• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage: MPs debate and vote, The Ayes have it!

Pagan said:
No gay marriage is about the right of the Individual to define and control their own "personal" life.

Kinda goes down the route of the core Conservative principle, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No, that's fundamentally a liberal principle. Conservatism is about preserving traditional institutions and authority, and upholding the moral standards of society.

The latter point being why I support gay marriage. Homosexuals should not be prohibited from engaging in morally correct behaviors such as marrying and raising children; they have the same moral obligations to do so as anyone else.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
No, that's fundamentally a liberal principle. Conservatism is about preserving traditional institutions and authority, and upholding the moral standards of society.

The latter point being why I support gay marriage. Homosexuals should not be prohibited from engaging in morally correct behaviors such as marrying and raising children; they have the same moral obligations to do so as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Which is basically my objection to SSM. I like that all people are being treated equally under the law, I'm dismayed that the Conservatives are using the pretext of equality in order to prop up the anachronistic, unrealistic and unnatural idea that people should pair off 'till death us do part'. The hypocrisy of getting people to swear to do something that there is no expectation of them fulfilling is simply silly.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't believe it does.

If the issue were about fairness and rights, the discussion would be about same sex couples being recongized by the federal government in the same manner as same sex couples when they obtain a license, go through a recognized, approved process, and sign appropriate witnessed documents.

Instead, all the energy is spent on demanding the definition of one word be changed.
Click to expand...

If the definition of marriage that you support were the only definition in general acceptance, I might agree, but it's not. Words change their meaning, altering from their dictionary definitions all the time. That's how languages evolve. Marriage is commonly understood to encompass a wider meaning than 'one man, one woman' by a substantial, probable majority of English speakers. This law change recognises that and the dictionaries you would cite to support your assertion will very soon be revised to reflect that new, wider meaning. Law should not follow dictionary definitions, but can and will contribute to the evolution of those meanings.

As you'll see from other posts, I'm not a fan of marriage in general, but I am in favour of social institutions being accessible equally to all, without discrimination according to sexual orientation.
 
ocean515 said:
You may want to claim the meaning has changed, but it hasn't. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has changed and that is FACT. Yours is just opinion. Marriage used to be between two people OF THE SAME RACE. That has since changed.

ocean515 said:
What so many seem to struggle with is appreciating how the issue has been prolonged due to demands over a single word.

In general, nobody appears to care if same sex couples are recongnized by the Federal government in the same manner as heterosexual couples are. Most polls indicate they have no problem with it. However, they seem to care very much about maintaining the traditional definition of the word "marriage".
Click to expand...

Baby steps. 40 years ago, you wouldn't have seen ANY gay marriage rights up for debate on the state or federal level. Now we have gays able to join the military openly, gay marriage in some states is around. There is even some cases making their way to the supreme court. NONE of that you could find 40 years ago.

It's people like you who are going to have to deal with gay marriage being legal on the federal level at some time. Chew on that FACT!
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, it has changed and that is FACT. Yours is just opinion. Marriage used to be between two people OF THE SAME RACE. That has since changed.
Click to expand...

Only in a single nation, only for about a century and a half. Historically, marriage has mostly been either one man and one woman, or one man and as many women as he could catch.

Of course, there have been societies which recognized other forms of marriage, quite successfully. And societies which recognized several "close enough" variants, though I do not approve of that approach.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Only in a single nation, only for about a century and a half. Historically, marriage has mostly been either one man and one woman, or one man and as many women as he could catch.
Click to expand...

Either way definitions change and marriage has done such. Even if you look historically with the examples of one man and many women, that definition is different than just a man and a woman. Historically it even has had different caveats. As royalty used to only be able to marry other royalty. Hence marriage has changed.

Sorry, but noone "owns" the word marriage and it too has and eventually will evolve again.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course, this is not true, at least in the context of history that is relevant to the point.

You may want to claim the meaning has changed, but it hasn't. That's a fact.

What so many seem to struggle with is appreciating how the issue has been prolonged due to demands over a single word.

In general, nobody appears to care if same sex couples are recongnized by the Federal government in the same manner as heterosexual couples are. Most polls indicate they have no problem with it. However, they seem to care very much about maintaining the traditional definition of the word "marriage".
Click to expand...

Of course its changed. It used to be about securing alliances with other families rather then love for example.

What polls are you talking about and why should I care about them? I certainly have never seen any polls that suggest proponents of SSM only care about the word marriage and not the rights and privileges that go along with being married.
 
