The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
But alex, you are telling me it's good without anything to back it up. What is the difference other than that we don't agree?
quote:
You didn't explain how you came to your conclusions, you have simply stated it is your belief, that same sex unions are bad, that it's improper to raise a child in such a union - without anything to back it up.
But alex, you are telling me it's good without anything to back it up. What is the difference other than that we don't agree?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
I suppose like most other people, my beliefs are formed by my up-bringing. By the family environment in which I grew up. That's all I can say. Bear in mind that I am finding it as strange that you people are in favour of this as you are clearly finding it strange that I am not in favour. It's called understanding.
quote:
but you haven't said how you have come to your conclusions.
I suppose like most other people, my beliefs are formed by my up-bringing. By the family environment in which I grew up. That's all I can say. Bear in mind that I am finding it as strange that you people are in favour of this as you are clearly finding it strange that I am not in favour. It's called understanding.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
If only Gay couples were allowed to legally marry and benefit from the lower tax allowances etc, each country affected would be exceptionally richer purely by everybody else paying the top rate as it were, you know it makes sense, innit.
Fritz Von Moneymakestheworldgoaround
Goodnight:
Fritz Von Moneymakestheworldgoaround
Goodnight:
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by John C
I repeat no-one is trying to persuade you of anything. Believe what you want. Its simply odd you feel so strongly about gay marriage and yet can't articulate your reasoning.
John
John
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Former member
quote:
But alex, you are telling me it's good without anything to back it up. What is the difference other than that we don't agree?
Brian
Throb, Phil, Fredrik and others have all made excellent and well reasoned posts not stating that same-sex marriages are "good" or "bad"; but that same-sex marriages should be equal in standing to hetero-marriages. This is different to how you *seem* to have interpreted them, although it's late and I could be misreading.
The rationale behind this has been explained, in great detail, to a level beyond my tiny brain and it's limited ability to do so.
At no point have I suggested that same-sex marriages are "good" or "bad", I just think that the prejudices in society and law are out-dated and should be removed as part of the evolution of any civilised society. I cannot think of any single reason why same-sex relationships should be treated any differently to hetero-relationships.
The main arguments do appear to be economic, because many of the prejudices against same-sex marriages are (largely) economic - pension rights, tax legislation, family bereavement issues, and issues of the wider recognition of the commitment that the partners have to each other.
I find it hard to understand your position because it's just that - a position - without anything to substantiate how you got there. You have excluded religion (which is one dogma that usually gives rise to views such as yours), and you have made pretty clear anti-Tory comments (another similar dogma).
Like Phil said, I am surprised that yours is the only voice holding such an opinion however.
ag
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
The only reason for BrianD's beliefs I'm able to extract is that his mom and dad taught him that families are centered around a married man and woman, and any variation of that core is completely unacceptable. Yes?
If so, to me it would seem a bit odd to carry that belief through adulthood without observing same-sex couples acting as absolutely awful parents and raising destructive, immoral, hateful children. My point being only that we all start off with what those close to us and/or childhood religion teachings taught us, and then our adult experiences either strenghten or weaken the validility of those teachings in a personal way. Has this been the case? If so, how?
Again, not being sarcastic- I'm just trying to see where you're coming from, BrianD.
[This message was edited by Ludwig on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 00:11.]
If so, to me it would seem a bit odd to carry that belief through adulthood without observing same-sex couples acting as absolutely awful parents and raising destructive, immoral, hateful children. My point being only that we all start off with what those close to us and/or childhood religion teachings taught us, and then our adult experiences either strenghten or weaken the validility of those teachings in a personal way. Has this been the case? If so, how?
Again, not being sarcastic- I'm just trying to see where you're coming from, BrianD.
[This message was edited by Ludwig on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 00:11.]
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Rasher
I agree with Brian in that the main argument being put forward here is equality with regard mainly to the economic legal situation, which is a rather cynical reason for marriage. Much like any couple who decide to get married purely because there may be a tax benefit - or a young girl having a baby not because she wants one, but because she needs a council flat, economic reasons alone should not be the deciding factor whether to marry or not in any relationship. But the fact that same sex couples are denied these rights, makes the possibility of marriage as a vehicle to fix these problems in one hit an attractive proposition.
