Gay marriage

[proggy]

The first bit is correct. I haven't heard what I would consider a good rational argument against gay marriage either, but I am open to reason. I don't assume that if I haven't heard a good reason, that there isn't one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you open to reason that Jews must not be allowed to work in the public sector, or anyone shorter than 5 foot are banned from receiving the BBC?

Somethings are just obvious, well to some people.

[original PM]

I'm against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, you can call it what you like but if it's anything else it's just not marriage. For me it's not about the Gay issue, it's about the whole 1984ish thing of changing the meaning of words. I thought we'd left all that behind when Blair got booted.

My thoughts exactly.

And indeed I think the state should not be able to marry people - if you get 'married' by the state you are actually just having a civil partnership. And a civil partnership is from a legal stand point exactly the same as a marriage

A marriage can only be blessed by God and the state is non denominational.

SO to actually get married you have to go to a religous establishment - and it will be up to that religion as to whether or not they want to bless the a same sex union.

So if we go down route we are simply arguing semantics and it will get to a point where someone will try and bring a law suite which says they can call themselves heterosexual (even if they are not) because it is against their hooman rights to not be able to call themselves that.

I think that right now the Gay community has everything it needs from a legal stand point continuning in this vein may mean they got what they want - but not what they need.

[NotAllThere]

Are you sure you didn't just want to win the CUK 'big word of the day' prize?

It's a fair cop.

Lack of education, low IQ, learning difficulty, mental health issues, retarded... the list goes on.

Ok, so that's why you are against it. But there must be others who are able to tie their own shoelaces.

[Spacecadet]

I'm against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, you can call it what you like but if it's anything else it's just not marriage. For me it's not about the Gay issue, it's about the whole 1984ish thing of changing the meaning of words. I thought we'd left all that behind when Blair got booted.

My thoughts exactly.

And indeed I think the state should not be able to marry people - if you get 'married' by the state you are actually just having a civil partnership. And a civil partnership is from a legal stand point exactly the same as a marriage

A marriage can only be blessed by God and the state is non denominational.

SO to actually get married you have to go to a religous establishment - and it will be up to that religion as to whether or not they want to bless the a same sex union.

So if we go down route we are simply arguing semantics and it will get to a point where someone will try and bring a law suite which says they can call themselves heterosexual (even if they are not) because it is against their hooman rights to not be able to call themselves that.

I think that right now the Gay community has everything it needs from a legal stand point continuning in this vein may mean they got what they want - but not what they need.

I'll just repost what I posted earlier which is in agreement sort of but more due to the fact that the concept of marriage has been so fecked up anyway that another change won't make any difference.

The definition of marriage has been changing over the years anyway, getting slowly more debased until in some parts of society its almost become some meaningless "show of love" with vows made up at the participants whim.

With that in mind I don't think that same sex marriages are going to do the definition of marriage much harm.

[SimonMac]

Lack of education, low IQ, learning difficulty, mental health issues, retarded... the list goes on.

Isn't that your match.com profile?

[proggy]

It's a fair cop.

Ok, so that's why you are against it. But there must be others who are able to tie their own shoelaces.

Maybe I should switch to crocs?

[Spacecadet]

Isn't that your match.com profile?

and Linkedin

[Mich the Tester]

Are you open to reason that Jews must not be allowed to work in the public sector, or anyone shorter than 5 foot are banned from receiving the BBC?

Somethings are just obvious, well to some people.

These things are obvious to me, but in theory someone could provide reason for these things.

[Gibbon]

the state is non denominational.

I wish it were so, the Queen is head of State and Head of the Church of England, the two are entwined hence the explicit exclusion of the C of E in the bill. The C of E has a mandate that it must marry people if lawful whether they believe or not. This is not the case with other faith groups.

[original PM]

I'll just repost what I posted earlier which is in agreement sort of but more due to the fact that the concept of marriage has been so fecked up anyway that another change won't make any difference.

I think the key thing should be to actually clearly define the term 'Marriage' so that it represents what the majority of the uk think it means - a union between a man and a women.

If you think many many people get married because living together/sleeping together/having kids is frowned upon by their parents unless they are married.

I just do not feel that a gay person (or society in general) will gain anything at all be being able to call themselves married.

Its just such a non issue.