Petition: Campaign for Equal Marriage

[SS4]

People think they'll get their biggest reward after their death and people who are taught never to question this core of beliefs are a potential danger to society. I would support the death penalty for religious extremism but that's a whole new debate

I like Nym's suggestion of having the legal act as Civil Partnership and with a religious service as an additional add-on.

 

[Eagle]

I like Nym's suggestion of having the legal act as Civil Partnership and with a religious service as an additional add-on.

Also known as the French system. Except without a ban on same-sex couples, of course.

 

[LE Greys]

People think they'll get their biggest reward after their death and people who are taught never to question this core of beliefs are a potential danger to society. I would support the death penalty for religious extremism but that's a whole new debate

I like Nym's suggestion of having the legal act as Civil Partnership and with a religious service as an additional add-on.

Religion does not 'own' marriage, even now. After all, in a Christian country (something I see as a far worse problem personally) we recognise not only civil weddings, but those held under different religions traditions. We also used to recognise Common Law marriage, but don't any more. It's a civil institution, and has been for centuries.

 

[district]

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

The issues are explained on the webpage. The webpage explains it far better then I can.

3) conceptual – you agree with the aims of the petition, but object to it’s wording / style / associated website

Why on earth does this matter? The issue is inequality, not how you dress it up. Taking a homophobe and putting a ribbon and bow on them doesn't detract from the issue that they are a homophobe.

4) irrelevance – almost all of what the petition wants has already been achieved

Emphasis on almost... is it acceptable for society to 'almost' be anti-racist? Perhaps you can only be racist on Tuesdays.

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

As has sexism and racisim, but again we're moving on because we've grown up. Just because a concept has always been that way does not make it right.

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

I don't understand, I do agree for marriage to extend its scope to cover same sex couples. If I've misunderstood let me know.

7) peer pressure – you refuse to do anything that most other people are doing

I don't think this is a valid excuse. Peer pressure is neither here nor there, you either agree or you don't. Your personal opinions shouldn't be swayed by what other people are doing, they are your personal opinions. I am allowed to try and 'sell' you a rational opinion.

8) not PC – you object to doing anything that is thought of as “politically correct”

Again I don't see this as valid, I do not believe in PCness as I think it is just made up to excuse behaviours. Tell me, what does PCness actually mean to you?

9) low priority – there are many other more pressing issues facing the world today

This petition is not taking any attention away from those issues. This is a very important issue to a lot of people. Human Rights aren't decided on what the majority think.

10) forbidden – it is against your religion / political beliefs to sign any petition

If your religion or political beliefs prevent from doing so then fine, but perhaps you need to make a judgement on what you really desire.

Ignoring the side of not willing to sign a petition, I have not heard of any non-homophobic opinion on why someone would not support equal rights.

 

[Oswyntail]

I'm with Nym on this. "Marriage" is a culturally loaded word with essential religious connections - talk of "Common Law Marriage" is fine except that it was defined in a religious context and had reduced status.
An exact parallel is Baptism. The various religions have their own naming ceremonies, to which they attach great importance, but are not available to non-believers. The legal part is covered by the less flamboyant ceremony of notifying the registry office. Perfect church/state split.
What is it about the word "marriage", leaving aside its religious meaning, that non-believers want?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm really not bothered if gay men (or women) want to marry each other or not. Each unto their own - it doesn't affect my quality of life, so carry on chaps.

I don't understand why people are getting so hung up about it.

 

[district]

Thanks AE

 

[exile]

I'm with Nym on this. "Marriage" is a culturally loaded word with essential religious connections - talk of "Common Law Marriage" is fine except that it was defined in a religious context and had reduced status.
An exact parallel is Baptism. The various religions have their own naming ceremonies, to which they attach great importance, but are not available to non-believers. The legal part is covered by the less flamboyant ceremony of notifying the registry office. Perfect church/state split.
What is it about the word "marriage", leaving aside its religious meaning, that non-believers want?

That's based on the totally fallacious idea that marriage was originally a religious institution. Until relatively recent times most people were married without reference to the church whatsoever. In fact, the state had no part in marriage either.

 

[Badger]

What is it about the word "marriage", leaving aside its religious meaning, that non-believers want?

