Why conservatives should welcome gay marriage

Peter Treadwell

What a sensible article. Each argument for exluding gay people from marriage is calmly and rationally demolished. Not that that is difficult to do, but the more often it's done the better.

One point, though. Murray writes that "Marriage equality should not be forced on religious institutions". Well, it can't be. With straight mariage already, any religious institutionis perfectly free to turn down any marriage candidates. Churches often do. So this, too, is a non-objection.

If you would like to be shocked at the determinatyion of many conservatives to prevent their fellow-citizens doing what they want, have a look here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7245998/compassionate-conservatism-the-key-to-gay-marriage-pledge.thtml

LibertarianLou

Brilliant piece. It's all about personal freedom, the role of the state, and yes, dare I say it, encouraging commitment!

I may be wrong but I believe the Spectator was one of the first publications in the UK to push for gay rights, ahead of even the Graun - I'm sure someone will correct me if that's wrong.

LibertarianLou

FrankP and Peter from Maidenstone

Is there anything else that you personally dislike that you think the state should regulate? Spinach? Mars Bars? Coffee without cream? Kissing with tongues? Christianity? Islam? Threesomes? Purple footwear?

Rhoda Klapp

Dunno how we have managed without it all these years.

Man in a Shed

The one thing this is not is Conservative.

Verity

I've had gay friends all my life and even among all the drink-sodden, late night exchanges of confidences, I have never, EVER, heard a gay man express a wish for marriage.

Civil partnerships are welcome and sensible and cover most of what gay "marriage" would involve. Rights of inheritance, including inheritance of pensions, rights of hospital visitation, the right to give the OK for medical treatment when the patient himself is unable to participate in the decision. Rights to inherit pensions.

All this is fair and just and has already been accomplished. What on earth would the foolish chimera of "gay marriage" bring to the table that is not already addressed by civil partnerships?

This is just a case of "straights have a right to get married, so we should too, otherwise you are consigning us to second class citizenship", which is is an adolescent argument. Everything just is addressed by civil partnerships.

Which destructive force is behind this movement?

Peter Treadwell

Rhoda: Gay people have suffered without it, as any gay person can tell you. If you happen not to need it yourself, that is no reason to sneer at people who do.

Archibald

I don't have anything against two men or two women forming a life partnership, nor do I see any issue with them receiving the same benefits as a married couple by doing so.
My only issue is with the word marriage, which is the formal union of a man and a woman.

In this sense, 'gay marriage' is very much like 'vegetarian haggis'. I don't know what it is. And I have no issues with others eating it. But it's not haggis.

DavidDP

"Dunno how we have managed without it all these years."

Many gay people didn't manage. Let's put it right for future generations of loving, committed couples.

DavidDP

"Two men can never be married."

Yes they can. So can two women. All the needs to happen is for the state to define the institution it recognises as marriage for legal purposes to include homo- as well as hetero-sexual couples.

And Bob's your uncle.

tom jones

Impressive article and I'm really glad Cameron is sticking on this course of commitment over prejudice. Modernising the Conservative party is all about looking at how Britain has changed and reflecting that change. I'm sure a few in the party will be dead against gay marriage, but then it took a few brave people to put an end to slavery and combat racism so there will always be divides between those who believe in freedom for all and those who believe in freedom for just themselves and people exactly like them, but no-one else.

Salopian

If one takes the first two comments to their logical conclusion it's OK for a heterosexual married couple to indulge in 'acts of gross indecency" (illegal in some states of the US) because they are man and woman.
Cameron is not endorsing physical acts - he is supporting mutual commitment between two people - irrespective of their gender. He is right to do so.
Peter from Maidstone says that society has every right to create taboos. Soceity does have that right - but by the same token it has the same tight to remove/amend them if they pervert natural justice.
The problem lies in the word "Marriage" . In the Christian ethic it is a union of two people of opposite sex and that is what it means in the western tradition.
SO it IS fair and reasonable to object to Cameron's use of the word :"Marriage" on etymological grounds and perhaps we do need another word.
BUT it is absolutely wrong to conflate the lifetime commitment
between two people with the sexual acts which they may or may not perform.

DavidDP

"I have never, EVER, heard a gay man express a wish for marriage."

So? I know gay couples who have.Women as well as men. They are conservative types who wish to commit to each other in a traditional manner. No reason why they should not be able to. It does not affect anyone else.

David Lindsay

The statutory definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman goes back to the Attlee Government. Before that, it had always been presupposed. But its iron-cladding by means of the Statute Law was the work of the greatest Labour Government, and of the longest-serving Leader in the Labour Party's history. Now, though, from the Prime Minister who wanted to give Peter Tatchell a peerage, comes the proposal for "gay marriage". That proposal would be rejected by Barack Obama, and it was rejected by the voters of California and Florida on the same day as they gave their Electoral College votes to Obama.

Unlike a civil partnership, which therefore ought not to be restricted to unrelated same-sex couples, a marriage has to be consummated. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith (the present title is not the one conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII, but the one conferred by a Protestant Parliament on his son, Edward VI) could not have signed a Bill which, for the first time, actually required, in order to receive some legal benefit or privilege, engagement in sexual relations other than those between one man and one woman in marriage. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith still cannot do so.

Nevertheless, we should seize this opportunity to propose something better. The extension to relatives of the right to contract civil partnerships. The entitlement of each divorcing spouse to one per cent of the other's estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, and the disentitlement of the petitioning spouse unless fault be proved, thereby restoring the situation whereby, by recognising adultery and desertion as faults in divorce cases, society declared in law its disapproval of them even though they were not in themselves criminal offences.

The entitlement of any marrying couple to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and to enable any religious organisation to specify that any marriage which it conducts shall be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly. And the statutory specification that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

That would be a start, anyway. It is astonishing that no major party is opposed to same-sex "marriage", just as it is that no major party gives expression to all sorts of mainstream opinions in the country at large. Ed Miliband is, I suspect, in favour of it. A lot of people are. But by making the above his and his party's conditions for supporting it, then he would both be doing what was right, and, as in so many other ways of siding with Mail and Telegraph readers (even if not writers) against the Government, doing what was electorally opportune. So, Ed Miliband, over to you.

Peter From Maidstone

Can it be explained why my post and Frank Ps have been removed? Who is moderating the site? And why is it being moderated in an anti-conservative manner?

Verity

It not appropriate. It's like having women firefighters who upper arm muscles are not strong enough to carry people down a ladder.

Everyone wants everything, and everyone can't have everything and those are he facts. It's like a blind person demanding to read the news on TV.

Blogger Iain Dale is in a civil partnership and seems to feel this answers the needs of him and his partner in terms of public commitment.

LibertarianLou

@Verity

In a free country you don't need a reason to justify making something legal, you need a reason to justify banning it, i.e. it is harmful.

Gay people being legally allowed to get married harms no-one.

Why should it be illegal?

Peter From Maidstone

Salopian, society is not changing its mind about the tiny minority of people who identify themselves as homosexual - about 1%. Society tends to take the view that private behaviour is private, but that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones and certainly not the same as marriage.

It is a tiny cabal of people who are trying to undermine English society. They have an agenda and could care less about equality. They hate England and our English Christian tradition and heritage.

The Spectator seems to be complicit in their activities.

