Gay Marriage Set to Unhinge Tories?
Discussion
Tallbutbuxomly said:
So Matt once again your response is NO.
Up and down left and right blue white male female man wife etc these are descriptive terms.
Through history marriage has described man and wife male and female. All the other garbage you are trying use is an absolute irrelevance. Age of consent changed property share changed etc but the descriptive has always been male and female.
Blue is descriptive of the colour blue. You can have light blue dark blue etc but it is still blue descriptive.
Marriage has as far as i am aware been used to describe male marrying female. Male marrying female. The fact a male was marrying a 12 year old female was changed to a male marrying a 16 year old does not change the descriptive definition of male marrying female.
The fact you cannot understand this most simple of concepts is astonishing.
I can now only conclude that you are trolling, have no grasp of language at all, or lack the self awareness to acknowledge your own feelings on the matter. Male and female are descriptors of gender, just as 12 and 16 are descriptors of age and divorced and single are descriptors of relationship status. The only reason you are hung up on the male/female part is because you attach more importance to it than the 12/16 part, and that is an indicator of a conscious or unconscious bias towards gender.Up and down left and right blue white male female man wife etc these are descriptive terms.
Through history marriage has described man and wife male and female. All the other garbage you are trying use is an absolute irrelevance. Age of consent changed property share changed etc but the descriptive has always been male and female.
Blue is descriptive of the colour blue. You can have light blue dark blue etc but it is still blue descriptive.
Marriage has as far as i am aware been used to describe male marrying female. Male marrying female. The fact a male was marrying a 12 year old female was changed to a male marrying a 16 year old does not change the descriptive definition of male marrying female.
The fact you cannot understand this most simple of concepts is astonishing.
As it stands, regardless of the common acceptance of the definition of a word, the legal definition of the status of marriage has changed repeatedly over the years. To argue against a legal change simply because some other people may be upset about their definition of a word is nonsensical.
mattmurdock said:
plasticpig said:
The law discriminates against people who wish to enter into marriage with multiple partners just like it discriminates against people who wish to marry a partner of the same sex. There is no logical reason why marriage should be restricted to monogamy; Just as their is no logical reason that a monogamous marriage should be limited to partners of differing sex.
The only logical reason I can see is the potential complexity of possession/inheritance arrangements between multiple partners, dependent on when the relationships were entered into.I think eventually societal pressures will change to the point that civil polygamous relationships will be accepted and legislated for.
speedy_thrills said:
That's my point, just write an act saying people can marry whoever they like (with consent obv.) rather than revisiting this again in ten or so years. Its not an anti-gay argument but a pro-efficiency argument. I read just a few weeks ago the UK government is looking to make some efficiencies as well, opportune timing.
If we did that then no laws would ever get passed. We'd be constantly revising some meta-law that never got into the statutes. Legal change is a gradual process made up of a number of iterations. Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
The gay married people I know are husband/husband and wife/wife. Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
So you're reduced to picking over the wording of the vows (which you can write yourself these days). Time to admit you've got no argument, chap.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
You're really scraping the barrel now. There are no set vows and many people write their own vows now. Certainly many women chose to omit "and obey" from their vows. Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
Let's just dispel this rubbish about marriage having only ever been between a man and a woman shall we..
Wikipedia said:
History of same-sex unions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.
And thenFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.
Wikipedia said:
While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.
Indeed, it was the Christian church that changed the definition of marriage to only be between a man and a woman, so it can hardly complain about other people changing the definition back to what it originally was, between two people who love each other.A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
Who cares? Do you think wives the country over will object to men using the title?Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
stackmonkey said:
Indeed, it was the Christian church that changed the definition of marriage to only be between a man and a woman, so it can hardly complain about other people changing the definition back to what it originally was, between two people who love each other.
Thank you its only taken how long?? While i am not entirely sure i agree 100% with that as it is wikipedia after all and my argument is on the gender association of the term marriage it does tend to indicate the term marriage "may" have been used to describe union between same sex couples.Tallbutbuxomly said:
Thank you its only taken how long?? While i am not entirely sure i agree 100% with that as it is wikipedia after all and my argument is on the gender association of the term marriage it does tend to indicate the term marriage "may" have been used to describe union between same sex couples.