Uh, implying all homosexual people are non-believers?

 

[IanXC]

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

This is why I think both should be available to everyone, until then we'll always be made to feel like second class citizens. Signed.

 

[Minilad]

I know I will probably get shot down for this but what the hell.
Gay people say that straight people should just deal with the fact they are gay and let them get on with it. Fair enough. The vast majority of people do. So in that case shouldn't gay people just accept that some people find the thought of being gay disgusting and offensive and let them hold their views too ? Surely they have a right to have an opinion too however misguided it might seem to others who don't share that view ?

Having said that I have no problem whatsoever with gay people being allowed to get married if they so wish. Just one question though. Who gets the house when it goes to a divorce as its usually the woman in a straight marriage !!

 

[LE Greys]

I know I will probably get shot down for this but what the hell.
Gay people say that straight people should just deal with the fact they are gay and let them get on with it. Fair enough. The vast majority of people do. So in that case shouldn't gay people just accept that some people find the thought of being gay disgusting and offensive and let them hold their views too ? Surely they have a right to have an opinion too however misguided it might seem to others who don't share that view ?

Having said that I have no problem whatsoever with gay people being allowed to get married if they so wish. Just one question though. Who gets the house when it goes to a divorce as its usually the woman in a straight marriage !!

Well I'll back you on this. The thought that a man might find me sexually attractive scares the living daylights out of me. I won't explain why, but I am not exactly Sampson and believe that I have the right to be afraid without being accused of hating people. Besides, I reckon that we should all remember how to separate identity from character. Identity is what you are, character is who you are. I think the latter is far more important.

 

[Badger]

I know I will probably get shot down for this but what the hell.
Gay people say that straight people should just deal with the fact they are gay and let them get on with it. Fair enough. The vast majority of people do. So in that case shouldn't gay people just accept that some people find the thought of being gay disgusting and offensive and let them hold their views too ? Surely they have a right to have an opinion too however misguided it might seem to others who don't share that view ?

Indeed, and it's fine to have an opinion; what matters is when that opinion actually leads to actions (it's the actions that are the problem).

I.e. it's fine to hate black people, yes. But it's not fine to ban them from having jobs.

 

[Minilad]

Indeed, and it's fine to have an opinion; what matters is when that opinion actually leads to actions (it's the actions that are the problem).

I.e. it's fine to hate black people, yes. But it's not fine to ban them from having jobs.

And there lies the problem. You have automatically assumed that holding that opinion would cause the person to act upon it whereas I would imagine the vast vast majority of people wouldn't

 

[Badger]

I assumed it because of the context it was posted in... of course I realise the vast majority wouldn't act on it. Nobody's saying people aren't entitled to an opinion (hence why I was confused by your post).

 

[Minilad]

I assumed it because of the context it was posted in... of course I realise the vast majority wouldn't act on it. Nobody's saying people aren't entitled to an opinion (hence why I was confused by your post).

No context. Just asking a question as people seem to be jumping on the people who would not support this asking for reasons why.

 

[Badger]

If people are posting saying they wouldn't support it, given it's a forum, it's just interesting to find out why. People absolutely are entitled to their opinions and to withhold it... but if they're posting just to say they wouldn't support it and not saying why, then well, it's not a particularly fruitful post! I don't think asking "why" is "jumping on". There's no obligation to answer it, after all. It's only like saying "can you elaborate on that" to a short topic in say the Infrastructure forum.

 

[Minilad]

If people are posting saying they wouldn't support it, given it's a forum, it's just interesting to find out why. People absolutely are entitled to their opinions and to withhold it... but if they're posting just to say they wouldn't support it and not saying why, then well, it's not a particularly fruitful post!

But they may feel that if they posted the reasons why they would get jumped on by the PC brigade. I am sure if someone came on here and said I don't support this bill because I think being homosexual is disgusting and immoral you would be the first to take them to task.

 

[WestCoast]

Gay people say that straight people should just deal with the fact they are gay and let them get on with it. Fair enough. The vast majority of people do. So in that case shouldn't gay people just accept that some people find the thought of being gay disgusting and offensive and let them hold their views too ? Surely they have a right to have an opinion too however misguided it might seem to others who don't share that view ?!