LibertarianLou

Archibald

I suspect many of us would be quite annoyed if Britain or Europe introduced legislation banning companies from advertising their 'veggie haggis' as haggis, no?

What does it matter if people call their legal commitment to each other marriage? You can take the view that it isn't a marriage, but why should the state legally enforce your opinion? Seems a bit nannyish no?

Frank P

Why the censorship? I stated what I believe to be true. Outrageous bias! I don't even know what Peter from Maidstone opined before you chopped him out. Hypocrisy squared.

LibertarianLou

Verity.

I have loads of brown-haired friends.

None of them like eggs.

Let's ban brown-haired people from eating eggs.

They are protesting just because blondes have the right to eat eggs, because all the brown-haired people I happen to know do not enjoy eggs.

AlanL

The big problem with being gay is that it is an invisible minority. You cannot tell someone's sexuality by observing them (unlike the subjects of other equality efforts).

As a result, the only gay people that many see are the obvious; the drug-loving, partying, pride-marching promiscuous minority; the Peter Tatchells; the limp-wristed.

So the general population can feel threatened, imagining that all gay people must live one of these immoral lifestyles.

Many gay people are dull accountants, lawyers, doctors, bin-men, gardeners (even bankers). Many are effectively married to monogamous partners.

There will always be a few who feel personally threatened (more likely secretly titilated) by the thought of same-sex couples. They are a very small minority, and we should not point at them in the street and laugh. It would be unfair.

David Nesbitt

I thought this was a conservative site. Why are conservatives' comments being removed? What draconian measures!

Can someone please please explain how supporting gay 'marriage' is conservative in the true meaning of the word??

LibertarianLou

I am always amused that the people who insist they don't want to know about what people do in the bedroom because it should be private are the same ones usually who keep obsessing about what gay people do in the bedroom instead of recognising romantic love when they see it.

Frank P

Peter from Maidstone

As we know, one of the ways of ensuring the progress of the Long March is to change the names on the sign posts to suit those on the Long Mince.

I understood that you were to be recruited as a 'right wing blogger' Mr Murray. If you intend to censor those views that do not accord with your sexual proclivity, then you may find some vehement opposition. What God given right have homosexuals to have their life-style unopposed by those who have seen the dire consequences of it over the years?

Peter From Maidstone

I know quite a few quiet, gay people. I don't wish them ill, but they cannot be married. They can have a variety of civil contracts, just as spinster sisters should be able to, to protect themselves, but these contracts should be extensible to larger groups of co-dependents.

It is not marriage. It should not be confused with marriage.

A brother and sister might have feelings for each other and engage in sexual activity but they cannot be married either.

It is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of definition and those who want to redefine marriage are seeking to subvert our society, just as the idea of human rights is used to subvert our society, or the idea of 'health and safety' is used to subvert our society.

DavidDP

"the drug-loving, partying, pride-marching promiscuous minority;"

These are different from heterosexuals, how?

DavidDP

"those who have seen the dire consequences of it over the years?"

What dire consequences?

tom jones

As someone supporting gay marriage, I also support freedom of speech and feel a bit uneasy about comments being removed (even the ones I will 100% disagree with.) This isn't North Korea, we should be able to have disagreements.

Having read some of the comments still here, saying marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman is fine. But please read the article and answer the issues raised. If a man divorces his wife and remarries - he can do so as many times as he likes. Is every one of his marriages valid? Is every one of his marriages seen as okay by God? If people are unhappy about gay people and their "lifestyles" then surely encouraging marriage is common sense. You wouldn't say to a straight man "well, you drink too much alcohol and so you're not marriage material." But some think it's okay to say to a gay man "well, you fell in love with a guy so marriage isn't for you." If THAT'S not the ultimate nanny state in action and everything that was wrong with Labour these past 13 years then I don't know what is!

I joined the Tory party because it stands for freedom. We're freeing businesses from red tape, we're freeing schools from local micro-management, we're freeing the NHS from top down targets. Let's free individuals to commit to each other without judging and without becoming the very thing we battle against - interfering busibodies.

Peter From Maidstone

Why should an incestuous relationship not be considered a marriage, or one between two animals, or a man and his dog? If they harm no-one?

But they do. They undermine what marriage really is by insisting that it means nothing at all. This is the intent. Marxism has always denigrated marriage. By calling all relationships 'marriages' it succeeds in destroying marriage, and in destroying marriage it destroys the family, which is another aim.

DavidDP

"It's like having women firefighters who upper arm muscles are not strong enough to carry people down a ladder"

No it isn't.

One is a physical constraint, the other a purely government imposed one.Let's roll back the state.

Unless you are arguing that women who were strong eough to carry a body down a ladder shouldn't' be allowed to regardless. Are you?

tom jones

Peter From Maidstone, the fact that you have to lower yourself to dragging incest into a debate on gay marriage tells me so much about you. Who gave you the power to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry? Unless you follow the Bible word for word then your case is flawed. The only thing getting in the way of gay marriage is peoples' own insecurities and prejudice. What does the Bible say about the Internet? Oh, that's right. The Internet wasn't invented so how can you be sure it's okay to use the Internet if you haven't been given permission by God? I'd love it if people could think for themselves instead of being spoonfed religious opinions.

DavidDP

"it succeeds in destroying marriage"

How does the fact my friend and her girlfriend can get married destroy the fact that I and my girlfriend can get married?

fergus pickering

Do any of you think childless couples can be truly nmrried? They appear to have failed the acid test, wouldn't you say?

Mike Crumpler

very well said. as a gay man....divorcee from a heterosexual marriage due to promiscuity....i was once opposed to gay marriage, but found myself involved in risky homosexual behavior. Gay marriage is a good thing for individual relationships, culture, and society.

Peter From Maidstone

Tom Jones, destroying the meaning and substance of marriage is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of an assault on society.

DavidDP, your lesbian friends cannot get married, they are not a man and a woman. Therefore when it is proposed that they can it is only possible by subverting the meaning of marriage. Why should your friends be allowed to do that unchallenged?

Tom Jones, the argument against so called gay marriage is rooted in human existence not in the Bible. The Bible is quite right though to insist that those who engage in homosexual acts place themselves outside of God's purpose, but society itself knows that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Peter From Maidstone

Fergus, what test have they failed? They are a man and a woman. Seems to pass the test as far as I can see. They are entirely and properly the subjects of marriage.

Two men are not.

Salopian

My earlier post appears to be critical of the first two posts. but they have since been removed and the first two posts (although they are referred to by other Costalovers.
Peter from Maidstone - I'm not disputing "society's" right to object to certain acts on all sorts of grounds. My concern is with the conflation of a commitment between two people to share their lives and the things they might do/with to each other.

As a Cathiolic I and subscibe to the fact "marriage" has a traditional connotation. and is not the right word for a union between people of the same gender. But I can see no reason why the Church should not bless such unions. What happens thereafter is a matter for their conscience and God

DavidDP

"DavidDP, your lesbian friends cannot get married, they are not a man and a woman. "

You've yet to explain why the fact they aren't a man and a woman means they can't get married.

How does wanting to express love and commitment subvert marriage? It seems that you are the one doing marriage down, by saying somehow it's merely an expression of heterosexual relations.

Personally, I prefer the gay view that it's a special institution which those who love and want to commit to each other enter.