Andalublue said:
If the definition of marriage that you support were the only definition in general acceptance, I might agree, but it's not. Words change their meaning, altering from their dictionary definitions all the time. That's how languages evolve. Marriage is commonly understood to encompass a wider meaning than 'one man, one woman' by a substantial, probable majority of English speakers. This law change recognises that and the dictionaries you would cite to support your assertion will very soon be revised to reflect that new, wider meaning. Law should not follow dictionary definitions, but can and will contribute to the evolution of those meanings.

As you'll see from other posts, I'm not a fan of marriage in general, but I am in favour of social institutions being accessible equally to all, without discrimination according to sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


While you may believe "marriage" has a wider meaning among "english speakers" the evidence points the other way in the United States, the focal point of the issue.

Voters in California, arguably one of the most liberal/progressive states in the United States, passed a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of the word.

If the most populated, and liberal state in the U.S. made this move, your theory does not stand up.
 
Omgitsme said:
Of course its changed. It used to be about securing alliances with other families rather then love for example.

What polls are you talking about and why should I care about them? I certainly have never seen any polls that suggest proponents of SSM only care about the word marriage and not the rights and privileges that go along with being married.
Click to expand...


Google might help you with regards to polls.

I am in complete agreement that the Federal Goverment should recognize the same rights in same sex couples as it does in heterosexual couples when it comes to the contracturally binding agreement they enter into together.

Same sex couples are stuck on a word - "Marriage". It's all, or nothing, as proven by the posters who I have been responding to.

It seems people want to call a rock, a banana, and can't seem to understand why people are rejecting the effort.
 
ocean515 said:
Google might help you with regards to polls.

I am in complete agreement that the Federal Goverment should recognize the same rights in same sex couples as it does in heterosexual couples when it comes to the contracturally binding agreement they enter into together.

Same sex couples are stuck on a word - "Marriage". It's all, or nothing, as proven by the posters who I have been responding to.

It seems people want to call a rock, a banana, and can't seem to understand why people are rejecting the effort.
Click to expand...

You made the claim. You back it up. Im not going to find the poll for you.

And the reason the pro SSM crowd is stuck in calling it marriage instead of something else is because you cannot create a separate institution and call it equal. Even if the institution you create has the exact same benefits and rights it still wont be equal.
 
ocean515 said:
While you may believe "marriage" has a wider meaning among "english speakers" the evidence points the other way in the United States, the focal point of the issue.

Voters in California, arguably one of the most liberal/progressive states in the United States, passed a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of the word.

If the most populated, and liberal state in the U.S. made this move, your theory does not stand up.
Click to expand...

If you want to limit the discussion to a parochial one concerning SSM in the USA, this isn't the thread to do it on. This thread is about the decision of the British parliament to legalise SSM. If you want to hijack it to discuss your own country then I'm afraid you can't. Limit your contribs to the issue of SSM in general, or in relation specifically to the UK. There are plenty of other threads dealing with SSM in the US.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm sorry, I thought the issue was same sex couples. A strawman is rather meaningless don't you think? The fact is, while inter-racial issues from long ago were appalling, they still involved heterosexual couples. The definition of the word wasn't different.

Again, this issue would be resolved, as it should be, if the LGBT "community" were truely interested in seeing it done.
Click to expand...
Its not a "strawman" at all. When you talk about the "sacredness" of the defintion of a word....it is either "sacred" or not. You can't accept the changes in definitions that you are willing to accept and at the same time cry about how the word and the definition are so sacred that it should not be changed.
 
Omgitsme said:
You made the claim. You back it up. Im not going to find the poll for you.

And the reason the pro SSM crowd is stuck in calling it marriage instead of something else is because you cannot create a separate institution and call it equal. Even if the institution you create has the exact same benefits and rights it still wont be equal.
Click to expand...


LOL. Well, if you doubt the claim, prove it wrong...............

So let's see, "even if the institution you create has the exact same benefits and rights it still won't be equal" - because of a word.

People seem to be very adament about that word remaining defined the way it is. You're doing nothing but prove the point I have been making.

It's not about the benefits, it's about victory over a word.
 
Andalublue said:
If you want to limit the discussion to a parochial one concerning SSM in the USA, this isn't the thread to do it on. This thread is about the decision of the British parliament to legalise SSM. If you want to hijack it to discuss your own country then I'm afraid you can't. Limit your contribs to the issue of SSM in general, or in relation specifically to the UK. There are plenty of other threads dealing with SSM in the US.
Click to expand...

LOL - Give me a break. The thought police run pretty strong here.

I haven't limited the context, I've pointed out how the issue is playing out here in the United States as opposed to what has been reported in the UK.