It's not fair to single out "misuse" of marriage for reasons other than traditional family values on gays, because it happens all the time for the reasons stated above. If the marriage "system" is failing (if there is a system), then it is because of the law and the rights of a married couple being tied to the marriage contract. If everybody had the same individual rights and acknowledgement of being a bone-fide couple, married or not, then this whole issue would go back to people marrying because they love each other and for no other reason.
Same sex couples should be given the same rights as any other couple, married or not married, and then when gay couples want to get married, they should be able to do so without a cynical view that it must be for reasons other than they just love each other.
(I like the term "gay couples" and am going to continue to use it. If it's good enough for my gay couple friends, then it's OK by me)
It's not fair to single out "misuse" of marriage for reasons other than traditional family values on gays, because it happens all the time for the reasons stated above. If the marriage "system" is failing (if there is a system), then it is because of the law and the rights of a married couple being tied to the marriage contract. If everybody had the same individual rights and acknowledgement of being a bone-fide couple, married or not, then this whole issue would go back to people marrying because they love each other and for no other reason.
Same sex couples should be given the same rights as any other couple, married or not married, and then when gay couples want to get married, they should be able to do so without a cynical view that it must be for reasons other than they just love each other.
(I like the term "gay couples" and am going to continue to use it. If it's good enough for my gay couple friends, then it's OK by me)
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
John C
You're a wum, right?
I have stated my view, you just don't agree with it so you think I haven't. You want something in black and white, something like...."I don't want gays to be married because I hate their guts." Well, that's not the case.
I have a view that marriage is for men and women, why I have that is something I'm not even bothered enough about to analyse because I don't have to justify it to anyone. You and others are hoping for change, you have to convince others that change is for the better, I don't believe that's been done here.
Others feel that marriage can be for men with men etc, and they feel they've justified that by using an economic argument. Well, to me, that's no better than me saying I hate gays to justify my position. Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me.
quote:
and yet can't articulate your reasoning.
You're a wum, right?
I have stated my view, you just don't agree with it so you think I haven't. You want something in black and white, something like...."I don't want gays to be married because I hate their guts." Well, that's not the case.
I have a view that marriage is for men and women, why I have that is something I'm not even bothered enough about to analyse because I don't have to justify it to anyone. You and others are hoping for change, you have to convince others that change is for the better, I don't believe that's been done here.
Others feel that marriage can be for men with men etc, and they feel they've justified that by using an economic argument. Well, to me, that's no better than me saying I hate gays to justify my position. Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
John C
I came back here and posted in order to debate. I'm not put out if people are trying to persuade me I'm wrong. That's what it's all about. If it isn't, what on earth is the point of a forum?
quote:
I repeat no-one is trying to persuade you of anything. Believe what you want.
I came back here and posted in order to debate. I'm not put out if people are trying to persuade me I'm wrong. That's what it's all about. If it isn't, what on earth is the point of a forum?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
And what exactly is wrong with that, Ludwig? Taking religion as an example, nobody asks religious people to justify their beliefs, do they? They just accept people have their beliefs, but then of course, it wouldn't be the done thing to question them on this, would it?
quote:
The only reason for BrianD's beliefs I'm able to extract is that his mom and dad taught him that families are centered around a married man and woman, and any variation of that core is completely unacceptable
And what exactly is wrong with that, Ludwig? Taking religion as an example, nobody asks religious people to justify their beliefs, do they? They just accept people have their beliefs, but then of course, it wouldn't be the done thing to question them on this, would it?
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
For those that missed it, can I just repeat what I said earlier, because nobody has mentioned it. Perhaps it's because nobody can moan about me saying it........
"Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
"Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
And what exactly is wrong with that, Ludwig?
Nothing's wrong with it. I'll accept it, but as I said I think it's odd to accept parents' beliefs without challenging or testing them at some point.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
Oh, you might have overlooked my other question but I'm curious if you've witnessed tons of same-sex couples who are awful parents, raising hateful, destructive, immoral children (i.e., bad ones).
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
BrianD -- If you had only made the point that you are against same-sex marriages becasue you believe traditional family strcutures are the basis on which our society is built we might have avoided 4 pages of trying to wring blood from a stone.
Briefly I disagree with your view for the following reasons:
-- Most same-sex couples will not have children and would never have children or start a traditional family of their own. By allowing same-sex marriage you are not reducing the number of potential tradititional familes at all (apart from arguably a couple of the ones that end up with Dad running off with somone bloke he met on the Internet)
-- Adoption by same-sex couples is really a different topic and should be considered separately from marriage. Suffice it to say that as same-sex couples do manage to raise healthy and happy adopted children then they should be allowed to adopt subject to the same stringent guidelines as other couples.