Peter From Maidstone

Salopian, I don't think you have an adequate view of the pastoral responsibility of the priesthood. How can the Church bless something that is by its nature sinful? There is no problem with a civil declaration for the protection of various rights, but such a declaration cannot be a union from the point of view of the Church, especially not if it is sexual.

If you are a Catholic then you must oppose the very idea of gay marriage as a complete misnomer. And you must surely understand that the Church is not and cannot be neutral when it comes to her own members being encouraged to adopt non-Christian lifestyles.

Frank P

AlanL

"The big problem with being gay is that it is an invisible minority. You cannot tell someone's sexuality by observing them (unlike the subjects of other equality efforts)."

Speak for yourself. And btw - watch your arse.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

DavidDP
October 5th, 2011 4:47pm

Report this comment

"Two men can never be married."

Yes they can. So can two women. All the needs to happen is for the state to define the institution it recognises as marriage for legal purposes to include homo- as well as hetero-sexual couples.

And Bob's your uncle.
-----------------------
And Bob's your aunt.

I S

To those who reference The Bible - can any one of you give me any instance of Jesus making any comment that can be construed as anti-gay?

Frank Sutton

Why do people persist in speaking of "gay marriage" when what they mean is redefining mariage to remove the requirement for it to be the union of a man and a woman?

Percy

Frank P and Peter from Maidstone

I think you need Alan Partridge, the sage of Norwich at times like these, I think he encapsulated your arguments when he said 'God created Adam and Eve, he didn't create Adam and Steve.'

Frank Sutton

"A few months back I found myself debating a lady from the General Synod."

Why did you and whoever it was you were debating with choose to discuss a lady from the General Synod?
Sounds rather discourteous - what conclusion did you come to?

Archibald

Libertarian Lou,
Can you go over your egg analogy once more, but slowly this time. I think I see the point you're trying to make but the analogy is making my head hurt.

Normally analogies are to explain something more clearly by comparing it to something else, unless the definition of analogy has changed too.

Or is it not an analogy, and you're just trying to raise awareness of your brown haired friends plight? I should declare an interest at this point, I have brown hair and had two eggs this morning.

Archibald

Libertarian Lou,

I just noticed your response to me.

It matters because by definition a marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman. And haggis, by definition, is offal mixed with suet and oatmeal and a delicious blend of spices.

Therefore, gay marriage, like vegetarian haggis, cannot exist. I have nothing against the commitment, not one thing at all, but you can't have a gay union between a man and a woman any more than you can have vegetarian offal.

Now, I don't really care about either (I care more about haggis, truth be told), so let me put the question back to you, are you not happy with the term civil partnership given the definition of marriage (which is fact, not my opinion)?

Doesn't it seem a bit nannyish of you to wish to enforce your opinion since it is not based in any fact whatever? Bearing in mind I think gay civil partnerships should have all the rights of a marriage, why do you want to take the name? What's wrong with civil partnership?

Incidentally, the EU already legislates quite rightly in my view to protect the names of various foodstuffs by region, although I doubt any haggis producers would be annoyed by veggie haggis as they will also make this along with normal haggis. So as far as legislation is concerned, I'd compare gay marriage to Dutch champagne or 'Cornish' pasties from France. You might think such legislation is being picky, I think it protects hundreds of years of tradition without preventing anyone happily making a similar product - perhaps even better - but under a different name.

Sean O'Hare

I really don't see why marriage means so much to gay/lesbian people. How does it differ from a civil partnership if the tax/benefit regime is exactly the same? I get the feeling that it is purely because it is something that is denied them by most religions and for some reason? If they ever succeed in getting a CofE vicar to conduct a marriage between two people of the same sex I will feel that they have devalued the vows that my wife and I took. We will therefore look toward renewing those vows by converting to any faith that holds out against this nonsensity.

Augustus

I preferred the day when gay people were required to keep their off-duty activities exactly that; off duty. They were not a ‘protected class’ and we did not have to adjust our rules, regulations and leadership styles to account for gays, neither did they run around behaving like victims or ‘Gay Pride’ agressors. All in all, a pretty stable arrangement. This is not about gays getting any specific benefit
from taking 'marriage vows', it is about forcing acceptance of effeminate lifestyles on our sick, twisted and feminized culture.

Peter From Maidstone

DavidDP, marriage MEANS the union of a man and a woman. It is not just a social contract that can be modified whenever some lobby chooses, or whenever a corrupt Government thinks there are some votes in it.

The sky IS blue. The Government cannot decide that it is green. Marriage IS between a man and a woman and no Government can say otherwise. What it constructs is a bastard, abhorrence of a union if it tries to do so.

Absolutely the same arguments could be applied to incestuous and even paedophilic relationships as are used in regard to homosexual ones. Just because someone thinks that they have a relationship doesn't mean that they get to overturn 10,000 years of universal social history to suit their own desires.

If a homosexual man wants to get married he is free to do so. But he needs to marry a woman. It is not equality to demand the change to a universal and supra-social definition, it is do desire the destruction of marriage as it really is.

The day after this law passes and every child will, as a matter of law, be required to be taught that homosexual relations are as normal as heterosexual ones. They are not. And even the vast efforts put in by the political and media classes cannot make most people say that such relations are normal.

Frank P

Peter from Maidstone (8.42pm)

A very clear statement of facts. Excellent. However, in the world that we now live in, 'facts' seem to be whatever anybody wants them to be and governments are legislating that it must be so; in some cases positing that stating facts can be a criminal offence. It would appear that this magazine's blog moderators are prepared to censor some facts that they do not like and opinions they do not agree with.

Baron

In Baron’s thinking, it’s a no brainer, two things on sex are unquestionably true, we propagate by it, we enjoy it, homosexual couples cannot, do not fit into the former, and it’s only the former in which the State has any business ensuring replication, a steady flow next generations of humans. What people do seeking enjoyment from sex whether because of love, lust, whatever is entirely up to them.

Baron minds not at all if homosexuals form couples, live in groups or whatever, they should not qualify for any financial privileges, the adoption of kids, surrogacy (what if the child doesn’t like it when he grows up).

Augustus

P from M - I agree. A hundred years ago this conversation would have been no less conceivable than cross-species marriage is now, so that a seemingly ridiculous comparison of a dog-and-man marriage may not be so ridiculous after all. What will the world be like in 2111? There are people who believe that animals should have equal rights with human beings, and people who believe that expression of one’s sexual urges (as long as you don’t hurt anybody) is healthy and admirable. And there have certainly been people who have practiced bestiality for centuries. I’m sure we can rationalize out the details, find some way of making it sanitary, and then just call it a truly beautiful friendship. And just because some find this repugnant, or want to question the mental health of this behaviour, their phobia doesn’t give them the right to dictate the lives of other people, blah, blah, blah. I’m being somewhat facetious, but it’s true that all kinds of social arrangements have been accepted over time, (including ones that we would consider gross) for basically the same set of arguments that support gay marriage, and that does not necessarily mean they were beneficial, moral, or responsible, but just that they satisfied the emotional and physical needs of people.

Peter Treadwell

David Lindsay: you say "a marriage has to be consummated". I asked you on 18 September what you meant by that. Would you please reply?

Peter Treadwell

Vewrrity: "I've never heard a gay man express a wish for marriage"

Is there a reason why you imagine that your friends are representative of the majority?