If you don't want to engage, move along.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. Well, if you doubt the claim, prove it wrong...............

So let's see, "even if the institution you create has the exact same benefits and rights it still won't be equal" - because of a word.

People seem to be very adament about that word remaining defined the way it is. You're doing nothing but prove the point I have been making.

It's not about the benefits, it's about victory over a word.
Click to expand...

Late to the party but I want to catch up.

what word are we talking about?
if theres a victory there must be a battle who is the battle between?
 
ocean515 said:
It's not about the benefits, it's about victory over a word.
Click to expand...

A word YOU don't have ownership of in the first place. Words change and whether you like it or now, SSM will be legal. Baby steps have already taken place and the FEDERAL ban on gays in the military has been lifted. You are a dying breed, literally. Deal with that FACT.
 
Andalublue said:
I think I've stated this before, and it might sound very contradictory, but I disagree that Civil Partnerships are a second-rate version of marriage. I know that's not what you were arguing, but many have done. Personally, much as I applaud this decision because it applies equality across the queer-breeder divide, I'd rather all civil partnership recognition was deemed Civil Partnership, not marriage. In Free Andalublue-stan there would be no state recognition of marriage. Marriage would be merely a term used by the religious for whatever they want to do, like a Bar Mitzvah or a Khitan. Separating out the civil from the religious would make more sense. And all vows ought to lose the "Till death us do part" bit. Get real! No one buys that guff any more.
Click to expand...

this is already done :shrug:
they have been separated for centuries
 
PeteEU said:
As long as there is no legal difference between the two groups.. then the "morally superior" can stick it in a place the sun dont shine.
Click to expand...

well i dont know about over there but here in america they are clearly different, nothing has been setup to establish otherwise.
also we tried the separate but equal stuff before it failed


PS not attacking you just throwing in my two cents in the matter. ANd i think they can stick it now! lol
 
disneydude said:
Its not a "strawman" at all. When you talk about the "sacredness" of the defintion of a word....it is either "sacred" or not. You can't accept the changes in definitions that you are willing to accept and at the same time cry about how the word and the definition are so sacred that it should not be changed.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a strawman. The issue has nothing to do with historic racism and bigotry. Getting back to the point of demanding a word be redefined, frankly, I've never understood the "cut off nose in spite of face" approach to issues.

It seems those seeking such a move become so emotional about it, they begin to assign motives to those who resist the move that don't exist.

I don't really care what it's called. Call it marriage. I have no problem with that.

The problem is that tens of millions do have a problem with it.

As a result, all that is being accomplished is meaningless recognition at some state levels. It's the Federal Government that needs to recognize the action, and that is not going to happen anytime soon given the way it's being approached.
 
TheNextEra said:
A word YOU don't have ownership of in the first place. Words change and whether you like it or now, SSM will be legal. Baby steps have already taken place and the FEDERAL ban on gays in the military has been lifted. You are a dying breed, literally. Deal with that FACT.
Click to expand...

I'm a dying breed? Really? You posted that?
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
Of course it's a strawman. The issue has nothing to do with historic racism and bigotry. Getting back to the point of demanding a word be redefined, frankly, I've never understood the "cut off nose in spite of face" approach to issues.

It seems those seeking such a move become so emotional about it, they begin to assign motives to those who resist the move that don't exist.

I don't really care what it's called. Call it marriage. I have no problem with that.

The problem is that tens of millions do have a problem with it.

As a result, all that is being accomplished is meaningless recognition at some state levels. It's the Federal Government that needs to recognize the action, and that is not going to happen anytime soon given the way it's being approached.
Click to expand...

any time soon?
its just my opinion but i think it will be 10years max before equal/civil rights are granted for gays, its a shame it took this long but i think thats all its going to take.

now i admit that 10 years ago i thought it would never happen in my lifetime, i thought it would happen in my childrens lifetime but that has changed based on history.
 
Objective-J said:
any time soon?
its just my opinion but i think it will be 10years max before equal/civil rights are granted for gays, its a shame it took this long but i think thats all its going to take.

now i admit that 10 years ago i thought it would never happen in my lifetime, i thought it would happen in my childrens lifetime but that has changed based on history.
Click to expand...

The point is, it could happen today if the battle wasn't over the word "marriage", but over the rights the Federal Government should be granting as a result of the act.
 
ocean515 said:
The point is, it could happen today if the battle wasn't over the word "marriage", but over the rights the Federal Government should be granting as a result of the act.
Click to expand...

i know you think thats the point but its not, why?

I said Equal rights / civil rights.

THose dont exist calling it something else :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom