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

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

This is probably true. I don't see the logic to being beholden, as I see it, to what I consider to be a historic view of marriage that is increasingly not shared by modern society. I think the 'one particular time' comment creates an impression that is on a whim but I believe that this is another stage in it's history and in 100, 200 years time it will be perfectly normal that homosexuals can get married.

I mean once people didn't think interracial marriage was acceptable or that someone could get remarried. Society's view of marriage has changed before.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

... and the reason for that is because of procreation. *That* is the "biological component". Man+man or woman+woman cannot procreate, man+woman can.

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.

That "ancient definition" is changing, however, here and elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Since 2000, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico and the United States*) allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills legalizing same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States).

* [Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington, and the District of Columbia]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

And as I said, and Damien has said below, a marriage is not always a "formalised relationship which is assumed to be capable of resulting in the birth of a child", because people can and do get married despite already being incapable of having children with each other.

If having a child is important, then well...same-sex couples can already have their own children via donor eggs, donor sperm, adoption, etc., just as infertile opposite-sex couples can. Why can't two men or two women marry each other, and then adopt a child, care for it, raise it.


A marriage is a commitment to one person, forsaking all others. Why must there be an assumption of the capability to produce a child? Why can't the definition change as society changes? Have people always freely married through the ages, choosing their own partner and voluntarily entering into the union? Have they always married for love? Have they always been able to end a marriage before the death of their spouse? Or has marriage itself already changed over time, in meaning and in practice?

Originally Posted by danielf

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

The polls are very much influenced by various factors including basic stuff like number of questions and for a subject as sensitive as this i think it is unreasonable to expect an accurate result on such a small sample

Have a read of this it gives a slightly different picture of the results ,they are marginal at best

summary

The broader picture, therefore, is that there is a very large majority of people who support legal recognition of gay relationships, and if people are forced to choose more people support gay marriage than oppose it… but if you don’t force people into that artificial yes-no there is a substantial minority of people who think the half-way house of civil partnership is enough.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by damien

why does it have to mean that?

Because the biological component cannot be denied!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

But changing one physical entity into another is quite a different thing from opening up an institution to persons to whom it hasn't been open so far. Rather than changing the sun into the moon, it's more like voting rights for women. And despite all your protestations that it cannot be done, it is being done. So I'm really not sure what part of Newtonian physics you are going to quote that will make these new marriage certificates self-combust or something. Once (if) this new law is passed, same-sex couples that marry will be married in the eyes of the law. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it will be a fact. And your opinion of the morality of it, will be just that: an opinion. Little more, little less.

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.

Quite, it's been redefined. A bit like the right to vote. In recognition of the fact that attitudes towards homosexuality have changed. In recognition of the fact that many homosexual people wish to live in a committed stable relationship, and make that clear to the outside world. More power to them...

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The polls are very much influenced by various factors including basic stuff like number of questions and for a subject as sensitive as this i think it is unreasonable to expect an accurate result on such a small sample

This has been done to death. A proper random sample gives an error margin of 3% on simple yes/no questions with a sample of 1000. You need to double the sample size to decrease the error margin to 2%. Not practical for a marginal return. And that applies regardless of population size. The maths is sound. That obviously does not overcome poor question design, but increasing sample size doesn't either.

Originally Posted by martyh

The polls are very much influenced by various factors including basic stuff like number of questions and for a subject as sensitive as this i think it is unreasonable to expect an accurate result on such a small sample

Have a read of this it gives a slightly different picture of the results ,they are marginal at best

summary

Look. Polling isn't perfect which is why we have referendums and elections instead of deciding who runs the country on opinion polls.

However it's the best we have in lieu of canvassing every single person in the country and the respectable pollsters know what they're doing. You seem to have decided they didn't have big enough sample size and inferring they asked leading questions but we're talking about two different polls here both of which come up with similar numbers. The one I linked too does double the sample size and the numbers are roughly the same.

They may be wrong but I think they carry more weight than your mere assertion, based on what seems to be a personal hunch, that this is a policy supported only by a minority imposed on the majority. That was the only reason we brought up the polls in the first place...

Originally Posted by Damien

But that backs up the polling. A lot of people don't care but if they had to choose they largely support gay marriage.
.

Actually it shows that the majority support "legal recognition of gay relationships " which is most definitely not marriage .An option not given in most of the polls .

Anyhoo we can go around in circles defending or poo pooing poll results, it is what Cameron has based his crusade on ,i would much rather he based it on lengthy debate and a mandate from the voters outlined in party policy so at least they get a chance to vote on it

Originally Posted by martyh

Actually it shows that the majority support "legal recognition of gay relationships " which is most definitely not marriage .An option not given in most of the polls .

I deleted that line because of that fact. However I would say that gay marriage did still win out in most cases, you can't clump them together (i.e civil unions and no recognition at all camps).

Anyhoo we can go around in circles defending or poo pooing poll results, it is what Cameron has based his crusade on ,i would much rather he based it on lengthy debate and a mandate from the voters outlined in party policy so at least they get a chance to vote on it

It would have been nicer to have it in manifesto but really I don't think too many people would care that much to make it a key issue in an election.

Originally Posted by Damien

I deleted that line because of that fact. However I would say that gay marriage did still win out in most cases, you can't clump them together (i.e civil unions and no recognition at all camps).

Sorry i didn't realise .

My argument is that most of the polls didn't give the status quo option of legal recognition and the ones that did Cameron ignored .A simple yes no answer in a poll such as this has got to be the worst possible way to conduct one.But that's just my opinion

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Sorry i didn't realise .

My argument is that most of the polls didn't give the status quo option of legal recognition and the ones that did Cameron ignored .A simple yes no answer in a poll such as this has got to be the worst possible way to conduct one.But that's just my opinion

OI. I'm the OP and this is a quality attitudometer.

Same-sex cicvil marriages: yes - no - undecided.

Nowt wrong with that.

[Pierre]

Is really so controversial? In this day an age?

I really fail to see why there's so much drama.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, no Church or individual will be compelled
To "marry" anyone against their conscious. But it does allow those who are willing to marry a same sex couple, to do so.

Explain, exactly, where the issue is there?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Is really so controversial? In this day an age?

I really fail to see why there's so much drama.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, no Church or individual will be compelled
To "marry" anyone against their conscious. But it does allow those who are willing to marry a same sex couple, to do so.

That's about it.

Explain, exactly, where the issue is there?

That's what I and some others have been asking.

Originally Posted by martyh

Anybody opposed to this bill will be labelled homophobic by people who are incapable of seeing the bigger picture and the real reasons behind opposition. Ignorance such as yours is why this bill should buried and forgotten about

Which is what? Same gender marriages occur and the earth comes to a stop? It doesn't affect anyone or anything so why stop it from happening.

[Angua]

Is it right that at present a spouse can have an affair with a person of the same gender, yet this would not legally be called adultery?

The marriage has still broken down, the spouse has clearly been unfaithful (if male dipping their wick elsewhere) and to my eyes committed adultery. Legally it would appear not though.

[danielf]

Good point. I hadn't realised this was the case at present. This seems a bit of a blow to the 'same sex marriages aren't equal' argument.

Either way: no it's not right in my opinion. Then again: how often of adultery the only possible cause for a divorce.