News1 min ago
If a gay couple marry.........
Does it affect me? The answer is NO, so why the objections?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dabees. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's various objections, none of which are particularly convincing.
One of them (and probably the most common) is the appeal to tradition - which it's usually worth reminding people is typically considered a logical fallacy but anyway... The argument is that the definition of 'marriage' is and always has been man & woman. So a gay marriage can't be called a marriage because it isn't one. Why this should necessarily mean that marriage should continue to be defined as such is usually ignored, as is the fact that the definition of marriage has changed enormously over the past 150 years alone depending on where you look.
The second main argument (and the most odious one) is the appeal to nature - which is essentially a repeat of virtually the same objection to homosexuality per se. The argument is that homosexuality is 'unnatural', and therefore should not be 'promoted' by our society. I have never seen anyone who puts this argument forward actually demonstrate what they mean by 'natural', or why what is 'natural' is necessarily good or worth promoting. And that's if you ignore (as they normally do) the abundant evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom - all of which is apparently quite 'unnatural' according to this argument.
The third (and final, possibly most valid) argument is usually about importance. The question is usually put as to why the issue is so important it needs to be tackled when CPs work just fine and without bothering anyone. Personally, I'm unconvinced by this. I will go into the reasons later (as they might end up being a bit more detailed depending on the exact argument) if it comes up again.
One of them (and probably the most common) is the appeal to tradition - which it's usually worth reminding people is typically considered a logical fallacy but anyway... The argument is that the definition of 'marriage' is and always has been man & woman. So a gay marriage can't be called a marriage because it isn't one. Why this should necessarily mean that marriage should continue to be defined as such is usually ignored, as is the fact that the definition of marriage has changed enormously over the past 150 years alone depending on where you look.
The second main argument (and the most odious one) is the appeal to nature - which is essentially a repeat of virtually the same objection to homosexuality per se. The argument is that homosexuality is 'unnatural', and therefore should not be 'promoted' by our society. I have never seen anyone who puts this argument forward actually demonstrate what they mean by 'natural', or why what is 'natural' is necessarily good or worth promoting. And that's if you ignore (as they normally do) the abundant evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom - all of which is apparently quite 'unnatural' according to this argument.
The third (and final, possibly most valid) argument is usually about importance. The question is usually put as to why the issue is so important it needs to be tackled when CPs work just fine and without bothering anyone. Personally, I'm unconvinced by this. I will go into the reasons later (as they might end up being a bit more detailed depending on the exact argument) if it comes up again.
dabees
Thorny one.
The argument against gay marriage is that it will alter the whole meaning of the word 'marriage', which for all time has been a union between a man and a woman.
If we were to allow gay marriages, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage between three men and one woman, or one man and a goat (I'm not making these arguments up - they have already been suggested by those against gay marriage).
Those in favour of equalising marriage law point to the fact that marriage as we know it is not the 'static' institution that we think of it today.
It has undergone radical changes over the past two hundred years - for instance there was a time when women entering a marriage were seen as the chattals of a man (hence the 'obey' part of the vows).
(The next bit is from http://www.glad.org/u...istory-of-change.pdf)
For hundreds of years, women had few to no legal rights once they married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not make contracts, maintain their own names, file lawsuits, have full ownership and
control of property etc.
Then there was the banning of interracial marriage!
Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them.
In the early years of this country, divorce was exceedingly difficult to obtain. If people did get divorced, there were usually restrictions on the “guilty party’s” ability to marry again.
Thorny one.
The argument against gay marriage is that it will alter the whole meaning of the word 'marriage', which for all time has been a union between a man and a woman.
If we were to allow gay marriages, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage between three men and one woman, or one man and a goat (I'm not making these arguments up - they have already been suggested by those against gay marriage).
Those in favour of equalising marriage law point to the fact that marriage as we know it is not the 'static' institution that we think of it today.
