In being really really REALLY pissed off at those trying to stop same-sex marriage bill going through?

[StoicButStressed]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT

My eldest DS is gay, I genuinely have NO concept or understanding of how anyone thinks he (or the other pretty significant % of our population who also happen to have been born gay?) should in any way be denied the same right as his two brothers have to be able to get married.

AIBU? Or is there something I am simply missing?

The logic is only valid if you equate homosexual relationships more closely with incest or multiple partner marriages than you would heterosexual marriage...

"It should go through irrespective of the majority view because equality isn't about views but what is right"

But who decides what is "right"? And what is their authority based on, if it's not based on the will of the people?

Why is believing in the views of, say, a cadre of Civil Rights intellectuals any more valid than those of a long standing religion, or a cultural tradition, for example?

Because it's not based on an imaginary old man in the sky, for starters.

Because its based on equal rights for all. If you treat any person as less deserving of equal rights than another then its no longer equal.

That's an interesting idea, Apocalypse.
I don't know anyone who believes in an imaginary old man in the sky. Do you?

1. The will of the majority would state (in this country) that we should bring back hanging. The moral philosophers have pointed out that it is wrong, ergo we no longer hang. This is the intellectual cadre of bods doing the right thing. Same applies to this. The sooner we disentangle the state and religion, the better.

"It should go through irrespective of the majority view because equality isn't about views but what is right"

But who decides what is "right"? And what is their authority based on, if it's not based on the will of the people?

In the case of Loving v. Virginia mentioned earlier, the US Supreme Court was the authority, based on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. One of the principles in the Bill of Rights is that there can be a tyranny of the majority, and so there must be safeguards in the form of equal protection and due process principles.

I can't understand the panic either. Live and let live I think, the more love and commitment the better.

Why do people always want to interfere with others choices?

There are a hell if a lot more pressing problems in the world than this.

I commented on the first or second page of this thread and have skimmed through the rest...seem to have missed quite a lot. Who the f*ck is comparing same sex marriages to incest ?!

sorry being devil's advocate - why is same sex relations any different from incest - all done by consenting adults.

Paedophilia is different as no consent.

Because incest is between members of family of which there are legal and biological implications should the sex create a child.

Same sex relations are two consenting people of (hopefully) no relation who love each other and express that love as such.

i just dont see why it should be such a big politcal debate. Any two consenting adults regardless of gender should be able to marry.
I dont think politics should interfer
I would rather they debate issues that really effect the country.

It is a load of bollocks, they are petty minded, prudish homophobes, hiding behind mealy mouthed religious platitudes to give their vile views a veneer of respectability.

There principle objections are absolute tosh:

1. 'Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.' Only if you define it so. Marriage in England was a purely religious affair, until the 1830s civil marriages were introduced, thus radically altering the meaning of marriage.

2. 'That marriage is meant for producing children.' On that basis no one who is over the age of 45 should be allowed to marry and everyone else must have their fertility checked.

3. A gay/lesbian marriage can't be consummated. Exactly how many marriages are annulled for non-consummation and how would you prove non-consummation in the 21st century, when pre-marital sex is the norm. Funny how the most vocal critics of equal marriage take such an obsessive interest over what happens in gay people's bedrooms?

Anyway I don't normally like Ad hominem attacks but in this case I think it is justified. I know for a fact that one of the leading opponents of equal marriage, who has just been on the radio, complaining about 'militant homosexuals' is so committed to the sanctity marriage that he was shagging he is kids' nanny behind his wife's back in the 1980s. Now the hypocrite has the gall to cast himself as a defender of traditional marriage.

cherhorowitz why should the 2 consenting adults be unrelated? Are you showing your prejudice for a sexual act you dislike and should be banned? Forget children, make it 2 brothers, or 50 year old father and 20 year old son.

"Marriage" is just a term. Gay couples can already access the same civil rights by entering a civil union. They just want to share the term.

If heterosexual couples invent a new term to describe their relationships, will the gay lobby get it banned?

it's more than that, Quakers & several other valid recognised faiths want the right to bless same-sex unions; to vote against this bill was to deprive them of what they saw as valid religious practice. This for me is the crux of the matter, away from equality for specific groups.

Had a nice letter back from Norman Lamb about this :).

If an atheist woman and a divorced Muslim man turn up demanding to be wed by an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, the Rabbi won't be obliged, he'll still have discretion. Nothing is being forced on anyone (except under the traditional view of marriage system where Quakers etc. weren't allowed to practice their faith as they would like).

then why ban incestuous marriage or multiple partners in a marriage?

I hate the comparison with incest; Incest is obviously yucky, gay sex (or gay romantic love, anyway) is not yucky, or no more so than hetero sex/love.

Tax shelter situation gets too complicated with multiple partners, the whole picture of traditional marriage rights gets complicated, though it's not impossible (see Muslim traditions), but it's jolly tricky. That's why we mostly see multiple partners as a bit yucky, too.

Ok carol decker. Say it was a brother and sister where the sister had been through the menopause? That's heterosexual with no children involved. Should we not allow heterosexual marriage then?

It's a pointless straw man argument and pretty insulting to say that a consenting, non-incestuous homosexual relationship is closer to incest than a heterosexual one.

Dawndonna - what a hypocrite he is in that case!

Sorry, it was composhat who said about the nanny shagging!

I am straight married person.
How on earth will gay marriage affect my own? If my concept of what my marriage means to me?
Don't understand that logic at all.

And...others are gay Christians who I am sure would love to be married "in the eyes of god".

"they are petty minded, prudish homophobes, hiding behind mealy mouthed religious platitudes to give their vile views a veneer of respectability"

Being a Bigot is treating someone with hate and contempt because of their views.

Just sayin....

There are times when their views are contemptible. You would allow someone to talk about racism in that way, I'm sure.

"In the case of Loving v. Virginia mentioned earlier, the US Supreme Court was the authority, based on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution"

But that is within a democratic system, most of the EU Human Rights decisions are not.

I am in favour of Gay Marriage fwiw, but I am getting worried about this unthinking replacement of one unelected authority with another non democratic one, as there is lots of historical evidence that doesn't end well.