anyone thinks their own marriage has been devalued by gay marriage, then I really fear for the state of their relationship.

You just did sum it up better.

As I've said, I've yet to see an argument against gay marriage that can't be torn down in more than a few words (and no, that's not a challenge!). Quite frankly, if it's between

There was an episode of Family Guy that, in its typical style of crude humour, tackled the issue quite well, and one quote in particular really stood out to me.
Lois Griffin said:
Wait a minute. Are you saying that two straight people who absolutely hate each other have more of a right to be married than gay people who love each other?!

Ah, for some people at least, that appears to be the next battle. :D
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-marriage-to-more-than-one-person-be-legal

79% in favour? [of polyamorous marriage]

As I've already said, there are people in polyamorous relationships. Here's a BBC story about just one such arrangement.
Charlie is talking excitedly about a first date she went on the night before.
Next to her on the sofa is her husband of six years, Tom. And on the other side of him is Sarah, who's been in a relationship with Tom for the last five years. Sarah's fiance, Chris, is in the kitchen making a cup of tea.
The two women are also in a full-blown relationship, while the two men are just good friends. Together, they make a polyamorous family and share a house in Sheffield.
"We're planning to grow old together," says Charlie.

Like homosexual relationships, it's not something that I'm remotely interested in having myself. But if the parties involved consent to this set up and are happy then I can't see an issue. They certainly seem to be happy and fulfilled.

Marriage is another issue, and a polyamorous marriage would be a very tricky legal minefield to negotiate. What if one party wishes to "divorce", for example? Would that anole the whole marriage, or just the one part of it? Could an individual divorce some but not all members of the union? We can't simply look at the arrangement in some Islamic countries, where the husband can have multiple wives but not vice versa. In these arrangements, the husband is effectively in separate relationships with each of his wives, and it really harks back to "ownership" of your spouse rather than being in a relationship.

We're certainly unlikely to see it in the foreseeable future, but if we do start discussing this, the legal issues are going to be a real challenge, and as such I don't see it being an overly popular option.
 

tranzitjim

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2013
Messages
211
Location
Australia
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.


What is wrong with Civil unons, how does that not make it legitimate?

As for the homophobic bullies, do you really think they will change? Only change the words they use. In the past 'Gee I can get married but you cant' now it shall be 'but that still aint a real marriage'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I prefer not to tackle such a sensitive issue in a rail forum. However, given it has been asked here, I shall provide the following response.


I have been watching facebook groups for years on both sides of this debate, as well as listening to debates all over the world.


I predict that there shall be massive civil disobedience in the USA for the short term. The irony is the 'Civil Rights originals' from the African American civil rights days, are going to be out and loud against the SSM policy.

There is a very strong chance that, the Republican party may get in, put in a referendum, that will modify the Federal referendum, and will result in overturning, or even imposing a national ban on SSMs of which no court could overturn ever.

Me there is nothing wrong with Civil Unions for anybody. Let the conservative have their word, and keep it to themselves. Why do gays want to be equal to a homophobe. The word marriage has been stained so much by the homophobes in the eyes of many gay people.

I can see in 10 years or so, SSM may be a thing of the past.

As this is not the place for a long rant, I shall stop my post there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't really think anyone can sum it up better than this. If anyone thinks their own marriage has been devalued by gay marriage, then I really fear for the state of their relationship.


I really doubt that anybody would devalue their relationship just because the word marriage does not mean anything any more.

It is just that, many straight people shall be less likely to get married, or will get divorced and live together due to the 'lack of meaning to marriage'.

I can not see how the word marriage could survive this change in definition.

How many gay people stayed together before SSM was possible? Does that not really answer your own question?
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
*sigh*
What is wrong with Civil unons, how does that not make it legitimate?

Civil unions are, at best, a weak fix. It's not equality, although in many jurisdictions it does give the partners the same legal rights as a married couple. However, it's still frankly discriminatory, but categorising gay relationships separately from straight relationships.

Let's think back to the Rosa Parks incident (for those who can't remember - a black woman called Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus for a white man, and was arrested). We could create a solution to this problem where black people and white people have separate buses so that no one need give up their seat. It's considered "equal" by some in that no-one on either bus has to give up their seats, but it's not really equal because there's a huge artificial division that's created. This is exactly what civil partnerships have done - at least in the manner they've been introduced here in the UK.

As for the homophobic bullies, do you really think they will change? Only change the words they use. In the past 'Gee I can get married but you cant' now it shall be 'but that still aint a real marriage'.