It has undergone radical changes over the past two hundred years - for instance there was a time when women entering a marriage were seen as the chattals of a man (hence the 'obey' part of the vows).
(The next bit is from http://www.glad.org/u...istory-of-change.pdf)
For hundreds of years, women had few to no legal rights once they married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not make contracts, maintain their own names, file lawsuits, have full ownership and
control of property etc.
Then there was the banning of interracial marriage!
Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them.
In the early years of this country, divorce was exceedingly difficult to obtain. If people did get divorced, there were usually restrictions on the “guilty party’s” ability to marry again.
words will change their meaning; it happens all the time. I feel mildly uincomfortable about governments ordering that the meanings be changed, though. Change ought to come via public usage, not by diktat from above.
So is there much of a groundswell behind redefining marriage? I'm not sure there is. Though most people (including me) seem unworried by the concept of gays marrying, it's still called "gay marriage" rather than just "marriage" and I suspect this will continue for some time.
In other words, I don't think "marriage" and "gay marriage" are yet seen as the same thing, and I'm not sure it's the government's job to insist they should be.
This is, in part, Kromovaracun's first argument.
So is there much of a groundswell behind redefining marriage? I'm not sure there is. Though most people (including me) seem unworried by the concept of gays marrying, it's still called "gay marriage" rather than just "marriage" and I suspect this will continue for some time.
In other words, I don't think "marriage" and "gay marriage" are yet seen as the same thing, and I'm not sure it's the government's job to insist they should be.
This is, in part, Kromovaracun's first argument.
What I'm trying to illustrate in my previous post is that marriage as we know it, has undergone a number of radical changes over the past few hundred years which makes the idea of 'traditional marriage' rather slippery.
One of the other arguments put across is that gay marriage will somehow undermine the meaning of marriage.
To this, I would like to point to the marriage of Kim Kardashian, which lasted 72 days, Britney Spears (55 hours) and the high divorce rate in the UK which would suggest that marriage far from being a revered institution, has become, for some, an lifestyle choice one can opt out of at any point.
Isn't *that* more damaging to the institution?
On the point of civil partnerships - my problem with the whole CP idea is that it's so very dry and clinical. When you're married, the whole focus is on your relationship, built on love and the promise to be together forever etc.
With a civil partnership you enter into a binding legal contract.
That's the wording!
However much you want to dress it up, it has the romance of two people signing up to provide management consultancy for a light engineering firm.
One of the other arguments put across is that gay marriage will somehow undermine the meaning of marriage.
To this, I would like to point to the marriage of Kim Kardashian, which lasted 72 days, Britney Spears (55 hours) and the high divorce rate in the UK which would suggest that marriage far from being a revered institution, has become, for some, an lifestyle choice one can opt out of at any point.
Isn't *that* more damaging to the institution?
On the point of civil partnerships - my problem with the whole CP idea is that it's so very dry and clinical. When you're married, the whole focus is on your relationship, built on love and the promise to be together forever etc.
With a civil partnership you enter into a binding legal contract.
That's the wording!
However much you want to dress it up, it has the romance of two people signing up to provide management consultancy for a light engineering firm.
jno
It's already started. I've been to a couple of civil partnership ceremonies, and frankly - it's too much of a mouthful to say.
Most people I know now, refer to it as Steve and Bryan's wedding, rather than Steve and Bryan's civil partnership ceremony.
Same with 'gay' honeymoons...very few people are going to be bothered with using the phrase 'post civil partnership holiday'.
So what *might* happen is that people will 'hot bath' the phrase. At first they will feel uncomfortable, but after a while, they'll get used to it.
It's already started. I've been to a couple of civil partnership ceremonies, and frankly - it's too much of a mouthful to say.
Most people I know now, refer to it as Steve and Bryan's wedding, rather than Steve and Bryan's civil partnership ceremony.
Same with 'gay' honeymoons...very few people are going to be bothered with using the phrase 'post civil partnership holiday'.
So what *might* happen is that people will 'hot bath' the phrase. At first they will feel uncomfortable, but after a while, they'll get used to it.
you might well be right, sp1814. I'm just not sure it's the government's job to toss people into a hot bath. Language ought to be changed by the users, even if this means declining into txtspk and using "impact" as a verb.
As to the ceremony itself, I'm fine with that. I wonder if big, fat gay weddings will attract the same sneering as big fat gypsy weddings?
As to the ceremony itself, I'm fine with that. I wonder if big, fat gay weddings will attract the same sneering as big fat gypsy weddings?
" I'm just not sure it's the government's job to toss people into a hot bath"
You're right, it isn't. But I'm not sure this is something that's being dictated. Like everything the government does, it's reactive. It would not be possible for the government to attempt this if there wasn't pretty widespread acquiescence (albeit mostly in the form of indifference).
Marriage is a cultural ritual, and as sp has demonstrated a flexible one. Over the last 50 years, gay people have gradually gained more of an accepted place in society - and they're asking to participate in that cultural ritual which they feel part of. I'd guess, like you, that the response of your average person to that is pretty indifferent - i.e. acquiescent. The government is simply reacting (as it always does) to that situation in society.
You're right, it isn't. But I'm not sure this is something that's being dictated. Like everything the government does, it's reactive. It would not be possible for the government to attempt this if there wasn't pretty widespread acquiescence (albeit mostly in the form of indifference).
Marriage is a cultural ritual, and as sp has demonstrated a flexible one. Over the last 50 years, gay people have gradually gained more of an accepted place in society - and they're asking to participate in that cultural ritual which they feel part of. I'd guess, like you, that the response of your average person to that is pretty indifferent - i.e. acquiescent. The government is simply reacting (as it always does) to that situation in society.
jno
One other (serious) point.
I don't think the government are forcing people to change their definition of marriage.
A man and woman getting married in a country Gloucestershire, 'marriage' will mean one thing, and to two women getting married in a gothic castle in wales, 'marriage' will mean something else.
No-one is forcing gay marriage on anyone...the government is simply allowing a section of the community to opt in.
One other (serious) point.
I don't think the government are forcing people to change their definition of marriage.
A man and woman getting married in a country Gloucestershire, 'marriage' will mean one thing, and to two women getting married in a gothic castle in wales, 'marriage' will mean something else.
No-one is forcing gay marriage on anyone...the government is simply allowing a section of the community to opt in.
I have to ask why they must get 'married'?
I don't suppose that most homosexual couples are really bothered, since they now have 'civil partenships' which not only shows a loving commitment to each other but also takes care of the legal matters.
No this 'Marriage' status issue, is yet another demand by such minority groups, this time the Gay Lobbyists.
I don't suppose that most homosexual couples are really bothered, since they now have 'civil partenships' which not only shows a loving commitment to each other but also takes care of the legal matters.
No this 'Marriage' status issue, is yet another demand by such minority groups, this time the Gay Lobbyists.
"I don't suppose that most homosexual couples are really bothered"
Well, that's the thing - they are. As big an achievement as CPs are, marriage is part of our culture, which gay people over recent decades have been increasingly welcomed into in a way that they weren't before. All they want is to be able to culturally participate like everyone else. Your average person is pretty indifferent (or, often, accepting). There are even plenty of churches (like Unitarians) who are more than happy to marry gay couples and are not allowed to under the present system. And, as I tried to show above, the only real objections to it are extremely flawed.
Well, that's the thing - they are. As big an achievement as CPs are, marriage is part of our culture, which gay people over recent decades have been increasingly welcomed into in a way that they weren't before. All they want is to be able to culturally participate like everyone else. Your average person is pretty indifferent (or, often, accepting). There are even plenty of churches (like Unitarians) who are more than happy to marry gay couples and are not allowed to under the present system. And, as I tried to show above, the only real objections to it are extremely flawed.
Latest Posts
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News4 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
News12 mins ago
