Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[ideologue08]

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.

Currently UK laws prohibit men from marrying the following:
Grandmother
Mother
mother's sister
mother's half sister
father's sister
father's half-sister
adoptive mother
Sister
half-sister
Daughter
adoptive daughter
sister's daughter
half-sister's daughter
brother's daughter
half-brother's daughter
Granddaughter

And Women are prohibited from marrying the following:

Grandfather
Father
father's brother
father's half brother
mother's brother
mother's half-brother
adoptive father
Brother
half-brother
Son
adopted son
sister's son
half-sister's son
brother's son
half-brother's son
Grandson

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

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.

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

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. 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.

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

[Nine]

Where are these good reasons? I just see the usual dumb shit.

[Tiberius]

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 abhorrently subjective and allows grotesque relationships to form.

The irony in that sentence is hilarious. The fact that you can't see it is more so.

[ideologue08]

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 abhorrently subjective and allows grotesque relationships to form.

The irony in that sentence is hilarious. The fact that you can't see it is more so.

Fixed it, thanks The people of the UK don't want mother-son marriages Tiberius, so why should we fall for the reason that gays are giving us, two loving consenting adults? I seriously never heard so much BS in my life. No wonder the petition against gay marriage has 10 times more signatories than the petition for gay marriage.

[Tiberius]

The people of the UK don't want mother-son marriages Tiberius

I'm from the UK. I'm well aware this isn't what the people want. However, sometimes, it isn't about what people want, it's about what is right. Whilst many people may disagree with lots of different types of relationship, there are no good reasons to ban relationships (or marriages) between two consenting adults who are in love. None. Nada. All the excuses people come up with are based on their own discriminatory views and tastes, often bundled with religious views.

I'm a Libertarian. I don't want government to enact laws according to popular opinion or what I personally believe. I want government to enact laws based on what is right and what is fair, despite what the popular opinion is and despite what I believe. I find the idea of mother-son marriages to be repulsive, but you know what? I don't have the right to say they can't marry just because they fell in love with the "wrong" type of person.

so why should we fall for the reason that gays are giving us, two loving consenting adults?

There's nothing to fall for. It's a perfectly valid reason. Why should marriage (and all the lovely legal benefits you get with it) be discriminatory, as it currently is? The whole point of freedom is that everyone is treated as equals. Marriage currently doesn't do that.

I seriously never heard so much BS in my life. No wonder the petition against gay marriage has 10 times more signatories than the petition for gay marriage.

You're very close to committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The majority is not always right. In this case, they are very very wrong.

[ideologue08]

The people of the UK don't want mother-son marriages Tiberius

I'm from the UK. I'm well aware this isn't what the people want. However, sometimes, it isn't about what people want, it's about what is right. Whilst many people may disagree with lots of different types of relationship, there are no good reasons to ban relationships (or marriages) between two consenting adults who are in love. None. Nada. All the excuses people come up with are based on their own discriminatory views and tastes, often bundled with religious views.

I'm a Libertarian. I don't want government to enact laws according to popular opinion or what I personally believe. I want government to enact laws based on what is right and what is fair, despite what the popular opinion is and despite what I believe. I find the idea of mother-son marriages to be repulsive, but you know what? I don't have the right to say they can't marry just because they fell in love with the "wrong" type of person.

so why should we fall for the reason that gays are giving us, two loving consenting adults?

There's nothing to fall for. It's a perfectly valid reason. Why should marriage (and all the lovely legal benefits you get with it) be discriminatory, as it currently is? The whole point of freedom is that everyone is treated as equals. Marriage currently doesn't do that.

I seriously never heard so much BS in my life. No wonder the petition against gay marriage has 10 times more signatories than the petition for gay marriage.

You're very close to committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The majority is not always right. In this case, they are very very wrong.

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. 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.

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

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. A person who earns 150 K a year is not treated equally to a person who earns 20K in terms of taxes. 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 wasn't trying to use argumentum ad populum, just added it for a bit of fun

[NoraBrimstone]

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.

It would open the door to a plethora of new definitions? Really? No. It will just mean same sex couples have the same rights as straight couples. The majority of people in he UK support equal marriage, so where you state otherwise is a fucking lie. Most people aren't bigots, funnily enough. Marriage has been redefined to buggery already. Don't believe me? Try approaching the father of a woman you like the look of and ask if he'd like to trade her for livestock and see what happens. Change is good.

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

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

OMG! Next people will be able to marry the dead!!!!! ...No. There is nothing about polygamous marriages in the equal marriage bill. That's not what its about. It's about not discriminating against people based on their sexuality to the point where they are denied basic rights. Not that a polygamous relationship is any more "grotesque" than one with two people.

For the record, I'd fully support polygamous marriage, as long as the technical issues (like who gets to make the decision if one person is on life support and the spouses can't agree on whether or not to switch it off) are ironed out.

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

*sigh* No it won't.

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. 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.

There is absolutely no reason to think this. Churches have the right to refuse to marry ANY couple. How often do you hear of Churches being forced to marry couples when one or both parties have been married and divorced in the past? There are many Churches that already offer blessings for same sex couples, they'll happily carry out same-sex marriages when they finally pass.

It is not equality that is being sought, it's uniformity, and it must be opposed.

Actually, it is equality that is being sought. You're being a paranoid fucking moron. Why should being straight give you special rights? Why are you shitting yourself over gay couples being officially considered human beings in Britain? What the fuck has anyone else's relationship have to do with you? Nobody is going to force people to marry a person of the same sex, and nobody is going to prevent people from marrying people of the opposite sex. You're ridiculous.

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

Or, if you're not a complete bigoted cunt, you can sign this one instead.

---

No wonder the petition against gay marriage has 10 times more signatories than the petition for gay marriage.

Aaaactually.... The use of bots early on in the petition are responsible fot that. It was even brought up on a fantastic edition of Newsnight. :D

[ideologue08]

It would open the door to a plethora of new definitions? Really? No. It will just mean same sex couples have the same rights as straight couples. The majority of people in he UK support equal marriage, so where you state otherwise is a fucking lie.

Yes, it would. The exact same reason for allowing gays to marry could be applied to all sorts of permutation and combination of humans.

Not true, the majority of people in the UK do not support equal marriage, only hardcore libertarians like Tiberius support equal marriage. Equal marriage means allowing any two consenting adults to marry, (although I would argue that there is no true equality unless you allow two consenting children also to marry, or a consenting child and a consenting adult, although this is a whole different debate).

OMG! Next people will be able to marry the dead!!!!! ...No. There is nothing about polygamous marriages in the equal marriage bill. That's not what its about. It's about not discriminating against people based on their sexuality to the point where they are denied basic rights. Not that a polygamous relationship is any more "grotesque" than one with two people.

For the record, I'd fully support polygamous marriage, as long as the technical issues (like who gets to make the decision if one person is on life support and the spouses can't agree on whether or not to switch it off) are ironed out.

No, people can't marry the dead because the dead can't legally consent. Again, what you are saying isn't true. The argument in favour of gay marriage is identical to the argument for supporting polygamy and many forms of sexual relationships, that is the issue at hand here. It's good to see you're being consistent by supporting gay marriage, but the fact is, there is not much choice in terms of supporting such measures in the name of "equality" if you're going to support the marriage between same-sex couples. Therein lies the legal nightmare.

*sigh* No it won't.
There is absolutely no reason to think this. Churches have the right to refuse to marry ANY couple. How often do you hear of Churches being forced to marry couples when one or both parties have been married and divorced in the past? There are many Churches that already offer blessings for same sex couples, they'll happily carry out same-sex marriages when they finally pass.

Well, whether it will or won't happen remains to be seen, but there is every reason to think it will happen.

Not true Nora, there is every reason to think this. A situation arising where a synanogue or a church or a mosque throwing out gays in the street for asking for a marriage and then lobbying parliament for new legislation designed to curb this loophole in equality laws isn't very far fetched to imagine.

Actually, it is equality that is being sought. You're being a paranoid fucking moron. Why should being straight give you special rights? Why are you shitting yourself over gay couples being officially considered human beings in Britain? What the fuck has anyone else's relationship have to do with you? Nobody is going to force people to marry a person of the same sex, and nobody is going to prevent people from marrying people of the opposite sex. You're ridiculous.

Because that is my opinion, gays should not have equal rights as straight people with regards to marriage, neither should incestual or peadophilic relationships be equal to two consenting opposite sex adults marrying. There is no such thing as equality in many parts of society and it should remain that way.

Aaaactually.... The use of bots early on in the petition are responsible fot that. It was even brought up on a fantastic edition of Newsnight.

Well, I didn't know that, and I don't know whether or not I should take your word for it

[Minimalist]

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

*sigh* No it won't.

Too bad. It fucking should!

[NoraBrimstone]

Yes, it would. The exact same reason for allowing gays to marry could be applied to all sorts of permutation and combination of humans.

So? That's irrelevant to the cause at hand.

Not true, the majority of people in the UK do not support equal marriage, only hardcore libertarians like Tiberius support equal marriage. Equal marriage means allowing any two consenting adults to marry, (although I would argue that there is no true equality unless you allow two consenting children also to marry, or a consenting child and a consenting adult, although this is a whole different debate)

The majority don't support equal marriage? This is a "majority"?

Like I said, you're a fucking liar.

No, people can't marry the dead because the dead can't legally consent. Again, what you are saying isn't true. The argument in favour of gay marriage is identical to the argument for supporting polygamy and many forms of sexual relationships, that is the issue at hand here. It's good to see you're being consistent by supporting gay marriage, but the fact is, there is not much choice in terms of supporting such measures in the name of "equality" if you're going to support the marriage between same-sex couples. Therein lies the legal nightmare.

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.

Well, whether it will or won't happen remains to be seen, but there is every reason to think it will happen.

Not true Nora, there is every reason to think this. A situation arising where a synanogue or a church or a mosque throwing out gays in the street for asking for a marriage and then lobbying parliament for new legislation designed to curb this loophole in equality laws isn't very far fetched to imagine.

Tell me again why you think it will happen?

When did you last hear about divorcees lobbying parliament over Churches refusing to remarry them? This shit doesn't happen. It won't happen.

Because that is my opinion, gays should not have equal rights as straight people with regards to marriage, neither should incestual or peadophilic relationships be equal to two consenting opposite sex adults marrying. There is no such thing as equality in many parts of society and it should remain that way.

But why should gays not have equal rights? They pay their taxes, they should have full human rights. Why should they be punished? There's no logical reason for it. What does society gain from discouraging love?

It's just as well really that the Lords will pass it regardless of ignorant tiny-dicked Narnia-dwellers like yourself, and love will once again triumph over hate.

Well, I didn't know that, and I don't know whether or not I should take your word for it

Actually it was Channel 4 News, not Newsnight. My bad.
And I forgot, after that they had a campaign going with Christian schools where they offered gifts to schoolkids for signing their petition. Lol