*** Re:"If you do not like gay marraige, do not get a gay marriage''.
..... That ignores the problem people have with SSM. It is all about the definition of the word. You can not get married without knowing gay people are getting married too, which does destroy the true and proud meaning of the word for many people.
You can not have your head in the sand and pretend that the re-definition has not happened.
I still really struggle to understand why knowing that gay people are getting married is an issue to anyone at all. Most people on their wedding day have far too much to be worried about than the thought that somewhere else a couple of gay guys are doing the same thing.
This ruling does not negatively impact on any heterosexual or heterosexual couple.
The redefinition argument is nonsense, and I can't believe I have to explain this to you yet again. The definition of marriage is actually very fluid and has changed constantly over the last 5000 years in which marriage has existed, and varies significantly between cultures. You cannot have
your head in the sand and ignore this basic element of human history. There's been recorded evidence of gay marriages in ancient Rome (
source). The redefinition argument relies on ignorance of the history of marriage, and more often than not ignorance on the purpose of marriage.
It will not in any way change the relationship between respective couples.
Agreed.
*** Re:"it is homophobic to be against SSM"
..... I am glad that many of you have not used this crazy term
It is used as a means to bully anti SSM people, without any realistic foundation.
The irony is that many gay people themselves are 'strongly opposed to SSM' How can they be homophobic?
I think you're the first person to bring this up. I've certainly reserved the word "homophobic" for those who genuinely hold some pretty strong views against homosexuals. I would agree that you can oppose same sex marriage without being "homophobic".
Some gay people are of course opposed to same sex marriage. I'm sure they'll manage to cope with the ruling by quite simply not having a same sex marriage. This is similar to the thousands of heterosexual couples in committed long term relationships who have not and never will get married. As I have already explained, no-one is forcing anyone else into marriage, however now gay people have the same option as their heterosexual peers.
*** Re:"The Slippery slope"
..... Beastie-marriage and Peado-marriage are both a little bit far fetched. But, I do hear some are pushing for both.
Proponents can push all they like, but as I've already explained children and animals lack the capacity to give informed consent to marriage, and as such the marriages cannot be recognised.
.... Multi partner marriage is another matter, as is marriage between grownup cousins, sisters and more.
In deed, if it is all about love, then there should be no barriers whatosever to those last two next steps.
The only barriers to polyamorous marriages are public opinion (which can change) and legal issues. I suspect we won't see it any time soon, because demand would be low and, as I've said above, the legal issues would be inherently complex, particularly relating to separation and divorce.
Incestuous marriage is an even stronger taboo and has more complex issues. Cousins can actually get married in many places. Incestuous relationships do have the issue of generating offspring which is prone to genetic conditions, and as such this is a strong argument against these unions, although of course marriage is not simply a means by which to procreate. The psychological implications of this sort of relationship can also be damaging and would be a barrier to sibling marriage. At the end of the day, there are very few people who would actively want to marry their brother or sister, and I can't see any public support for changing this.
*** Re:"Civil unionships, why are they such a second class thing?"
.... Is there anything better than to be 'equal in word'?
.....What if we where to ditch marriage, and everyone have Civil Unions only?
I've already explained why civil unions for gay people is treating them in an inferior manner. Equality for a gay couple relies on them being treated the same as a heterosexual couple. That means that they should be able to get married in the same way.
I think if we were to ditch marriage entirely, the outcry of the
billions of people who are married around the world would speak for itself.
*** Re:"Rosa Parks incident"
.... That is not much of a likeness to me. The inherent purpose of a bus is to transport people. Whereas the word marriage has always, been to define a unionship between one man and one woman.
.... Rosa Parks was made to move from a seat, because she was not good enough. That is not the case with CUs v SSMs.
You've missed the point I was making. This incident was about equality. My hypothetical solution would have been seen as providing equality by some people, but in reality would not be achieving the same thing. This would be a parallel to marriage vs civil union. Some people like yourself insist that this creates equality, and on some levels it does. However, it is a false equality. It's not the same.
You then went on to hit the nail on the head by saying that Rosa Parks was asked to move because she was deemed inferior based on an aspect outwith her control. This is exactly the same with gay marriage vs civil unions. Gay people cannot control the fact that they are gay, and those in consensual gay relationships have been denied the right to get married. Along came civil partnerships, which is a bit like "the bus for black people" in my example. It appears to create equality - everyone has their own thing, or "bus". However, I'm sure you can see why "the bus for black people" is a reprehensible concept. Similarly, civil union as a substitute for gay marriage is treating homosexual couples in an inferior manner. They have been deemed "not good enough" to join the echelons of heterosexual married couples, and have to make do with "civil unions", which does confer them some of the same rights, but in the end is simply not the same.
Civil unions have been created to please everyone, but in fact do nothing to please anyone. Those for gay marriage haven't got what they want, and those against gay marriage will still oppose civil unions.
I'm not entirely sure why you've brought the disability discrimination legislation into this debate. I certainly hope you're not comparing homosexuality to a disability.
*** Re:Homophobic bullies
.... I agree that no body should ever be bullied because they are different. Weather the basis is on being gay, color of skin, big ears etc.
Good.
*** Re:Those who disrespect SSM on principal
.... None the less, they are human beings with feelings.
True, although they appear to be unable to spell.
Whilst they may be human beings, I do not agree that they have any right to stop gay people getting married. They, of course, have the right to freedom of speech to debate the issue freely, as we are doing just now. However, I feel strongly that they cannot use that freedom to restrict the freedom of others, such as the freedom of homosexual couples to enter into marriage.
*** Re: SSM has not changed your plans as a straight person.
.... Good for you. Do you feel anything for the many who do. You know of one Australian couple who want to end their marriage. But there are vast quantities of others. At least with Civil Marriage.
.... Do you feel anything for those people?
I don't understand this at all, I think you need to complete these thoughts and turn the above into coherent sentences. However, at the risk of putting words into your mouth, are you suggesting that there are "many" people who want to end their marriage because same sex marriage exists?
If indeed you are suggesting that I'm meant to feel bad because heterosexual couple are getting divorces because of gay people... quite frankly I just find the concept bizarre. I'm sure I'm just not understanding you. Please consider proof reading.
*** Re:Why is this so hard to grasp
.... I do not value eqaulity for equality sake. There are some matters of which are more than just equality such as wheelchairs on buses and trains. SSM v SSCU is just a tokenistic jesture nothing more.
.... You are forcing your views on a lot of people who do not want it. People do feel you are pushing gay relationships upon them by redefining the word marriage.
....Having CUs for everyone may provide the same tokinistic jesture without much of the hurt imposed upon many others.
And you're rehashing the old arguments again. Once again,
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GET A GAY MARRIAGE. No one is forcing anyone else into a gay relationship. You have yet to explain in any substantial way how gay marriage is hurting, or impinging upon the freedoms of, any heterosexual couple.
Has it not occurred to you that those who oppose gay marriage have been forcing those views upon society for many centuries now?
If I was to take away any aspect of your equality, I'm sure you'd be angry about it, and rightly so.
**** Re: Marriage is a civil matter
.... Nope, just because it is regulated by a law, does not really make it a civil matter.
.... The only reason why it is there in the first place is, because of the strict Christian heritage of UK, US, Australia and other western places where it is regulated by law.
Once again, it is important that you understand that marriage predates the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. It is in its original form, it was very much a legal agreement surrounding property rights. Religious involvement came much, much later. Whilst I will agree that marriage as we know it today has been largely shaped by religious traditions in the last few centuries, this does not give religious institutions any rights to control marriage.
*** RE: Marriage is better known by the wider community
..... That is because 90% of us are straight, and are in a somewhat straight centric community. We are also first to expect a person to have a partner of the opposite gender too.
I think we've already touched on this issue. I think we can all agree that "normality" is expected to be heterosexuality. I'll admit that I'm guilty of assuming people are straight until proven otherwise. I can't think of any parents who expect their children to enter a gay relationship, hence why people have to "come out". It's a great prejudice that I can't see going away any time soon.
This isn't a reason to stop gay people getting married. Because 90% of people are straight (and I think that's a conservative estimate) doesn't mean that we should stop gay marriage.
*** Re:The Transgender debate
.... Yes, you have an interesting point, but there are ways around that.
.... Perhaps when he/she has the operation, there could be an automatic change from Civil Unions to Marriage
.... There does need to be a term that is all inclusive. I do not agree that you need to destroy peoples belief in the word marriage to do so.
I've not given much thought to transexual issues in marriage. Same sex marriage certainly makes life easier for the transexual community, which is to be welcomed. I can't imagine how insisting that you change from a marriage to a civil union or vice versa is going to help anyone. It's actually quite an absurd suggestion. "Now that you've had an operation, your civil union has been redefined as a marriage". It doesn't change things for the couple.
You've created an unnecessarily complex issue for something that is relatively simple. Two people are married, simple. One has a sex change, they can do it. The marriage is still the same. Still nice and simple.
I have been in quite a number of debates on this topic over many years, watching debates on both sides of this debate. At times things can get very nasty with some people, the worst I see are those on the socialists side.
Really? Plenty of reprehensible thoughts coming from those who oppose gay marriage. In fact, it's actually quite a mainstream tactic of campaigners against gay marriage to talk about homosexual relationships being "not natural" and "not normal". That's actually a pretty vile, but commonly accepted slur. And that's before we go down the extremist route:
I've actually made very few, if any, new arguments, so I'm not going to continue any further around this merry-go-round. I have still yet to see one valid argument against gay marriage that stands up to any form of scrutiny.
! In my experience blokes don't normally talk about relationships at work, football is a far more common topic.