Peter Treadwell

Libertarian Lou: You are right. There is no need to justify legalising anything. Only those who seek to ban things need a justify themselves. What a revolting lot these contributors are. Why woud anyone listen to them?

We are conservatives because we love freedom. Aren't we? Why on earth else?

Peter Treadwell

Baron: "Baron minds not at all if homosexuals form couples, live in groups or whatever, they should not qualify for any financial privileges"

Of course they shouldn't. Unless straight couples do.

Derek

This all turns on subversion of our language.

Verity

Alanl -"There will always be a few who feel personally threatened (more likely secretly titilated) by the thought of same-sex couples."

Could you give us your evidence for this peculiar statement? Clearly, you are gay, so tell us why anyone would feel threatened by a gay except if he were holding a gun to one's head? What on earth is there to feel threatened about? I think you are fantasizing a role for yourselves that you do not have.

Except for a couple of drag artists - or artistes, as they would style themselves - no one thinks being gay is dramatic. It's a steady 3 to 5 percent across all races in all countries. It's a minor, although normal, condition.

Stop over-dramatising, dear.

Peter Treadwell

Pete from Maidstone: "Absolutely the same arguments could be applied to [...]paedophilic relationships as are used in regard to homosexual ones"

Do you really think that? Do you really not understand the difference between an adult and a child?

Verity

Peter Treadwell, "is there any reason you imagine your friends are representative of the majority?"

Yes. They quote their friends.

Civil unions make sense because it gives the partners the right to decide on medical procedures if the other is unconscious, and other practical reasons.

There is absolutely no practical reason on the face of the planet for gays to be able to get "married" that civil unions don't already provide for.

Verity

Peter Treadwell, this is a genuine question: why do people with an opposing argument in which they are emotionally engaged feel it's clever to misspell their adversary's name ... especially if the mispelling is infantalised? Why ... and I ask out of genuine bemusement ... do you think are prevailing in a discussion by spelling my name "Vewrrity"? What advantage do you feel this avails you? I am fascinated.

daniel maris

It would be a fine thing for David Cameron to stand up before a Conservative Party and say:

"I support gay marriage because it is a welcome and radical departure from the way things were done in the past. During my student years, all that partying and so on, I got to know lots of gays really well and realise that it's best if they are treated as part of mainstream society. "

That woudl be HONEST.

What he actually said was DISHONEST. Gay marriage is not a conservative initiative.

Stopping the destruction of England's public houses would be a conservative measure but little hope of support for doing that.

Biggestaspidistra

I never believed in gay marriage so much as I did after reading the last Spectator blog, on 18 September I think. Most of the comments, those from Verity, Nicholas, Rhoda come to mind, were from otherwise bright people who might wake up one day and see for themselves the inequality they are promoting. Peter from Maidstone is a different matter and in some ways the soul of Coffee House, the salt of its ether, but I do think he's confusing the religious meaning of marriage with the civil affair, the perfect union with the daily variety.
In the US gay marriage has taken off as much amongst the conservative upper middle classes as new immigrants in the Bronx. It has made gayness more conservative. Whatever we might think of that, and it is slightly scary on many levels, we should all celebrate the inclusiveness of it.

Craig Strachan

I agree that there's a lot of religious obscurantism around the case against gay marriage. But then there's a lot of religious obscurantism around marriage, period. As a matter of public policy, I'd go with civil unions for everybody, gay or straight, with those who want to undergo a further religious ceremony free to do so. As a matter of personal preference, I wouldn't bother with either as I feel no need to have my relationship validated by the state. Or God, indeed.

John David Barnett

Off topic - sorry about that.

Back in 1955 there was an article in the Spectator signed "Biologocal Homosexual" making the case for allowing the then illegal practice. There was a "vigorous" correspondence after this article was printed and the overwhelming consensus was that the article was damnable. It might be interesting to see this article reprinted sometime. It is trite to say this, but the changes in our society since then have been breathtaking.

As for gay "marriage", it all depends on what you mean by marriage.

Peter Treadwell

Verity: so your friends quote their friends, and that makes them representative of hundreds of millions of people around the world? You cannot realy believe that.

"There is absolutely no practical reason for gays to be able to get "married" that civil unions don't already provide for." Same goes for heterosexuals. As you know.

As for typing your name in wrong, well, my typing errors are not important. Nor are they particularly interesting. Neither are yours.

Nick Adams

Augustus, you say that "There are people who believe that animals should have equal rights with human beings". Who are these people lobbying to give animals the vote? I've never heard any.

Peter Treadwell

Sean O'Hare: "I really don't see why marriage means so much to gay/lesbian people."

For the same reasons that it means so much to heterosexuals ones. Obvious, really.

LibertarianLou

@Verity

You haven't answered the question:

Why should it be ILLEGAL?

"Not appropriate" is subjective.

I find lots of things "inappropriate" but that does not mean the state should ban them.

LibertarianLou

Great post there from tomjones

LibertarianLou

Archibald

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.

I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone. There is nothing wrong with civil partnerships if that's what people want, and indeed they should be available to straight couples too, if that's what they want.

I also think there is no problem with marriage, if that's what people want, and see no reason to limit it.

By allowing people to do something IF THEY WANT TO I'm not "forcing" anything on anyone.

My personal view of civil partnerships, marriage, or anything else is entirely irrelevant to whether the state should ban it.

LibertarianLou

Archibald

Sorry my eggs/hair analogy was indeed unclear I agree!

A poster made the point that her own gay friends don't want to get married, therefore it is right for gay marriage to be illegal for anyone who does want to get married.

I was trying to point out that it is possible for the people in one particular group that you happen to know yourself may choose not to do something, but it doesn't follow that no-one else who happens to be in that group would want to do it, and even if it did, that isn't really a reason to ban it entirely just on the off-chance that maybe one day even just one person who happens to be in that group wants to do it.

Re haggis - just to clarify, it doesn't bother you at all when Europe defines exactly how we can label/package bananas, chocolate, sausages, etc?

LibertarianLou

"Why should an incestuous relationship not be considered a marriage, or one between two animals, or a man and his dog? If they harm no-one?"

These things are illegal anyway, because they harm people, because they are non-consensual. Not because they undermine marriage which as the article points out in more an issue for Britney Spears getting married for five minutes and people having affairs all over the shop than gay people wanting to make a sensible romantic commitment to each other.

Stephen at Christian Voice

I S asked:
'To those who reference The Bible - can any one of you give me any instance of Jesus making any comment that can be construed as anti-gay?'

Yes, I can. Firstly, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus wrote the whole Bible, which tells us that activities such as sodomy, incest, bestiality etc are against nature and morally and judicially wrong (Lev 18&20, 1Tim 1:9-10), that those involved in them cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10, Rev 22:15), and that homosexual desires are 'vile affections' (Rom 1:26-27).
Secondly, in his time on earth, the Lord Jesus showed that marriage has its reason for being in creation itself: Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
And being 'one flesh' with its full expression in sexual intercourse, is something a pair of gays, or two lesbians, can never do. Between them they lack the complementary parts of the body necessary for the act. They are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.
This also explains, I hope, why and how a marriage should be consumated for it to be valid in the eyes of the civil law.

LibertarianLou

"The Government cannot decide that it is green. Marriage IS between a man and a woman and no Government can say otherwise."