I had a think about this and perhaps this is a "nature vs nurture" debate. The question being whether people have a natural inbuilt instinct to believe that same sex relations are wrong, or alternatively they hold those views on same sex relations because their religion, society or family has told them that they are wrong.

Equally so, I am sure many would argue that sexual orientation is a natural inbuilt instinct. So that poses the question of whether or not religions should have a negative stance against that...

If people are born with a sexual orientation, it's the same thing as being born with black skin or whatever. What business does society or whoever have discriminating against that?

All questions that I quite obviously don't answers to.

 

[Badger]

But they may feel that if they posted the reasons why they would get jumped on by the PC brigade. I am sure if someone came on here and said I don't support this bill because I think being homosexual is disgusting and immoral you would be the first to take them to task.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion and entitled to withhold it too, but I still don't think that's a reason to never ask "your post intrigues me, care to elaborate?" (although perhaps it wasn't so nicely worded). If they did say it was because homosexuality is disgusting I'd probably be screaming inside, and would be happy to debate it elsewhere (outside of the thread) but would definately appreciate that not everyone is up for debating. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but even with a "why" there's no obligation to reply.

I'm not sure I'm replying very well on this but what I'm trying to say is, as much as people are entitled to post, other people are entitled to ask why, and those asked are equally entitled to decline.. otherwise nothing would ever get discussed.

If people are born with a sexual orientation, it's the same thing as being born with black skin or whatever. What business does society or whoever discriminating against that?

Indeed and I think that while people can have opinions, the actual actions (if which are discriminatory) can't be debated/petitioned, they should be human rights...

 

[WestCoast]

I'm not sure I'm replying very well on this but what I'm trying to say is, as much as people are entitled to post, other people are entitled to ask why, and those asked are equally entitled to decline.. otherwise nothing would ever get discussed.

I understand and I agree with what you're saying. If someone expresses an opinion publicly, then others are quite entitiled to ask them why they hold that opinion. Of course, the person expressing the view is welcome to decline giving an explanation.

I believe that if people aren't allowed to question the views of others, then that's very dangerous territory.

 

[Minilad]

I understand and I agree with what you're saying. If someone expresses an opinion publicly, then others are quite entitiled to ask them why they hold that opinion. Of course, the person expressing the view is welcome to decline giving an explanation.

I believe that if people aren't allowed to question the views of others, then that's very dangerous territory.

Absolutely. Trouble is sometimes people are browbeaten to feel that what they believe is wrong. Why should they.
There was a poster at New Street station around a year ago. They main strap line was "I am gay. Deal with it". Fair enough. But surely you could also say "I don't like gays. Deal with it"
People sometimes feel that this is a tail wagging the dog situation. The minority expecting the majority to want the same things they do. I feel uncomfortable with that. Im not suggesting for one minute I hold those views, just saying sometimes I feel a bit sorry for those who do have deeply held views on this subject

 

[Mojo]

Why should you be entitled to an opinion that someone has no control of? Society says that you can't dislike black people - that makes you a racist! Even ignoring this point, what if stating this opinion causes great hurt to others, especially loudly and coupled with an assault for example, is that acceptable? I can't think of any non-homophobic reason why someone can act (or feel) like this!

 

[Nym]

Having said that I have no problem whatsoever with gay people being allowed to get married if they so wish. Just one question though. Who gets the house when it goes to a divorce as its usually the woman in a straight marriage !!

Just to try and bring it back to being light hearted (slightly)...

I got the nice cutlary and most of the kitchen excluding appliances except for the small cooker, half the living room furnature, TV, everything that was mine to begin with. He got the bed, most of the bedroom and bathroom. Neither of us got the house, he moved to Chorley and I moved to a flat round the corner.

And there lies the problem. You have automatically assumed that holding that opinion would cause the person to act upon it whereas I would imagine the vast vast majority of people wouldn't

And back again, I am of the beleif that camp queens should stay the hell away from me and that bars designed to attract metrosexuals that aspire to want to be like the Canal St from the mid 90s should be banned. But then again, I'd rather BE back in the mid 90 for some aspects of culture at the monent. But I don't voice this in the village, I just avoid the crap places like that and go to the places I like...

