Hello everybody

[MikeH]

Which would also be fair.

[kentonio]

I understand why they might feel that way perfectly well. They want social acceptance and validation. But a desire for social acceptance and validation is not a reason to make a law. Social acceptance and validation occurs via society accepting that form of relationship, by definition. Not by legislation.Those who refuse to socially accept gays will do so whether or not we introduce a gay marriage law. Creating gay marriage laws to recognise love is a bit like a legislative command to turn back the tides, like the fairy tale of King Canute.

So you think the responsible thing for society to do is to codify discrimination rather than try and wean it out?

[Jon Miller]

If they don't consider marriage to be a fundamental right, they allow that we can get rid of it.

Internet isn't a fundamental right, so we can get rid of it.

Same with highways.

Funerals?

JM

[MikeH]

Would it be reasonable to say that gay people aren't allowed to use the internet? Or highways or have funerals?

[MikeH]

As I said before I'm in favour of the legal status of partnership between 2 people being a purely civil matter, I don't even care if it's called marriage, but it should be the same for everyone, and called the same.

[MikeH]

There is a strong argument that there is no requirement to have a formal legal declaration of partnership any more, and that you should get no extra legal rights for having that legal declaration.

I don't really care what ceremonies religions might want to hold.

[Jon Miller]

We don't allow some people to drive. Like those without cars.

And so on.

Do we allow old people to join the cub scouts? Do we allow atheists to become priests (well, they do in Sweden, but in general...)? Do we allow people without degrees to do medical, law, or educational activities?

JM

[MikeH]

but if we are having a legal partnership agreement which affords you different legal positions, it should be available to everyone.

[MikeH]

We don't allow some people to drive. Like those without cars.

And so on.

Do we allow old people to join the cub scouts? Do we allow atheists to become priests (well, they do in Sweden, but in general...)? Do we allow people without degrees to do medical, law, or educational activities?

JM

I would support medical grounds for not allowing people to marry, diminished mental responsibility and protection from sexual exploitation. which would mirror what we do with driving.

Vocational qualifications for a job like medicine law and teaching is a completely different issue. Straight people don't have some extra educational qualification to allow them to marry. In fact they are generally rubbish at marriage.

[Jon Miller]

There is a strong argument that there is no requirement to have a formal legal declaration of partnership any more, and that you should get no extra legal rights for having that legal declaration.

I don't really care what ceremonies religions might want to hold.

See, I actually want homosexuals to be married, for similar reasons as Zevico mentioned. I want marriage to be supported by the state, and so on.

I view myself, in this way, as a conservative.

A pro-gay marriage one.

Since I think sociologically I am risk taking, my conservatism might be genetic.

I think I understand your bigotry arguments, but I don't think they are good.

JM

[MikeH]

Those are all crap comparisons.

If we didn't let black people drive that'd be a good comparison.

[kentonio]

We don't allow some people to drive. Like those without cars.

And so on.

Do we allow old people to join the cub scouts? Do we allow atheists to become priests (well, they do in Sweden, but in general...)? Do we allow people without degrees to do medical, law, or educational activities?

JM

Everyone has the right to join such clubs when they are children, everyone has the right to be an atheist or religious, everyone has the right to earn a college place if they have the ability.

Serious strawman.

[Jon Miller]

but if we are having a legal partnership agreement which affords you different legal positions, it should be available to everyone.

I don't' want to sound like Ben here. But with the current definition of marriage, homosexual people have been marrying for centuries.

It isn't gay marriage, but gay marriage isn't (currently) marriage. And I think there should be a good reason to change. And I think there is a good reason to change.

JM

[MikeH]

For centuries 'marriage' has been a specific legal term in the UK. And homosexual people have not been getting married. I assume it must be a specific legal term in the US too, otherwise it would not be a political issue.

[MikeH]

Oh you mean marrying in sham heterosexual marriages? That argument is beneath you.