View Poll Results: Do you support gay marriage?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    53 69.74%
  • No, but civil unions

    10 13.16%
  • No, just unregistered co-existance

    1 1.32%
  • No, ban homosexuality!

    3 3.95%
  • Gay? Isn't that a synonym for happy?

    9 11.84%
Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 644

Thread: Gay marriage views?

  1. #31
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Or the ones about stoning your daughter. You can pick all sorts of things. AFAIK, homosexuality isn't really covered in the New Testament.



    Well there was legislation against interracial marriage too. Doesn't make it right.

    If it's the same, why give it a different name?

    Obviously I'd take civil unions over nothing, which is what exists in many cases in the US, but it's not marriage and the push shouldn't be over unless it's called marriage. As BoyBrumby alluded, if an interracial couple had the same rights, but were labeled something different, there'd be an outcry. And people forget: they used to quote bible passages for their opposition to interracial marriage too. Then it became terribly not-PC to be against that, and it kind of went away.

    Hopefully the same thing happens with gay marriage eventually. Obviously civil unions would be a nice start, if they existed in all the states in the US - it's great that other countries already have them.
    The same argument applies, if they're the same in practicality, why does it matter if it's a different name?
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  2. #32
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,479
    Why is marriage a legal status anyway? What's the benefit of that?
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  3. #33
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,705
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    The same argument applies, if they're the same in practicality, why does it matter if it's a different name?
    Because it's still discrimination. I don't buy this "separate but equal" - even if legally it is exactly equal. Language is important, the words we use matter, and if you really didn't see any difference, you wouldn't call it something different and go through all the trouble of setting up a mirror legal terminology and system for the same thing.

    Now, I've heard an argument that says the state should not be in the business of giving out marriage licences at all - they should all be civil unions and if your local church is willing to 'marry' you (straight or gay), then you yourself can call it whatever you want. Legally, it's just a civil union.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  4. #34
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Why is marriage a legal status anyway? What's the benefit of that?
    There's no benefit, thus no discrimination.


  5. #35
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Because it's still discrimination. I don't buy this "separate but equal" - even if legally it is exactly equal. Language is important, the words we use matter, and if you really didn't see any difference, you wouldn't call it something different and go through all the trouble of setting up a mirror legal terminology and system for the same thing.

    Now, I've heard an argument that says the state should not be in the business of giving out marriage licences at all - they should all be civil unions and if your local church is willing to 'marry' you (straight or gay), then you yourself can call it whatever you want. Legally, it's just a civil union.
    Strongly against a male and a female having a civil union. Does that make me disciminatory?

    It is what it is.

  6. #36
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,705
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Strongly against a male and a female having a civil union. Does that make me disciminatory?
    If there was no difference and the words didn't matter - then you wouldn't be strongly against it. So obviously, you do think it's not equal in some way.

    Let me ask it this way, if the government tomorrow said if an interracial couple are to marry, we can no longer allow it to be called marriage, but they still have the same rights. Would you support it?

    If not, why the double standard?

  7. #37
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    The LGBT troop at Manchester uni inform me that this isn't quite the case and marriage and civil partnerships are actually treated rather differently by the law.

    They regularly chat bollocks though so I dunno if that's true or not. Can anyone definitively clear it up?
    It sounds like bollocks tbh, though they aren't treated exactly the same by the law, the differences are minimal. To all intents and purposes Marriage and Civil Partnerships are more or less identical in everything but name.

  8. #38
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,480
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Because it's still discrimination. I don't buy this "separate but equal" - even if legally it is exactly equal. Language is important, the words we use matter, and if you really didn't see any difference, you wouldn't call it something different and go through all the trouble of setting up a mirror legal terminology and system for the same thing.
    Tbh, I'm having trouble accepting your reasoning here when in the language thread I made a while ago you more or less said the opposite, insofar that language wasn't important provided you were able to make a point that everyone understood.

  9. #39
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    If there was no difference and the words didn't matter - then you wouldn't be strongly against it. So obviously, you do think it's not equal in some way.

