ChatterBank0 min ago
The Marriage Equality Bill
This poll is closed.
- No. - 140 votes
- 69%
- Yes. - 63 votes
- 31%
Stats until: 14:12 Sat 21st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. 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.
Its a reach and a stratch to assume any reasonable person could comprehend your meaning from your comment, sir.prize. So still a cryptic comment.
Pleasing to hear your readiness to debate a boring topic though.
Thing is - the debate has been done, more or less. Lords next, but the will of the commons is clear enough. Time to accept it and move on...
Pleasing to hear your readiness to debate a boring topic though.
Thing is - the debate has been done, more or less. Lords next, but the will of the commons is clear enough. Time to accept it and move on...
Thank you for your opinion and response Ed. Sorry you feel my comments are out of line. If you consider them not suitable for the site, please remove them. I feel that I contribute and debate on many topics and naturally there are users who will disagree with me - as you do sometimes. So be it. But it is great to have free speech, even though sometimes one can be somewhat abrasive (I probably wouldn't say nasty). Also I am certainly not small-minded. Ahhh well, onwards and upwards.
Sir.Prize, As has been said, people are people. Do those who happen to be homosexual love any less than anyone else, or want to commit to their loved one less than anyone else? Why do you think you're justified in dictating how other people should live when their lives have no effect whatsoever on you? I've asked a question separately relating to this, but as far as I'm aware, I've yet to receive an answer other than 'I just don't like the idea'.
Marriage equality is about giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals to have a "state-endorsed" marriage, i.e. a marriage accepted by society as a whole, rather than a religious marriage.
Society currently endorses the right for a man and woman who love each other to make a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage.
Our society does not endorse bigamy, bestiality or paedophilia, and therefore does not endorse marriage on that basis. This makes the idea of a man marrying his pet, for example, irrelevant to the discussion.
But our society DOES say it's OK to be homosexual, and therefore it should endorse marriage on that basis, allowing two homosexuals who love each other to make a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage.
It's nothing to do with religion - religions can allow their own versions of marriage, or not. It's everything to do with society, and society endorsing lifestyles that a majority within society believes are acceptable.
Bigotry is not a good choice of word in this scenario, because it's very much a black and white issue to anyone with a strong conviction, and this is an issue where it's worth having a strong conviction. Therefore everybody who has a strong conviction, one way or the other, is in a way bigoted against the opposite side. It's just the wrong word. Whichever way this bill goes, for the "losing" side to believe that the "winning" side was bigoted against them is just wrong.
I think, however, that those of a religious persuasion and who are opposed to marriage equality, sometimes seem to have mixed up their religion and its version of marriage with society as a whole and its version of marriage.
What this really comes down to is "Does society accept homosexuals?" If so, society needs to accept homosexual marriage, and endorse the idea of two homosexuals expressing a lifelong commitment to each other.
Society currently endorses the right for a man and woman who love each other to make a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage.
Our society does not endorse bigamy, bestiality or paedophilia, and therefore does not endorse marriage on that basis. This makes the idea of a man marrying his pet, for example, irrelevant to the discussion.
But our society DOES say it's OK to be homosexual, and therefore it should endorse marriage on that basis, allowing two homosexuals who love each other to make a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage.
It's nothing to do with religion - religions can allow their own versions of marriage, or not. It's everything to do with society, and society endorsing lifestyles that a majority within society believes are acceptable.
Bigotry is not a good choice of word in this scenario, because it's very much a black and white issue to anyone with a strong conviction, and this is an issue where it's worth having a strong conviction. Therefore everybody who has a strong conviction, one way or the other, is in a way bigoted against the opposite side. It's just the wrong word. Whichever way this bill goes, for the "losing" side to believe that the "winning" side was bigoted against them is just wrong.
I think, however, that those of a religious persuasion and who are opposed to marriage equality, sometimes seem to have mixed up their religion and its version of marriage with society as a whole and its version of marriage.
What this really comes down to is "Does society accept homosexuals?" If so, society needs to accept homosexual marriage, and endorse the idea of two homosexuals expressing a lifelong commitment to each other.
Bigots is the wrong word.
Its a lot more complex and this is a very general question!
If they are allowing marriages now - what was the point of introducing civil partnerships? As from what I understand and from what many of my friends have told me they have had civil partnerships to make things legal - so in the eyes of the law and to others they are a couple.
Its a lot more complex and this is a very general question!
If they are allowing marriages now - what was the point of introducing civil partnerships? As from what I understand and from what many of my friends have told me they have had civil partnerships to make things legal - so in the eyes of the law and to others they are a couple.
I think Civil Partnerships were a kind of stop-gap, allowing the government to recognise same-sex relationships enshrined in law without going any further. Particularly, without having to call it marriage. Most people getting involved referred to them as "weddings" or marriages despite this, but it was still a step in the right direction.
As for this next step... I can't see any legitimate objections to it. It's another move towards full equality for same-sex couples. The next move, as far as I can see, would be to do away with Civil Partnerships entirely (or extend them to heterosexual couples).
As to why we needed to introduce Civil Partnerships, then -- sometimes you have to take small steps and not try to jump all in one go. The opposition even to Civil Partnerships was surprisingly intense -- destruction of family life, that sort of thing -- and we've seen that same-sex marriages are also opposed with equal fervour. Luckily many objectors can fall back on "they have Civil Partnerships and that's good enough". Ironic, really, since quite a few of them also opposed Civil Partnerships.
As for this next step... I can't see any legitimate objections to it. It's another move towards full equality for same-sex couples. The next move, as far as I can see, would be to do away with Civil Partnerships entirely (or extend them to heterosexual couples).
As to why we needed to introduce Civil Partnerships, then -- sometimes you have to take small steps and not try to jump all in one go. The opposition even to Civil Partnerships was surprisingly intense -- destruction of family life, that sort of thing -- and we've seen that same-sex marriages are also opposed with equal fervour. Luckily many objectors can fall back on "they have Civil Partnerships and that's good enough". Ironic, really, since quite a few of them also opposed Civil Partnerships.
Hmm, I thought that civil partnerships were enough. And I suppose I am opposed to the idea of same sex marriage, for my own reasons.
But I did not and do not oppose civil partnerships.
On a slightly different note when are they going to change or create law to protect lifelong friends/companions? A friend of mine lives with her best friend and they share everything - bills, money, possessions etc but not in a relationship etc- yet when one of them passes away the other will have nothing and no entitlement. Similar sittuation as the homosexuals - before civil partnerships brought in.
But I did not and do not oppose civil partnerships.
On a slightly different note when are they going to change or create law to protect lifelong friends/companions? A friend of mine lives with her best friend and they share everything - bills, money, possessions etc but not in a relationship etc- yet when one of them passes away the other will have nothing and no entitlement. Similar sittuation as the homosexuals - before civil partnerships brought in.
