Petition: Campaign for Equal Marriage

[DaveNewcastle]

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.

If you did follow my line of thought, then yes, we'd be in agreement that people who are able to be bound to each other have reasonable grounds to expect to marry (though of course that may not be possible for a variety of reasos such as one of them already being in a marriage or not having the capacity to consent to a marriage).

But as for "it would be fairer if it was marriage for all or marriage for none" then I'm not so sure you are right. I suspect that all of the benefits and duties of being bound by marriage that I mentioned (and others), then alternative binding arrangements may be made (e.g. a Contract to provide care during illness, a Will to transfer assets after death, etc.). These wouldn't involve the same 'package' of rights and duties - but they could do. Is there any specific term of a marriage (a benefit or a duty) that you believe is denied to citizens via other means. I'm trying to find what material disadvantage that you are thinking of that may be "unfair".

 

[LE Greys]

Forgive my flippancy, but I'm slightly curious as to whether people who have entered into civil partnerships in recent years will be allowed free upgrades. Also, will heterosexual couples be allowed civil partnerships? For that matter, is reintroducing Common Law marriage a good idea?

 

[Prometheus]

This has been passed to me and I'm passing it all to you. Would you kindly please sign this? Will just take a few moments
http://www.c4em.org.uk/

Thanks for posting this, Robert. I was pleased to sign.

 

[scotsman]

If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married. No one says any religions will have to perform such ceremonies. End of.

(I'm straight and would consider a civil partnership, were I allowed)

 

[SS4]

If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married. No one says any religions will have to perform such ceremonies. End of.

(I'm straight and would consider a civil partnership, were I allowed)

Same here.

Now you'd think religious* leaders would be content with keeping their views to themselves but that would be far too sensible

* I say religious because nobody has managed to come up with a secular argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed

 

[Eagle]

* I say religious because nobody has managed to come up with a secular argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed

Well... there's the old chestnut that a marriage is supposed to be the foundation of a nuclear family, but that's totally outdated now that same-sex couples can foster and adopt children (and can even conceive, through IVF).

 

[district]

Thanks all for those who signed.

 

[LE Greys]

Well... there's the old chestnut that a marriage is supposed to be the foundation of a nuclear family, but that's totally outdated now that same-sex couples can foster and adopt children (and can even conceive, through IVF).

Technically, monogamous marriage is something quite new. Most early Human societies were almost certainly polygynous tribes, so the chief would have had several wives, all of whom would have had children. Other males would have been around as the chief's henchmen, possibly making a bid for power at some point. Yet more might have been roaming nomads. I don't know where monogamy arose, but it has essentially taken over in the last 7,000 years.

The debate could also hinge on what you think the point of sex is. If you see it as simply a means to concieve, then the purpose of sexual attraction is to encourage conception and aid mate selection.

 

[Nym]

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.)

Well, this is going to be unpopular, but I'm not signing it, many reasons why but I don't think that marriage is something that should be given by same sex couples, why should we submit to everything that the straights have?

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.

Theres also parts of the bible that say eating meat on a friday is a hellworthy tresspass, and that man can part the waves. Brilliant story, but theres some big plotholes.

Forgive my flippancy, but I'm slightly curious as to whether people who have entered into civil partnerships in recent years will be allowed free upgrades. Also, will heterosexual couples be allowed civil partnerships? For that matter, is reintroducing Common Law marriage a good idea?

I would be very in favour of CPs being offered to anyone, and from certain cut off date, the religious institution of marriage holding no legal grounds any more in the UK. Where the legal rights are gained by a CP.

Well... there's the old chestnut that a marriage is supposed to be the foundation of a nuclear family, but that's totally outdated now that same-sex couples can foster and adopt children (and can even conceive, through IVF).

Indeed, but if we're moving away from the nuclear family model, why do the pearants within the family need to be married / CPed to form part of this family unit?

(You're speaking to someone who does want children, but hasn't yet found anyone he'd be prepared to raise any with.)

