Investigation suggests serious flaws in the Coalition For Marriage petition

"PinkNews.co.uk’s Edmund Broch explores how accurate and reliable the system is that appears to suggest that the Coalition for Marriage has amassed 400,000 signatures in opposition to the Government’s plans to allow gay couples to marry and asks ‘do their numbers add up?’

"There is something fishy about Coalition for Marriage (C4M). Even insofar as the main aim of the campaign is to keep restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexuals, the origins and intentions of the group, especially its fundamentalist alliances, remain clandestine and worrisome."

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/08/an ... ntruthful/

OK...I'm going to stick my neck out.

I don't think we should permit gay marriage in the UK. This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one. We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense. In terms of the legal system, we already have the equivalent of gay marriage, and that is just the way it should be. So why do some gays want more than this? Why do they want to actually be able to say they are married? What extra do they gain by doing so? It would seem to me that the only thing they would gain is recognition that a civil partnership between two people of the same gender is equal in all ways to a traditional heterosexual marriage - not just in terms of legal and financial rights, but culturally identical to marriage. And the problem with that is that it's simply not true. Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership. To put it metaphorically, it's like saying that Yin and Yin is no different to Yin and Yang, or that 1 + 1 is no different to 1 + -1. I'm sorry, but this is asking too much. It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals. I have a newsflash for them: you're different. That doesn't mean you're bad, or wrong, or should be discriminated against. It just means you're different. What is so bad about that?

I might add that I live in the Hanover district of Brighton, about half a mile from the most concentrated gay community in the UK, and have not the slightest problem with this. Where I come from, the sight of gay couples being obviously gay in public doesn't even raise eyebrows. It's as much a part of the scenery as the seagulls are.

UndercoverElephant, even I don't do the whole GAY PRIEd!!!111 thing. I hate most gays, actually, so I'm more homophobic than you ought to be.

But that is just...wow. Pretty, um...ridiculous, to say the least.

I think of it in terms of 3-D movies. Overrated. Who cares? 3-D is just an illusion what's the big deal so what? You can watch a 2-D movie it's the same thing.
But 3-D will get us somewhere. 3-D will soon evolve into REAL 3-D life with visuals to look at in all angles of a room and soon we'll be enveloped in this new world of glorious holograms and fantastic realism...

That's what this is like. Gay marriage. So what? Who cares? It's just marriage. You can get a civil partnership it's the same thing.
But marriage will get us somewhere.

It's not so much for the sake of marriage but it's the implication of marriage. It's saying that we are equal.

Also, tradition is never a reason for anything political. Come on. That's just being sentimental. Might as well complain about the new Pokemon generations because EVERYTHIN AFTR RED IZNT GUD!11!!




It's also like saying the blacks had water fountains, too. They were right next to the white fountains, but they weren't the white's fountains. But it's the same thing who cares? Segregation? Please, everyone's equal here!... Equally segregated.

UndercoverElephant wrote:What extra do they gain by doing so?

I'm not gay, so I can only speculate.

But I would imagine it is because they want the love they feel to be recognised as equally important as the love heteros feel. Irrespective of any legal or financial advantages marriages (or civil partnerships) imbue they are fundamentally about the love of one person for another.

Your argument seems to be pinned on two beliefs: that marriage is fundamentally about procreation and that it is historically and culturally about a male and female. If the first was true then why do we allow infertile couples to marry? And the second is true only if you create cut of points into history that you don't wish to look beyond. Marriage used to be about the coupling of one man and several women. It use to be about a male having ownership of a female. It use to be about a lot of thing we today don't agree with.

But today we have moved on. We believe that marriage is about love. And it is my opinion that the love between two men or two women is just as important as the love between a man and a woman. And if they are equal then they deserve the same name.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Do you have any justification for this assertion?

I also had a chuckle at this statement:

It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals

Making a political movement out of concern over what other people call their relationship is the "politically-correct charade" at play here. It takes a lot of nerve to be that sensitive over how two adults want to define their relationship when it has zero impact on you then say they are perpetuating a "politically-correct charade". Suck it up and get over it.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I don't think we should permit gay marriage in the UK. This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Not only is this an appeal to tradition fallacy, it's factually flawed as well. Marriage has had many different forms and definitions including polygamous, same-sex, incestuous and even what we would nowadays consider underage.

UndercoverElephant wrote:We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense.

1. You're arguing semantics.
2. Calling it by a different name is discrimination, it's the same 'separate but equal' idea used during the segregation.

