In Defense of the Marriage

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I could have swarn a couple of months or so ago Jerrek was actually pro-gay... I even got the impression he was bisexual

Yes, and as I've iterated before, being gay, straight, or bisexual does not automatically form an opinion regarding gay marriage. There are many gays opposed to gay marriage, just like there are many straight people pro-gay marriage.

I dare you to go into a gay bar and ask the people there if they want gay marriage legalized. I think you'd be surprised.

[BBKing]

Which, if true, would tend to support a contention that gays are like any other group of people, individuals with individual opinions.

Therefore discriminating against them on the basis of the gender composition of their partnerships is even less logical.

[Jerrek]

They're not being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as heterosexuals: They can marry any woman of their choice. Same status before the law. Equality.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

They're not being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as heterosexuals: They can marry any woman of their choice. Same status before the law. Equality.

But they want to marry the person they love, and the law gets in the way of that.

What about multiple wives or husbands?

[BBKing]

I think you're misunderstanding a key point here, Jerrek. An individual gay person has the same rights as an individual heterosexual person. A gay couple, on the other hand, do NOT have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is the fundamental issue.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by downquark1

But they want to marry the person they love, and the law gets in the way of that.

Ah thats different. Now you enter the world of opinion. And it is my personal opinion that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The law does not guarantee you the right to marry btw.

What about multiple wives or husbands?

No I would not support that, neither would I support marriages to dogs, animals, children, or inanimate objects.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I think you're misunderstanding a key point here, Jerrek. An individual gay person has the same rights as an individual heterosexual person. A gay couple, on the other hand, do NOT have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is the fundamental issue.

My best buddy and I do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple either, and we don't complain.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I think you're misunderstanding a key point here, Jerrek. An individual gay person has the same rights as an individual heterosexual person. A gay couple, on the other hand, do NOT have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is the fundamental issue.

So they should have access to some sort of legal framework that gives them the same legal rights as a married couple, but not marriage.

[BBKing]

My best buddy and I do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple either, and we don't complain.

Unless you and your best buddy are planning to pair for life and live together for your mutual comfort and benefit, and want your community to recognise this union, I don't think this is a valid point. If you are planning to live together in this way, I salute your union and wish you the best of luck.

So they should have access to some sort of legal framework that gives them the same legal rights as a married couple, but not marriage.

If it confers the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple, then it is starting to look very much like marriage, under the 'quacks like a duck' principle. The exact terminology is fairly marginal to the argument though.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by BBKing

If it confers the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple, then it is starting to look very much like marriage, under the 'quacks like a duck' principle. The exact terminology is fairly marginal to the argument though.

I disagree. The main thrust of this thread imo, is to keep the marriage ceremony for hetrosexual religious types. It isn't against homosexuals being legally recognised as 'married', for want of a better word, in the eyes of the law and the government. Or have I missed something here? (it's entirely possible )
btw....I like the 'quacks like a duck bit', that gave me a chuckle

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Oh BTW Graham was the red reps to make me come back and fight you?

Answered via PM.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The law does not guarantee you the right to marry btw.

Ahem!

Quoting from the European Convention on Human Rights:

Originally Posted by European Convention on Human Rights

ARTICLE 12

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

In Europe the law *DOES* guarantee the right to marry. Just because the law in *your* home town doesn't (surprisingly!) mean that it holds true *everywhere*!

Also, on a strictly technical reading of the above, it only says that "men and women... have the right to marry" it doesn't say anything about the genders of the parties involved!

No I would not support that, neither would I support marriages to dogs, animals, children, or inanimate objects.

Please try to understand the distinction between *consenting adults* and "dogs, animals (aren't dogs animals?!), children or inanimate objects"

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Garden of Eden, c. 4400 B.C. Humans didn't procreate before that.

I've kept out of this so far, but this comment just made me laugh for so long I thought it was worth bumping up to the front of the thread again!

[Jerrek]

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

[Nor]

You don't believe in evolution then Jerrek ?