Marriage is only between a man and a woman because the government says so!

You are saying the government shouldn't define marriage because it has no right to, but now that it has defined marriage, it would be wrong to broaden the definition?

LibertarianLou

"There is absolutely no practical reason on the face of the planet for gays to be able to get "married" that civil unions don't already provide for."

There is also no reason to legalise, were they not already:

- Cigarettes
- Alcohol
- Heterosexual marriage
- the cinema
- DVD players
- lamb chops
- shoes that come in the shade of green
- hair dye
- lipstick
- red socks
- wallpaper with stripes on

None of these things are necessary, and can all be provided by some other thing.

I mean why legalise a lamb chop when a pork chop is just as good?

The question though that we should ask ourselves in a free country is why are we making this ILLEGAL, not why should we make this LEGAL?

The reason being, as the above examples demonstrate, that most things frankly don't offer any specific actual definable benefit. So what? People like them.

Peter Treadwell

Augustus: "I preferred the day when gay people were required to keep their off-duty activities exactly that; off duty. [...]neither did they run around behaving like victims or ‘Gay Pride’ agressors"

In your good old days, gay men lived in constant fear of blackmail and imprisonment. Gay men could legally be sacked from any job, without notice, until the 1990s. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what was good about that?

Peter Treadwell

Stephen at Christian Voice

"As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus wrote the whole Bible" No he didn't. St Paul wrote his epistles, the evangelists wrote the gospels...

Aside from that, you quote Old Testament law selectively. What justification have you for thinking that the condemnation of two-man sex is somehow more valid than all the bits of Leviticus that you don't obey? Who are you to decide which bits God meant and which bits he didn't?

It's also worth pointing out that this debate is about gay marriage, not gay sex. You don't need to be told that marriage and sex are not at all the same thing.

LibertarianLou

Stephen at Christian Voice

This explains why Christians may be against gay marriage (although many are not) and should be absolutely free to be against it, not bless unions, whatever they want.

But it does not explain why the state should ban it for all the people who disagree with either your reading of the Bible, or the whole basis of truth behind the Bible?

If the Bible is going to be basis in law-making we should start by proving that it is actually "true." Can you?

tom jones

If marriage is all about a man and woman getting together and having kids then what about those men and women who can't have kids for health reasons? If a woman can't have kids, but wants to get married - is that allowed?

It doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me to see that some in the party are still determined to make themselves feel superior/right/powerful by stating that their sexuality is the only one that truly deserves recognition in the system.

When those opposing gay marriage point out how few are actually gay in this country and say it doesn't matter much anyway then they're pointing themselves out to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Gay marriage doesn't affect straight marriage. A gay couple down the road won't suddenly turn everyone else in the street gay. Kids won't see a gay couple and think "hmmm I'm going to be gay like them." If you're gay, you're gay and if you're straight, you're straight. The only difference is that gays have been made to feel worthless and not part of society for a long time and straights haven't.

Live and let live.

Archibald

Libertarian Lou,
You haven't answered my question either to be fair. I'm not being facetious (well, your egg analogy aside), I am genuinely interested.

As someone whose issue is only with the word marriage, perhaps you can convince me - not that you have to, just to help me understand why you (apparently) see the word as so significant given its actual meaning.

I'm assuming there is a valid reason why having the same benefits is not enough? Many straight couples say these days that marriage is just a word and don't even get married (didn't Ed M say something like this?) so in the modern context of how marriage is viewed it's interesting to me. I am here to be convinced if you are willing.

Nick Adams

Stephen at Christian Voice

Christians, even very honourable ones, become dishonest when they quote the bible. Yes, the Old Testament condemns sex between men. But it also condemns eating prawns. Yes, St Paul condemns love between men, but he also condemns women who pray without a hat on.

It is dishonest to pick the rules which happen to suit you, and breush aside the rules that don't.

Peter Treadwell

Tom Jones. How right you are. The only reason to exclude gay people from marriage is in order to exclude them.

Peter From Maidstone

Tom Jones, marriage is not about having kids. That is one aspect, but a marriage is not defective if a man and woman cannot have children.

You miss the point, deliberately or not. What is being required is that marriage and the family be redefined by a socially destructive cabal with an liberal-left agenda. If marriage is redefined to include any two or more people, including incest, then marriage has lost its meaning. This is the aim.

I am quite happy to let homosexuals live and engage in private activity as they wish. But there is no requirement at all for me to allow them, and their noisy lobby, to destroy the institution of marriage.

Following your own advice, why does this lobby not live as it wants and leave marriage to those who can properly participate in it?

What you are actually insisting is that the homosexual lobby must be allowed to reform and deform society as it wishes in the name of equality. It has nothing to do with equality however, and everything to do with a common purpose.

Peter From Maidstone

Nick Adams, the ritual law of the Old Testament is hardly the issue. The New Testament condemns homosexual practice, and the Church has always condemned homosexual practice. You are simply showing that there is agreement between Judaism and Christianity that homosexual practice is sinful, harmful and anti-social.

(Of course Judaism and Christianity are also in agreement that sex outside of marriage is sinful, harmful and anti-social. The reason why homosexual practice is presently an issue is that there is not a large lobby of adulterers insisting that children and the Church must embrace adultery as an attractive and positive lifestyle choice)

Peter From Maidstone

Libertarian Lou, the vast majority of people believe that homosexuals should be able to take care of the necessary legal contracts to protect their homes and health etc, but also believe that marriage is only and absolutely between a man and a woman.

Its not just a Christian point of view, it is a universal human point of view.

LibertarianLou

I suppose I haven't answered the question because I personally don't really see the point of "marriage", really.

But I don't see the point of the x-factor either.

I don't see why something should be illegal just because some people don't see the point of it?

LibertarianLou

"I am quite happy to let homosexuals live and engage in private activity as they wish. But there is no requirement at all for me to allow them, and their noisy lobby, to destroy the institution of marriage."

But it's none of your business.

LibertarianLou

Peter from Maidstone

The majority does not have the right to limit the freedoms of a minority.

Minority choice and minority freedom, individual freedom, is not a minority value. It's like saying if the majority of people think Christianity is idiotic then we should ban Christians - a minority - from being Christians or having religious marriages. But that would be ridiculous.

Mohammed Amin

Using one word, "marriage", to describe both a secular legal relationship and a religious relationship causes problems. Civil partnership gives gay couples identical legal rights to heterosexual married couples. To eliminate the confusion, the only legally recognised relationship should be a civil partnership, open to all couples regardless of gender mix. See my longer explanation: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/09/the-state-needs-to-exit-the-marriage-business.html

Augustus

Peter Treadwell - I am perfectly aware that society has moved on from the days of Dirk Bogarde's film Victim. I'm clear that gays should have equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities. But when it comes to traditional marriage gays are creating a new institution entirely different from the institution the world has hitherto known marriage to encompass which has served both
the individual and society throughout the centuries: (a) fostering an environment for child-rearing (presence of mother and father) which benefits children, (b) laying down rules of behaviour, grounded in loyalty and fidelity, which are especially important in stabilizing the inherently unequal relationship between an opposite sex couple, (c) removing the married couple from the reservoir fostering the perpetuation and transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases. There are more. Some elements might well apply to same sex couples, but the benefits of marriage are particularly important to opposite sex couples because of (a) the issue of child-rearing in a mother/father household and (b) the much greater degree of biological inequality between opposite sex couples. Additionally, the marriage institution is of critical importance for the 97% of the population which is not gay. Although the 3% which is gay deserves reasonable accommodation in the interests of non-discrimination and equal protection, this accommodation should not threaten the institution which is of critical importance to the other 97%.