Well I'll back you on this. The thought that a man might find me sexually attractive scares the living daylights out of me. I won't explain why, but I am not exactly Sampson and believe that I have the right to be afraid without being accused of hating people.

No problems here being afraid, I'm not going to start quoting Yoda, so long as that fear doesn't propigate down the path of the dark side.

Or that the fear is actually based on repression and then leads to violence, no judgement at all here, but I've seen it happen way too many times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should you be entitled to an opinion that someone has no control of? Society says that you can't dislike black people - that makes you a racist! Even ignoring this point, what if stating this opinion causes great hurt to others, especially loudly and coupled with an assault for example, is that acceptable? I can't think of any non-homophobic reason why someone can act (or feel) like this!

Well, if you look at the actual definition of homo-phobia, taking it back to latin of course...

Mojo does make a good point here, it is now stigmatised to dislike black people, but is this because of an increased stigma against racism, or because of intergration into soc? I'm inclined to say the former due to the different subcultures immerging in the new gettos and the pempt up anger waiting to spew out whenever something kicks off.

 

[Minilad]

Why should you be entitled to an opinion that someone has no control of? Society says that you can't dislike black people - that makes you a racist! Even ignoring this point, what if stating this opinion causes great hurt to others, especially loudly and coupled with an assault for example, is that acceptable? I can't think of any non-homophobic reason why someone can act (or feel) like this!

So you are saying someone cannot hold a view that you don't agree with then. Don't you realise that some people feel just as strongly about this but from the other side.
Wow. Staggering

And once again someone suggesting an assault as if everyone who thinks this way will commit an assault.

 

[TheJRB]

If people are born with a sexual orientation, it's the same thing as being born with black skin or whatever. What business does society or whoever have discriminating against that?

Exactly.

Absolutely. Trouble is sometimes people are browbeaten to feel that what they believe is wrong. Why should they.
There was a poster at New Street station around a year ago. They main strap line was "I am gay. Deal with it". Fair enough. But surely you could also say "I don't like gays. Deal with it"

But saying that would be like saying "I don't like people who have got blue eyes. Deal with it"; discriminating against someone based on a characteristic they do not choose is not on.

Im not suggesting for one minute I hold those views, just saying sometimes I feel a bit sorry for those who do have deeply held views on this subject

Of course. I think it's a great thing that it's possible to have discussions like this without it becoming personal.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So you are saying someone cannot hold a view that you don't agree with then. Don't you realise that some people feel just as strongly about this but from the other side.
Wow. Staggering

That's what I meant when I said 'liberal intolerance' before - it's just as oppressive and dismissing as an anti-homosexual one at times.

 

[Minilad]

But saying that would be like saying "I don't like people who have got blue eyes. Deal with it"; discriminating against someone based on a characteristic they do not choose is not on.

Any chance you could provide me with the unequivocal scientific research that substantiates your assertion that being gay is something 100% of gay people do not choose. Cheers

 

[Nym]

Any chance you could provide me with the unequivocal scientific research that substantiates your assertion that being gay is something 100% of gay people do not choose. Cheers

To counter that spin it back 20 or 30 years and I know a lot of gay people who id they had the choice, really wouldn't have been, go back some 50 years and I can think of some very significant people who's lives would have been much easyer if they where straight.

Some people today do like to think they can choose, but if we run a quick poll of those of us on here who are gay and if we chose to be or just are... Similarly, all those breeders on here, did you choose to be a breeder, or where you born that way?

 

[LE Greys]

No problems here being afraid, I'm not going to start quoting Yoda, so long as that fear doesn't propigate down the path of the dark side.

Or that the fear is actually based on repression and then leads to violence, no judgement at all here, but I've seen it happen way too many times.

Thank you for that.

Well, if you look at the actual definition of homo-phobia, taking it back to latin of course...

It's actually Greek, and that particular abuse of the language winds me up almost as much as the word "Islamophobia". Hatred of something involves the prefix "mys..." as in "mysanthropy". I'll bet someone will come up with a word for "hatred of the abuse of language" now . . .