Petition: Campaign for Equal Marriage

[junglejames]

Infact if what he's saying isn't discriminatory, I don't know what is!

Brilliant. Thats it. He doesnt agree with gay marriage so must be discriminating against us.
No, its because i think certain things shouldnt change, and the ideologies of marriage is one of them. Im not discriminating against homosexuals. I just want certain things to stay as they are. If i was discriminating, id be saying things like 'gays shouldnt be seen or heard' etc etc.
But no, Im saying nothing of the sort.
My beliefs have nothing to do with discrimination.

 

[TheJRB]

Yes, thank you badger for your post.

The part I don't get about those who care about the "preservation of marriage" (or so they might call it) is what disadvantage this could possibly have? If two men or two women get married that in no way alters the validity of a marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing changes for them.

 

[junglejames]

well to be fair you never really did give a reason, just an opinion :roll:

Loads of reasons are just opinions. Most things i see on this forum are just opinions.
Wanting gay marriage is just an opinion.
"I believe marriage should be open for all"- Opinion
"I believe the ideologies of marriage should stay the same"- Opinion

 

[Anon Mouse]

well it is discriminatory if you don't belive gay people should marry as that belief will allow a male and female to marry but not two people of the same sex.

Seriously, is there really a difference? If two people want to marry then they should be able to tie the knot.

 

[TheJRB]

Brilliant. Thats it. He doesnt agree with gay marriage so must be discriminating against us.
No, its because i think certain things shouldnt change, and the ideologies of marriage is one of them. Im not discriminating against homosexuals. I just want certain things to stay as they are. If i was discriminating, id be saying things like 'gays shouldnt be seen or heard' etc etc.
But no, Im saying nothing of the sort.
My beliefs have nothing to do with discrimination.

discrimination noun

1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex

I would say that stopping two men or women getting married because they are just that (two men or two women) is unjust treatment because of a category. Just because it is a belief, it doesn't prevent it being discrimination of some kind (not necessarily homophobia).

 

[junglejames]

well it is discriminatory if you don't belive gay people should marry as that belief will allow a male and female to marry but not two people of the same sex.

Seriously, is there really a difference? If two people want to marry then they should be able to tie the knot.

OK, if you want to look deep into it, then yes, you could call it discriminatory. But my point is, it isnt for any discriminatory reasons, and for that reason, it isnt fair to call it discriminatory. Looking at it in your way, we are all discriminatory over certain things. But that doesnt mean its meant in such a way.
I dont believe children should be able to marry. Thats discriminating against children, but its not meant to be.
Do you think we should lower the age of consent to 15? Because if you dont, thats also discriminating against 15yr olds. However the reasons for it arent meant to be discriminating.

Just to conclude. Your last point about people being able to marry if they want to. Its an opinion, and a belief. The exact same thing ive been chastised over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would say that stopping two men or women getting married because they are just that (two men or two women) is unjust treatment because of a category. Just because it is a belief, it doesn't prevent it being discrimination of some kind (not necessarily homophobia).

Well ok, but its not meant in such a way, and its not meant in a nasty way. Everybody in the world is now guilty of discrimination in one sense or another now though.
Also, is my belief for an unjust reason? If not, its a close run thing as to whether it is discriminatory or not.

 

[TheJRB]

OK, if you want to look deep into it, then yes, you could call it discriminatory. But my point is, it isnt for any discriminatory reasons, and for that reason, it isnt fair to call it discriminatory. Looking at it in your way, we are all discriminatory over certain things. But that doesnt mean its meant in such a way.
I dont believe children should be able to marry. Thats discriminating against children, but its not meant to be.
Do you think we should lower the age of consent to 15? Because if you dont, thats also discriminating against 15yr olds. However the reasons for it arent meant to be discriminating.

Just to conclude. Your last point about people being able to marry if they want to. Its an opinion, and a belief. The exact same thing ive been chastised over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well ok, but its not meant in such a way, and its not meant in a nasty way. Everybody in the world is now guilty of discrimination in one sense or another now though.
Also, is my belief for an unjust reason? If not, its a close run thing as to whether it is discriminatory or not.

I don't doubt that everybody has at some stage been guilty of discrimination to which ever small degree you look at it.

Your point about lowering the age of consent is really comparing apples with oranges. The age of consent is there to protect legal minors. Preventing homosexuals from marrying doesn't protect them.

Please remember this isn't intended as a personal attack on you but rather a discussion on a rather important topic (for at least quite a lot people).

