Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[silverfox]

Lots of views on this one from opposing camps.

Let's have a yes or no vote to decide the issue.

Which camp (no pun intended) will be out of touch?

Why not include 16 year olds in the referendum?

[Loz]

Good grief - there is so many issues in the country right now, why on earth have a referendum on this one?

Personally, I think there are two solutions:

1) If marriage is indeed a religious construct, then make it so only churches can perform marriages. All homosexual and non-religious heterosexual unions would become civil partnerships.

2) If you think that non-religious heterosexual unions can be marriages and so therefore marriage is state construct, then all unions (both homosexual and heterosexual) should be classed as marriages.

[Huguenot]

We don't rule by referendum in the UK, we have representative democracy where we elect people to make decisions such as this from a position of informed judgement.

Leaving that aside, it is particulary ridiculous to recommend a referendum to make decisions regarding granting freedoms to a minority group that has a legacy of violent persecution lasting centuries - one that is still sustained in many quarters (including the church) to the present day.

Finally it is staggering that anyone would imagine that gay marriage has anything to do with anyone but gay people themselves.

If someone could only feel happy and fulfilled by oppressing other people and denying them basic freedom of social partnership they should probably be jailed themselves.

Bu then silverfox, given your authoritarian religious leanings, I suspect that you'd disagree. That's why your vote dosen't really deserve to count ;-)

[Brendan]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally it is staggering that anyone would imagine

> that gay marriage has anything to do with anyone

> but gay people themselves.

That was my first though. What does this have to do with people on whom it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever?

It?s the basic morality acid test. Does this cause anyone any harm? Yes or no? No. Well ok then get on with your life and leave other people alone.

[silverfox]

Methinks you haven't thought through the implications.

The acid test will come when a gay couple demand to be married in a mosque.

[Brendan]

That may be similar to what would happen if a Jewish couple demand to be married in a mosque.

But this doesn?t extend to religious ceremonies from what the man reading the news said. A priest for example will be just as free to not marry a couple for what ever reason he or she* sees fit as they are now.

*who knows ?ey.

[El Pibe]

What a ridiculous thing to say SF.

The Catholic church isn't being forced to marry gay couples, they're campaining in an attempt to bring marriage conceptually back under a religious monolpoly and out of the hands of the state.

Gay marriage will be performed as a civil matter, probably in a nice library or castle, but it will have the full legal recognition of the state on a par with heterosexual marriage.

If they want God's blessing then perhaps there will be enlightened religious bodies out there willing to do so, but that's a matter for the sect/cult/vicar/whatever in question. Religious institutions will not be forced to conduct gay marriages.

Likewise if there's an imam willing to do so (doubtful but not impossible given the lack of a religious govenring body as such within Islam) then best of luck to them and anyone they marry.

[silverfox]

Don't be naive El Pibe. it will only be a matter of time before Churches are required by law to marry gay couples under equality and anti-discrimination laws. So, despite previous posts, this actually has far more to do with others than just the gay couple themselves.

[Huguenot]

Well silverfox at least you agree that the church is pro-discrimination and anti-equality.

In the sense that the first stage to solving a problem is to recognise it, then that's a step in the right direction.

I don't really have a problem with enacting laws that prevent the persecution of people based on their gender, bloodline or sexual preference.

I don't really mind members of the church pursing arcane and bloodthirsty medieval religious ceremonies so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else and they don't get tax breaks for it..

...oh, damn - they do don't they!

[El Pibe]

I call your 'naive' and raise you 'alarmist'.

What a daft thing to say.

The current furore about the ordiantion of women priests, for example, has nothing to do with legislation and is entirely a matter within the Anglican Church between enlightened elements and conservative (one might even call them regressive or oppressive) elements.

It isn't even open for discussion in the Catholic Church.

Do you have any evidence for this outside of a Daily Mail editorial?

[silverfox]

But this isn't really about equality and discrimination is it? Gay couples will be no better off legally or financially than they are now under civil partnerships.

This is just another pop at a tried and tested institution and in some respects gays are being used here for political reasons. There is no reason to change the meaning of marriage to include same sex couples. If it does happen, which seems likely, it will have many unintended consequences that will only result in conflict and disharmony.