If you're not sure of the validity of a Wikipedia article you could look up the citations, rather than saying "it is wikipedia after all". The ones cited in the text quoted by stackmonkey were:
[2] a b Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000. ISBN 1-894663-63-2 / 978-1894663632
[3] Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. 1992. Homosexuality in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Garland.
[4] Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc. ISBN 0-520-07869-1.
[5] Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32 (4): 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.
[6] Ibid, 465
[7] Ibid, 468.
[8] Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian's Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry, by Mike Mazzalonga, 1996, p.11
[9] a b The Nature Of Homosexuality, Erik Holland, page 334, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_u...
Tallbutbuxomly said:
stackmonkey said:
Indeed, it was the Christian church that changed the definition of marriage to only be between a man and a woman, so it can hardly complain about other people changing the definition back to what it originally was, between two people who love each other.
Thank you its only taken how long?? While i am not entirely sure i agree 100% with that as it is wikipedia after all and my argument is on the gender association of the term marriage it does tend to indicate the term marriage "may" have been used to describe union between same sex couples.What is more, many of those earlier same sex marriages were conducted within a contemporary religious ceremony (reading from the same article), so they were obviously more enlightened than the Christians who banned them in 342AD...
So not is there only significant historical precedent for civil same sex marriages; there is also historical precedent for religious same sex marriages.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
It has been during my lifetime that the word husband has been used in marriage ceremonies in this country in church. It used to be man and wife. So the precedent for change of wording has already been set. Further, if we are onto precedent, JohnRB's post is rather overwhelming.Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
CommanderJameson said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
The gay married people I know are husband/husband and wife/wife. Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
So you're reduced to picking over the wording of the vows (which you can write yourself these days). Time to admit you've got no argument, chap.
Slightly different words in a vow versus basic human rights.
JonRB said:
Which one, Dereck?
I was refering to the one with the references but I have to say most of yours on this thread. The irritating thing is that counter arguments from certain people ignore the main points of your posts and go onto inconsequentials. After all, does it matter what words are used in the ceremony? (Rhetorical question for those who think it does.)
The problem with this thread is that despite no new arguments against same sex marriages, after 'haven't they got anything better to do' - as if everything else stopped in parliament - and 'there's never been marriage between same sex couple before'. No forgetting that if we let two people get married than what's to stop me marrying my cockatiel. Yet I find myself drawn to reading it knowing full well that I won't learn anything from it. More self control needed.
Derek Smith said:
I was refering to the one with the references
Oh, I just cut & paste that from the same Wiki article as stackmonkey; I didn't research all that myself. I was just illustrating that it's not really valid to say "Well, it's Wikipedia so it may be wrong" when there are a stack of citations at the end of the article. Derek Smith said:
but I have to say most of yours on this thread.
Thanks! 
Derek Smith said:
The irritating thing is that counter arguments from certain people ignore the main points of your posts and go onto inconsequentials.
Indeed. I've noticed that on this and other threads on the subject. But diversion, straw man arguments, argument from fallacy, and simply ignoring things for which you have no answer are all part & parcel of what we have come to expect. Sometimes I wonder if, in a strange Fight Club sort of way, TBB's teacher friend is, in fact, himself.
speedy_thrills said:
mattmurdock said:
plasticpig said:
The law discriminates against people who wish to enter into marriage with multiple partners just like it discriminates against people who wish to marry a partner of the same sex. There is no logical reason why marriage should be restricted to monogamy; Just as their is no logical reason that a monogamous marriage should be limited to partners of differing sex.
The only logical reason I can see is the potential complexity of possession/inheritance arrangements between multiple partners, dependent on when the relationships were entered into.I think eventually societal pressures will change to the point that civil polygamous relationships will be accepted and legislated for.
CommanderJameson said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Also you are not merely changing the descriptive of marriage most likely though as yet unconfirmed you are also changing the feminine and masculine. Will two men be allowed to say their vows thus...
Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
The gay married people I know are husband/husband and wife/wife. Do you take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? And do you John take Luke to be your lawfully wed wife? Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
So you're reduced to picking over the wording of the vows (which you can write yourself these days). Time to admit you've got no argument, chap.
http://www.confetti.co.uk/article/view/5991-8182-0...
stackmonkey said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Since in some same sex relationships they agree masculine and feminine roles?
You really haven't got a clue have you.Know many gay people do you?
Can you clarify with all your experience around people who are gay.
Ever discussed the issue with gay people?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff