Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[Tiberius]

Nice to see a fellow Brit Ok, fine. You're a libertarian, I get that, but you have to understand Tiberius, that what is right and what is fair is always subjective when the government legislates, we have that imposed upon us through popular appeal, special interest groups and righteous benevolent politicians who believe that their opinions should be taken as Bible by the rest of the population.

Right, but I don't agree with a subjective form of government. I think government should be as unbiased as possible, and personal opinions should not affect policy. Restricting marriage to just one man and one woman is unfair whether you think gay marriage (or poly marriage, incest marriage, etc.) is disgusting or not. Nobody who thinks marriage should remain between a man and a woman has ever been able to come up with a reason for keeping it that way that wasn't based on subjective personal beliefs, or complete falsehoods. They never will either, because the unfairness of the current marriage system simply isn't up for debate; it's as unfair as having non-white people separated from white people.

From the taxation system, to foreign policy, to drugs policy, to NHS policy, to the justice system. There is no such thing as an objective "fair" in a secular democracy, the utopia of "fairness" or "rightness" by which I assume you mean 'what Tiberius considers fair or right', doesn't exist.

I disagree that there is no such thing as objective fair in a secular democracy. I'd argue that secular democracy can be objectively fair, but that no secular democracy (or democracy for that matter) has ever done things right.

My imagined utopia isn't based on what I consider to be fair or right. It's based on whether or not the government should dictate how people live their lives. I'm against overbearing nanny states in almost all respects. A government does not have a right to tell me who I can marry, what I can eat, what I wear, what I can say, etc. Governments that insist they do are simply making up those rights out of thin air.

What you consider to be fair or right isn't what I consider to be fair or right. It is not necessarily fair for wealthier higher income earners to pay a higher marginal income tax rate, yet I still consider it to be right. A mother and her son marrying is not "right" according to what I perceive to be "right" and so yes, the definition of marriage is indeed unfair, and it should remain so in my opinion. I do commend your consistency though

I can't understand how you can think something is unfair yet still insist it is "right" that it happens. It violates even the most basic standard of ethics...that of the golden rule. It's so very easy for straight people to reject the notion of gay marriage; they will never have to suffer the same kind of unfairness that gay people have to put up with every day.

But everyone will never be treated as equals in a society Tiberius; a 13 year old cannot get into an 18 year rated movie unsupervised.

IMO, movie ratings are a form of censorship. Also, if you think 13 year olds aren't seeing 18+ rated movies, you are having a laugh.

I get your point about children though, but the point is, they are developing citizens; most do not have the mental capacity to understand how society functions; there is no need for them to be treated the same way as adults in some aspects of life. One can think of children as almost a form of property of the parents, up until society deems them adult enough to handle everything on their own. In the UK, that age is 16, but I reject even the notion of a static age for that sort of thing. Some children are highly independent before that age; others aren't adult enough after it.

A person who earns 150 K a year is not treated equally to a person who earns 20K in terms of taxes.

They should be. By that I mean, they should pay the same rate of tax. There is no fair justification for taxing rich people more "just because they have more". That said, I'm actually more of a fan of taxes on spending rather than on income these days.

Equality does not exist in most spheres of society, there should be no such thing as equality in the definition of marriage in my opinion.

I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

[justin]

Stop Saying Stupid Shit. Snap back to reality because you've strayed way to far away.

[Ryantology]

1. Gay marriage opens the door to a plethora of new definitions of how "marriage" is defined, a door which the majority of people,especially in the UK, would like to see shut. Consenting adults in a loving relationship is NOT a good enough reason to re-define marriage.

Marriage was originally fathers selling useless daughters into arranged marriages, regardless of their consent. I think it's safe to say that 'marriage' has already been re-defined several times and has survived beautifully.

Additionally, as the economist here says, the case for polygamy is on exactly the same grounds as gay marriage, which is currently prohibited.

There is no more justification for banning polygamy than there is same-sex marriage, especially when it you factor in that banning polygamy is, itself, another 're-definition' of marriage, as polygamy was a Biblically-sanctioned practice and is still accepted by billions of people in other cultures to this day.

So re-defining marriage to cater for the wishes of two loving consenting adults means that current UK legislation would have to have a complete overhaul and turn into one that is abhorrent and allows grotesque relationships to form, it is imperative keep this door firmly shut.

Why not re-define marriage so that spiteful, troglodytic scumfucks like you couldn't marry and procreate.

2. Gay marriage legislation will lead to religious oppression and a rejection of religious freedom.

There is only one sort of person who thinks that freedom, equality and love are dangerous things: a person who hates freedom, equality and love.

If you live in the UK, here's a petition protecting the definition of marriage.

If you live in the UK, spend a day spoonfeeding fresh baby shit to this hypocritical cumstain.

Okay, and seriously, why even post such a petition on a forum like this? Are you daft or just fucking stupid? I would be showing the same respect if I went over to a Christian forum and told them which pages made the best rolling papers.