To quote Newton's law of motion: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction". If this isn't good proof of that, I don't know what is!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Everyone has their own opinions and reasons on this, for God's sake can't everyone just respect that, get over it and move on?

 

[Badger]

I actually... do think age discrimination is wrong.

Puberty, and (often disconnected) maturity, come at different times for different people.

You're right though, that I would still be discriminating based on whether or not somebody has passed puberty or is mature. And I'm afraid I don't have an answer for that.

Perhaps it should be done on a proof-of-knowledge basis - if you can prove that you know what you're getting in to then--- no, but that's still discriminatory against people who don't understand. (But, I'd still argue that if somebody doesn't understand something they shouldn't do it, especially a contract).

You are, though, correct; we all discriminate on some things. But I think it is important to cut down that discrimination where possible and, in cases where nobody is hurt by the decisions, any discrimination should be taken away.

Is anybody hurt when two men get married? No.

Is anybody hurt if a five year old has sex? ...well it depends on the five year old, but I'm sure the answer is probably a yes. But I'm in dangerous territory there because even then there measure of harm is opinionated..

In short, though, age discrimination is wrong, for various reasons, but there is no viable alternative. I think, therefore, that can pass...

(Although! (Sorry, I keep digressing) some age discrimination is still wrong and avoidable, i.e. all people aged 60 automatically being given a free bus pass regardless of their ability to make other means, their wealth or lack thereof, etc.)

 

[bb21]

One thing I cannot understand where people believe that marriage shouldn't be open to all yet at the same time insist that they are not discriminatory is if a civil partnership offers same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, then why can it not be called a "marriage"? On what basis should same-sex couples be denied the right to call their union a "marriage"? The only difference in play here is sexual orientation, and that makes it discriminatory.

Maybe the reason that some people don't want to admit that it is discriminatory is that they do not want to associate themselves with being discriminatory for holding that view. Unfortunately it does not mean that that particular view is not discriminatory.

 

[Badger]

Because some people think "marriage" implies a religious aspect, even though (the first three paragraphs, at least, of) this article (yes, wikipedia, I know, but still ) disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The word itself comes from Latin which predates Christianity so the argument is flawed.

Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Defines it as a "legal or religious ceremony" (and even that's only in one of five definitions).

 

[Nym]

Even though by definition it doesn't hold religous significance, it has come to gain such significance now that is the basis for my previous arguments.

 

[Badger]

I've never seen it that way, but I don't doubt it could be to some people. The majority of weddings I've been to have been in town halls or registry offices (I think, not sure how to describe them) and I've been to more atheist/agnostic weddings than religious ones. But, of course, that's just personal experience.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Everyone has their own opinions and reasons on this, for God's sake can't everyone just respect that, get over it and move on?

You would think wouldnt you... the thread appears to be going round in circles...

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Marriage is a union between two people to show love, respect and commitment between each other, I was married in a registry office, the bond is just as real no matter where I was married. Myself and my wife did it because we wanted to show our love and commitment to each other and this for us showed it, Marriage may be religious to some but nowhere near as many as say 30 years ago, Marriage is a Union and should not be used as a religious stick to beat people down with.

 

[madannie77]

Because I think it would highlight why "nothing changing" is a bit odd...

I've never really introduced myself here and I'm sorry for being overly dramatic, but I am a transwoman (please, hold back any image you have in your mind on the matter, it's probably wrong) but I am also a lesbian. I'm bringing this up because there's a peculiar matter with that, in that the church doesn't believe it exists. Even sex changes are "not recognised".

Now what does that mean? Under a "nothing should change" policy, I can, right now, marry my girlfriend and have a homosexual relationship. I cannot, however, find a man and have a straight relationship. Now this is clearly contradictory with most of the above... because if "nothing should change", then you're permitting me a homosexual relationship.

Unfortunately transgender people are discriminated against in other ways too. I cannot give blood, for example.

But, quite happily, I can have a big church wedding with two people in a dress. Lovely. (Sorry for bringing personal issues into this, I just thought the situation would nicely show the fallacy in nothing changing.)

The transgender issue in some ways highlights the nonsense of the "marriage is only for a man and a woman" situation currently existing in this country. At the moment, who a transgendered person is allowed to marry depends on whether or not they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

For example: a transwoman without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) would be able to marry a biological woman (i.e. one with a birth certificate stating the gender female) but not a man. A transwoman with a GRC would be able to marry a man, but not a woman.