Also as a PS: I know some of you wanted a non-homophobic argument there it is above. The main reason I'm against 'gay marriage' is mainly the tag that has been applied to it, and how it would be a move toward compliance and assimilation of my culture into 'normalisation' that doesn't actually exist any more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The debate could also hinge on what you think the point of sex is. If you see it as simply a means to concieve, then the purpose of sexual attraction is to encourage conception and aid mate selection.

Don't start me on the desires, urges etc. of sexual intercourse, it's a rather strange topic for some people I know, and myself for that matter.

 

[district]

Why is normalisation so wrong to aspire to? Why can't society be equal? What's so special about the genders, two people are in love. It shouldn't matter what gender they identify to.

 

[90019]

The problem just now, as I see it, is that civil partnerships seem to be considered the lesser form of marriage, despite the two of them having the same legal rights

The other issue, for me personally, is that it seems like a way of separating heterosexual and homosexual couplings apart, with each only being allowed to use one of them. Personally, I'd like to see those in either sort of relationship free to go for either marriage or a civil partnership.

In reality, I personally am highly unlikely to want either, so the actual effect on me is virtually non-existant, but it does still bug me.

 

[Nym]

Why is normalisation so wrong to aspire to? Why can't society be equal? What's so special about the genders, two people are in love. It shouldn't matter what gender they identify to.

Because theres no such thing as normalisation in society, it's more a case of the majority attempting to asymilate the minorities by changing their culture to be closer to their own.

 

[90019]

Well, this is going to be unpopular, but I'm not signing it, many reasons why but I don't think that marriage is something that should be given by same sex couples, why should we submit to everything that the straights have?

Who has said it would become the only option?

Do you disagree that everyone should be given the option of either marriage or a civil partnership, rather than being forced to go for one or the other?

 

[185]

Well, this is going to be unpopular, but I'm not signing it

Judas! Charlatan!!

 

[Eagle]

...and how it would be a move toward compliance and assimilation of my culture into 'normalisation' that doesn't actually exist any more.

"Your culture"? What the hell? Not every LGB individual wants to be a separate culture from the straights. There are a sizeable majority of us who don't see their sexuality as dividing us off. Just because you don't want to be bound by notions of marriage, don't force it on the rest of us who want to be like the straights and have a legal bond to their life partner.

 

[Nym]

Knew that would make me unpopular, but if a petition is something that the signer beleives in, and one doesn't want to see that much intergration of cultures, why would that person sign it?

And most of the time I divide my own cultural views from that of Mancunians because I don't want to associate with the cultures available around me in Manchester. Comes down to conformity, or lackof desire to conform (culturally) that I have.

Oh and "My Cluture"(al views) aren't those that reflect the entire LGBT(CPetc etc etc) community.

 

[Eagle]

Knew that would make me unpopular, but if a petition is something that the signer beleives in, and one doesn't want to see that much intergration of cultures, why would that person sign it?

What, so you're in favour of a segregation between these so-called "straight culture" and "queer culture"? Seriously?

I'll ask again. Even though you don't want to get married and be like the norms, why should you prevent those of us who do? This is not a petition "allow Nym to get married", it's "allow anyone to get married".

(For the record, I don't want to get married either.)

 

[martinsh]

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.

You want objections to signing the petition that are not homophobic ?

Well how about these

1) lack of information – you don’t know enough about the issues involved to sign
2) misunderstanding – you don’t understand what the petition is about
3) conceptual – you agree with the aims of the petition, but object to it’s wording / style / associated website
4) irrelevance – almost all of what the petition wants has already been achieved
5) tradition – marriage is a tradition that has survived through history and should not be changed
6) free love – you are opposed to marriage in any form, and cannot agree to anything which extends its scope to cover people who were previously exempt
7) peer pressure – you refuse to do anything that most other people are doing
8) not PC – you object to doing anything that is thought of as “politically correct”
9) low priority – there are many other more pressing issues facing the world today
10) forbidden – it is against your religion / political beliefs to sign any petition

How many more reasons do you want ?

I don’t think any of the above objections are necessarily homophobic.

These are not my personal views. Some of them I agree with, some I don’t, but I would defend them all (and other reasons I’ve not listed) as valid objections.

 

[Nym]

What, so you're in favour of a segregation between these so-called "straight culture" and "queer culture"? Seriously?

I'll ask again. Even though you don't want to get married and be like the norms, why should you prevent those of us who do? This is not a petition "allow Nym to get married", it's "allow anyone to get married".

(For the record, I don't want to get married either.)

Bringing it all the way back, if I don't want to, why would I want to campaign for it?

And I'm not a member of "Queer Culture" most of the time I can't stand the queeney mincey little ****es, but most of the "Queers" around here aren't actually homosexual, the joys of Manchester.

 

[Eagle]

5) tradition – marriage is a tradition that has survived through history and should not be changed

Denying rights to women is "a tradition that has survived through history". Capital punishment is "a tradition that has survived through history". But we ditched those, because we realize that times change. (Your other points I agree with though, it's just this one is unsound.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bringing it all the way back, if I don't want to, why would I want to campaign for it?

Because you support the right for people to do it if they want to. Not wanting to do something and wanting to forbid it are two separate things.

I'll repeat, I don't want to get married. But I recognize that others might, and I wish to allow them to do so if they want.

 

[martinsh]

Denying rights to women is "a tradition that has survived through history". Capital punishment is "a tradition that has survived through history". But we ditched those, because we realize that times change. (Your other points I agree with though, it's just this one is unsound.)

Not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily homophobic

 

[Nym]

Because you support the right for people to do it if they want to. Not wanting to do something and wanting to forbid it are two separate things.

I'll repeat, I don't want to get married. But I recognize that others might, and I wish to allow them to do so if they want.

But I don't agree with the way this is worded on this site...

 

[Eagle]

But I don't agree with the way this is worded on this site...

This is the wording of the petition, my emphasis:

I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender.

Let me put it this way. district wants to get married to a man he loves. Do you wish to disallow him from doing so? If no, then you agree with the petition.

 

[Nym]

Let me put it this way. district wants to get married to a man he loves. Do you wish to disallow him from doing so? If no, then you agree with the petition.

No, because I would have 'marriage' removed from legal framework as a religious legacy with grandfather rights for those already married and to gain the legal rights, one MUST have a CP. As marriage then holds no legal grounds, it can be delt with however it wants by legacy suppliers, would keep more people happy handling it that way IMO.

I know that some churches are more than happy to provide ceremonies for straight / gay / whatever couples, so removing the legal grounds would allow them to act in whatever way they wanted, provided they acted within the Equality Act 2010.

I don't see why everyone attaches such significance to this word, remove the word from legal applicability and move to CP for all legal rights.

 

[Eagle]

No, because I would have 'marriage' removed from legal framework as a religious legacy with grandfather rights for those already married and to gain the legal rights, one MUST have a CP.

That's exactly what I want. Except instead of calling it a "civil partnership", let's use the more convenient word "marriage". :P

Establish it as a civil, common-law framework (and then let all the religions and cultures and people do whatever they want on the top of it).

 

[Nym]

That's exactly what I want. Except instead of calling it a "civil partnership", let's use the more convenient word "marriage". :P

Establish it as a civil, common-law framework (and then let all the religions and cultures and people do whatever they want on the top of it).

Because marriage holds religious significance and beleifs for some rather radical people willing to fight to stop equalisation, so use a word with no legacy or cultural value, ****es less people off...

 

[90019]

Because marriage holds religious significance and beleifs for some rather radical people willing to fight to stop equalisation, so use a word with no legacy or cultural value, ****es less people off...

You got any evidence to back that claim up?

 

[richw]

I believe in equality, however shall not be signing the o.ps link, as the post just says to sign it with zero explanation. Following a serious security risk previously on another forum I do not click any links especially without explanation of what its for.
However reading the thread I'm fully supportive,

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[Nym]

You got any evidence to back that claim up?

Any glance at a google search for gay marriage opposition will indicate the level of passion that institutions hold for this, yet they seemed to show less opposition to the CP heading.

 

[90019]

Any glance at a google search for gay marriage opposition will indicate the level of passion that institutions hold for this, yet they seemed to show less opposition to the CP heading.

That'll be a no, then.