This isn't about homophobic bullies. To be honest, I've never once seen a homophobe mocking a gay person on the legal intricacies of marriage law. Their arguments tend to be much more simplistic. However, when I'm going to consider the morality and legitimacy of same sex marriage, the last person I'm going to ask on the matter is a homophobic bully.

I predict that there shall be massive civil disobedience in the USA for the short term. The irony is the 'Civil Rights originals' from the African American civil rights days, are going to be out and loud against the SSM policy.

America doesn't really have the best record on equality. Some of the recent events show that racism is still alive and well in some parts of the country. Having said that, I can't see there being riots about this. The Civil Rights movement was different in that the country had set itself up with strong divisions based on race, which frankly still exist today. It's not really the same with homosexuals and heterosexuals.

There is a very strong chance that, the Republican party may get in, put in a referendum, that will modify the Federal referendum, and will result in overturning, or even imposing a national ban on SSMs of which no court could overturn ever.

The Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. Whilst it is technically possible for the decision to be overturned, it will prove almost impossible to do so in practice. They'd need to amend the constitution, which is time consuming. They'd need to get 2/3 of both houses to support the motion - which is no small task. The amendment would need to be ratified by at least 38 states - and I can't see that realistically happening. Certainly, if it's put to a referendum, the approximately 60% of Americans who support gay marriage will probably put a stop to it.

I can see in 10 years or so, SSM may be a thing of the past.

No. No it won't. See above.

As this is not the place for a long rant, I shall stop my post there.

OK, have a nice evening.

I really doubt that anybody would devalue their relationship just because the word marriage does not mean anything any more.

It is just that, many straight people shall be less likely to get married, or will get divorced and live together due to the 'lack of meaning to marriage'.

Oh, you're back already.

I'm a straight person, and I would like to get married if the right girl comes along. Allowing gay people the right to marriage has not altered my plans in the slightest. I can't see why it would affect me at all. Saying "I'm not getting married because the gay guys across the road did it" would be borderline insane.

I can not see how the word marriage could survive this change in definition.

I don't see why it can't. As we've already ascertained, it's survived countless changes of definition over the years. Besides, which definition of marriage are we changing? Because there's countless. Even the Bible (the oft-quoted source by the religious Right) can't narrow it down to one:
biblical-marriage.jpg


How many gay people stayed together before SSM was possible? Does that not really answer your own question?

It's not about keeping (forcing?) people together. It's about giving those couples who want to marry each other the same rights to do so as a straight couple would have. I can't see why this concept is so difficult to grasp. I'm sure that lots of people in long-term gay relationships won't want to get married, and that's absolutely fine. However, at least now in America they do have the option, just like a straight couple would. That's marriage equality.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
The reason people want to be married is that it is recognition of the legitimacy of their relationship. That is the root issue - the right of all people to have their relationship recognised as valid and meaningful.

This may sound a bit odd, but this is a difficult idea to express, so I'll try the best I can. My dad has worked a lot on his family tree. I want to have the person I love on that tree next to my name. I don't love someone who is a different sex from me, but I love a person, and I want them to be part of my family.

My niece who is in her early 20's has been in a same sex relationship with another female for a few years now, I have no problem with that and neither do the rest of the family. They haven't received any sort of homophobic abuse but then they don't go shouting from the rooftops about it and they readily accept that same sex relationships are not everybodys cup of tea. They are quite happy as they are and certainly see no need to get 'married' just to prove some kind of point.

And if I decide that I want to marry my sister or maybe indulge in a three person marriage with my neighbour and his wife will that be ok? I hasten to add that I am not planning to do either but I just wonder where exactly the line gets drawn.
 
Last edited:

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
My niece who is in her early 20's has been in a same sex relationship with another female for a few years now, I have no problem with that and neither do the rest of the family. They haven't received any sort of homophobic abuse but then they don't go shouting from the rooftops about it and they readily accept that same sex relationships are not everybodys cup of tea. They are quite happy as they are and certainly see no need to get 'married' just to prove some kind of point.

And if I decide that I want to marry my sister or maybe indulge in a three person marriage with my neighbour and his wife will that be ok? I hasten to add that I am not planning to do either but I just wonder where exactly the line gets drawn.

Well, you obviously can't do either as both are currently illegal pretty much everywhere, but as far as I'm concerned the line is that all parties be adults who consent of their own free will, without duress. If you want to marry your sister, go ahead and ask her.



I think me123 did a very good job of summing up all my objections to tranzitjim's post, but there are a few things I'd like to follow up on.

What is wrong with Civil unons, how does that not make it legitimate?