If a transwoman is already married then a GRC can only be obtained after a divorce, as the law states that two women cannot be married. This leaves the person in the ridiculous dilemma of either remaining as male in the eyes of the law but married, or being recognised as female but having to divorce, with all the implications that can have. This is utterly nonsensical to my way of thinking, as a loving couple would be forced to divorce due to nothing more than an archaic notion of marriage, and would not happen if we lived in a nation where everybody had an equal right to marriage.

 

[pinkpanther]

The transgender issue in some ways highlights the nonsense of the "marriage is only for a man and a woman" situation currently existing in this country. At the moment, who a transgendered person is allowed to marry depends on whether or not they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Crazy isn't it?

I've a GRC, so I'm no longer an anomaly. :grin:

 

[Anon Mouse]

Marriage is a union between two people to show love, respect and commitment between each other, I was married in a registry office, the bond is just as real no matter where I was married. Myself and my wife did it because we wanted to show our love and commitment to each other and this for us showed it, Marriage may be religious to some but nowhere near as many as say 30 years ago, Marriage is a Union and should not be used as a religious stick to beat people down with.

hear hear, both my Wife and I are athiests and we got married in a registry office. There was nothing religious about the wedding and that was the way we wanted it. The Church does not 'own' marriage and therefore anyone who gets married should have the same rights and respect, no matter if the couple are the opposite sex or otherwise.

 

[Ivo]

This thread is bringing out more sides to the whole LGBT part of the word than a dating site hock:

I do feel quite sorry to those who who belong to the "T" group above. You guys never seem to have a way forward and seem to gget hit with the most prejudice of all. My pseudo-step-brother (I say "pseudo" because his mother has been in a relationship with my father for nearly 15 years but they are still merely co-habitating and nothing; heck - my parents are still married! ) is in the process of going through all the hormonal "business" on his way to the operation to become a woman. But where my father had an army background and has never been exposed to this kind of thing, he is not exactly keen on it, and found out through Facebook - because his partner and her daughter wanted to sit him and do it slowly... obviously too slowly. His exact line to me when he found out was: "Me? I'm horrified!"

Prejudices such as that are never likely to change unless something or someone forces the issue.

 

[madannie77]

This thread is bringing out more sides to the whole LGBT part of the word than a dating site hock:

I do feel quite sorry to those who who belong to the "T" group above. You guys never seem to have a way forward and seem to gget hit with the most prejudice of all. My pseudo-step-brother (I say "pseudo" because his mother has been in a relationship with my father for nearly 15 years but they are still merely co-habitating and nothing; heck - my parents are still married! ) is in the process of going through all the hormonal "business" on his way to the operation to become a woman. But where my father had an army background and has never been exposed to this kind of thing, he is not exactly keen on it, and found out through Facebook - because his partner and her daughter wanted to sit him and do it slowly... obviously too slowly. His exact line to me when he found out was: "Me? I'm horrified!"

Prejudices such as that are never likely to change unless something or someone forces the issue.

I think guys and gals would be more appropriate in the "T" context (apologies if anyone is offended by the flippancy there - I couldn't resist).

I could go on and on and on (etc) about all those prejudices, both personal and institutional, but I won't, as this topic is about marriage. The transgender issue highlights the utter absurdity of the current state of affairs. Before the advent of the GRC I could have married another woman, but not a man. Now I have a GRC I can marry a man but not a woman.

Although it is probably impossible to remove people's prejudices completely, it is surely time to remove institutional prejudices such as the marriage anomaly. The state really has no business in discriminating against its own people on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.

 

[60163]

This is why I enjoy trainspotting; issues of society and the wider world can be momentarily forgotten.


As for my opinion, just bloody let them get married. I think disease, famine etc. are more urgent issues. (That's not to discount all the discussion here.)

 

[table38]

Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage, is not to get married to someone of the same sex.

Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall

 

[Nonsense]

hear hear, both my Wife and I are athiests and we got married in a registry office. There was nothing religious about the wedding and that was the way we wanted it. The Church does not 'own' marriage and therefore anyone who gets married should have the same rights and respect, no matter if the couple are the opposite sex or otherwise.

Precisely. I had a secular wedding and the church wasn't outside protesting its godlessness and insisting the name marriage not be used.

While the thought of two blokes together does make me wince a bit, its only because I can't help but imagine the detail and its not for me. Luckily, I'm not being forced to partake and ultimately, how others live and find fulfillment is absolutely of no consequence to me. Now two chicks is a different matter entirely but for some reason I can't seem to bag an invite...

TBH, the church is pretty much cementing itself as the eptitomy of intolerance and hypocrisy. Those Christians out there that aren't opposed to equality should really stand up and be counted. Attitudes are changing for the better though. Wheel chair users and the partially sighted are finding it easier to get about thanks to changes in legislation, and its gradually being recognised that its not ok to discriminate against anyone, ever.

Shame on those who, in the name of God, make this an issue.

 

[Nick W]

TBH, the church is pretty much cementing itself as the eptitomy of intolerance and hypocrisy. Those Christians out there that aren't opposed to equality should really stand up and be counted. Attitudes are changing for the better though. Wheel chair users and the partially sighted are finding it easier to get about thanks to changes in legislation, and its gradually being recognised that its not ok to discriminate against anyone, ever.

Shame on those who, in the name of God, make this an issue.

I totally agree with you about much of the hypocrisy, but I think it's slightly unfair to accuse Christians of being opposed to equality. Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." NIV

All I ask is that churches aren't forced to marry people they don't want to marry. Telling a church they have to marry a couple, against their views, sounds both intolerant and fascist to me.

You're right about legislation making it easier for many groups, but I don't see what that has to do with the issue. FWIW I have a Christian friend who's working on improving wheelchair design.

 

[Schnellzug]

I wonder (not referring to what anyone in particular has said): when people say that they find Homosexuality a bit icky, I wonder if it's just )without wanting to draw a diagram ) one particular activity that they're thinking of? That it's not the idea as a whole, just one particular thing that is sometimes, so I'm told, done, although it's neither universal nor is it compulsory?

 

[Anon Mouse]

I wonder (not referring to what anyone in particular has said): when people say that they find Homosexuality a bit icky, I wonder if it's just )without wanting to draw a diagram ) one particular activity that they're thinking of? That it's not the idea as a whole, just one particular thing that is sometimes, so I'm told, done, although it's neither universal nor is it compulsory?

But I wonder if those same people who think two guys doing 'that act' is a bit icky think its ok to do the same act to a female. I am straight, and I am married but I don't actually find homosexual activity icky as most gay men partaking in sodomy are loving and caring couples making love as part of their relationship. Obviously if two men were doing it in a public place I would be disgusted, but that would be the same disgust I would feel if a male and female were doing it in public as its not appropiate to have sex in public as opposed to who and whom were doing which sex act. (I think that makes sense)

 

[Yew]

Personally I think that 'civil partnerships' should be renamed as a marriage. Even if its called a civil marriage or something. If a homosexual couple want a religious marriage, then I think that would be down to the invdividual church/vicar to decide if it fits in with their understanding of god.

Oh, and Im not personally gay, as I dont like the idea of kissing anyone with a tache. However I dont discriminate, and that applies to ladies too

 

[Nick W]

Personally I think that 'civil partnerships' should be renamed as a marriage. Even if its called a civil marriage or something. If a homosexual couple want a religious marriage, then I think that would be down to the invdividual church/vicar to decide if it fits in with their understanding of god.

That would be a good way of doing it. I would probably go down the route of abolishing civil/legal marriage all together so that the state doesn't get to define marriage, while upholding partnerships as it does marriage currently.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The state really has no business in discriminating against its own people on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.

That would be a good way of doing it. I would probably go down the route of abolishing civil/legal marriage all together so that the state doesn't get to define marriage, while upholding partnerships as it does marriage currently.

I would be quite content if the State was to remain silent on the gender issues we've been discussing here.

However, the State does have some roles to play in the matter of Marriage, some of these are quite powerful and important to many people. I wonder if any of these are beng challenged here (or is it just the gender issue?).

These include Prohibitions: Restriction by age. Prohibition on multiple spouses. Prohibition where one partner has not the Capacity to Consent. Prohibition without Consent (i.e. control of forced marriages).

Regulation: Proper advertisement; Consideration of relevant Objectors (can include children); Maintaining the Public Record.

Application: Provision of a trail of Kin; Distribution of Estate after intestate Death (assets pass to children and spouse and not to the State); Consent to medical intervention (includes some care and Mental Health arrangements); Regulation of some welfare and tax differentials (incl pensions); Regulation of privately managed benefit differentials (life insurances, mortgages etc).

Are we all quite happy for the State to remain the Regulator of Marriage for all of these reasons?

 

[Badger]

That would be a good way of doing it. I would probably go down the route of abolishing civil/legal marriage all together so that the state doesn't get to define marriage, while upholding partnerships as it does marriage currently.

But that would stop atheists, agnostics, or people who just simply aren't religiously affiliated, from getting married. Marriage predates religion and certainly predates Christianity. Given the seriousness of marriage, as a contract, and everything it entails, I think the state needs to have involvement. I don't think religious institutions should get to define marriage.