A useful precedent is the principle of reasonable accommodation in employment of disabled people such as a modification or adjustment to a job, an employment practice, or the work environment that makes it possible for a qualified individual with a disability to enjoy an equal employment opportunity. A reasonable accommodation for gay people would be to create an institution precisely analogous to traditional marriage, but to call it by a different name, to recognize the reality that there are different considerations (and a different dynamic) between the union of opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

Frank Sutton

What is it about marriage that supporters of gay marriage find so attractive?
And what form should this marriage take?
It must, surely, involve removing the condition of it being the union between a man and a woman.

This seems to me rather like altering the standards needed to obtain a degree so as not to exclude those who don't currently qualify - it might not be what it was, but at least you have the letters "BSc" after your name.

I S

Stephen - No, God did not 'write' the Bible.
Leviticus also contains many other prohibitions which you, conveniently, have failed to list and which most Christians, assuredly, will not have strictly followed .
As a practising Christian, I focus more on Christ's teachings than I do on the strictures of the Old Testament or on the sayings of Paul.
Christ commanded us to love our neighbour, not to judge and not to throw the first stone.
I do not believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, but believe that homosexuals are born that way. If that is the case, then it follows that homosexuals are also created by God.

LibertarianLou

Augustus

Some gay people have children.

Perhaps your opposite sex relationships are inherently "unequal" but many are not, I can assure you.

STDs are not good for anyone.

Marriage has been around an awful long time and just as allowing mixed race couples to marry (for example) didn't threaten it, neither will allowing same sex couples to marry.

The 97% (if that's right, I have no idea) of people who are straight do not all choose to get married, and would not all feel "threatened" by gay marriage.

Because it isn't a threat.

Lots of different kinds of straight people get married for different reasons, so to imagine all straight people marry for one of, or a combination of, the reasons you list, is simply not true.

LibertarianLou

The majority of people don't go to church.

If we feel "threatened" by those who do, should we logically be allowed to ban it?

No. Because it would be our problem, not theirs.

Nick Adams

Peter From Maidstone

"the ritual law of the Old Testament is hardly the issue" Wrong: it is part of the Christian Bible, Jesus insisted that "not one jot or tittle" of it would ever cease to apply, and Christians quote it all the time when seeking to exclude homosexuals.

"New Testament condemns homosexual practice" it also condemns women who pray without a hat on.

"There is agreement between Judaism and Christianity that homosexual practice is sinful, harmful and anti-social." Then they are both wrong. There is nothing in the least harmful or antisocial about consenting adults having sex and/or loving each other.

"The reason why homosexual practice is presently an issue is that there is not a large lobby of adulterers insisting that children and the Church must embrace adultery as an attractive and positive lifestyle choice)" Wrong on two counts. Firstly, the adulterers' lobby is very big and very strong - bearing in mind that divorcees who remarry are adulterers in the eyes of the Bible. Secondly, this debate is about civil marriage for gays, and church marriage has got nothing to do with it.

LibertarianLou

"(Of course Judaism and Christianity are also in agreement that sex outside of marriage is sinful, harmful and anti-social. The reason why homosexual practice is presently an issue is that there is not a large lobby of adulterers insisting that children and the Church must embrace adultery as an attractive and positive lifestyle choice)"

Although rather a lot of people do enjoy sex outside of marriage.

You don't seem to make any distinction between consensual things that hurt nobody and make people happy, and non-consensual things that harm some or lots of people, and make people miserable.

Consent and happiness is the issue, not what the Bible and "the majority" of people may or may not think.

Peter Treadwell

Augustus

Thanks for your calm and reasoned reply. I am glad that you did not really mean what you wrote earlier.

Of the reasons you give for marriage, (a) is a mistake, since it is perfectly possible to bring children up in stable and protective homes without the parents getting married, as you know; (b) applies to gays too, apart from the last bit, which is not relevant (marriage does not allocate roles to men and women. Each couple works it out for themselves); (c) is empty words since, as you know, infidelity is commonplace, and so is divorce when couples grow tired of monogamy.

"Additionally, the marriage institution is of critical importance for the 97% of the population which is not gay" Not that they take it very seriously, to judge by the divorce figures. Those who _do_ hold it in high esteem should rejoice that so many people currently excluded from it want to get in.

Finally, nobody has come close to explaining why marriage would be "threatened" by making it available to same-sex couples.

Peter Treadwell

Pete from Maidstone: "the vast majority of people believe that homosexuals should be able to take care of the necessary legal contracts to protect their homes and health etc" Do they? I seem to remember a lot of opposition to partnerships in the press and parliament. Perhaps you are making the mistake of imagining that everyone tends, on the whole, to agree with you? It's a very hard mistake to avoid.

Peter Treadwell

Frank Sutton: "What is it about marriage that supporters of gay marriage find so attractive?" The same things that are attractive about straight marriage. Obvious, really.

Ken Bishop

Just a thought: why are some contributors quoting a percentage of the population as gay? What makes them think they know? A couple of seconds on google reveal that researchers make wildly differing estimates (and that's before we even consider that there could be several different definitions of "gay").

Archibald

Libertarian Lou,
Sorry, this blog is so slow to post so my last comment wasn't very relevant, as you had responded to me but it either wasn't up or I missed it.

So is your argument then that there is something implicit in the term marriage that you don't feel is implicit in the term civil partnership? That is, if both have the same benefits, is the name such an issue give what marriage is defined as?

Incidentally, I'm all for labels when it stops false claims being made about what you're getting, but then would also say some of the best 'champagne' I've ever had comes from Kent and Cornwall. Just because it doesn't have the same name, it doesn't make it inferior.

Augustus

Peter Treadwell - To take your last point first. It's not really a question of marriage being 'threatened', rather the fact
that the concept of homosexual marriage is absurd to a great many people, for reasons of entirely-valid biological obviousness.

The institution of traditional marriage was developed over millennia to meet basic needs central to opposite sex couples. The pervasive universality of traditional marriage attests to the essential role of this institution in human existence and human progress. In Western civilization, developing from the Code of Hammurabi and the Abrahamic religions, the condemnation of adultery became ingrained, along with the importance of fidelity in the marriage vows. Thus, the concept of fidelity is of central importance in traditional marriage.
IMHO The gay view of marriage is different from the traditional view. I genuinely fear that, whilst gays may consider marriage to be a state of recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents, far more gays have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners
than straight people do. That consent is key. With straight people it’s called affairs or cheating, but with gay people it does not seem to have such negative connotations. Furthermore, gay marriage has only existed as an institution since 2001 (in the Netherlands) and it will take more than a generation to determine the ultimate impact of the reality of gay marriage on societal attitudes towards traditional marriage. And who today can say with absolute certainty that the gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment, and that having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted?

George Laird

Dear All

Equality!

What does it mean?

In society we recognise that everyone should have the same rights if they are a law abiding citizen.

Seems fine?

Civil marriage is a function of the State which is provided to those people who aren’t religious or can’t afford a church service plus all the trimmings.

Ergo, if we accept that civil marriage is a function of the State then there is a legal and moral argument to provide the same service to same sex couples.

Some people will not like that but that is what equality is about.

So, I support same sex marriage because there is a legal basis for it.

And although others might not like it, that isn’t a reason to deny human rights.

However, there isn’t a legal right for same sex couples to be married in church.

And also this cannot be enforced by government; you can’t have a human right on that which tramples on others people’s human rights.

That isn’t how human rights work.

No one can be forced to marry someone in a church.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Peter Treadwell

Augustus: thanks.

Many contributors do feel threatened. Glad to hear you don't.

The problem with your recourse to ancient traditions is that we've turned our backs on them in other fields. Anyway, how ancient is the modern marriage (married by consent, only one wife per husband, living together first, two partners earning, easy to exit from, etc.). Not very.

"The institution of traditional marriage was developed over millennia to meet basic needs central to opposite sex couples" Was it? Plenty of people will tell you that it was invented in order to keep women under control. And many, many cultures, including Abrahamic islam, regard marriage as a group thing, not a couple thing.
"I fear that [] far more gays have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners
than straight people do". Unless there is some evidence of this, I won't believe it. Evidence there cannot be: how on earth could such a thing be researched? Would _you_ reply to a nosey parker with a clipboard asking you? I wouldn't. Just supposing it is true (which there is no reason to suppose), is it better to sleep around with the consent of your partner, or to sleep around and lie to them about it? A nice question.

The children thing is different, as there is a non-consenting third party involved. But the children of straight couples are non-consenting, too. And, looking around me, I see no evidence that straight couples are particularly good at producing well balanced children. Nor that married couples are better at it than unmarried heterosexual couples.

Verity

Libertarian Lou 10:00 ... Your obfuscations are worthy of a nursery school argument. Gay marriage is not "illegal".

It doesn't exist. It is not legal. It is not written into law. Therefore, as there is no such construct, there can be no such thing.

Do not over dramatise. Not even very many gays, in my experience, have the slightest interest in "gay marriage". They've got their civil partnerships, if they want one, and many long term committed couples do.

LibertarianLou

Archibald

Yes I think there are differences between marriage and civil partnerships. If not, why bother to call them different things? If it's all just marriage then let's just call it all marriage! Either way I don't see a reason why the term "marriage" cannot apply to same sex couples.

My position though is more that whether or not I personally understand why "marriage" is so important as opposed to a "civil partnership", is not the point. It harms nobody. So why is the state making it illegal?

It really has nothing to do with them, me, you, or anybody else.

Andy Carpark

Frank P - This thread is really too good to pass up. W*G*D*I?

Frank Sutton

Peter Treadwell, in answer to me:
"The same things that are attractive about straight marriage. Obvious, really."
Not really an answer, as I asked what was attractive about marriage itself, not the straight or gay versions that you suggest.
But anyway, the concept of gay marriage is plainly nonsensical unless you remove the requirement for it to be the union of a man and a woman. And if you removed that, it would no longer be marriage - a point which is perhaps too subtle for supporters of gay marriage.
Of course there would no logical problem if instead of campaigning for gay marriage, they went for some other form of union - civil partnership, perhaps.
You could always call it a marriage... civil partnership ceremonies are regularly referred to as weddings, so it it is not at all clear to me what supporters of gay marriage actually want that isn't already available anyway.

Frank P

*ndy C*r P*rk

******** **** ***! Not in my marriage anyway.

Peter Treadwell

Verity: "Not even very many gays, in my experience, have the slightest interest in "gay marriage". Here we go again. Your friends, even if you are phenomenally sociable, are a handful of people. What they think is relevant to nothing. It's as daft as that BBC journalist who announced that Kinnock was going to win because all her friends were voting for him.

Peter Treadwell

Frank Sutton: You are utterly convinced that marriage can only be a man plus a woman. But repeated assertion is not argumentation. This is how it works: marriage is a contract with the state, and the state defines it. That is why marriage is different in different states. If the state decides that, for example, marriage is impossible under the age of 16, then it is so. If the state decides that, say, marriage can be any two people irrespective of sex, then it will be so. The state also defines what is meant by plenty of other arrangements, such as "property", "justice", "unemployment", "adulthood", etc., and these, too, are therefore different from state to state.

You add, "it it is not at all clear to me what supporters of gay marriage actually want that isn't already available anyway". My suggestion: ask your married friends whether they would have been just as happy/less happy/more happy with a civil partnership instead of a marriage. Those who reply "less happy" and explain why will answer your question. It isn't a gay vs. straight issue

Peter Treadwell

Verity to LibLou: "Gay marriage is not illegal'." If two people of the same sex roll up to the registry office and ask to marry, the registrar will tell them they are not allowed to. Illegal.

Archibald

Libertarian Lou,
Surely they are called different things now because of the factual definition of what marriage is. I don't accept the assertion the state is making it illegal, it is simply following what the correct definition of marriage is. Peter Treadwell states that Frank Sutton is utterly convinced that marriage can only be a man plus a woman but that repeated assertion is not an argument. I'm afraid that this is factually wrong. That IS what marriage IS. So your argument that suggesting what does it matter what people call it doesn't stand, neither does the assertion that the state are preventing something (especially if giving the same benefits to a civil partnership), they are surely just following the factual definition. Surely the issue isn't about personal freedoms, sexuality or anything else no matter how much you shout about freedoms and the right for people to do what they want. We're pretty much agreed on all these points. It's about language, not laws. And I still haven't heard one real argument on this point.

Peter Treadwell

Archibald

Repeated assertion is not argumentation. Nor is it convincing. If you want to persuade someone that you are right, you must do more than repeat what you have already said (or, in this case, repeat what someone else has already said) and which failed to convince them the first time. Not even using CAPITALS will make you more persuasive. Repeated assertion also makes for a very tedious debating partner, which is very obviously not what you seek to be.

"And I still haven't heard one real argument on this point" Yes you have, I invite you to read my post of 6 Oct, 9.30pm. Since I may not have made my reasoning clear, I will try again.

Marriage is not always the union of a man and a woman. Very often, it is a man and several women, as you know. Very often, it is a man and a little girl, as you know. Not infrequently, it is a little boy and a little girl, As you know. Do you wish to explain to the world's muslims (and others) that they are not in fact married, but only think they are, and that you know more about it than they do? Of course not. You therefore must see that mnarriage takes different forms in different states and eras. Who decides this? The state does. Not you or me. Apartheid South Africa ruled that marriage could only be a man and a woman of the same race. UK law rules that it is a boy or man plus a girl or woman both aged 16 or over and both consenting. You and I do not decide that. The state does. The state can (and does) change its definition of marriage whenever it chooses. Thus, if the state decides that marriage can only be, say, for a man and woman aged over 21, then that is so. If the state rules that marriage can be for two people regardless of sex, then that will be so. It would, of course, be an extraordinary and almost unprecedented decision. But it would be the law. And marriage is defined my law, not by you or me.

Stephanie Tohill

If some people object to the term marriage being used to denote anything other than legal commitment between male/females, then why not give straight couples the right to have a civil partnership.

