Petition: Campaign for Equal Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
Rather ironically, for various reasons I'm not going to go into, I'm allowed to have a gay marriage but not a normal marriage, such is the ignorance and bigotry of the Church. :roll:

Edit: by "the Church" I mean as an institution not as a religion, mind. I appreciate that inside the religion are many more open minded people. :)
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,454
Location
Birmingham
Yes, why not.

edit: I would like to see civil partnerships extended to everyone too. Marriage has been tainted with religion beyond repair
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,841
Location
Redcar
Well I've signed it because, well, why not? On what grounds should a marriage between male-female be any different to male-male or female-female?
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,827
I'd be interested to know "why not", since you've asked "why".
I believe it to be a bad argument when people instantly ask for your reasons when you ask for theirs. Anyway, I do not wish to disclose my reasons, not because they are homophobic, but because I cannot be doing with getting into argument about it. OK? If martinsh wishes to reveal his reasons then that is fine by me.

Please remember that people will have reasons, whatever they may be, for opposing this, and they are their beliefs and should be respected. Don't forget a Liberal intolerance can become just as oppressive as a traditional Rightist one, something I believe gay rights campaigner David Starkey has acknowledged.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
I respect your reasons and your opinions and you don't have to say them. As I said, I'd just be interested to know them, and you're right that you don't need to say them.

Mainly, I dislike the argument in your post, because the thing you're opposing doesn't affect you at all, it affects other people. It is also clearly not oppresive in the slightest, it is the opposite. I'm not trying to berate your beliefs, I just feel that what people oppose here simply cannot be expressed as oppression - in fact the very notion of disallowing it is oppression far moreso.

I mean, basically what [people who argue against it] are saying is "you're not allowed to get married".

I don't see how "we should be allowed to get married" is more oppressive than that.

(I've tried to steer clear from "you"/"your" because I'm not trying to attack the post above personally)

I also fail to see where the "liberal intolerance" lies in "I should be allowed to get married".
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Anyway, this is nothing to do with left and right, as can be seen by looking at who supports what.

Cameron claims he "supports gay marriage because he is a Conservative", and the C4M countercampaigners* have amongst their spokespeople several Labour MPs.

*note, the C4M are against it, and the C4EM (whose petition this is) are for.



I signed it, but in truth I'm not too bothered being as in essence this is just a question of terminology (a civil partnership affords all the same rights as a marriage).
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
If that is truly the only difference, then I see no reason why the word marriage can't be used to describe a civil partnership. A marriage does not have to be religious, after all, anyway. Opposing usage of the word is frankly (in my opinion) just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,454
Location
Birmingham
I signed it, but in truth I'm not too bothered being as in essence this is just a question of terminology (a civil partnership affords all the same rights as a marriage).
Terminology has connotations attached to it though. At the moment I would imagine civil partnerships are seen as an afterthought or somehow less worthy despite legal status

I'd be interested to hear of opposition from secular grounds.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
I'd actually very much like to know what possible argument against it could come from non-homophobic grounds, so if anyone does hold such an opinion, would like to hear it.

(Not an attack on MattE, just wondering if anyone else holds the same view and would like to express it.)
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,827
I respect your reasons and your opinions and you don't have to say them. As I said, I'd just be interested to know them, and you're right that you don't need to say them.

...

I don't see how "we should be allowed to get married" is more oppressive than that.

...

I also fail to see where the "liberal intolerance" lies in "I should be allowed to get married".
Thanks for your understanding. I mainly used the 'oppression' term in case this whittled down to me (and others) getting lynched for saying it - it's great to see that it isn't going that way though! I didn't type that with regard to this specific situation, but just in case it did get to the point of me being opposed solely on the grounds of my belief and because I don't conform to what it is generally seen as correct to think.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with left and right, as can be seen by looking at who supports what.

Cameron claims he "supports gay marriage because he is a Conservative", and the C4M countercampaigners* have amongst their spokespeople several Labour MPs.

*note, the C4M are against it, and the C4EM (whose petition this is) are for.
Aye, but I think traditionally it can appear to be that more conservative people oppose it (as well as those of religious beliefs), whereas more liberal and left-wing people support it. I should have probably made that clearer.
 

TheJRB

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
1,157
Location
Ashford, Kent
Indeed. I agree with Badger's post above. I'd be interested to hear anybody's views against it that aren't homophobic.

It's really interesting that, as Eagle pointed out, there is any controversy around this when civil partnership is practically marriage in all but name.

P.S. I would sign, but I'm a couple of weeks too young! :roll:
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
I think it's a tricky one, and that perhaps that's why it's bad to have a two party system (and a left/right view on politics). I mean, undoubtedly Cameron will agree with some "left wing" things and some "right wing" things. It's why when voting we're voting for the person and not necessarily the party.. although that gets even more complicated, because you're voting so many people "in" there, who will also have differing views.

Left Wing / Right Wing is clear on some things, but it can get a bit... pidgeonholing. "If you're right wing you are anti gay-rights", "if you are left wing you can't be capitalist" etc.
 

TheJRB

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
1,157
Location
Ashford, Kent
Well there's always the centre (also of course Conservative and Labour are centre-right and centre-left respectively, so they're not too far around the spectrum from one another).
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
I'm of the opinion that rights based on things like gender or race or whatever, are matters of discrimination, and that they should be upheld by the human rights act.