-- A solid family unit based around a same-sex couple is obviously better than the endless broken homes and diastrous families that are so common these days. The gender of the parents seems less important in predicting this success than other issues.
Brian said "Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me" and Rasher said "the main argument being put forward here is equality with regard mainly to the economic legal situation, which is a rather cynical reason for marriage"
1. People get married becuase they love each other and wish to make a public and formal commitment to staying together for the rest of their lives. They do not, in the main, get married for tax breaks.
2. The argument being made is a moral one not an economic one. Specifically same-sex couples are morally entitled to the same rights as other couples unless you can come up with a very ood reason why not. Some of these rights are financial but many are not -- the right to visit your spouse in hospital as next of kin for exmaple.
(The rest of Rasher's argument seems based on the idea that econmoics is a primary motive for marriage and seems thus flawed to me and the only other thing I would note is that "gay couple" is a perfectly reasoinable term to my mind and the reason we say "same-sex marriage" is to include Lesbian relationships as well).
Brian said "For those that missed it, can I just repeat "Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples. You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law. Also I believe that the idea of a couple making a formal commitment to each other has value for society and should be encouraged regardless of the genders involved.
On the second point I refer you to the Vermont ruling which said that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal". Although as has been said the word "marriage" and its associated baggage is something of a red herring. It's important I beleive that same-sex couples should be considerd the equivalent and equal of traditional couples and not somehow regarded as a sort of second-class union. And again you need a good reason not to grant them the same status -- you can't, really, just say it's got to be a man and a woman.
Matthew
[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 10:30.]
Briefly I disagree with your view for the following reasons:
-- Most same-sex couples will not have children and would never have children or start a traditional family of their own. By allowing same-sex marriage you are not reducing the number of potential tradititional familes at all (apart from arguably a couple of the ones that end up with Dad running off with somone bloke he met on the Internet)
-- Adoption by same-sex couples is really a different topic and should be considered separately from marriage. Suffice it to say that as same-sex couples do manage to raise healthy and happy adopted children then they should be allowed to adopt subject to the same stringent guidelines as other couples.
-- A solid family unit based around a same-sex couple is obviously better than the endless broken homes and diastrous families that are so common these days. The gender of the parents seems less important in predicting this success than other issues.
Brian said "Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me" and Rasher said "the main argument being put forward here is equality with regard mainly to the economic legal situation, which is a rather cynical reason for marriage"
1. People get married becuase they love each other and wish to make a public and formal commitment to staying together for the rest of their lives. They do not, in the main, get married for tax breaks.
2. The argument being made is a moral one not an economic one. Specifically same-sex couples are morally entitled to the same rights as other couples unless you can come up with a very ood reason why not. Some of these rights are financial but many are not -- the right to visit your spouse in hospital as next of kin for exmaple.
(The rest of Rasher's argument seems based on the idea that econmoics is a primary motive for marriage and seems thus flawed to me and the only other thing I would note is that "gay couple" is a perfectly reasoinable term to my mind and the reason we say "same-sex marriage" is to include Lesbian relationships as well).
Brian said "For those that missed it, can I just repeat "Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples. You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law. Also I believe that the idea of a couple making a formal commitment to each other has value for society and should be encouraged regardless of the genders involved.
On the second point I refer you to the Vermont ruling which said that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal". Although as has been said the word "marriage" and its associated baggage is something of a red herring. It's important I beleive that same-sex couples should be considerd the equivalent and equal of traditional couples and not somehow regarded as a sort of second-class union. And again you need a good reason not to grant them the same status -- you can't, really, just say it's got to be a man and a woman.
Matthew
[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 10:30.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Rasher
Matthew, for the record, my son's Godmother is one half of a lesbian partnership, and has a daughter produced by artificial means. She refers to herself as in a "Gay partnership".
My argument was not to suggest that economic reasons are the basis for marriage, but just addressing Brians point that this appears to be, in his opinion, the main motivation in this case. My point is that all couples married or not, hetrosexual or not, should have the same rights without having to use marriage as a point of law, which kind of muddles and devalues marriage in the eyes of the cynical. I know you say Brians problem is a moral issue, but it would be good to remove the other factor.
