spurgistan wrote:stahrgazer wrote:crispybits wrote:What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?
Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?
No reason. In terms of political economics, it's probably because of the relatively small number of people who want to enter into group marriages. Also, probably because we first need to convince a lot of people that it's ok for a dude to enter into a marriage with one dudes, or at least wait for those opposed to die off. But there's no ethical reason why we should expand the definition of marriage to include dudes marrying dudes but hold the line at dudes marrying dudes and ladies (in much the same way there's no real ethical reason to allow dudes to marry ladies but not allow them to marry dudes), and most people who've accepted gay marriage also accept poly, by my rough polling.
+1 to that 100%, but the point you and a lot of the objectors are missing is that this isn't an ethical argument. it's a legal one. As such it's not interested in right and wrong or godly and ungodly or moral and immoral, but simply fair and unfair.
The law change being brought in is fully democratic because it is a necessary change to comply with other laws, other laws that were democratically passed. We have gender and sexuality equality laws in the UK, and denying a large minority access to state endowed rights bestowed to married couples based solely on their gender or sexuality breaks those laws. The bishop, I suspect, never objected to those laws about everyone being free from discrimination based on gender or sexuality, he is coming into the argument far too late, with points that don't actually address the legal argument sufficiently (consultation and green papers are not legally necessary before a law is passed, especially if it's a change to an older law to bring it out of direct conflict with newer laws).
That's not to say there isn't a moral argument being put forward by both sides, simply that this moral argument is totally irrelevant. And while it might be fun to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in many of the moral anti arguments, it's a distraction from the fact the legal argument has already been won for several years now, and what we're going through in the UK isn't bringing in brand new laws or rights or whatever, but simply cleaning up the statute books to ensure that the law is fully compliant with itself.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:42 am