[El Pibe]

'unintended consequences and disharmony'

Anything less woolly than this, or is this the prologue to a rivers of gay blood soliloquy?

Are we back to this sin damages the fabric of society catechism thing?

[silverfox]

What are you frightened of El Pibe?

Are you worried a referendum may result in the majority of the country saying no?

The result could be yes, which would leave the Catholic church and others with no leg to stand on.

The matter shouldn't be left to a handful of politicians whose motives are questionable.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The matter shouldn't be left to a handful of

> politicians whose motives are questionable.

You could say that about, well... everything. In which case we may as well abandon the whole parliamentary democracy idea and reduce governance of the country down to a series of X-factor style online votes.

At that point, the country is doomed.

[El Pibe]

wot loz said basically.

It's not exactly an issue which is worthy of a referendum given the costs and effort involved, neither is it an especially pressing issue, though I am, as a general rule, inclined to a liberal approach of let people be and the state should only limit behaviour that is harmful.

I really can't see the harm in this.

[Chippy Minton]

The matter shouldn't be left to a handful of politicians whose motives are questionable

Exactly the opposite - politicians are our elected representatives and so it should be left to them.

[silverfox]

But it is totally and utterly unnecessary. Nobody will be any better off, society will not be advanced. It's just a whim of a few politicians with dubious motives.

[El Pibe]

"Nobody will be any better off"

How so? Homosexuals will not be discriminated against in law; we roll back a little more ignorance, and enlightened thought gains another minor victory.

Don't forget one of our literary giants did hard labour simply for being gay not much more than a century ago!

[Chippy Minton]

Measures that improve equality, advance our society - we will be better off.

[silverfox]

To my knowledge, quite rightly, they have the full protection of the law already. This is what makes the proposed change questionable. It doesn't make gay couples any more or less equal under the law.

What the proposal does do is aim to ride roughshod over the meaning and institution of marriage for dubious reasons of social engineering.

[DJKillaQueen]

To be honest SF and as a gay person myself I find your reasoning a bit offensive. What possible threat can any gay person have to the church apart from stirring the rampant homophobia of some of it's members. There are gay christians as well, who have as much right to be represented and served by the church they follow as anyone else.

The church should be dragged kicking and screaming out of it's backward attitude. Are you really arguing that prejudice should continue because some members of the church (and it may be most for all I know) think it's ok? Mind you, looking at the furore over female priests in some quarters shows just how backward most of it is. What part of you thinks that serves society well? Are you aware that suicide rates amongst gay people are almost twice the average? Have you never stopped to think that institutional prejudice contributes to that?

And you should have a look at the origin of 'marriage'. If you did you will see it had little to do with any church and everything to do with 'ownership' of property, inculding the wife.

As has been pointed out above, the proposed legislation will not force churches to marry gay couples anyway.

Good posts btw H.

[Marmora Man]

I'm a happily married man who loves his wife. It works for me and for my wife. It has added value to our life together. I believe marriage should be encouraged - why on earth would I object to any other two people (gay / straight or otherswise) enjoying that same pleasure and fulfilment?

[Loz]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't forget one of our literary giants did hard labour simply for being gay not much more than a century ago!

Or half a century ago - Alan Turing, father of computer science and arguably the man who did the most to win the second world war, was chemically castrated and hounded to death for being gay.

Ignorance is dangerous. Sometimes fatally so.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What the proposal does do is aim to ride roughshod over the meaning and institution of marriage for

> dubious reasons of social engineering.

In that case, as my original post in this thread said, you could argue that about any marriage held outside the auspices of the church.

You have to be consistent - either marriage is a religious construct or a state/legal construct. Which do you think it is, SF?

[El Pibe]

True, true.

In fact both instances were staggering examples of the hypocrisy of society.

As long as it's done behind closed doors then society accepts it as an open secret, in fact when it comes to entertainers, historically often cherished them for it. (as long as it's all implied camp, heaven help you if the local constable found you actually fulfilling your sexual imperative!!!)

Dare to be too brazen about it and you were finished.