In that way those of us who don't wish to support the notion of some special sacred institution, reserved for those of a particular sexuality, can show our commitment without being labelled with the term 'married'.

CS

@Stephen at Christian Voice:

I’d have thought you would have had more respect for Jesus than to accuse him of writing the whole Bible. Whole chunks of it are barbaric lunacy advocating slavery, gang rape, the slaughter of neighbours, child sacrifice and the burning of witches.

No-one seems to have questioned why civic law should get involved at all. Inheritance rights can be secured by making a will. Hospital visiting rights can be secured by a power of attorney. If a couple have a child, they could be granted tax relief. The state should no more get involved in marriage than in morris dancing.

I suppose it ought not to surprise anyone to read the reactionary nonsense of many of these comments from readers of a magazine which has regularly urged us to be less condemnatory of child abuse by priests.

David Jones

Stephanie Tohill

That's how it works here in Holland. There is marriage, and there is civil partnership, and both are open to any couple. There is no difference between them at all apart from the name (as far as I can find out).

Peter Treadwell

CS "Inheritance rights can be secured by making a will. Hospital visiting rights can be secured by a power of attorney"

If only. Wills made by gay couples were routinely thrown out by the courts, and families could (and often did) also challenge Power of Attorney for issues such as hospital visiting. Prison visiting was, presumably, at the whim of the governor.

That is why gay partnerships were so vitally important. Not for romantic reasons (valid though they are), but for the practicalities of life.

griffcats

Mr. Treadwell,

Yes, you are right, marriage is exactly what the State says it is, nothing more. However all of your varying examples were between a male and a female(s), which at some point may have been capable of a procreative act which would produce future members of society, hence the state's interest. You didnt name any cases where male/male marriages are sanctioned by any state, and if they were, for what reason? Of course non Christian cultures have different definitions, but the essential reason states (and cultures) are involved is because their future is at stake. This could mean both the non-issuance of future citizens (family members), or the issuance of future citizens who are defenseless and uncared for, bringing harm to the state. It also for this reason that the state would not wish for a destruction of the institution of traditional marriage, and could see gay marriage as a threat, having disolved the notion of the care of children as an implication; however, this "harm" is already being done in the heterosexual world by divorce and live-in relationships, which, in the US, take a tremendous toll on the social fabric and economy; hence the State should, for self preservation, attempt to restore the tradtional concept of marriage which it has already nearly lost, enabling these spurious arguments in the first place.

Richard Griffith

"In any case, if protecting the special nature of marriage were the true drive of anti-equality activists, then they might focus instead on those celebrity and ‘reality’ stars who transparently marry for the publicity. Perhaps campaigners should picket Katie Price’s weddings?"

--So the argument that marriage is being destroyed already anyway by misbehaving rich people is a good argument for gay marriage?

"The idea that marriage is solely for the procreation of children is equally dismissable."

--No, the STATE'S primary interest has to do with its future citizens. The lack of fathers in the home has destroyed millions of lives in the US, and created unbelieveably high cost to the nation and the culture, particularly in poor neighborhoods. "Knocked up, get a flat!" it used to be in Britain. This is why the State is involved in Marriage, and has been for thousands of years across all cultures. Things like Romantic love, a renaissance construct, and spiritual commitments have nothing to do with it. Strictly spiritual Marriages are the province of the Church alone. If Gay couples want spiritual acceptance and closure they can seek it from their Religious masters, whatever religion they are. The state cannot grant that. As to barren couples, it is also up to the State to determine whether or not a male and female procreative act which produces no issuance is legitimate or not; but certainly a male/male act with no intent or possiblility of procreation is completely out of the State's interest.

Richard Griffith

Mr. Laird,

why is a marriage license a civil right?

Peter Treadwell

Griffcats

Welcome to the debate. You are considering not whether same-sex marriage can exist (fact: it can) but whether it should (a matter of opinion).

Last time I looked, 19 legislatures had introduced same-sex marriage. A small number, and a very recent reform in all cases.

But we do not know why marriage was invented. Perhaps it was in order to shelter children? Perhaps to establish who owned which females? Perhaps to discipline our animal urges? Perhaps for mutual companionship and support? It is posssible to think of countless other reasons. I don't know why it happened, and neither do you. What is clear is that it answers some strong need, since all societies have developed it in some form (as far as I know).

If it was to shelter children, it has not been much cop. When marriage was far stronger than it is now there were far more orphanages and they were full. Traditionally married societies teem with street children. And any number of extremely screwed-up people came from married parents. Children produced outside marriage do not necessarily turn out any worse than the traditional variety.

None of the other reasons above holds water either, now that women have independent incomes (nobody owns them) and divorce is easy to get (companionship can vanish almost overnight). A cshow commitment to each other by taking out a mortgage, which is far harder to wriggle out of than a marriage.

So marriage exists purely because we want it to. For young couples it tends to be about romantic commitment; for old people about companionship; for other ages it can be anything (starting a family, simplfying admin, making the parents happy, inheritance law, religion, all their friends are doing it...).

As you correctly point out, the idea that marriage leads to stability is laughable, however much we may wish it did. If the state wishes to impose more stability on our private lives, it will need to ban cohabitation and divorce. Good luck in the elections.

As you also point out, the people who have smashed marriage to smithereens are heterosexuals. The idea that it should be closed to homosexuals who aspire to it, but open to heterosexuals who openly despise it, is illogical.

Since your wish, in the most civilised and thoughtful way, is for people to continue being orevented from doing what they want, I suggest you need a more cogent reason.

Peter Treadwell

Richard Griffith

"So the argument that marriage is being destroyed already anyway by misbehaving rich people is a good argument for gay marriage?"

Not at all. Firstly, it isn't only rich people who destroy marriage. Secondly, the reasoning is a bit different: since heterosexuals have shown that marriage is not some sort of ultraprecious, treasured state, why do they go on about it as if it were?

Do those states which promote marriage (ours doesn't) do so in order to ensure a supply of well adjusted children? I see no evidence of that. Anyway, the tragedy of fatherless children is about stable relationships, not about marriage. If it's all about stable homes for children, then divorce will have to get a lot more difficult, and absentee fathering will need draconian punishment.

You are completely right to distinguish between civil and religious marriage, and to want the state out of our bedrooms. The religious lot wanted it in there until very recently of course. Some still do.

Richard Griffith

Mr. Treadwell,

Yes, we agree on most of your last post for sure. Heterosexuals are destroying traditional marriage. As as sex as viewed as primarily for recreation and nothing else, well, there you have it. AS for heterosexuals pretending it is a precious, holy sort of arrangement, that is of no interest to the State. That is a religious interpretation often made by very NON religious people, which indeed makes it hypocritical. Ultimately, the Religious interepretation has to do with Creation and the Father in Heaven. Priests are "married" to the Church, the Handmaiden of God. That is a far more "precious" relationship than man and woman in conjugal "bliss" shall we laugh here? The real sin is in thinking that a single gay man has anything other than complete equality before the Father no matter what he does, and yes, complete equality before the State in matters of Law. That does not mean that the Law has to favour or disfavour them; only that all are obligated to follow the Laws of the State.

Robert

"So marriage exists purely because we want it to."

Ok, so why make it only for couples? Why only for those sleeping together? Lets make it for anybody who wants it: couples, treesome, students, siblings...

cheers,