Gay marriage and 'liberal bigotry'?

Post Reply New Topic

I understand and partially agree with their opposition to it (and I see where Farage is coming from), but I suspect that the party is against gay marriage for a variety of issues, not least that it will lead to conflict with the church.

I agree with a blogger called Tim Worstall in what he says - remove the element of marriage from the state altogether and give civil partnerships for all. The church can then allow or refuse "marriages" as they wish.

Having said that, the subject of gay marriage isn't a big concern of mine.

What I do worry about is that, if gay marriage or civil partnerships are accepted (and this isn't an argument against them), won't it lead to other groups like polygamists and others demanding the right to get married also?

Most libertarian parties support same sex marriage, the line UKIP is taking will bring into question if UKIP is really an libertarian party. Plus there the only political party (that I know of) that's taken this official line on policy, your'll alienate your supports and votes by doing this.

What about common law marriage it its a form of civil partnership. So simply alienate a group of people from that right and freedom of expression cos' you disagree with the idea of marriage at all in the first place. Marriage provides legal rights from the state plus it is the states approval of a partnership, in the eyes of the law. FYI civil partnerships are already accepted, have polygamists asked for civil partnership while the UK as them, NO.

If polygamists start demanding marriage, then we'll have to produce some rational arguments against polygamy. Gay marriage has no relevance to polygamy.

The problem in the UK does have some unique issues due to the role of the Church of England in Lords, as Tequila says this is an anachronism.

However, personally the solution is not in gay marriages, or any marriages. The solution is in getting rid of the concept of legal marriage.

Cultural and religious marriage is a personal choice, and I think you have to support different groups or churches right to set the criteria for their institution. It is choice to opt in or out, to come up with their own ceremonies and doctrines.

Having this legal status just confuses things, it would be much better all under the banner of civil partnership. Even that has far to too much legislation behind it. There are too many laws aimed and social engineering, and trying to define relationships.

At it's heart legal marriage is an economic relationship status, people can pretend otherwise, and say they are doing it for the sake of this that and the other, kids, etc. but that is still linked firmly to the economics. It is unrelated to religious or cultural marriage.

That being said you could then argue for this status for people who are not even romantically committed, but committed to this arrangement. Fair is fair.

Marriage and Divorce law isn't positive for families, because the process is much more divisive than it needs to be and it is simply a money making exercise for the industry.

Commitment is an will always be what is, how you choose to celebrate it is up to you. There is absolutely no reason why you can't bring up children in a committed relationship, which is stable. My cousin is testament to that. Just because he is in longstanding heterosexual relationship doesn't mean he has to get married. It is clear to them that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in their case.

removing the legal power of cultural partnerships in favour of civil partnerships would be the ideal,

I agree. But allow the churches to continue to call it marriage and refuse gay people if they so wish - it's their church, their property and their lives.

If inequality exists, seeking to preserve and maintain that inequality falls squarely into the definition of what it means to be a bigot.

Trying to obtain equality for people who are currently treated as less than equal is the very definition of what it means to NOT be a bigot.

The only problem I'd have is perhaps if instead of trying to raise up the less fortunate groups to a level equal to everyone else, we were trying to lower the more fortunate groups down to a level equal to those who have been less fortunate. On the other hand, that basically falls into the "ok, we'll give you the same deal you propose to give us" scenario - and I think people who feel victimized when others try to obtain equality ought to consider accepting the same lower rights that the other groups have, if they don't want the other groups to be raised up to their own level.

True dat.

Of course, that is the only rational solution. I also happen tho think it is a question of demand. A church's success is based on getting in worshipers, the share their values.

I think people get confused over the concept of rights. Like on a site like this assuming they have rights that they don't have, and if they did would violate the right of the publisher, if wrongplanet didn't have a choice. It is also illiberal to make a private club accept thing it does not believe in.

Whether someone believes marriage is an 'sacred institution' or a 'sanctity' or whatever this has no place in law, it is simply their belief.

"Marriage" has long since ceased to be an exclusively-religious concept, and never was, to begin with.
The practice itself likely predates it, and has its origins in some form of mate-guarding as a reproductive tactic.
I say marriage as a legally-recognized partnership with all the protections and benefits thereof,
and if a specific church doesn't want to recognize this or that marriage for this or that reason,
a couple never has to set foot in there.
Even, steven.

As far as accusing liberals of intolerance and bigotry for calling out conservative critics of civil rights issues like gay marriage, why should one be tolerant of intolerance?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Your argument has zero traction in the United Kingdom, however.

Why were the second marriages of the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal held in, respectively, a registry office and the Church of Scotland? Because Andrew Parker-Bowles and Mark Philips are still alive. That in no way invalidates the current marriages of the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal, but the Church of England was not compelled to celebrate either of those perfectly legal marriages.

The thing is you don't live in the UK, we have a national church and many other countries do, it complicates matters. There is official influence. Interestingly the higher echelons in the church voted in favour of gay marriage but the lay community quashed this.

I come from a catholic family, due to history the signing of marriage register cannot be overseen by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church, but it can be done in a Methodist church. This whole history is deeply interwoven in our law at the moment. Of course where have secular and civil only marriages, but the law itself is too close the the Church idea of marriage.

I agree with you that religion may not be the origin of marriage, however I was sure to mention cultural marriage.

I don't think having it defined in law does anything to change the situation. It is much more liberating to do away with this, and it is not necessary to have it in law. I don't believe trying to reclaim it serves any useful purpose, as people will believe what the want about it.

I really understand why people think, as it is the norm, that we should be egalitarian about it, however I would say it is stupid to have it defined in the first place. People are able to have their marriage, in the cultural setting that accepts them. I don't think forcing beliefs on people is a good thing, because they wouldn't be conducting the ceremonies in good faith. This applies to cultural religion free marriages as well.

As the world's #1 producer of healthy and well-adjusted children
it makes all the sense in the world for marriage to be incentivized in legal codification.

Marriage does not produce children. Men and women do - inside of marriage, and outside of it. Given the divorce rate, the number of disfunctional married families and the fact that family counsoling and family therapy are thriving industries, I'd say that to the extent we want to credit marriage as a producer of "healthy and well-adjusted children", we also have to credit it to the same extent as the world's #1 producer of mal-adjusted children.

Evidence please?

So you are saying the path my cousin made is less stable for his kids? Please provide some proof. They are a happy family.

The divorce rate is 2-3 in UK-US. So people's perceptions of marriage don't necessarily match the reality. They even found that divorce lawyers had unrealistic expectations of their own marriages. That just shows how skewed the views are on marriage.

I not trying to tell people not to get married, I'm saying that legal status doesn't in itself produce stable place to bring up kids. In fact the mess of divorce can sometime make it much more divisive.