...but then of course the Tories want that gone, or Theresa May at the very least.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Interesting side question, where this religious opposition derives from. Jesus certainly didn't say anything about the matter at all, and that surely should be the determining factor: WWJVOTM (What Were Jesus' Views On The Matter), as opposed to what were the views of commentators on Jesus' life (which was essentially what Paul was), or what laws were laid down thousands of years before Jesus' time (and which he himself said were now effectively obsolete).
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
There are sentences in the bible (which may or may not be poor translations or additions over the years), such as a man shan't lie with another man (for it is an abomination). there are definately phrases in the bible which could be interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a sin (but interestingly, only for men, not for lesbian relationships). But then that still assumes that married people will always have sex (or "know" one another as I think it says). So that must mean marriage is fine if sex isn't involved.

Although... that's only if you see the bible as anything other than an amalgamation of people's (often contradictory) personal beliefs, opinions and morals over the years brought together in a handy tome.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
There shouldn't even be a need to sign this. It should be acknowledged already.

But, seeing as this is not the case, I have willingly "signed" the petition. I've known more than my fair share of such people (right, district? ;)) - to turn my back and not vote would be doing them all a fair deal of injustice...
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
There are sentences in the bible (which may or may not be poor translations or additions over the years), such as a man shan't lie with another man (for it is an abomination). there are definately phrases in the bible which could be interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a sin (but interestingly, only for men, not for lesbian relationships). But then that still assumes that married people will always have sex (or "know" one another as I think it says). So that must mean marriage is fine if sex isn't involved.
Oh yes, that's what i mean. All that is either instructions for the Tribes of Israel roaming the desert 2,000 years before Jesus' time, and when the important thing was expanding the strength of the tribe (and so, any kind of nookie that wasn't with that aim in mind was frowned upon), or it was Paul's opinion, and Paul was someone who had lots of opinions about all sorts of things, and when he mentioned it it was in the middle of a great long catalogue of complaints about things people were doing. It wasn't even as if he made that big a thing of it, certainly disproportionate to the amount of fuss that's been made about it ever since.
 

martinsh

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
Considering a move to Memphis
You didn't explain WHY I should sign the petition. I dislike being told to do things without explanation.

I did look at the petition site, and it seemed to be extremely badly designed. I guessed it was about gay marriage, but couldn't work out if it was for or against !

Either way, it's not a subject I'm have sufficiently strong opinions about to sign a petition.

I used to against all forms of marriage, though I have mellowed in my old age.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I'm confused.
I understood that one of the merits of marriage was that it bound people to each other with its greatest impact being felt in circumstances of their inequality (e.g. one earns an income and one does not; one cares for a child and one does not; one is ill and the other is not; one is dying and one is not).

The wanting to marry is can be about giving, selfishness or expectations but is essentially private. On the other hand, being bound by marriage is much more powerful and public. It becomes a distinguishing feature of our societies.

I found this petition to be concerned only with the wanting. I'm not signing.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
If it's about the format of the petition itself then that's fair enough.
-

Dave, I get what you're saying, but in that case it would be fairer if it was marriage for all or marriage for none. I can see why people wouldn't want to get married, but they should still be able to.
 

district

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2011
Messages
1,055
Location
SE16
Thank you to everyone who has already and intends to sign it. (That means you TheJRB - being 15 sucks sometimes, eh?)

This is not about gay marriage. This is about equal marriage.

I am openly homosexual and believe that it is unfair that homosexual couples cannot marry. I believe this because we are no different from a heterosexual couple; a homosexual couple is formed of two consenting adults who love each other, just like a heterosexual couple.

I have not told anyone to sign it. I am pleading with the membership of this forum to sign it because it is something I am passionate about.

This is a counter petition for people who support the argument to directly oppose those who are against it - the Coalition for Marriage. They say that a marriage should be formed of one man and one woman, this of course I disagree with.

The fact that non-heterosexuals still are treated differently from heterosexuals in 2012 shows inequality and is a large reason as to why homophobia exists.

If you are not homosexual, then imagine just how it would feel to be denied to marry and be entwined legally and morally with the one you love and the one you truly desire. It is painful to know in my heart that the way society is at the moment that I cannot marry the one that I love. A civil partnership is not and never will be a marriage.

Campaign for Equal Marriage website said:
If marriage is redefined (again), those who believe in the modern definition of "traditional" marriage will still be married. They will still have the same sexual-orientation. Peoples' careers will remain intact, the sun will keep shining, and toast will still have a tendency to land butter-side-down. Couples seeking to adopt or foster will still be assessed based on the needs of the child, as they should be. Also, if we're very lucky, schools might teach kids not to be massive bigots like their parents, and we'll be one step closer to a cohesive, mature, civilised society.
What is so complicated about saying that 'I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair.'. Please tell me what is so complicated about that?

For those who have said it is only about wanting - yes it is. We want to be treated just like everybody else and we want a fair society where anyone can be bound by love in a 'powerful' and 'public' way?

For those who didn't know what viewpoint the site had - does the large text saying 'Don't let the bigots stop two people in love getting married' help?

You are entitled to have an opinion on homosexuality as long as by expressing it, it doesn't cause anyone around to be harassed, alarmed or distressed. If your opinion is that homosexuality is wrong then fine, there isn't much I or anyone else can do to stop you. It is saddening to see so many people opposed to to lovers being able to marry, regardless of gender. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top