My argument was not to suggest that economic reasons are the basis for marriage, but just addressing Brians point that this appears to be, in his opinion, the main motivation in this case. My point is that all couples married or not, hetrosexual or not, should have the same rights without having to use marriage as a point of law, which kind of muddles and devalues marriage in the eyes of the cynical. I know you say Brians problem is a moral issue, but it would be good to remove the other factor.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
You just can't stop, can you? I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC? In retaliation, I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject.But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own.
Why not?
Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together? For example, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. Why does it have to be based on marriage? Why not just grant what we see now as, 'married' benefits to any couple living together for 'x' period of time? Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?
quote:
If you had only made the point that you are against same-sex marriages becasue you believe traditional family strcutures are the basis on which our society is built we might have avoided 4 pages of trying to wring blood from a stone.
You just can't stop, can you? I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC? In retaliation, I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject.But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own.
quote:
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples.
Why not?
quote:
You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law.
Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together? For example, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. Why does it have to be based on marriage? Why not just grant what we see now as, 'married' benefits to any couple living together for 'x' period of time? Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
No. But why should I?
How many 'awful' parents do you think are out there? Obviously they exist, but allowing same sex marriages is not going to do anything about awful parents, so I'm not sure I see why you're mentioning this.
quote:
Oh, you might have overlooked my other question but I'm curious if you've witnessed tons of same-sex couples who are awful parents, raising hateful, destructive, immoral children (i.e., bad ones).
No. But why should I?
How many 'awful' parents do you think are out there? Obviously they exist, but allowing same sex marriages is not going to do anything about awful parents, so I'm not sure I see why you're mentioning this.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
"You just can't stop, can you?"
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
"I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC?"
Yes. When I am having a discussion with someone I make my points forcefully and as I've said a number of times the problem here seems to be your over-sensitive and defensive response not my postings which I stand by. If you just get it out of your head that everyone is persuing some bizarre hidden agenda against you might enjoy the forum more and get more out of the dicsussions.
"I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject"
I think my views on the subject were fairly clear -- certainly it was clear that I was in favour and on what basis.
"But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own"
I can't think of an approriate response to that beyond a *sigh*
"Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together?"
Well it could and to some extent it is under the rules of Common Law marriages. But:
1) Since rights invariably come with responsibilities as well it seems reasonable to require a proactive step by the couple than just allowing it to happen by accident like the incurring of a library fine.
2) If you agree that a formalised state for a long term relationship is a good thing and something you wish to encourage then that seems the obvious point at which to put the relationship on a more formal legal and civic footing.
3) It is of course important that peole can get married in a civic as well as religous ceremony.
"Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?"
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges and status you enjoy for no apparent reason. Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Matthew
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
"I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC?"
Yes. When I am having a discussion with someone I make my points forcefully and as I've said a number of times the problem here seems to be your over-sensitive and defensive response not my postings which I stand by. If you just get it out of your head that everyone is persuing some bizarre hidden agenda against you might enjoy the forum more and get more out of the dicsussions.
"I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject"
I think my views on the subject were fairly clear -- certainly it was clear that I was in favour and on what basis.
"But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own"
I can't think of an approriate response to that beyond a *sigh*
"Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together?"
Well it could and to some extent it is under the rules of Common Law marriages. But:
1) Since rights invariably come with responsibilities as well it seems reasonable to require a proactive step by the couple than just allowing it to happen by accident like the incurring of a library fine.
2) If you agree that a formalised state for a long term relationship is a good thing and something you wish to encourage then that seems the obvious point at which to put the relationship on a more formal legal and civic footing.
3) It is of course important that peole can get married in a civic as well as religous ceremony.
"Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?"
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges and status you enjoy for no apparent reason. Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
It appears that you are unable to make a post to someone without some kind of derogatory comment in there. Try sticking to the debate and keep the personal stuff out of it and things will move along nicely. Strange how I have the impression that your constant sniping is somewhat childlike, while you believe I'm a 'bizarrely paranoid child. Perhaps you should look back to your original snipe at me to realise why I reply to you in the way I do rather than wondering what is wrong with me.
