Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Pherekydes wrote: »

You don't need a divorce to live separately.

Yeah but it helps. Surely people getting the tax/inheritance benefits that come with marriage while not living together is making a bit of a mockery of the whole thing? And what if one partner wants to get married again?

Pherekydes wrote: »

I agree. I was just saying you don't need to be divorced to live separately. My ex lived in the UK for 16 years before divorcing me. I was separated for 6 years before divorce was even legal.

How does being separated or divorced lessen the institution of marriage?

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're asking the wrong person. I'm separated, divorced and remarried and the catholic neighbours' marriages haven't fallen apart, my kids haven't been bullied, our house hasn't been targetted, our pet hasn't been poisoned. In fact, the very fabric of society doesn't seem to be falling asunder around here.

I'm totally in favour of second marriages! Everyone should try it!

I get what you're saying now, think your first reply to kneemos made it look like you were saying there was no need for divorce because people could just separate, happily everyone's on the same page

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Adam and Eve weren't married as I recall.

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Eve was made from one of Adams ribs

poundapunnet wrote: »

Aren't those from the specifically religious vows though? How does it lessen the value of marriage as an institution? I always kind of thought one of the primary functions of marriage (once you take religion out of it) was to provide a formalised family unit to raise children in, I'd say it lessens the value of marriage to, for example force children to be raised under the same roof as an alcoholic or a violent parent or something like that?

Far from exclusive to a church wedding, to the best of my knowledge.

In all the weddings I have been to in my lifetime (church and non-religious) I have never heard the care of children mentioned in the vows.
I have however heard the phrase "for better, for worse" more times than I care to recall.

As regards your point regarding an alcoholic or abusive parent, whether the parent is married or not has no bearing on these 'traits' coming to the surface.

Without sounding flippant, the phrase "You can chose your friends, but you can't chose your family" comes to mind.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Far from exclusive to a church wedding, to the best of my knowledge.

In all the weddings I have been to in my lifetime (church and non-religious) I have never heard the care of children mentioned in the vows.
I have however heard the phrase "for better, for worse" more times than I care to recall.

As regards your point regarding an alcoholic or abusive parent, whether the parent is married or not has no bearing on these 'traits' coming to the surface.

Without sounding flippant, the phrase "You can chose your friends, but you can't chose your family" comes to mind.

I'm sure they're used outside of church weddings, they are specifically religious in origin though right? If a couple gets married without using those standard vows are they less married? Is it ok for them to get a divorce because they didn't say that?

Married doesn't have an effect on those traits, but the person's age and the length of the relationship does (somebody who's a funny drunk at 20 can be a mess by 30, somebody who never had a drink til they were 30 can be a mess by 40, somebody could have an untreated mental illness which both gets progressively worse and makes them very unsuitable to be around children). The longer the relationship, the more likely the people are to be married.

That's a bad way of not sounding flippant, you sound flippant enough for me to assume you've been lucky enough to never have lived with anyone violent or suffering from alcoholism, particularly when you're half their size and flippant people are saying "deal with it because marriage"

Grayson wrote: »

And it's because some people feel queasy at the thought of two men having sex. Not so much about two women doing it for some reason.

I would feel more queasy at the thought of 2 women having sex than two men. Although it is not something that crosses my mind very often!

The Big Smoke wrote: »

That journal poll really puts in perspective the ignorance of a large population of this country. ****ing depressing.

You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't your viewpoint. They could just as easily call you ignorant for not agreeing with them.

Splendour wrote: »

I would feel more queasy at the thought of 2 women having sex than two men. Although it is not something that crosses my mind very often!




You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't your viewpoint. They could just as easily call you ignorant for not agreeing with them.

I wouldn't call them ignorant. If someone opposes it on religious grounds that's fine by me, they're free to believe what you want. I fundamentally cannot relate to the basis of their argument, we're not going to agree. Difference is I'm not forcing them to run out and marry a member of the same sex, or denying their partner parental rights over children they've raised for years.

If someone disagrees on non religious grounds, I still wouldn't call them ignorant, "wrong" does just fine.

Wow.. Almost 10% against. I didn't think 1 out of 10 people on this forum are still in the 18th century. How sad.

poundapunnet wrote: »

I wouldn't call them ignorant. If someone opposes it on religious grounds that's fine by me, they're free to believe what you want. I fundamentally cannot relate to the basis of their argument, we're not going to agree. Difference is I'm not forcing them to run out and marry a member of the same sex, or denying their partner parental rights over children they've raised for years.

If someone disagrees on non religious grounds, I still wouldn't call them ignorant, "wrong" does just fine.

'Wrong' is the same as calling them ignorant-they would equally say you are wrong. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? That is why we have a democratic voting system-if the people decide on a yes vote then the no camp have to shut up and put up and vice versa.

Splendour wrote: »

'Wrong' is the same as calling them ignorant-they would equally say you are wrong. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? That is why we have a democratic voting system-if the people decide on a yes vote then the no camp have to shut up and put up and vice versa.

Eh, no, those are two different words. Ignorant implies they don't know or understand what they're talking about, which is pretty patronising so I tend to avoid it. If someone says they don't like the Beatles, I wouldn't call them wrong, in the case of denying marriage to same sex couples I would, because they are, there is literally no good reason to continue it. we can argue it out point by point if you want? I'd prefer to see gay marriage brought in democratically for sure, it would make it a bit more future proof and be a guard against those "gay agenda" arguments, but up to and including when that does happen, I'll continue to say it's objectively wrong to oppose it.

let them get married why would anyone be bothered about what anyone else does in the privacy of their own homes?

poundapunnet wrote: »

Actually I think I know what he's talking about, you meet many, many, many people who hold liberal views re: marriage equality, sexism etc but they can't actually defend them any better than a lot of Biblebashing conservatives. You might think the typical liberal views are right (and I do) but people aren't arriving at them by thinking things through, they're just uncritically absorbing them from their peers and that damn pinko media :pac: And it does lead to a sacred cow situation, the best example is that if anyone asks "so what makes people gay" or "are there any significant differences between the abilities of different races for xyz" the conversation is shut down immediately with cries of homophobia and racism. I'd imagine it's just as frustrating as, for example, asking a Christian why they disagree with gay marriage and being told "because the Bible says so and you're going to hell that's why"

PS I love your username

Except that's not the point he made.

He was blaming "liberals" for something or postrulating that people who are liberal are automatically brainwashed or haven't reserched the topic. The posts I quoted weren't even on topic - he was just using it as a platform.

My opinons are based on my own experiences. I know plenty of gay people who lead happy living lives, both married and unmarried and I don't see why they should not have the same rights as straight married couples. There's no sacred "cow" involved.

I'd also like to point out that I know many conservative people who have no objections to gay marraige also.

Don't know any "PC" liberals though.