[Minimalist]

Apparently, Divi Tiberio, you fail to see the irony in this comment of yours.

I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Why...Inequality

In other words, although the incomes grow by orders of magnitude, human needs (food, water, shelter, heating, medical care) do not. So all that extra money left over after our basic needs are taken care of, which is normally spent on luxury items, can be tapped safely without worrying about the physical wellbeing of the higher earner. They can afford it.

This does not justify excessively taxing the rich just because they are rich, and just because they have lots of "unnecessary" money. But it does mean that increasing taxes on the rich is more reasonable than increasing taxes on the poor, other things equal.

[Esquilax]

1. Gay marriage opens the door to a plethora of new definitions of how "marriage" is defined, a door which the majority of people,especially in the UK, would like to see shut. Consenting adults in a loving relationship is NOT a good enough reason to re-define marriage.

You're a moron: marriage has already been redefined, even in nominally modern times. The legal definition was changed to include interracial marriages at one point, and we didn't have this cavalcade of people attempting to redefine it further, nor people attempting to marry their mothers, or sheep, or toasters, or anything else. Simply put, history shows that your claims here are totally baseless.

Beyond that, so fucking what if they do start campaigning for incestuous marriage, or what have you? It's irrelevant to the question of gay marriage, partly because it's an unrelated rights issue, but also because we aren't obligated to allow everything just because we allow some things. Occasionally, we do draw lines; redefining marriage this once doesn't mean all bets are off. We let you start learning to drive here at sixteen, that doesn't mean we're bound to allow five year olds to drive.

Additionally, as the economist here says, the case for polygamy is on exactly the same grounds as gay marriage, which is currently prohibited.

And just what is it, exactly, that's wrong with polygamy, so long as it's not gender segregated? Seems to me you're just assuming that different=wrong.

So re-defining marriage to cater for the wishes of two loving consenting adults means that current UK legislation would have to have a complete overhaul and turn into one that is abhorrent and allows grotesque relationships to form, it is imperative keep this door firmly shut.

Right, which is why every time we change any law ever, we have a bunch of people riding into the courts demanding that it be changed further, to its most ridiculous, exaggerated form. Yep, that totally happens.

2. Gay marriage legislation will lead to religious oppression and a rejection of religious freedom.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Despite the UK government's attempt at protecting freedom of religion, the rejection of blessing a gay couple is likely to breach equality laws in the future in my opinion.

And why, exactly, should we give your opinion any credence at all? You seem like a bigoted little change-hater, to me; why should I take your unfounded opinions seriously?

There is no such thing as political safe guards or a "quadruple lock", this is something that can be overturned at any future parliamentary vote. The gay lobby will not stop pushing to impose its will upon religious institutions.

And because it can be overturned, you think it will be overturned... just 'cause? You need to actually provide proof that the "Gay lobby" has this on the cards. Just asserting it makes you sound like a paranoid, delusional... again, bigot.

If you live in the UK, here's a petition protecting the definition of marriage.

Do I have to find that infographic showing the original definition of marriage again?

[Tiberius]

Apparently, Divi Tiberio, you fail to see the irony in this comment of yours.

I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Why...Inequality

In other words, although the incomes grow by orders of magnitude, human needs (food, water, shelter, heating, medical care) do not. So all that extra money left over after our basic needs are taken care of, which is normally spent on luxury items, can be tapped safely without worrying about the physical wellbeing of the higher earner. They can afford it.

This does not justify excessively taxing the rich just because they are rich, and just because they have lots of "unnecessary" money. But it does mean that increasing taxes on the rich is more reasonable than increasing taxes on the poor, other things equal.

*sigh*

There was no irony. Please read the entirety of my post before you respond to it. I clearly stated:

"That said, I'm actually more of a fan of taxes on spending rather than on income these days."

A tax on spending is fairer than a tax on income. The "extra money" you speak of is still taxed if it is spent on luxury items (or any items). In essence, nobody is taxed for what is given to them, but they are taxed on what they spend. This encourages savings and frugality.

The poor don't spend much in the first place, so their tax burden is still low. The rich do spend a lot, so their tax burden is higher. A spending tax system has the added benefit of not relying on specific tiers of tax that have to readjusted according to inflation, etc. Instead of saying 10% tax if you earn above £10k, 20% if you earn above £20k, etc. you have a flat rate tax across all purchases, and it's the amount of purchases that is the only factor (a person who spends twice as much as another is taxed twice as much, independent of the amounts being spent).

One of the reasons I'm against progressive tax in the first place is because there is no justification for where the tiers are set. They are numbers that are pulled out of politicians asses. Why are people who earn £49k a year fine, but if you make £50k, suddenly you need to be taxed more?

Besides, in the UK, the first £8k or so of your income is non-taxable, so it can be used to pay for your basic needs. This is the only justifiable "tier" you can have, because basic needs can be calculated quite well. It's still a little flaky, and I think it should be based on location (for instance, a person living in London spends far more on their basic needs than a person living on the outskirts of Manchester).

