|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 19:03:24 GMT
I disagree. The majority of people had accepted homosexuality long before the laws began to change. Most were appalled when Alan Turing was imprisoned for being gay. That happened in 1952 it took 60 years for gay marriage to become legal. "The majority of people were ambivalent at best if not directly opposed" This is a misleading statement. 'Ambivalent' means mixed feelings, adding " at best" implies they are more likely to be opposed. In both cases you are incorrect.
As late as 1998, thirty years after homosexuality was de-criminalised, a majority of those polled for the BSA said that homosexuality was 'always or mostly wrong'. The Labour government brought in civil partnerships in 2004.
As late as 2012 only 43% of those polled responded positively to the question 'Would you support same-sex marriage?' The following year same-sex marriage by legalised by the Conservative government.
In neither case could it be claimed that the government had obtained a decisive public mandate in support of such changes.
Thanks for this Dan. I will do some more research, but you are often factual, so I don't doubt you. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 19:13:20 GMT
Well it certainly kyboshed the traditional notion that marriage is a lifetime union between one man and one woman. Does that mean that anything goes now? What if I decide I want to marry Daisy our prize heifer? Could that be on the cards? Or, if that's a bit too radical for 2023, what about the Bobbsey twins next door, Harold and Harriet? Could that be a goer? If not, why not? I understand the principal benefit of 'gay' marriage according to Dave is that it increases the store of human happiness, so what's standing in the way of me maximising my own? The idea that marriage was a lifetime commitment was dead long before gay marriage. If you want to marry your heifer please do. I hope you will be very happy together.  I think you underline the current thinking. Which is providing you harm no one else be what you want to be. So you can marry your heifer. The twins are a no go because of the genetic risks they impose on any offspring . And of course gay marriage harms no one. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 20:09:43 GMT
I agree it is hard to identify any particular individual that has been harmed by gay marriage.
But that is beside the point, the real question is what harm has been done to society as a whole and our civilisation in particular by abandoning the precept that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 20:15:59 GMT
I agree it is hard to identify any particular individual that has been harmed by gay marriage. But that is beside the point, the real question is what harm has been done to society as a whole and our civilisation in particular by abandoning the precept that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman. I would say gay marriage has had no effect on heterosexual marriage. Question? Would you have us return to the times when you were stuck in an unhappy marriage for life? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 20:16:43 GMT
I agree it is hard to identify any particular individual that has been harmed by gay marriage. But that is beside the point, the real question is what harm has been done to society as a whole and our civilisation in particular by abandoning the precept that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman. That's easy. None. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 20:21:57 GMT
The real answer is that it is probably too early to tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 20:30:56 GMT
The idea that marriage was a lifetime commitment was dead long before gay marriage. I don't know where this argument that marriage isn't a lifetime commitment anymore came from. Marriage is all about a lifetime commitment, whether it works out or not. If someone isn't willing to make this step then they shouldn't get married. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 20:55:28 GMT
I agree it is hard to identify any particular individual that has been harmed by gay marriage. But that is beside the point, the real question is what harm has been done to society as a whole and our civilisation in particular by abandoning the precept that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman. I would say gay marriage has had no effect on heterosexual marriage. Question? Would you have us return to the times when you were stuck in an unhappy marriage for life? Of course it wouldn't. A marriage is about two people, so another marriage between strangers isn't going to directly mean anything. This is how I feel. However, for some people it's part of a commitment to family, where people get married, have kids, raise kids in a family environment with a mother and father. This is when it becomes something more as other people are affected. It raises questions about my two dads or two mums, and whether or not this has a negative impact on those being raised in such an environment. This is when it becomes more of a question about society as a whole. Questions that shouldn't be quickly dismissed by crying phobia and demanding people be silenced. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 21:00:36 GMT
The real answer is that it is probably too early to tell. So far so good. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 15, 2023 21:50:08 GMT
So long as they accept the morals of the country they come to. As I have said you are allowed to have different views, just not impose them on the moral majority. But isn't that what happened with 'gay' marriage? The majority of people were ambivalent at best if not directly opposed but then an activist minority persuaded the political elite to change the law and now it would be considered immoral to attempt to repeal it. indeed. stonewall are openly proud of their persuasions undertaken in back passages in the house of commons. I cite that verbatim from their spokesarsehole invited by Sue Lawley i think it was to a radio 4 programme "the reunion" in which they celebreated persuading parliament to bring in laws to which actually opinion polls showed the majority were utterly against. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 15, 2023 21:52:11 GMT
Well it certainly kyboshed the traditional notion that marriage is a lifetime union between one man and one woman. Does that mean that anything goes now? What if I decide I want to marry Daisy our prize heifer? Could that be on the cards? Or, if that's a bit too radical for 2023, what about the Bobbsey twins next door, Harold and Harriet? Could that be a goer? If not, why not? I understand the principal benefit of 'gay' marriage according to Dave is that it increases the store of human happiness, so what's standing in the way of me maximising my own? if you wish to do this then i suggest sudan is the country for you
why ? because they have set a legal precedent with a goat
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 15, 2023 21:55:48 GMT
And for each such, there is an ambulance chasing lawyer ready and waiting to declare your marriage to your second (or third or fourth) wife must be recognised in the UK as the ceremony was performed in a country where such a union is legal
|
|