    Let me ask it this way, if the government tomorrow said if an interracial couple are to marry, we can no longer allow it to be called marriage, but they still have the same rights. Would you support it?

    If not, why the double standard?
    That is a ridiculous question, and a very ignorant one. It's like saying if the government decriminalised murdered would I still have an issue with it.

    My views on life are not dictated by the law, howevever my fundamental definition of what things are are based on previous historic definitions.

  10. #40
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,705
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Tbh, I'm having trouble accepting your reasoning here when in the language thread I made a while ago you more or less said the opposite, insofar that language wasn't important provided you were able to make a point that everyone understood.
    Yup. That related to meaning. Obviously meaning here is different if you're strongly against one but for the other. If they meant the same, you could call it either and be completely OK with that.

  11. #41
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,705
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    That is a ridiculous question, and a very ignorant one. It's like saying if the government decriminalised murdered would I still have an issue with it.

    My views on life are not dictated by the law, howevever my fundamental definition of what things are are based on previous historic definitions.
    I am simply responding to your question of why it matters as long as all the 'privileges' afforded by the partnership are the same as marriage.

    Historical definition is not, in my view, an acceptable reason to continue discrimination. Historically, interracial couples couldn't marry and you were changing the 'historical' definition of marriage when you started allowing it.

    Now if you don't think straight marriages and gay marriages are the same, fine. But I'm just pointing out that by creating the difference in name, you are also creating a difference in meaning, and by extension, treating them differently in some way. You can't say they're the 'same' and then call it by different names.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 05-03-2011 at 09:19 AM.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,479
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    There's no benefit, thus no discrimination.
    No, I'm asking a different question. As it stands there's a legal benefit to being married, and the civil partnership benefits are almost identical. But I'm asking why the legal benefit to being married is even there. How does that help society?

    Or in relation to gay marriage, why don't we just let people box themselves into whichever social structures they like, and call their relationships and ceremonies whatever they like, without the state getting involved? It seems really odd to me that it's the job of the state to define what does and what doesn't constitute marriage.
    Last edited by Uppercut; 05-03-2011 at 09:24 AM.

  13. #43
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    I am simply responding to your question of why it matters as long as all the 'privileges' afforded by the partnership are the same as marriage.

    Historical definition is not, in my view, an acceptable reason to continue discrimination. Historically, interracial couples couldn't marry and you were changing the 'historical' definition of marriage when you started allowing it.

    Now if you don't think straight marriages and gay marriages are the same, fine. But I'm just pointing out that by creating the difference in name, you are also creating a difference in meaning, and by extension, treating them differently in some way. You can't say they're the 'same' and then call it by different names.
    A title is nothing more than a title, and people like you (and there are plenty) trying to distinguish between the two breed prejudice. No one else.

    As long as basic rights are ensured, we're all sweet.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,244
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    There's no benefit, thus no discrimination.
    There is in terms of inheritance and the like, superannuation etc.

    Am for it. Why should gay people get to be happy when they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  15. #45
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    No, I'm asking a different question. As it stands there's a legal benefit to being married, and the civil partnership benefits are almost identical. But I'm asking why the legal benefit to being married is even there. How does that help society?

    Or in relation to gay marriage, why don't we just let people box themselves into whichever social structures they like, and call them what they like, without the state getting involved?
    I think there has to be some legal codification of relationships because there are issues of inheritance, property rights, and all sorts of things that may need to be decided 'officially' by society. I don't have any problem with calling them both civil unions, or both marriage, or call them both by either name (as sledger was alluding to). But as long as it's consistent with both, I'm OK with it.

Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Marriage
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 31-03-2010, 12:18 AM
  2. Neutral Views
    By roseboy64 in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 07:25 AM
  3. Why I'm Against Gay Marriage...
    By Matteh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 07:22 AM
  4. Most Disappointing Team?
    By Waughney in forum ICC Champions Trophy 2004
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 14-09-2004, 12:13 PM
  5. Views on CWC99 game (cricket world cup 99)
    By san769 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2002, 09:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •