[MERGED] Poll: Same Sex civil marriages, yes or no.

Originally Posted by Matt D

But as Damien said, the only real "biological component" is procreation...........snip

This bit has already been answered in that the biological component is Man and Woman just as much as procreation .

Opinion polls ( ) by different polling companies have shown clear support for same-sex marriage.

Our democratically elected MPs have, by a clear majority and in a "free vote of conscience" without whipping, decided that the law should change to allow same-sex marriage.

What remains now is to see whether our unelected upper house goes against public opinion and goes against the will of the elected house and votes "no"...

Given the number of christians, Muslims and various other religions in this country who all agree that marriage is between man and woman i disagree with the accuracy of such polls .I would think that it is very hard to get a accurate cross section unless you actually pick 100 catholics,100 muslims ,100 middle England Atheists ,100 18yr olds and 100 people who don't give a damn .You can't just phone 1000 people up and ask them what they think and then guess what the rest will say

The main problem i have with this is the lack of a mandate for it .It wasn't mentioned by any political party until a couple of years ago when Cameron saw his popularity falling through the floor so decided to go all hip and do something he saw as popular .What he will end up doing is splitting his party ,losing a lot of traditional Tory voters and probably overruling the Lords again when they vote against it.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

This bit has already been answered in that the biological component is Man and Woman just as much as procreation .

But what hasn't been addressed is why that should be the case, and we're still waiting...

Given the number of christians, Muslims and various other religions in this country who all agree that marriage is between man and woman i disagree with the accuracy of such polls .I would think that it is very hard to get a accurate cross section unless you actually pick 100 catholics,100 muslims ,100 middle England Atheists ,100 18yr olds and 100 people who don't give a damn .You can't just phone 1000 people up and ask them what they think and then guess what the rest will say

Oh dear. You really don't understand polls and sampling at all do you? Typically, you poll around 1000 people that make up a representative sample of the population. The last thing you want to do is pick out 100 people of every category you think is relevant, and then do a weighted average or whatever muddled procedure you were planning to arrive at the desired conclusion.

http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Cou...inOfError.html


Also, let's not forget that not all religious people object to gay marriage.

The main problem i have with this is the lack of a mandate for it .It wasn't mentioned by any political party until a couple of years ago when Cameron saw his popularity falling through the floor so decided to go all hip and do something he saw as popular .What he will end up doing is splitting his party ,losing a lot of traditional Tory voters and probably overruling the Lords again when they vote against it.

You might be onto something with it not being mentioned pre-election. As far as mandate is concerned, the polls show that the mandate is there.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This country as a great belief in freedom of speech and to air our views.

I believe a marriage is between a man and woman, gay marriage is something that will tear the country apart with people having various views.

IF you cannot get married in a church, then it should not be allowed, if you have a civil marriage then that is down to the local authority to deal with.

What annoys me is the fact that this took priority of tax allowances for couples. When l was born Gay Marriage was thought of something sick, however, nowadays it it very common.

The only thing that will turn me off, is if you are walking down the street and you see two men or women kissing each, and there are kids looking, what the hell do you say.

Arthur have you had you resident Alien pass checked by the men in black lately.

We accept that people are all different on this planet and are allowed to live there lives as they see fit. If that means that same sex couples want to get married then so be it. Remember people gave there lives for the freedoms we now take as granted and those bigots that feel they can control how others live there lives should remember that. those forcing there own way of life on other are the ones out of line with everyone else's desires.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

What annoys me is the fact that this took priority of tax allowances for couples. When l was born Gay, Marriage was thought of something sick, however, nowadays it it very common.

I read that totally wrong for a minute there.....

Originally Posted by Matt D

But as Damien said, the only real "biological component" is procreation. Remove that, and it's just sex between two people, doesn't matter if they're of the opposite sex or the same sex. A man and a woman can easily have sex without procreating, via contraception or via other forms of sex.

OK, sure, two men or two woman cannot naturally procreate with each other at all - their only choice is "sex" rather than "sex or sex-with-procreation".

But... so what?

Plenty of married couples do not have children. You already accept this in the above quote.


Some, like my wife and I, choose not to have children.

As an institution, the ancient definition of marriage (and that still accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world) is derived from its place in human life as a whole, and does not vary from individual case to individual case. It makes no difference if you choose not to have children or are medically incapable of doing so.

A marriage is not proven on a case by case basis by the birth of a child; a marriage is a formalised relationship which is assumed to be capable of resulting in the birth of a child.

Originally Posted by Chris

As an institution, the ancient definition of marriage (and that still accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world) is derived from its place in human life as a whole, and does not vary from individual case to individual case. It makes no difference if you choose not to have children or are medically incapable of doing so.

A marriage is not proven on a case by case basis by the birth of a child; a marriage is a formalised relationship which is assumed to be capable of resulting in the birth of a child.

Don't think we are arguing that was the definition.I think we are suggesting that it can actually be redefined if enough people want it redefined.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Arthur have you had you resident Alien pass checked by the men in black lately.

We accept that people are all different on this planet and are allowed to live there lives as they see fit. If that means that same sex couples want to get married then so be it. Remember people gave there lives for the freedoms we now take as granted and those bigots that feel they can control how others live there lives should remember that. those forcing there own way of life on other are the ones out of line with everyone else's desires.

Way to rewrite history there.

Those that fought and died in World War 2 did so for the preservation of society as they knew it. It's frankly an outrageous claim to make, that they died so that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren could do absolutely anything you could name in the name of freedom.

Let's be quite frank here: what Parliament has voted on this week would have been utterly repulsive to almost everybody alive in this country in 1939.

Originally Posted by Chris

A marriage is not proven on a case by case basis by the birth of a child; a marriage is a formalised relationship which is assumed to be capable of resulting in the birth of a child.

But we extend the franchise to hetrosexual couples regardless of their ability to have a child. When an older couple decide to get married they don't do so on the basis they might want to have children. Society clearly accepts marriage in cases where no child can result.

Originally Posted by Damien

But we extend the franchise to hetrosexual couples regardless of their ability to have a child. When an older couple decide to get married they don't do so on the basis they might want to have children. Society clearly accepts marriage in cases where no child can result. Marriage does not have to mean children.

But it does have to mean a Man and a Woman ,that is why older couples can be married

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Don't think we are arguing that was the definition.I think we are suggesting that it can actually be redefined if enough people want it redefined.

I know. And I'm arguing that you cannot, essentially because:

1. Marriage as a human cultural concept transcends 21st century Britain, Europe and even "the West". It is not in Parliament's gift to decide what it is.

2. Marriage, as an ancient cultural concept, describes a state of affairs rooted most obviously in biology, though a great many people see spiritual significance in it too. Parliament cannot legislate to redefine biology or spirituality.

3. In the absence of any authority within Parliament to legislate for ancient, worldwide custom, or biology, or spirituality, all it can actually do is tinker with the way human relations are governed in English law. To do this by purloining a word that has a vastly broader meaning than its narrow legal one is to debase and diminish the institution in our society. Rather than elevating marriage to something greater and more enlightened, in keeping with the 21st century orthodoxy we call Equality, it has reduced an institution to a mere legal contract.

Incidentally, at the risk of taking this off on a major tangent, I don't see this week's developments as an isolated thing. As has been noted earlier in the thread, marriage has been treated with contempt by large swathes of society for decades now, such that for those who have no intention of honouring their promises, it is all to easy to get out of and makes a mockery of there being a legal contract in the first place.

Had heterosexual couples not despised marriage so much, the view of it more as an arrangement between two people who want to be together, rather than as a life-long bonding into which children might be born and raised, might not have taken hold. And with marriage still widely accepted as an institution, rather than a convenience to be picked up or an inconvenience to be dropped, this week's debate in parliament might well have been unthinkable. Still, we are where we are.

Originally Posted by martyh

But it does have to mean a Man and a Woman ,that is why older couples can be married

Why does it have to mean that?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know. And I'm arguing that you cannot, essentially because:

1. Marriage as a human cultural concept transcends 21st century Britain, Europe and even "the West". It is not in Parliament's gift to decide what it is.

2. Marriage, as an ancient cultural concept, describes a state of affairs rooted most obviously in biology, though a great many people see spiritual significance in it too. Parliament cannot legislate to redefine biology or spirituality.

3. In the absence of any authority within Parliament to legislate for ancient, worldwide custom, or biology, or spirituality, all it can actually do is tinker with the way human relations are governed in English law. To do this by purloining a word that has a vastly broader meaning than its narrow legal one is to debase and diminish the institution in our society. Rather than elevating marriage to something greater and more enlightened, in keeping with the 21st century orthodoxy we call Equality, it has reduced an institution to a mere legal contract.

So basically you're saying: If it's always been this way then no-one has the authority to change it. That is not only an odd and circular position to take. It's also not getting you anywhere, cause things are changing.

Incidentally, at the risk of taking this off on a major tangent, I don't see this week's developments as an isolated thing. As has been noted earlier in the thread, marriage has been treated with contempt by large swathes of society for decades now, such that for those who have no intention of honouring their promises, it is all to easy to get out of and makes a mockery of there being a legal contract in the first place.

Had heterosexual couples not despised marriage so much, the view of it more as an arrangement between two people who want to be together, rather than as a life-long bonding into which children might be born and raised, might not have taken hold. And with marriage still widely accepted as an institution, rather than a convenience to be picked up or an inconvenience to be dropped, this week's debate in parliament might well have been unthinkable. Still, we are where we are.

Perhaps that is just desert for the decades and centuries where people who choose not to get married were considered as 'living in sin'. You can't demand of people that they get married as that is 'proper' and then moan they don't do it 'properly'.

Originally Posted by Damien

But we extend the franchise to hetrosexual couples regardless of their ability to have a child. When an older couple decide to get married they don't do so on the basis they might want to have children. Society clearly accepts marriage in cases where no child can result. Marriage does not have to mean children.

... And I have not argued that it has to result in children in any individual case. In fact I specifically stated "a marriage is not proven on a case by case basis by the birth of a child.". You even quoted it.

Marriage is defined by what the institution stands for, not by how well individual cases live up to it.

A marriage is a relationship that societies have for millennia held in high esteem and have institutionalised because it is the means by which children might be born and nurtured. That relationship, of necessity, is one between a man and a woman. Thus any life-long pair bonding between a man and a woman is a marriage, out of respect for the institution and its importance for the continuation of a thriving society, and not because any proof is offered as to the child-bearing capacity in any individual case.

This I think is what is at the heart of the issue and is why it is becoming so difficult for one side of the debate to at least understand the other. Marriage is an institution and is bigger than the wants and desires of individuals who happen to live in one particular time and place in history. In our society, equality and freedom of individual choice have become preeminent such that it is very hard to even understand an argument that rates an institution as being more important. The new orthodoxy that is Equality and Equal Rights is now so entrenched that few people bat an eyelid at the absurdity of what Parliament has declared to be the case this week.

Originally Posted by Chris

Incidentally, at the risk of taking this off on a major tangent, I don't see this week's developments as an isolated thing. As has been noted earlier in the thread, marriage has been treated with contempt by large swathes of society for decades now, such that for those who have no intention of honouring their promises, it is all to easy to get out of and makes a mockery of there being a legal contract in the first place.

I think this is a sign that it isn't treated with contempt. If it was then homosexuals would be aspiring to participate in it as much. If it was a mere legal contract then they wouldn't have cared, but marriage holds a significance beyond a legal contract so they don't want to be in a civil union. They want to be married.

Now I know that the significance is granted by what went before. The centuries of it holding a special place in out minds. However a lot of us view it's importance as showing the love and commitment between two people are not the perceive of those who can have children or not. I don't see why two homosexual couples are not capable of that and therefore see no reason not to allow them to marry.

Also didn't marriage once also mean a ever-lasting commitment to your partner until death? We've already changed it before.

Originally Posted by danielf

So basically you're saying: If it's always been this way then no-one has the authority to change it. That is not only an odd and circular position to take. It's also not getting you anywhere, cause things are changing.

That would be an inaccurate parody of my earlier post, as I suspect you know.

The institution of marriage is deeply entrenched across the whole world. Parliament cannot say marriage is this thing or that thing, because Parliament is not the over-arching legislator of planet earth. Even if it could, it would be attempting to redefine an institution that is the way it is, not just because it always has been, but because it is rooted in things that simply cannot change, no matter how much we want them to. We can't redefine the sun as the moon. What prohibits any sensible person from attempting it is not the fact that the sun has always been the sun, it's the fact that it will continue to be the sun regardless of what we call it or what laws we pass.

In similar fashion, all Parliament can do is to alter the way that English law governs contacts between couples. In choosing to use the word "marriage" to describe what it has done, it has not broadened the term, but narrowed it. A "marriage" between two men, or two women, can never, for simple reasons of biology (and, for many, spirituality), be a marriage as humankind has always, and in the vast majority of cases, defined it.