Gay Marriage Set to Unhinge Tories?

[Captain Cadillac]

Fantic SuperT said:

Just out of bi-curiosity, are lesbians also euphemistically known as 'gay'? I thought I'd heard homosexuals describe themselves as 'lesbian and gay' implying only the males were 'gay'. And what's this proposed law really called?

Yes. At least that's what my friend says. She generally refers to herself as a Lesbian but whenever she says that she's gay it's usually said with some emotion, like when one of her sisters tries to fix her up with a "nice jewish guy she knows".

[TheHeretic]

Well, no-one has been able to answer it thus far.

[HungryHorace]

TheHeretic said:

Well, no-one has been able to answer it thus far.

So tell my why is it such a positive thing?

You don't have to have fear, or lack understanding to not like the idea of something. So tell me why I should embrace the union between two same sex people to be recognised as marriage.

[JonRB]

HungryHorace said:

So tell my why is it such a positive thing?

More to the point, why is it such a negative thing, maaan? Love is all you need!

But, more seriously, please explain why denying / suppressing love and genuine commitment is a BAD thing?

[JonRB]

HungryHorace said:

You don't have to have fear, or lack understanding to not like the idea of something. So tell me why I should embrace the union between two people who love each other to be recognised as marriage.

No idea dude. Please tell me how two equal humans who love each other can't be married? Unless some people are inferior? I wanna hear this one.

[TheHeretic]

HungryHorace said:

So tell my why is it such a positive thing?

You don't have to have fear, or lack understanding to not like the idea of something. So tell me why I should embrace the union between two same sex people to be recognised as marriage.

I am not denying anyone anything. It is a positive thing because 2 people can be treated the same as another couple in the eyes of the law, as well as in the eyes of society. Will it affect me? No, because i am not homosexual, but if it gives a homosexual couple what they would like, as other couples, great, I could not be happier for them, and I certainly will not stand in their way.

Your turn.

[HungryHorace]

To be honest I support it

[TheHeretic]

HungryHorace said:

To be honest I support it

So you are a troll then?

[12v3pot]

Fantic SuperT said:

Just out of bi-curiosity, are lesbians also euphemistically known as 'gay'? I thought I'd heard homosexuals describe themselves as 'lesbian and gay' implying only the males were 'gay'. And what's this proposed law really called?

It's tricky! These days the abbreviation "GLBT" is used to cover the whole sexuality/gender queer spectrum, so it seems that, semi-officially at least, gay = male homosexual and lesbian = female homosexual.

Add in the fact that some people can choose to change their sexuality (some can't) and it's a dilly of a pickle trying to pigenhole everyone.

The transgender dimension is surprising and some aspects of gender freedom even manage to p*ss off some gays and lesbians. Some politically minded lesbians, for example, have a REAL problem with men who have gender reassignment surgery in order to have a lesbian relationship with another woman.

[Tallbutbuxomly]

JonRB said:

HungryHorace said:

So tell my why is it such a positive thing?

More to the point, why is it such a negative thing, maaan? Love is all you need!

But, more seriously, please explain why denying / suppressing love and genuine commitment is a BAD thing?

Please feel free to the actually answer the question without using the words equality fairness or rights.

I fail to see why anyone who chooses to argue against gay marriage is expected to answer every question given with an evidentially supported argument with documentation etc yet the pro group are not.

All the pro group have to do is say "its about equality and human rights" and apparently that makes all of you right automatically.

[Tallbutbuxomly]

Horace and others who may feel they wish to argue against gay marriage may I suggest you refrain from doing so either on this thread or any other on PH. It is a monumentally pointless waste of your time and the pro groups.

[fluffnik]

TheHeretic said:

http://youtu.be/ijArNt9a-Yc

That's a bit good that.

[fluffnik]

Captain Cadillac said:

But I have one simple argument that nobody who opposes gay marriage has yet been able to answer intelligently....

"If two, monogamous, consenting loving men or women get married, how will that directly affect YOUR life in a negative manner?"

Always shuts 'em up.

You'd have thunk it, but here we are on page 69...

>snigger<

[smartphone hater]

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Please feel free to the actually answer the question without using the words equality fairness or rights.

I fail to see why anyone who chooses to argue against gay marriage is expected to answer every question given with an evidentially supported argument with documentation etc yet the pro group are not.

All the pro group have to do is say "its about equality and human rights" and apparently that makes all of you right automatically.

This.

[chrisw666]

Captain Cadillac said:

But I have one simple argument that nobody who opposes gay marriage has yet been able to answer intelligently....

"If two, monogamous, consenting loving men or women get married, how will that directly affect YOUR life in a negative manner?"

Always shuts 'em up.

They can't answer it because it isn't ever going to do that.

Therefore the only reason they can have is based on irrational hatred or ignorance.

I'm not gay, I know gay people but they're not close friends, I'm not especially left or right wing in my views and I'm highly likely to make a non PC comment or three about all kinds of people/things. But I can't find anything to dislike about same sex couples who are total strangers that makes me want to see them treat as second class citizens by a set of views based on some ancient fairy story.

If someone gives me a sensible reason to oppose it I might blindly follow them, but as the strongest for and against argument I can manage are it won't affect me either way and I don't really mind I'm confident they won't. Opposing such a thing seems like a waste of good hate.

[Captain Cadillac]

I have a bit of a different perspective I think as I am American. Over here the majority of the rallying against gay marriage is from the religious right, and I'm rather sick of them. Regardless of what the majority of posters on here may think, there's just no movement in the UK like the super conservative American religious right, possibly excepting hard line Muslims.

I'll be the first to agree that if a church or temple doesn't want to recognize same sex marriage then that's absolutely their right. I'm technically a Conservative Jew and the conservative movement hasn't been exactly clear on gay marriage, yet technically same sex sexual relations are forbidden. I'm far from strictly observant and I'm not gay, but to me that's besides the point. Could it be argued that were, say, the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptists be required to perform gay marriages that it would affect their own functions? Yes I'd say that could be argued, but nobody is saying that any Church or Temple or Mosque is required to perform them.

It's just like my stance on abortion; I'm not likely to get pregnant so why should I have a say on the matter? If some girl wants to get an abortion it should be her choice to do so and certainly not mine. So if a gay couple wishes to get married, since I am not gay I don't see why I should have any say in the matter. Since there's no argument yet that can explain how gay marriage will have ANY negative affect on my life then I see absolutely no reason why it should be prohibited. It's basic logic to me. And in this case, as far as I'm concerned, "me" could apply to any heterosexual American.

Furthermore, the public discourse on gay marriage, at least in America, is eerily similar to the civil rights debate from the 1960s.

[TheHeretic]

Agree with all of that, (as well as the pressures on gay folk from the religious right).

[daveydave7]

Quite frankly with other events this week I think there are more important tings to be worrying about in government circles.

[TheHeretic]

daveydave7 said:

Quite frankly with other events this week I think there are more important tings to be worrying about in government circles.

Indeed. No doubt they have put everything else on hold as the government can only do one thing at once.

[12v3pot]

smartphone hater said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Please feel free to the actually answer the question without using the words equality fairness or rights.

I fail to see why anyone who chooses to argue against gay marriage is expected to answer every question given with an evidentially supported argument with documentation etc yet the pro group are not.

All the pro group have to do is say "its about equality and human rights" and apparently that makes all of you right automatically.

This.

It's really very bizarre to require people to make an argument about discrimination without using the word equality. I asked TBB to explain why he's in favour of black people being allowed on the same buses as white people, because I wanted to get at this. He chose not to answer. (shrug)

All that's left is this stinking suspicion that peole like you and TBB think that, once gay marriage is legalised, homosexuality will become less of a perversion and more acceptable. And that's what you don't like, perhaps because it might become a life that your friends/children/others might want to live.

"I'm not against homosexuality, but they just can't be allowed to marry" is homophobia and discrimination, plain and simple.