UndercoverElephant wrote:In terms of the legal system, we already have the equivalent of gay marriage, and that is just the way it should be.

Do civil unions grant visitation, inheritance and other rights? If so, you're only arguing about a name, which is both fallacious and unreasonable.

UndercoverElephant wrote:So why do some gays want more than this?

Because they want the same rights as the rest of mankind. They are humans after all, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why do they want to actually be able to say they are married? What extra do they gain by doing so?

Recognition that they are part of the human race and of their love and commitment to each other.
A better question is: "Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?" You have failed to give a rational answer to this question.

UndercoverElephant wrote:It would seem to me that the only thing they would gain is recognition that a civil partnership between two people of the same gender is equal in all ways to a traditional heterosexual marriage - not just in terms of legal and financial rights, but culturally identical to marriage.

Since marriage has never had one universal definition that's a nonsensical statement. As I said they just want to be recognized as human beings, their love and commitment is no less real than that of a straight couple.

UndercoverElephant wrote:And the problem with that is that it's simply not true. Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership.

And since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, nor vice versa, as well as the fact that many people marry without ever wanting or able to reproduce this is an completely irrelevant argument. Even more-so since gay people can both reproduce and raise children albeit through 'unnatural' means.

UndercoverElephant wrote:To put it metaphorically, it's like saying that Yin and Yin is no different to Yin and Yang, or that 1 + 1 is no different to 1 + -1. I'm sorry, but this is asking too much. It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals.

They are, in the sense that they are human beings. You have failed to present a rational argument as to why marriage should be restricted to straight couples.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I have a newsflash for them: you're different. That doesn't mean you're bad, or wrong, or should be discriminated against.

Except it is discrimination to not allow gay people to get married or to give them a different union.

UndercoverElephant wrote:It just means you're different. What is so bad about that?

As I said before, that there is no rational argument to exclude gay people from marriage.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I might add that I live in the Hanover district of Brighton, about half a mile from the most concentrated gay community in the UK, and have not the slightest problem with this. Where I come from, the sight of gay couples being obviously gay in public doesn't even raise eyebrows. It's as much a part of the scenery as the seagulls are.

Then why do you object to gay people getting married? How does that affect you in any way?

UndercoverElephant wrote:We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense.

It is most definitely gender discrimination. Only allowing men to marry women discriminates against women and only allowing women to marry men discriminates against men. And before you say "but it's ok because they offset each other" please explain to me where else we accept offsetting discriminations as being "ok".

Tails Turrosaki wrote:
It's not so much for the sake of marriage but it's the implication of marriage. It's saying that we are equal.

No. It's trying to say "we are the same. There is no difference." Equality is not the same thing as identity. In the UK, gays are already equal.

Also, tradition is never a reason for anything political. Come on. That's just being sentimental. Might as well complain about the new Pokemon generations because EVERYTHIN AFTR RED IZNT GUD!11!!

No, it's not sentimentality. I think there are fundamental facts, based on our biology and natural cultural development, which underlying the traditional concept of marriage.

Let me give it some perspective...

I also believe human beings are naturally tribal animals. That is to say that we are psychologically predisposed to operate as small groups where everybody knows everybody else, and the whole landbase is known to all. I think many of the problems of the modern world stem from our alienation from this natural state. I also think our culture is largely driven by our need to fill this lost natural social environment (hence the popularity of following football teams or watching soap operas). That's the way humans are made, and our cultural systems reflect it (poorly, in that case, which is why we're screwing up the planet.)

The above isn't "sentimental." We are tribal animals. That is our natural state. Are we naturally heterosexually monogamous? No, we aren't. Take away thousands of years of cultural development and you will probably find the natural state of humans is one of partial monogamy but always tending towards powerful males having multiple wives. But this causes wider social problems, because it leads to large numbers of males who have no wives at all, so most human cultures have, at some point, intentionally outlawed that sort of polygamy (sometimes via religious laws, sometimes via secular laws, sometimes just due to tribal custom.) The result is our cultural institution of marriage between a man and a woman being the normal state. Homosexuality always existed, of course, and has been regarded very differently by different cultures at different times. But it was always regarded as different to marriage, everywhere and always, apart from now...

It's also like saying the blacks had water fountains, too. They were right next to the white fountains, but they weren't the white's fountains. But it's the same thing who cares? Segregation? Please, everyone's equal here!... Equally segregated.

No. You are already equal. You want to claim everyone is the same, and they aren't.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
No. You are already equal. You want to claim everyone is the same, and they aren't.

No two couples and no two marriages are the same. So why draw the line when it comes to gay marriage? Simply saying "cause your not the same" is not a justification unless you have some very specific definition of what marriage is and who can get married. Otherwise you are specifically targeting one group of people to discriminate against while allowing an otherwise open interpretation of marriage.

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:What extra do they gain by doing so?

I'm not gay, so I can only speculate.

But I would imagine it is because they want the love they feel to be recognised as equally important as the love heteros feel. Irrespective of any legal or financial advantages marriages (or civil partnerships) imbue they are fundamentally about the love of one person for another.

I don't understand this argument. What are civil partnerships for? Well, it's because the law treats married couples differently to unmarried couples in terms of their financial/legal commitments to each other. It does so precisely because married couples have made a long-term commitment to each other, based on mutual love. And a civil partnership legally entitles gay couples who want to make the same commitment to each do so. That does recognise, legally, that their love is as important as that of heterosexuals.

I think you're right that it is about recognition of something, but it can't be something that civil partnerships already recognise. Something else is going on here.

Your argument seems to be pinned on two beliefs: that marriage is fundamentally about procreation...

Not the only one, but one of the fundamental pillars, yes. Marriage is a human cultural institution which was fundamentally about procreation since the dawn of civilisation, and still is.

and that it is historically and culturally about a male and female.

Yes. Of course it is.

If the first was true then why do we allow infertile couples to marry?

Two reasons. The first is that procreation isn't historically the sole reason people got married (maybe they were already too old to have children, for example). The second is that many infertile couples are already married when they discover they are infertile.

And the second is true only if you create cut of points into history that you don't wish to look beyond. Marriage used to be about the coupling of one man and several women. It use to be about a male having ownership of a female. It use to be about a lot of thing we today don't agree with.

I know that. See my last post.

But today we have moved on. We believe that marriage is about love. And it is my opinion that the love between two men or two women is just as important as the love between a man and a woman. And if they are equal then they deserve the same name.

They are already equal. They have a different name because they are, erm,....different?

Care to respond, with either rational arguments or evidence to my post, UndercoverElephant?

purplerat wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Do you have any justification for this assertion?

Yes. See above posts.

I also had a chuckle at this statement:

It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals

Making a political movement out of concern over what other people call their relationship is the "politically-correct charade" at play here.

No, that's not true. Nobody cares if gay people in civil partnerships go around telling people they are married. Some people care if we change the definition of the word "marriage" in our legal system, presumably in an attempt to remove the term "civil partnership" from the working language.

It takes a lot of nerve to be that sensitive over how two adults want to define their relationship when it has zero impact on you then say they are perpetuating a "politically-correct charade". Suck it up and get over it.

Might I suggest that this sort of reaction is just going to make people dislike you personally?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that cultural changes which affect everybody have "zero impact" on the non-gay majority of the population. Our culture belongs to all of us. There is no reason to allow it to be hijacked by people like you.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Care to respond, with either rational arguments or evidence to my post, UndercoverElephant?

Of course, AFTER I have responded rationally and with evidence to the posts that were before yours in the thread. Or do you think that your post is so important that it ought to be answered first?

Nope, you were so keen to get in the accusation that I'm irrational and not basing my argument on evidence that you felt it necessary to imply I was doing it before I've even read your first post in this thread, because I haven't got that far yet.

UndercoverElephant wrote:No. It's trying to say "we are the same. There is no difference." Equality is not the same thing as identity. In the UK, gays are already equal.

Oh, oh wow... I'm curious as to know what your age is because I'm thinking it's nothing over 25...

So what if we want to be the same, anyways? Sorry that's such a problem for you. Isn't it a natural human instinct to conform, anyways?

No, it's not sentimentality. I think there are fundamental facts, based on our biology and natural cultural development, which underlying the traditional concept of marriage.

Well then you sure have a way of making it sound really sentimental.

Let me give it some perspective...

I also believe human beings are naturally tribal animals.

Yet we get along fine in large groups.

That is to say that we are psychologically predisposed to operate as small groups where everybody knows everybody else, and the whole landbase is known to all.

Which we already do. This is what "friends" are. This is what "social groups" are.

I think many of the problems of the modern world stem from our alienation from this natural state. I also think our culture is largely driven by our need to fill this lost natural social environment (hence the popularity of following football teams or watching soap operas). That's the way humans are made, and our cultural systems reflect it (poorly, in that case, which is why we're screwing up the planet.)

Our culture is driven by natural needs. Shopping is hunting. Gaming is survival. Friends are social. The internet supplies multiple natural needs.
These needs become addictive. That's why a lot of drugs are addictive, because they set off chemicals in our head that we'd get from doing things like hunting successfully and eating a meal after a long day's chase. This is also why the internet is addicting because it grants these as well.

If you think we should be more natural, you ought to throw away your computer, toss away your clothes, almost never clean yourself, and stop being lazy because there is a loooooooooooooooooooooong life ahead of you full of misery and depression.

The above isn't "sentimental." We are tribal animals. That is our natural state.

Yes, let's embrace our natural state. Like murdering people we hate. And dejecting people from society for going against the norm.

Are we naturally heterosexually monogamous? No, we aren't.

... And that's where natural selection comes in, baby!
Culture speeds up evolution, by the way. Hope you know that too.

Take away thousands of years of cultural development and you will probably find the natural state of humans is one of partial monogamy but always tending towards powerful males having multiple wives.

You've never felt jealousy, have you?
I know we aren't monogamous but a strong reason behind it is because of jealousy. Nothing feels greater than have 3 wives and favoring one over the other two where they find out and begin to hate that bitch and her ugly mole and oversized butt and they try to win the affection of their lovely husband.

But this causes wider social problems, because it leads to large numbers of males who have no wives at all, so most human cultures have, at some point, intentionally outlawed that sort of polygamy (sometimes via religious laws, sometimes via secular laws, sometimes just due to tribal custom.)

Personally I don't care if you like to do polygamy. Just make sure everyone consents.
And I don't think that's the exact reason for outlawing polygamy...pretty sure it's more about religious reasons.

The result is our cultural institution of marriage between a man and a woman being the normal state. Homosexuality always existed, of course, and has been regarded very differently by different cultures at different times. But it was always regarded as different to marriage, everywhere and always, apart from now...

THERE IT IS. That sentimental bullshit.

It's always been regard as such. It's just BEEN that way don't change it. That's terrible. How dare you stray away from tradition. This is why the Middle East should continue to stone their women: it's always been that way!

No. You are already equal. You want to claim everyone is the same, and they aren't.

But people don't recognize it as equal. It's not about us, it's about the people around us because in case you haven't noticed humans are fucking stupid.

Soon civil unions and marriage will become terms like "boy" and "girl" and they'll just be so different and so norm'd up where it feels disgusting to escape those norms.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

purplerat wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Do you have any justification for this assertion?

Yes. See above posts.

I haven't seen anything but appeals to tradition. No real justification though.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I also had a chuckle at this statement:

It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals

Making a political movement out of concern over what other people call their relationship is the "politically-correct charade" at play here.

No, that's not true. Nobody cares if gay people in civil partnerships go around telling people they are married. Some people care if we change the definition of the word "marriage" in our legal system, presumably in an attempt to remove the term "civil partnership" from the working language.

It takes a lot of nerve to be that sensitive over how two adults want to define their relationship when it has zero impact on you then say they are perpetuating a "politically-correct charade". Suck it up and get over it.

Might I suggest that this sort of reaction is just going to make people dislike you personally?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that cultural changes which affect everybody have "zero impact" on the non-gay majority of the population. Our culture belongs to all of us. There is no reason to allow it to be hijacked by people like you.

What cultural change? You say that you accept civil partnerships and they function the same as marriage so what change, other than semantics, could there possibly be in just having one or the other? As you put it, it's a "politically-correct charade" to make some people feel good about themselves.

UndercoverElephant wrote: I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

What the fuck are you on about - generally, in the societal classes that have been worth anything, marriage has been an economical way of gaining influence and cementing alliances, child-bearing has often been performed on the side.

What extra do they gain by doing so?

RECOGNITION, but if you refuse to think of it in that way, I guess you have elected to blind yourself to the function symbols have in society.

Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership.

I think you don't think this is a serious argument! Or do you seriously thing infertile heterosexuals should be forbidden from marrying? Otherwise, you're judging homosexuals and heterosexuals with a different measuring rod. (I see this point already was raised, however, the inequal measuring rod is relevant - you're just trying to hide your prejudice and liking for discrimination behind a pseudo-argument, and that's fucking dishonest. Your answer to the previous time this objection was raised basically was 'yeah but marriage isn't only about raising children', but that kind of makes your entire fucking point moot.)

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:What extra do they gain by doing so?

I'm not gay, so I can only speculate.

But I would imagine it is because they want the love they feel to be recognised as equally important as the love heteros feel. Irrespective of any legal or financial advantages marriages (or civil partnerships) imbue they are fundamentally about the love of one person for another.

I don't understand this argument. What are civil partnerships for? Well, it's because the law treats married couples differently to unmarried couples in terms of their financial/legal commitments to each other. It does so precisely because married couples have made a long-term commitment to each other, based on mutual love. And a civil partnership legally entitles gay couples who want to make the same commitment to each do so. That does recognise, legally, that their love is as important as that of heterosexuals.

No, it recognises that gay couples have the same right to tax breaks and legal protection that straight couples do. The very fact they are called something different proves to me that society does not put the same value on the love in those relationships.

Two reasons. The first is that procreation isn't historically the sole reason people got married (maybe they were already too old to have children, for example). The second is that many infertile couples are already married when they discover they are infertile.

So hypothetically, if a young heterosexual couple who were known to be incapable of having offspring were to fall in love and decided to make their relationship "legal" would you think they should enter into a marriage or a civil partnership? Or do you believe that infertile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry just because they have the opposite sex organs?

And the second is true only if you create cut of points into history that you don't wish to look beyond. Marriage used to be about the coupling of one man and several women. It use to be about a male having ownership of a female. It use to be about a lot of thing we today don't agree with.

I know that. See my last post.

So you admit you are picking and choosing which point in our history to look at to state that marriage is "historically" between one man and one woman? By doing so I don't think you have any right to claim history or culture is on your side. I could say that German politics was historically anti-Semitic if by "historically" I meant the years between 1933 and 1945, and I would be correct. Of course if someone else assumed that by "historically" I meant from the present day back to the creation of the German state they would rightly have a problem with what I said.

But today we have moved on. We believe that marriage is about love. And it is my opinion that the love between two men or two women is just as important as the love between a man and a woman. And if they are equal then they deserve the same name.

They are already equal. They have a different name because they are, erm,....different?

Different but equal?

What's the point in any difference if they are equal?

Personally, I think the government should keep it's big fat nose out of marriage. I don't think married couples of any sexuality deserve any extra legal or financial protection beyond that of unmarried couples. I'm quite happy for people to enter into group marriages with more than one male or female, or both, if that is what they wish. I think marriage is an outdated and archaic institution. And I think the idea of marriage being solely for one man and one woman is so outdated and arcaic it's not even on the time-scale.

But despite my personal opinion of marriage as long as gay people feel they are being discriminated against because small "c" conservative have this idealised view of what marriage is or should be then I fully support their attempts at gaining equality.

If "civil partnerships" were to be legally called "marriages" what effect would that have on your life UE? I know personally, that for me it would have zero effect whatsoever. So I don't give two hoots if it changes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I don't think we should permit gay marriage in the UK. This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Not only is this an appeal to tradition fallacy, it's factually flawed as well. Marriage has had many different forms and definitions including polygamous, same-sex, incestuous and even what we would nowadays consider underage.

I've already dealt with the issue of polygamy involving one male and multiple females. Yes, some other concepts of marriage have been employed. Including incest in royal families, with bad results. Including underage coupling, which also often led to bad results. There may have even been some cultures which allowed same sex marriage as being culturally identical to heterosexual monogamy, but I can't actually think of any. I'd be interested if you can come up with any, and how many.

UndercoverElephant wrote:We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense.

1. You're arguing semantics.

No, that's the very last thing I'm doing. Short lesson on what "arguing semantics" means follows:

"Arguing semantics" is when you are quibbling over a meaning of a word, instead of addressing the real substance of an argument. So if I said "take the road to the left and you'll end up in X, take the road to the right and you'll end up in Y" and you responded "that thing to the left isn't a road. It's just a muddy track!" That is "arguing semantics" It's identifiable as such because there's no point in me responding "I disagree, muddy tracks qualify as roads!" for the simple reason that nobody cares, unless they happen to be drawing a map of the local area.

The reason I am absolutely NOT "arguing semantics" is because in this case my first post in this thread quite explictly points out the need for a semantic difference. I am quite explicitly stating that this is NOT about semantics, but about society, biology and culture. I'm saying that in our linguistic map of our culture, this is real difference, and that therefore two different terms (semantics is about the meanings of words) are required.

end philosophy lesson

2. Calling it by a different name is discrimination, it's the same 'separate but equal' idea used during the segregation.

Calling it by a different name reflects the fact that it is, um, different.

UndercoverElephant wrote:In terms of the legal system, we already have the equivalent of gay marriage, and that is just the way it should be.

Do civil unions grant visitation, inheritance and other rights? If so, you're only arguing about a name, which is both fallacious and unreasonable.

Visitation? I assume this is something to do with access to naturally-produced offspring of the two partners in a heterosexual marriage, after a divorce? If so, I'm not sure what it has to do with gay couples who can't produce children naturally. The same would not apply to adopted children. If there is a difference here then it would be discrimination.

Same problem with inheritance. This isn't just about a name. It's about biological parenthood.

UndercoverElephant wrote:So why do some gays want more than this?

Because they want the same rights as the rest of mankind. They are humans after all, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

That's no good as a rebuttal to the arguments I've provided. They aren't asking for the same rights. What they are doing is the equivalent of women demanding penises. They are asking to be treated as the same, but they're not the same. This is not because of the way society treats them. It's because there are two penises involved, or two vaginas involved, rather than a penis and a vagina.

What is hard to understand about this??

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why do they want to actually be able to say they are married? What extra do they gain by doing so?

Recognition that they are part of the human race and of their love and commitment to each other.

In what way is that not recognised in UK civil partnerships?

A better question is: "Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?" You have failed to give a rational answer to this question.

I have given you a very detailed, rational answer to that question. You actually got in your accusation I was being irrational before I'd even read your first post, which rather indicates that you may have made your mind up that I'm irrational based on my conclusion, rather than on whether or not my arguments are actually rational or not.

UndercoverElephant wrote:And the problem with that is that it's simply not true. Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership.

And since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, nor vice versa, as well as the fact that many people marry without ever wanting or able to reproduce this is an completely irrelevant argument. Even more-so since gay people can both reproduce and raise children albeit through 'unnatural' means.

You are trying to claim that there is no connection between marriage and the natural raising of families. This claim is totally ludicrous. It's not even worth debunking, because it is prima facie stupid.

UndercoverElephant wrote:To put it metaphorically, it's like saying that Yin and Yin is no different to Yin and Yang, or that 1 + 1 is no different to 1 + -1. I'm sorry, but this is asking too much. It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals.

They are, in the sense that they are human beings. You have failed to present a rational argument as to why marriage should be restricted to straight couples.

They are human beings who have chosen to make a life-long commitment to each other based on mutual love. This is acknowledged by our legal and (relatively new) cultural institution known as "civil partnerships." This isn't enough for you. You want more. You want gay couples in civil partnerships to be treated as culturally indistinguishable from normal marriages, and this is a straightforward denial of physical and cultural reality.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I have a newsflash for them: you're different. That doesn't mean you're bad, or wrong, or should be discriminated against.

Except it is discrimination to not allow gay people to get married or to give them a different union.

Please define "discrimination."

UndercoverElephant wrote:It just means you're different. What is so bad about that?

As I said before, that there is no rational argument to exclude gay people from marriage.

Yep, you keep saying it. This doesn't make it true, unfortunately.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I might add that I live in the Hanover district of Brighton, about half a mile from the most concentrated gay community in the UK, and have not the slightest problem with this. Where I come from, the sight of gay couples being obviously gay in public doesn't even raise eyebrows. It's as much a part of the scenery as the seagulls are.

Then why do you object to gay people getting married? How does that affect you in any way?

[/quote]

Because it is an important change to the culture I live in - the one I inherited from my ancestors and am equally (with everyone else) responsible for passing on to future generations. And I think this suggestion is badly thought out and not based on reality. Yes, I am used to being surrounded by a much higher proportion of homosexuals than in any other part of the UK. Some of these people are in long-term partnerships. But they aren't married, and their relationship is not the same as a marriage. It's similar, but not the same, and I don't see why we should pretend that it is the same.

I ask you again: what is so wrong about being different?

UndercoverElephant
I just
I just don't think I can debate with you anymore what with all your... ...this
I forfeit

purplerat wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense.

It is most definitely gender discrimination. Only allowing men to marry women discriminates against women and only allowing women to marry men discriminates against men.

Please define "discriminate."

In it's non-political usage, that word just means "to differentiate according to type", so a "discriminator" on a metal detector can identify different sorts of metal. In its political usage, it means "treating people unfairly based on some arbitrary distinguishing feature like race or sex."

If I'm "discriminating", it is in the non-political sense, because there is no unfair treatment of gays in civil partnerships. This isn't about "fairness." It's about the cultural recognition that there is no important difference between gay and heterosexual marriages. I believe that is not possible, and not right, because there are important differences.