Gay marriage

[MarillionFan]

I don't get why people are so strongly opposed to gay marriage. I'm pretty indifferent myself - if gay people want to get married I don't have a problem with it, and I don't see it in any way compromising my marriage. I'm not fussed enough to be pro-gay marriage, but I'm certainly not anti it. If forced to vote for or against (or if I was a politician), I'd vote for.

WMSS

I'm not fussed either way, but they're still not sharing a bed under my roof.

[NotAllThere]

<pedant>

Gay people are allowed to get married at the moment - just not to persons of the same sex.

<pedant/>

I proposed that argument a while back. There's some logical merit to it - a "right" is something normally ascribed to an individual. A gay man is legally permitted to marry a woman if he chooses, just like a heterosexual man. A heterosexual man is not permitted to marry a man, neither is a gay man. So there's no discrimination there.

Of course, what's really being argued is that a straight man can marry the person to whom he is sexually attracted, but a gay man can't. So that is discrimination, since everyone (so the argument goes) has the right to marry the person to whom they are sexually attracted. Unless the object of their affection is a close relative, a sheep, a child, or more than one individual...

I'm not entirely happy with definition of marriage being widened to cover gay relationships. I'm not convinced that it's necessarily going to be that liberating. So I waver between "not caring" and "being against". If/when it goes through I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. If trends in society continue perhaps only gay people will marry, and straights will just live together.

What I really don't like is that the arguments for the pro's against the 'gainst are almost entirely ad-hominem - in many cases downright nasty with a huge dollop of self-righteousness, which is aimed at shutting down debate entirely. Claiming that your opponents are just hate-filled bigots (even if true) is not a healthy way to promote your cause. It is, in itself, hate-filled and bigotted.

[GB9]

The main argument I hear is from religious bigots who claim the Bible ...blah.

Well, if you believe your life should be dictated by a work of fiction a couple of thousand years old, then good on you. Just don't inflict it on anyone else.

My utmost preference would be to abolish marriage (and any tax breaks for it) altogether. However, as that is unlikely to happen any day soon, it should be the same for anyone, regardless of which team they are batting for.

[mudskipper]

The main argument I hear is from religious bigots who claim the Bible ...blah.

Well, if you believe your life should be dictated by a work of fiction a couple of thousand years old, then good on you. Just don't inflict it on anyone else.

My utmost preference would be to abolish marriage (and any tax breaks for it) altogether. However, as that is unlikely to happen any day soon, it should be the same for anyone, regardless of which team they are batting for.

It's not just religious people (and certainly not all religious people).

I can at least understand religious people objections, even if I don't agree with them.

[eek]

It's not just religious people (and certainly not all religious people).

I can at least understand religious people objections, even if I don't agree with them.

I can't because if what they say is true its equally true that all illness is due to sin.

[Sausage Surprise]

Pensions providers will be bankrupted if they allow the gay "spouse" to continue getting the pension when the other one dies.

[centurian]

My utmost preference would be to abolish marriage (and any tax breaks for it) altogether. However, as that is unlikely to happen any day soon, it should be the same for anyone, regardless of which team they are batting for.

A good point there - most of those against say that "marriage" is a religious concept, so "they" should have domain over who/how it should be used, not governments.

So if all elements of marriage were removed from law, that would be fine. Heterosexual couples could still get "married" in their churches, but it would have absolutely no legal grounding. No rights over divorce, inheritance, children, tax - none. If they wanted those, they would have to get an official civil partnership as well.

But if they want to keep marriage embedded in law, it has to be available to all.

[bobspud]

As a middle aged man I have now seen far too many of my friends and colleagues piss all over the vows that they have taken be that before god or their own families and lovers.

Marriage can no-longer be called sacrosanct when society treats "till death do us part" as "Until I meet a better **** bunny..."

Let the gays have it and lets see howmany of them are divorced in side the first 5 years...

[Old Hack]

Push it through, both sides wail and cry and then move on.

Erm....

I think if you want to spend the rest of your life together, and want to cement that in law, then fair play. I still don't know how I lucked out that my wife wanted to marry me, so anyone that has this feeling, and want to express it, I'd always agree to. I am starting to enjoy the less of an effect religion is having on our every day lives.

My personal feeling is that people with ill feeling towards homosexuals may have a bit of trouble with their own sexuality. I've always found it odd when someone else's behaviour, which has no direct bearing on your life at all, offends you to the point of hatred.

The only thing I would question, is in wanting to do it in front of a priest/imam/A.N.Other in the eyes of your god, especially if that religion explicitly forbidden it; I don't really understand why you'd be beholden to a religion, that hated your existence.

[Spacecadet]

I'm not entirely happy with definition of marriage being widened to cover gay relationships. I'm not convinced that it's necessarily going to be that liberating. So I waver between "not caring" and "being against". If/when it goes through I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. If trends in society continue perhaps only gay people will marry, and straights will just live together.

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.