It is entirely possible to put forward your opinions in a forceful manner without appearing to portray yourself as superior and be condescending to those you are replying to.
quote:
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
It appears that you are unable to make a post to someone without some kind of derogatory comment in there. Try sticking to the debate and keep the personal stuff out of it and things will move along nicely. Strange how I have the impression that your constant sniping is somewhat childlike, while you believe I'm a 'bizarrely paranoid child. Perhaps you should look back to your original snipe at me to realise why I reply to you in the way I do rather than wondering what is wrong with me.
It is entirely possible to put forward your opinions in a forceful manner without appearing to portray yourself as superior and be condescending to those you are replying to.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges
No, I'm not. Stop mis-representing my position.
quote:
and status you enjoy for no apparent reason.
Again, you show arrogance in your belief that I have no reason based only on the fact that you don't agree with my reason. Who do you think you are?
quote:
Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties
Doesn't this show I've read the debate and have moved my position somewhat? Perhaps this escapes you for some unknown reason. If these people have what they want, which is the benefits that married men and women now have, what is there to complain about.
quote:
but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Why do you say 'second class?'
How about this then. All people in same-sex relationships can now be married, but, there will be no 'benefits' because that's now going to be changed and benefits given to men and women who live together after a period of 2 years. Are you seriously telling me that under this circumstance these people, and you, would still crave for them to be allowed to marry?
That was obviously a hypothetical situation, but, in something that could be a real situation, such as people in long term same-sex relationships and also men and women in long term, unmarried relationships but who now are legally entitled to everything a married man and woman get, why exactly are they 'second class' and why is this unjustified? What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women, as though those opinions are of no concern in this?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
Brian said "No, I'm not. Stop mis-representing my position"
Well you did say "Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?" [emphasis added]. Does this not imply that you are denying the "everything it means" bit to same sex couples? If so, why?
"Why do you say 'second class?'"
Well its like being married except you are not allowed to call it being married -- which is either an absurd triviality (in which case why make the distinciton) or else you are implying some difference in status. As the Vermont ruling said "separate rarely means equal".
"What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women"
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Matthew
Well you did say "Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?" [emphasis added]. Does this not imply that you are denying the "everything it means" bit to same sex couples? If so, why?
"Why do you say 'second class?'"
Well its like being married except you are not allowed to call it being married -- which is either an absurd triviality (in which case why make the distinciton) or else you are implying some difference in status. As the Vermont ruling said "separate rarely means equal".
"What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women"
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Just as many issues of concern to various minority groups in the UK are considered by the silent majority to be absurd, but in fact aren't considered so by the loud minority PC faction you love so much.
If a member of a minority group is offended by something and they complain, action is usually taken to remove whatever the cause of offence. Often the cause of such offence isn't even realised by the person causing it, it is something to do with the beliefs of the person in the minority. We know this goes on. Now I'm not that bothered by this, it's not really a problem removing the cause of offence because there is often no harm done to anybody at all, but someone is left wondering what all the fuss was about because they can't see what possible harm they were doing. It's a matter of understanding and accepting that the other person is offended even if you don't understand why, and doing something about it. However, in this case, we aren't talking about a minority group, so you suddenly don't understand that a certain group may be offended by same-sex marriages. Even if you do understand, you don't have any respect for the concerns of that majority group and so you don't care. This is because it is a majority group and they are oppressing a minority group, in your opinion.
What I'm saying to you is that IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple? Everybody should be happy, the gay couples get the rights they want and the traditionalists maintain marriage as something between men and women. What could be wrong with that? In this situation I don't believe gay couples would be chomping at the bit to be married in any case. No evidence of that of course, just a suspicion which I believe nobody could dispute other than offer their own suspicions of the opposite.
At the start of this thread, I held the view that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and that they shouldn't be allowed access to any of the benefits afforded to married couples. Well, I've read the posts and I can see there are legitimate points made by various people concerning the rights of gay couples. I have shifted my view. I would be prepared to accept willingly that these people, if they are in a long term relationship (goodness knows how that would be assessed) should be afforded certain rights in line with those granted to married men and women. I simply cannot budge on the idea of being against allowing these people to marry.
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time. I have known many people during my time in the Services, through travelling around working in different parts of the world and meeting all kinds of people. I have never heard anybody speak to somebody else in the condescending manner in which you formulate responses on this forum. Perhaps I've just been fortunate.
[Just so Matthew doesn't think I've edited out some kind of insult. I've edited a spelling error.]
