Gay marriage views?

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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?

[Uppercut]

Why is marriage a legal status anyway? What's the benefit of that?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Why is marriage a legal status anyway? What's the benefit of that?

There's no benefit, thus no discrimination.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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?

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by sledger

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.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.