[Faith No More]

You know, I would respect the opponents of gay marriage so much more if they would just skip the goddamn pretense and say, "I think gay people are icky."

[LastPoet]

Good news everyone!


Portugal just passed a law allowing the co-adoption by gay couples. Its a small step against bigotry, a giant leap towards equality!

[NoraBrimstone]

Good news everyone!


Portugal just passed a law allowing the co-adoption by gay couples. Its a small step against bigotry, a giant leap towards equality!

Fantastic!

[ideologue08]

The majority don't support equal marriage? This is a "majority"?
Like I said, you're a fucking liar.

Hello again,
No, you’re the liar. You’re confusing same-sex marriage with equal marriage. Equal marriage means any two consenting adults can marry including mother-son or father-adopted daughter etc. The majority of Brits find that unacceptable. 

Again, so what if the argument is the same? If you want to play the "the argument is the same!" game I could point out that the argument against gay marriage is the same as the argument against interracial marriage. Oh look, I just did.  

You’re correct. Traditionally in the United States, the arguments opposing interracial marriage have been identical to the current arguments opposing same-sex marriage. But this does not mean a line should be drawn somewhere. It is my opinion that this line must be drawn as it currently stands. 

Tell me again why you think it will happen?  

Because it can. Forcing religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies is  a legal possibility that could be enacted as a direct result of the passing of the same-sex marriage bill.

They pay their taxes

So do peadophiles and mothers and sons. Paying taxes isn’t a criteria for legally judging who can or cannot marry. And speaking of taxes, the tax system underpins how an unequal and unfair secular democratic society can function; the best we can hope for. 

ignorant tiny-dicked Narnia-dwellers like yourself

It’s not very difficult to make cheap insults at your private part as well you know http://www.healthdailies.com/womens-well...n-periods/  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_flatulence

And I forgot, after that they had a campaign going with Christian schools where they offered gifts to schoolkids for signing their petition. Lol

There’s still more signatories against than for gay marriage, I think you can find the names on the website. 

---

Right, but I don't agree with a subjective form of government. I think government should be as unbiased as possible, and personal opinions should not affect policy. Restricting marriage to just one man and one woman is unfair whether you think gay marriage (or poly marriage, incest marriage, etc.) is disgusting or not. Nobody who thinks marriage should remain between a man and a woman has ever been able to come up with a reason for keeping it that way that wasn't based on subjective personal beliefs, or complete falsehoods. They never will either, because the unfairness of the current marriage system simply isn't up for debate; it's as unfair as having non-white people separated from white people.
I disagree that there is no such thing as objective fair in a secular democracy. I'd argue that secular democracy can be objectively fair, but that no secular democracy (or democracy for that matter) has ever done things right.
My imagined utopia isn't based on what I consider to be fair or right. It's based on whether or not the government should dictate how people live their lives. I'm against overbearing nanny states in almost all respects. A government does not have a right to tell me who I can marry, what I can eat, what I wear, what I can say, etc. Governments that insist they do are simply making up those rights out of thin air.
I can't understand how you can think something is unfair yet still insist it is "right" that it happens. It violates even the most basic standard of ethics...that of the golden rule. It's so very easy for straight people to reject the notion of gay marriage; they will never have to suffer the same kind of unfairness that gay people have to put up with every day.
I get your point about children though, but the point is, they are developing citizens; most do not have the mental capacity to understand how society functions; there is no need for them to be treated the same way as adults in some aspects of life. One can think of children as almost a form of property of the parents, up until society deems them adult enough to handle everything on their own. In the UK, that age is 16, but I reject even the notion of a static age for that sort of thing. Some children are highly independent before that age; others aren't adult enough after it.
They should be. By that I mean, they should pay the same rate of tax. There is no fair justification for taxing rich people more "just because they have more". That said, I'm actually more of a fan of taxes on spending rather than on income these days.
I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

Ok, I don’t agree with most of your points at all and find them disturbing, I can see you have a vendetta against government having powers despite centralised government power being the sole reason and factor of eliminating corruption, discrimination, fighting poverty, regulating private businesses etc. I can’t really see how in the world you can say that an objective “fair” is even possible in a secular democracy. I can see that you hate big government, perhaps I will start a thread on why big government works sometime in the future because I’m a big government conservative.

With regards to the gay marriage issue, why do you accept the government mandating who can legally marry? Don’t you think it would be more libertarian to abolish the government’s powers of defining marriage and just allow private institutions such as religions etc. to define marriage. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Of course unequal things can be “right”. The NHS and the UK social welfare runs on progressive taxation, unless you oppose universal healthcare, you must accept that unequal unfair taxation does result in a greater good. Who cares about the golden rule? I don’t, I don’t see why I should. It should not applicable in all circumstances.