Gay marriage views?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I can see the point you are trying to make but I do not think gender and race are comparable in the context of marriage. It's like arguing that people with the same hair colour should be called one thing and people with different hair colours should be called another thing or saying that unions with mixed hair colours carry the same difference as same sex marriage.

There is a difference between two dogs of the same breed getting together, two dogs of different breeds getting together and a dog and a cat getting together. We may give them all equal rights () but pretending they are the same - or pretending the differences are of equal measure - denies the fundamental difference between them.

Interracial marriage is used as an example because it wasn't too long ago when it wouldn't be considered marriage and was not allowed. There is difference between two white people marrying each other and a white person and a black person marrying each other, but we don't recognize the difference in their feelings and don't term it anything different legally.

No one is saying a 'difference', we're saying that the relationship and the emotions that two people feel for each other, which forms the basis of a marriage are the same and should be recognized as such. By legally giving it another term, you are demeaning that relationship in some way.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I can see the point you are trying to make but I do not think gender and race are comparable in the context of marriage. It's like arguing that people with the same hair colour should be called one thing and people with different hair colours should be called another thing or saying that unions with mixed hair colours carry the same difference as same sex marriage.

There is a difference between two dogs of the same breed getting together, two dogs of different breeds getting together and a dog and a cat getting together. We may give them all equal rights () but pretending they are the same - or pretending the differences are of equal measure - denies the fundamental difference between them.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why is it a fundamental difference, though? It's a legally recognised partnership between two consenting adults, for which they receieve a variety of tax benefits, easier access to their partner's property after death, a right to a split of mutually owned items if the marriage splits, and so on. That partnership is called marriage. Assuming that any sort of argument about the supposed inferiority of homosexual relationships is thrown out the window, how is it different just because it involves a gay couple?

It's a relatively meaningless debate when it comes down to it, but FWIW, "separate but equal" is not equal. If two consenting adults can recieve acknowledgement of their relationship by the state and that acknowledgement is called marriage, that's what it's called. There's no reason gay couples need a different name for it.

Incidentally I don't think the state should be involved in marriage in any way at all. If the church wants to have a ceremony and only let straight couples or people with blonde hair or people named Julio or whatever participate and they call it marriage, that's their business. Once the state is involved, you offer every couple the same title for their married state, as well as the same legal rights, or it's discrimination.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Why is it a fundamental difference, though? It's a legally recognised partnership between two consenting adults, for which they receieve a variety of tax benefits, easier access to their partner's property after death, a right to a split of mutually owned items if the marriage splits, and so on. That partnership is called marriage. Assuming that any sort of argument about the supposed inferiority of homosexual relationships is thrown out the window, how is it different just because it involves a gay couple?

It's a relatively meaningless debate when it comes down to it, but FWIW, "separate but equal" is not equal. If two consenting adults can recieve acknowledgement of their relationship by the state and that acknowledgement is called marriage, that's what it's called. There's no reason gay couples need a different name for it.

Incidentally I don't think the state should be involved in marriage in any way at all. If the church wants to have a ceremony and only let straight couples or people with blonde hair or people named Julio or whatever participate and they call it marriage, that's their business. Once the state is involved, you offer every couple the same title for their married state, as well as the same legal rights, or it's discrimination.

[Ikki]

Because I think sex/reproduction is a far bigger facet of marriage than race TBF. That's why I used the dog-dog/dog-cat example.

As I said before, I don't really care if both are called marriage. On the other hand, I do not see it as demeaning or suggestive of something that is "other" just because we may use a word to differentiate between the two couples. For me, it could be akin to identifying people - like we do when we talk about someone as being a Caucasian or a black man. Just because there is a differentiation doesn't mean it should carry any significant bias for or against any one group. I mean, what next, do we not even differentiate between people of different sexual orientations either? Why use different names for homosexuals or heterosexuals...we're all sexual beings right? And as I state that, and can see the logic, I can also see the logic in making some sort of distinction - just like Benchy's argument.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

and if you read my posts

Try not to tbh

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Jono

Try not to tbh

[SirBloody Idiot]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Because I think sex/reproduction is a far bigger facet of marriage than race TBF. That's why I used the dog-dog/dog-cat example.

As I said before, I don't really care if both are called marriage. On the other hand, I do not see it as demeaning or suggestive of something that is "other" just because we may use a word to differentiate between the two couples. For me, it could be akin to identifying people - like we do when we talk about someone as being a Caucasian or a black man. Just because there is a differentiation doesn't mean it should carry any significant bias for or against any one group. I mean, what next, do we not even differentiate between people of different sexual orientations either? Why use different names for homosexuals or heterosexuals...we're all sexual beings right? And as I state that, and can see the logic, I can also see the logic in making some sort of distinction - just like Benchy's argument.

But surely it's enough that people would inevitably call it "gay marriage" just like once upon a time they called it a "mixed marriage" or an "inter-racial marriage".

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

As I said before, I don't really care if both are called marriage. On the other hand, I do not see it as demeaning or suggestive of something that is "other" just because we may use a word to differentiate between the two couples. For me, it could be akin to identifying people - like we do when we talk about someone as being a Caucasian or a black man. Just because there is a differentiation doesn't mean it should carry any significant bias for or against any one group.

We are talking about legal codification not what people talk about casually. If a white man was defined as a 'man' and the black man was defined as something else, you bet there'd be a crazy outrage even if you used the argument that "well its just to differentiate, it doesn't mean any bias.". If you just want to differentiate, why not just call it same sex marriage like we refer to interracial marriage in a casual conversation. The law doesn't have to create that distinction.

[Jono]

By the way, saddest thing to come from this thread is that I just received confirmation that Benchy is never going to propose to me. Been waiting for a while, and was willing to move to Netherlands with him.

But it's now crystal clear we'll never be married

[Nnanden]

Originally Posted by Jono

By the way, saddest thing to come from this thread is that I just received confirmation that Benchy is never going to propose to me. Been waiting for a while, and was willing to move to Netherlands with him.

But it's now crystal clear we'll never have a civil union.

Fixed.

[Jono]

My point was that Benchy is against gay marriage, hence he'll never propose for marriage.

Would probably cheat on me anyway, the slut.

[SirBloody Idiot]

You'll make a great mistress, though.

[Jono]

[GIMH]

Two man getting married? Er, sounds a bit gay that