At one level it is as me123 described, "separate but equal" is not actually equal. But moreover, it's the public perception. Let's say that civil unions were to confer all the rights of marriage, but that marriage were limited to male/female couples, civil unions to same-sex couples. Marriage is a part of our every day life - it's something we all think in terms of, it's something we're all familiar with. People don't ask "are you civilly partnered", they ask "are you married". Part of being LGBT is the need at some point to come out, but what people who are straight cisgender don't realise is that it's not just one occasion. You have to come out over and over - to your friends, to your family, to your extended family, to your coworkers, to your teachers, to the new coworker, to your postperson, on every form you fill out that asks about your household. It's exhausting. Now imagine that instead of being able to answer "yes" to "are you married", you have to say "no, I'm civilly partnered. You don't know what a civil partnership is? Well it's like marriage but for same-sex couples. No, it's exactly the same. No I don't know why we can't just call it marriage either."

Beyond that, there is one pressing issue for me. My girlfriend is trans, and as thus the state considers her male currently. If under your scheme I were to civilly partner her (see how awkward that phrasing is?), when she does become a woman in the eyes of the state, does this mean our civil union is now invalid because we're a heterogendered couple?



I predict that there shall be massive civil disobedience in the USA for the short term. The irony is the 'Civil Rights originals' from the African American civil rights days, are going to be out and loud against the SSM policy.

There is a very strong chance that, the Republican party may get in, put in a referendum, that will modify the Federal referendum, and will result in overturning, or even imposing a national ban on SSMs of which no court could overturn ever.

Me there is nothing wrong with Civil Unions for anybody. Let the conservative have their word, and keep it to themselves. Why do gays want to be equal to a homophobe. The word marriage has been stained so much by the homophobes in the eyes of many gay people.

I can see in 10 years or so, SSM may be a thing of the past.

There's mass disobedience in the US about just about everything - no matter how innocent (eg lightbulb efficiency standards), a large part of the populus will see it as tyranny. As for the african american civil rights leaders being against it? Not really. They're all Democrats now, and have generally come around on it. Public opinion has changed massively over the past ten years.

Per me123, there will likely never be another constitutional amendment on any subject.




It is just that, many straight people shall be less likely to get married, or will get divorced and live together due to the 'lack of meaning to marriage'.

I can not see how the word marriage could survive this change in definition.

How many gay people stayed together before SSM was possible? Does that not really answer your own question?

There has been exactly one couple who threatened to get divorced over equal marriage, everyone (rightly) treated them as a joke. Many more people refused to get married until marriage equality became the law of the land. The term marriage has meaning, and that's why we want in on it, it is not in any way threatened by allowing same sex couples to use it. If your marriage is "threatened" by the fact that Adam and Steve can now be married, then you should probably see a marriage counsellor, as I think you're projecting your issues onto something unrelated.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
My niece who is in her early 20's has been in a same sex relationship with another female for a few years now, I have no problem with that and neither do the rest of the family. They haven't received any sort of homophobic abuse but then they don't go shouting from the rooftops about it and they readily accept that same sex relationships are not everybodys cup of tea. They are quite happy as they are and certainly see no need to get 'married' just to prove some kind of point.

I fail to see the reason why same sex marriage is a problem from this anecdote. One interpretation is that because your niece does not want to get married to her partner than nobody should be allowed to.

Another interpretation is that she and her partner live in a place where it is not wise to broadcast being in a same sex relationship. This will still be a problem in many parts of the US naturally but it's still a step forward.

It's equally possible that your niece and her partner are simply the kind of people who don't feel the need to broadcast their private lives.

And if I decide that I want to marry my sister or maybe indulge in a three person marriage with my neighbour and his wife will that be ok? I hasten to add that I am not planning to do either but I just wonder where exactly the line gets drawn.

Where someone or something cannot give informed consent. Both of those would be fine with me as long as you all knew what you were getting into. Frankly I don't care if you marry your sister, first cousin and their neighbours - a more interesting question is why do you wish to forbid it?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,128
Location
Redcar
Frankly I don't care if you marry your sister, first cousin and their neighbours - a more interesting question is why do you wish to forbid it?

Perhaps because "I think it's icky there it should be banned"? :roll:

The above aimed generally not at any specific poster
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
I fail to see the reason why same sex marriage is a problem from this anecdote. One interpretation is that because your niece does not want to get married to her partner than nobody should be allowed to.

Another interpretation is that she and her partner live in a place where it is not wise to broadcast being in a same sex relationship. This will still be a problem in many parts of the US naturally but it's still a step forward.

It's equally possible that your niece and her partner are simply the kind of people who don't feel the need to broadcast their private lives.



Where someone or something cannot give informed consent. Both of those would be fine with me as long as you all knew what you were getting into. Frankly I don't care if you marry your sister, first cousin and their neighbours - a more interesting question is why do you wish to forbid it?

In my experience the vast majority of people don't see the need to broadcast their private lives (clue in the name!) to all and sundry, I certainly don't and I can't imagine too many people would be greatly interested if I did.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,759
Location
Chester
I'm a straight person, and I would like to get married if the right girl comes along. Allowing gay people the right to marriage has not altered my plans in the slightest. I can't see why it would affect me at all. Saying "I'm not getting married because the gay guys across the road did it" would be borderline insane.

Totally agree. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I am hoping to get married to my partner in the next few years once we've decided where we want to settle down together as a couple. Despite the fact that my best friend (who is a lesbian) is getting married a few years before I am planning to - it hasn't deterred me in the slightest from getting married in the future

It's not about keeping (forcing?) people together. It's about giving those couples who want to marry each other the same rights to do so as a straight couple would have. I can't see why this concept is so difficult to grasp. I'm sure that lots of people in long-term gay relationships won't want to get married, and that's absolutely fine. However, at least now in America they do have the option, just like a straight couple would. That's marriage equality.

Again I agree. Just because the option for same sex couples to get married is there does not mean that all gay couples have to get married. The chances are that more same sex couples will indeed take the opportunity to get married but there are some same sex couples that are just happy to be together or don't believe in marriage - but at least the opportunity is there. Another factor that has been suggested are that some same sex couples may wish to keep their private life out of the public eye and not want to get married. I have friends (in straight and same sex relationships) that don't ever plan on getting married but that's their choice and I completely respect their views and decision

I have to admit I initially didn't plan on getting married in the past but now who I think is the right woman for me has come along and in time I hope that we do get married. One step at a time though!
 
Last edited:

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, in fact, I think that religion is out of time with modern day standards if it believes marriage should be between a man and woman.

I know people who don't like same-sex marriage but they have LGBT friends, so, like Antman, I bet they're probably viewed as homophobic regardless of the fact they''re devoid of any-form of prejudice. Sorry if that doesn't compute in the minds of the local 'equality-warriors' on here. :roll:
 

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
In my experience the vast majority of people don't see the need to broadcast their private lives (clue in the name!) to all and sundry, I certainly don't and I can't imagine too many people would be greatly interested if I did.

I doubt that anyone would say a straight couple getting married were "broadcasting their private lives".



I know people who don't like same-sex marriage but they have LGBT friends, so, like Antman, I bet they're probably viewed as homophobic regardless of the fact they''re devoid of any-form of prejudice. Sorry if that doesn't compute in the minds of the local 'equality-warriors' on here. :roll:

If you're ever saying "I'm not prejudiced, but" or "some of my best friends are [X]", it generally means what you're going to say is in fact prejudiced.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
I doubt that anyone would say a straight couple getting married were "broadcasting their private lives".

I was thinking more of those who have to tell all sundry that they are gay, I'm afraid that my reaction would be "so what?" which is probably the sort of reaction I'd get if I went round telling everyone that I was 'straight', most people really don't need to know one way or the other!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, in fact, I think that religion is out of time with modern day standards if it believes marriage should be between a man and woman.

I know people who don't like same-sex marriage but they have LGBT friends, so, like Antman, I bet they're probably viewed as homophobic regardless of the fact they''re devoid of any-form of prejudice. Sorry if that doesn't compute in the minds of the local 'equality-warriors' on here. :roll:

This is the message that seems to come across from gay activists, agree with us or be branded a homophobe!
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
I was thinking more of those who have to tell all sundry that they are gay, I'm afraid that my reaction would be "so what?" which is probably the sort of reaction I'd get if I went round telling everyone that I was 'straight', most people really don't need to know one way or the other!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


This is the message that seems to come across from gay activists, agree with us or be branded a homophobe!

Well considering you said that GrimsbyPacer's views summed up yours well, and he compared gay marriage with people marrying animals, can you really blame them?

You are literally arguing that a gay couple should not get the same rights as straight couples. This isn't a subtle, unintentional prejudice, like the racism and sexism that has been talked about in other threads - you're outright coming out in favour of giving gay couples fewer rights, and compare their relationships to bestiality. That's homophobic. Not because we don't agree on everything, but for concrete reasons I've just listed.

Also, the reason gay people have gay pride is to make the point that being gay is absolutely fine, and should be celebrated. If that makes you uncomfortable, or you feel the need for straight pride, you totally miss the point. It would be like complaining that there's no civilian day whenever there's an armed forces parade - when straight people have historically been killed and persecuted, and still face ignorance today, then you can argue we don't need gay pride.
 
Last edited:

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
I was thinking more of those who have to tell all sundry that they are gay, I'm afraid that my reaction would be "so what?" which is probably the sort of reaction I'd get if I went round telling everyone that I was 'straight', most people really don't need to know one way or the other!

You're quite right, you don't have to go around telling everyone that you're straight. You don't have to, it's assumed. Now, imagine that everyone assumed you were gay by default, and you were continually asked if you had a boyfriend, or you felt leery of talking about your relationship at work because you'd have to say girlfriend and that might make people think differently of you. That is the world that LGBT people inhabit every day.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
You're quite right, you don't have to go around telling everyone that you're straight. You don't have to, it's assumed. Now, imagine that everyone assumed you were gay by default, and you were continually asked if you had a boyfriend, or you felt leery of talking about your relationship at work because you'd have to say girlfriend and that might make people think differently of you. That is the world that LGBT people inhabit every day.

That's the world the LGBT people are afraid of, where's it's almost taboo to be LGBT. Maybe true 40 years ago but hardly true today.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
That's the world the LGBT people are afraid of, where's it's almost taboo to be LGBT. Maybe true 40 years ago but hardly true today.

Have you been to the Deep South in the U.S.? I have - I'd advise against letting anyone know you're gay outside of perhaps Atlanta.

So long as there's popular vitriol - even if they're a minority - against companies and celebrities for supporting gay rights, I'll maintain there's a need to champion them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You're quite right, you don't have to go around telling everyone that you're straight. You don't have to, it's assumed. Now, imagine that everyone assumed you were gay by default, and you were continually asked if you had a boyfriend, or you felt leery of talking about your relationship at work because you'd have to say girlfriend and that might make people think differently of you. That is the world that LGBT people inhabit every day.

This is exactly what people are talking about when people on the left say that privilege is something that those who have it are often blind to it. We have a habit, especially when we're part of a privileged group, of assuming that everyone's experiences are the same as ours; they're not.
 
Last edited:

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Sorry, I thought you were referring to the UK.

No I haven't been to the deep south of the US.
 

maniacmartin

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,438
Location
Croydon
Going back to the original part of the thread, I'd like to add that based on my sketchy understanding of US law, I agree with Holly that Supreme Court may well have overstepped the mark with this judgement. It was always my understanding that this sort of issue was something that falls under the jurisdiction of the individual states. However, given that there have been so many similar cases concerning gay marriage that have made it to the SC, I suspect that they wanted to make one big ruling to put the matter to bed once and for all.

In the UK, we have got into a mess whereby marriages can be granted by religious bodies and also by secular means (e.g. registry offices), and everything would be much clearer if these two parts were seperated as in France. I would like to see a civic part with all the paperwork open to all sexualities which offers all the tax benefits and whatnot, and seperately an optional religious part that is just a ceremony with no legal standing.

I don't think 'civil partnerships' or similarly named unions don't cut the mustard. It sounds very seperate but equal, and the sort of business venture that one might register at Companies House. The name 'marriage' confers much more meaning and is more recognisable abroad. And if someone thrice-divorced can get married, why shouldn't I be able to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's the world the LGBT people are afraid of, where's it's almost taboo to be LGBT. Maybe true 40 years ago but hardly true today.

Its still a world where I have to instruct my employer to route my business flights to Asia not via Dubai
 
Last edited:

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
That's the world the LGBT people are afraid of, where's it's almost taboo to be LGBT. Maybe true 40 years ago but hardly true today.

It is still true today. I come from a liberal family, I was **** scared when I told my parents I had a boyfriend. I didn't think they'd have a problem with it (and was pretty sure they already knew), but still telling them was terrifying. That was not something I went through when I introduced them to my then-girlfriend.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
You're quite right, you don't have to go around telling everyone that you're straight. You don't have to, it's assumed. Now, imagine that everyone assumed you were gay by default, and you were continually asked if you had a boyfriend, or you felt leery of talking about your relationship at work because you'd have to say girlfriend and that might make people think differently of you. That is the world that LGBT people inhabit every day.

You're just looking for problems! Who assumes such things? I certainly don't and I really couldn't care less about who is gay and who isn't, what business is it of mine? I don't get continually asked if I have a girlfriend or wife or even both:o! In my experience blokes don't normally talk about relationships at work, football is a far more common topic.

I don't eat meat but I might get asked if I want a bacon sandwich or whatever, I'll just politely decline the offer, it's no big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top