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 17:32.]
quote:
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Just as many issues of concern to various minority groups in the UK are considered by the silent majority to be absurd, but in fact aren't considered so by the loud minority PC faction you love so much.
If a member of a minority group is offended by something and they complain, action is usually taken to remove whatever the cause of offence. Often the cause of such offence isn't even realised by the person causing it, it is something to do with the beliefs of the person in the minority. We know this goes on. Now I'm not that bothered by this, it's not really a problem removing the cause of offence because there is often no harm done to anybody at all, but someone is left wondering what all the fuss was about because they can't see what possible harm they were doing. It's a matter of understanding and accepting that the other person is offended even if you don't understand why, and doing something about it. However, in this case, we aren't talking about a minority group, so you suddenly don't understand that a certain group may be offended by same-sex marriages. Even if you do understand, you don't have any respect for the concerns of that majority group and so you don't care. This is because it is a majority group and they are oppressing a minority group, in your opinion.
What I'm saying to you is that IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple? Everybody should be happy, the gay couples get the rights they want and the traditionalists maintain marriage as something between men and women. What could be wrong with that? In this situation I don't believe gay couples would be chomping at the bit to be married in any case. No evidence of that of course, just a suspicion which I believe nobody could dispute other than offer their own suspicions of the opposite.
At the start of this thread, I held the view that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and that they shouldn't be allowed access to any of the benefits afforded to married couples. Well, I've read the posts and I can see there are legitimate points made by various people concerning the rights of gay couples. I have shifted my view. I would be prepared to accept willingly that these people, if they are in a long term relationship (goodness knows how that would be assessed) should be afforded certain rights in line with those granted to married men and women. I simply cannot budge on the idea of being against allowing these people to marry.
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time. I have known many people during my time in the Services, through travelling around working in different parts of the world and meeting all kinds of people. I have never heard anybody speak to somebody else in the condescending manner in which you formulate responses on this forum. Perhaps I've just been fortunate.
[Just so Matthew doesn't think I've edited out some kind of insult. I've edited a spelling error.]
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 17:32.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
That's just absurd only with more words and a dash of Daily Mail rhetoric. Seriously your arguments leave my head-spinning with all those tortuous, contradictory and surreal logical leaps.
Anyhow, suffice it to say that I am more than willing to support your views that marriage should be exclusively reserved for different-sex couples if you can give me a good reason.
"IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple?"
Well all I can do is repeat what I said previously:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Matthew
Anyhow, suffice it to say that I am more than willing to support your views that marriage should be exclusively reserved for different-sex couples if you can give me a good reason.
"IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple?"
Well all I can do is repeat what I said previously:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Does this also mean his reasoning behind his initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
As a more general point, Brian, I urge you to read through your own posts in this thread and make a note of how many times you have made assumptions about other people's thoughts, motives and future responses. We all do it, to some extent, but you seem to do it far more than most. By assuming the worst about others as much as you do, you only hurt yourself and offend others. I don't know what you think or how you think but from the way you behave it seems as if you have an idea about another person's thought processes and, having had that idea, take it as fact.
Even in cases where one genuinely has every reason to assume the worst [e.g. various "discussion" with Stallion on racism and other topics] I learnt the hard way that the only effective way to deal with them is to pretend that they are well-intentioned.
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. It has no basis in fact and is utterly bizarrre - and I use that word advisedly. Did you give it even a moment's thought before you said it - or was it simply intended to cause offence? Do you really expect a polite response to such an accusation?
quote:I imagine Matthew doesn't associate with the sort of people who would give someone a kicking because they didn't like the way he spoke to them.
Originally posted by BrianD:
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time.
As a more general point, Brian, I urge you to read through your own posts in this thread and make a note of how many times you have made assumptions about other people's thoughts, motives and future responses. We all do it, to some extent, but you seem to do it far more than most. By assuming the worst about others as much as you do, you only hurt yourself and offend others. I don't know what you think or how you think but from the way you behave it seems as if you have an idea about another person's thought processes and, having had that idea, take it as fact.
Even in cases where one genuinely has every reason to assume the worst [e.g. various "discussion" with Stallion on racism and other topics] I learnt the hard way that the only effective way to deal with them is to pretend that they are well-intentioned.
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. It has no basis in fact and is utterly bizarrre - and I use that word advisedly. Did you give it even a moment's thought before you said it - or was it simply intended to cause offence? Do you really expect a polite response to such an accusation?