Catholic church urges schoolchildren to back anti gay marriage petition

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

Sonics2k: I understand fully that civil partnership exists, and I'm more than happy to tolerate that much even if I disagree with it.

What I do oppose is redefining marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman and the basis on which family is primarily built. Same-sex marriage isn't in place, civil partnership is something entirely different, and I think that's the way it should be. There should be a recognition that the nuclear family is the best situation for which a child should be raised in.

Again, primarily my argument hasn't been about religion, it's been about the place of marriage and the place of family in society.

Perhaps you should try understand what I'm saying before you jump in and criticise it?

I think democratically, David Cameron and the Tories should recognise that over 472,000 people as of today have suggested that they have concerned with his proposal. That's the largest petition in the UK since the last Government. As a result, there should be a proper consultation, and a proper referendum, and the British people should speak. If they decide to legalise same-sex marriage, I will respect that democratic decision. If the Tories just steamroll right past the public on this, that's when I have issues.

That's democracy, and that's the correct procedure to use in a manner that affects something as pivotal as marriage.

What makes you think that you should have a right to vote on something that has nothing to do with you? Marriage is a mutual contract. Mutual contracts should not be at the behest of popular vote. In fact, no natural rights should be at the behest of popular vote. Marriage is associated with freedom of expression (regardless of religious views) and freedom of associated, both are fundamental natural human rights. No religious organisation should dictate what marriage ought to be recognised, let those who want to recognise any marriage have the right to recognise it but not impose on it. Democracy should never be the be all and end all, especially when it comes to natural rights. Democracy has brought about dictatorships in the past (how did Hitler get into power?). Democracy should be limited to unalienable natural rights.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

what about gay couples who dont want children? believe it or not people dont just get married to have kids

Civil partnership already serves the purpose of formalising an LGBT relationship.

Marriage is intrinsically tied to the notion of family on a legal level, as a result there's not much one can do to separate family from it.

Pedant wrote: »

What makes you think that you should have a right to vote on something that has nothing to do with you? Marriage is a mutual contract. Mutual contracts should not be at the behest of popular vote. In fact, no rights should be at the behest of popular vote. Marriage is associated with freedom of expression (regardless of religious views) and freedom of associated, both are fundamental human rights. Democracy should never be the be all and end all, especially when it comes to rights. Democracy has brought about dictatorships in the past (how did Hitler get into power?). Democracy should be limited to unalienable rights.

It has to do with society at large, that's why I think society should have the right to vote on it. Marriage is a key and fundamental pillar of society, as a result people should have the full right to have a say in respect to it.

We live in a democracy, therefore things should be done democratically. We elect our representatives to serve our communities fully and listen to them fully. As a result there should have been a full consultation on this issue, and there should be a full referendum.

There are downsides to democracy, but to suggest that keeping marriage between a man and a woman is comparable to Hitler and the Nazis is absolutely laughable particularly when there is an argument to be made for the importance of the nuclear family to children in society.

Sonics2ks: Children have everything to do with marriage, that's largely why the institution of marriage exists. In this debate it's impossible not to consider that.

Siuin: The question is what is marriage, and why do we have it? - From my POV - Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and is the basis of a nuclear family which is best for children. I think it's entirely distinct to a civil partnership precisely for that reason and should be recognised as distinct. In fact it should be regarded as distinct from all other family structures. I don't believe that all family structures are equally beneficial and indeed there is no good reason to believe that they are.

I support traditional marriage, because I know from experience and from what one can tell from society that it is worth defending. If it wasn't I wouldn't bother. It's not because I hate anyone that I defend traditional marriage, it's because I know it is best, and I think it should be argued for. David Cameron and the "Conservatives" have no interest in listening to the public on this issue, and that's why I signed that petition, to ensure that all voices are heard in this debate and to call for a referendum.

If the majority of the public want to legalise same-sex marriage, although I'll disagree, I'll respect the democratic decision of the majority. Anti-democratic nonsense is what I have no time for. People who say that peoples genuine and valid concerns aren't worth listening to, I have no time for such. That's ignoring one opinion in order to favour your own.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

Civil partnership already serves the purpose of formalising an LGBT relationship.

Marriage is intrinsically tied to the notion of family on a legal level, as a result there's not much one can do to separate family from it.

That is merely your interpretation of the law. Can the law not accommodate people who don't want to have children?

philologos

Pedant wrote: »

That is merely your interpretation of the law. Can the law not accommodate people who don't want to have children?

The law clearly ties marriage in with family. There's no way that one could "interpret" that a whole lot differently. I couldn't tell you of a civil law system in the world that doesn't make consideration of family in marriage law.

From my point of view - a marriage differs in respect to every other kind of marriage structure in so far as it can ensure that a child will have a mother and a father whilst growing up. I think that's hugely important, and I think that should be defended.

There's no way of telling what people intend to do after marriage. Indeed, there's no way of telling what people intend to do in relationships whatsoever. I think distinguishing marriage, and promoting that as the best situation for a child to be raised in is hugely important, that's why I defend traditional marriage. Law has to deal with every permutation that could occur - otherwise it's a lousy law.

It's really that simple for me.

Min

Pedant wrote: »

What makes you think that you should have a right to vote on something that has nothing to do with you? Marriage is a mutual contract. Mutual contracts should not be at the behest of popular vote. In fact, no natural rights should be at the behest of popular vote. Marriage is associated with freedom of expression (regardless of religious views) and freedom of associated, both are fundamental natural human rights. No religious organisation should dictate what marriage ought to be recognised, let those who want to recognise any marriage have the right to recognise it but not impose on it. Democracy should never be the be all and end all, especially when it comes to natural rights. Democracy has brought about dictatorships in the past (how did Hitler get into power?). Democracy should be limited to unalienable natural rights.

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

Civil partnership already serves the purpose of formalising an LGBT relationship.

Marriage is intrinsically tied to the notion of family on a legal level, as a result there's not much one can do to separate family from it.



It has to do with society at large, that's why I think society should have the right to vote on it. Marriage is a key and fundamental pillar of society, as a result people should have the full right to have a say in respect to it.

We live in a democracy, therefore things should be done democratically. We elect our representatives to serve our communities fully and listen to them fully. As a result there should have been a full consultation on this issue, and there should be a full referendum.

There are downsides to democracy, but to suggest that keeping marriage between a man and a woman is comparable to Hitler and the Nazis is absolutely laughable particularly when there is an argument to be made for the importance of the nuclear family to children in society.

Sonics2ks: Children have everything to do with marriage, that's largely why the institution of marriage exists. In this debate it's impossible not to consider that.

Siuin: The question is what is marriage, and why do we have it? - From my POV - Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and is the basis of a nuclear family which is best for children. I think it's entirely distinct to a civil partnership precisely for that reason and should be recognised as distinct. In fact it should be regarded as distinct from all other family structures. I don't believe that all family structures are equally beneficial and indeed there is no good reason to believe that they are.

I support traditional marriage, because I know from experience and from what one can tell from society that it is worth defending. If it wasn't I wouldn't bother. It's not because I hate anyone that I defend traditional marriage, it's because I know it is best, and I think it should be argued for. David Cameron and the "Conservatives" have no interest in listening to the public on this issue, and that's why I signed that petition, to ensure that all voices are heard in this debate and to call for a referendum.

If the majority of the public want to legalise same-sex marriage, although I'll disagree, I'll respect the democratic decision of the majority. Anti-democratic nonsense is what I have no time for. People who say that peoples genuine and valid concerns aren't worth listening to, I have no time for such. That's ignoring one opinion in order to favour your own.

equality shouldnt be up for public vote, it should just be there. you're basically allowing people who have some moral outrage against an issue that affects them in NO WAY WHATSOEVER to dictate to people what they can and cant do with their private lives.

Min

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

if your right to practise your religion or your right to marry was taken away you'd be up in arms about discrimination fairly sharp

Stercus Accidit

44leto wrote: »

The Catholic church is obsessed with sex.

If priests could openly have sex and get married the whole church would be a hell of a lot more liberal. As it stands, I am happy to see its influence wane in leaps and bounds.

krudler

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

I know, next thing you'll be telling me blacks can marry whites, it'll be the end of the world. societies views change, and its a good thing.

Stercus Accidit

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

Heterosexual marriage is not a natural right, it is something invented by society and we have complete control over it, that is why gay people should have the same opportunity.

Min

bluewolf wrote: »

if your right to practise your religion or your right to marry was taken away you'd be up in arms about discrimination fairly sharp

I dont need the state for my religion or marriage if the state decided to take it away.

We had it with the penal laws when a lot of things were banned for Catholics, it did not stop the people practicing their faith, getting educated when it was banned and so on.

It seems a lot of people want the state to do everything for them.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

equality shouldnt be up for public vote, it should just be there. you're basically allowing people who have some moral outrage against an issue that affects them in NO WAY WHATSOEVER to dictate to people what they can and cant do with their private lives.

It's not anything to do with equality.

Marriage - is the union between a man and a woman. Anyone can be married. There is a limitation as to who one can be married to. There are a number of limitations as to who one can be married to. I.E - One cannot have more than one wife or one husband, one cannot marry someone in the same family, one can't marry a child and so on.

Anyone can marry insofar as they wish to be married (joined in union to one of the opposite gender).

This really isn't an equality issue, and yes people should have a say in so far as marriage is key to society.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

It's not anything to do with equality.

Yes it is.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes it is.

If that's all this discussion has come down to, it's pointless.

Is it an equality issue that a brother and a sister can't marry? Or is it reasonable that the State decides that they can't marry? Why is it?

The brother and sister can still marry, but it must be someone else that they both marry respectively. Likewise, anyone can marry, but marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Your issue is with the definition of marriage. That isn't an equality issue, that's a definition issue.

If this is going to be emotive, and if people have no interest in discussing the topic, why are we doing this?

The reason why people legislate, and take an interest in politics is because they genuinely care about society. People often differ about what is best for society, and as a result disagreements form.

Are you going to actually engage in the issue, or are you going to just keep posting like this? - It serves no interest to either party. Let's discuss this, in a fair and reasonable manner or let's not bother.

The choice is in your hands.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

It has to do with society at large, that's why I think society should have the right to vote on it. Marriage is a key and fundamental pillar of society, as a result people should have the full right to have a say in respect to it.

Families, marriages, etc.. can form naturally and do not need to be at the behest of state governance. Society contains a rich diversity of ideas and has no defined and does not sing in unison. Society is every changing and no law can accommodate for this change. If society wishes to recognise gay marriages, this is happen naturally without the need for a vote.

philologos wrote: »

We live in a democracy, therefore things should be done democratically. We elect our representatives to serve our communities fully and listen to them fully. As a result there should have been a full consultation on this issue, and there should be a full referendum.

There is no such thing as true and full representation in government. That is merely a fallacy. Individual natural rights and liberties should NEVER be up for vote in the public arena. This was one of the founding principles of the Enlightenment and enshrines in such fine documents such as the US Constitution (before it was bastardized). Natural rights (sometimes called "negative" rights) are UNALIENABLE. A true democracy would be a tyrannical regime with little regard for minority rights.

philologos wrote: »

There are downsides to democracy, but to suggest that keeping marriage between a man and a woman is comparable to Hitler and the Nazis is absolutely laughable particularly when there is an argument to be made for the importance of the nuclear family to children in society.

Laughable? Anytime natural rights are placed in the public arena, then it is comparable with Hitler and the Nazis. Over half a century ago, the general public in Germany regarded Aryans as superior to all other races. Hitler enacted laws whereby Aryans could not marry these so called sub-races. What society thinks isn't always the best for society. It doesn't matter what arguments are to be made for or against gay marriage, the underlying fact is - marriage falls under the umbrella of freedom of expression and freedom of association and whether or not these rights should be quelled by coercion should never be up for debate in the public arena, even if sanctioned by democracy because they are UNALIENABLE!!

To understand a little bit more about the nature of democracy, I advice you read something like Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty". Then you will understand my position.

philologos

Pedant wrote: »

Families, marriages, etc.. can form naturally and do not need to be at the behest of state governance. Society contains a rich diversity of ideas and has no defined and does not sing in unison. Society is every changing and no law can accommodate for this change. If society wishes to recognise gay marriages, this is happen naturally without the need for a vote.

Yes, but the Government and people should be interested in what is best for society, and they should legislate on that basis. The reason we have legislation is to impose fair and reasonable boundaries to human behaviour so as to create the best conditions in society that we possibly can. That's why all people should be interested in it.

In a secular society, all people should be able to bring their positions forward, and all positions should be considered on the basis of merit alone. If a Jewish politician came forward with a law that was based on the Torah or the Tanakh, but yet abounded in merit. I would support it, provided that that merit should be shown. It would be no issue to me that the idea originated in the pages of the Torah. Likewise a Hindu and the Vedas, or a Muslim and the Qur'an, or an atheist on the basis of secular philosophy. I couldn't care less provided that merit is shown, and it matters little even if I think that atheism, Hinduism and Islam are all false.

I believe on the basis of what evidence we have, that traditional marriage abounds in merit for all parties, and that's why I think it should be defended.

Marriage is important to society - therefore I believe society should have a full and proper say concerning it.

Anti-democratic nonsense shouldn't be tolerated. If marriage concerns us, bring it to a vote. I would support more direct democracy in society, not less. It's like what they did in California with Proposition 8. They steamrolled over the peoples vote.

Pedant wrote: »

is no such thing as true and full representation in government. That is merely a fallacy. Individual natural rights and liberties should NEVER be up for vote in the public arena. This was one of the founding principles of the Enlightenment and enshrines in such fine documents such as the US Constitution (before it was bastardized). Natural rights (sometimes called "negative" rights) are UNALIENABLE. A true democracy would be a tyrannical regime with little regard for minority rights.

We can get as close as possible. I don't believe that people should steamroll over other people with a minority opinion. I don't believe that some people have a better grasp of human rights than others. That's why I think it's anti-democratic nonsense, and I don't think people should put up with that.

Democracy simply put, means that the people have the power (Greek - demos kratia). Direct democracy is best for society. I would prefer if the UK and other countries moved towards a Swiss model of direct democracy where people can bring forward referendums on the basis of popular support, or even create a new constitution on the basis of public support.

Pedant wrote: »

Laughable? Anytime natural rights are placed in the public arena, then it is comparable with Hitler and the Nazis. Over half a century ago, the general public in Germany regarded Aryans as superior to all other races. Hitler enacted laws whereby Aryans could not marry these so called sub-races. What society thinks isn't always the best for society. It doesn't matter what arguments are to be made for or against gay marriage, the underlying fact is - marriage falls under the umbrella of freedom of expression and freedom of association and whether or not these rights should be quelled by coercion should never be up for debate in the public arena, even if sanctioned by democracy because they are UNALIENABLE!!

It's ridiculous, that's why it is laughable. It's absurd to say that because people actually care about the importance of marriage in terms of the nuclear family that they are in any way similar to Hitler. I don't take stuff like that seriously, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. That's a marriage. If people don't want a marriage, they can seek a civil partnership.

Pedant wrote: »

To understand a little bit more about the nature of democracy, I advice you read something like Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty". Then you will understand my position.

I studied politics for a brief while at university. I know quite a bit about it. I support direct democracy, I don't support anti-democratic nonsense like what happened in California, and what is about to happen in Britain.

As I said before, if the majority of the UK population vote for this, I'll accept their decision no matter how much I disagree with it, and no matter how difficult it will make it for people to speak up for traditional marriage in public in the future.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

If that's all this discussion has come down to, it's pointless.

Is it an equality issue that a brother and a sister can't marry? Or is it reasonable that the State decides that they can't marry? Why is it?

The brother and sister can still marry, but it must be someone else that they both marry respectively. Likewise, anyone can marry, but marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Your issue is with the definition of marriage. That isn't an equality issue, that's a definition issue.

If this is going to be emotive, and if people have no interest in discussing the topic, why are we doing this?

The reason why people legislate, and take an interest in politics is because they genuinely care about society. People often differ about what is best for society, and as a result disagreements form.

Are you going to actually engage in the issue, or are you going to just keep posting like this? - It serves no interest to either party. Let's discuss this, in a fair and reasonable manner or let's not bother.

The choice is in your hands.

We have posted everything numerous times, provided links to peer reviewed studies that completely discredit your notion that gay couples cannot raise a child suitably, or as well as a straight couple. It has been discredited.

We have shown you that gay couples can already have a civil partnership in Ireland and the UK. The only thing that is different between this and a straight civil union/marriage is certain legal issues, eg inheritance, tax rights, mortgage rights and more.

Time and time again posters in this thread have stated this is an issue about equality between straight and gay couples, and nothing more.

Gay couples have been having children for a long time, and those children end up basically the same as a child of a straight couple, in fact they often end up more liberal and fight for freedom of speech and equality in society. You could say they end up better off in many regards.

In this thread, you have had gay couples and even the children of gay couples prove you wrong and speak about how all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

All you have done is go on about your Christian/Religious definition of marriage, which has also been discredited as you have been linked to the dictionary definition numerous times.

Pedant

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

If you're arguing that same-sex marriage is not a nature right, then you will also have to argue how you believe the freedom of association and the freedom of expression are not natural rights.

There are two types of rights, natural rights and unnatural rights;

Natural rights (sometimes called negative rights) are rights that cannot be given to you, only taken away - they do not require a mediator such as the state. They may be recognized but not given.

Unnatural rights (positive rights) are rights that are given to you, sometimes these rights are confused with privileges - universal healthcare and education is an example of an unnatural right. Unnatural right, if enshrined in law (and I know this is contentious and off topic), are rights that are based on the illogical premise of infinite supply of resources.

Gay marriage (and marriage in general) fall under natural rights as (and I'm repeating myself here) marriage is a mutual contract based on freedom of association and expression, both of which are natural rights. The rights to engage in a mutual contract is a natural right.

Bannasidhe

Min wrote: »

I dont need the state for my religion or marriage if the state decided to take it away.

We had it with the penal laws when a lot of things were banned for Catholics, it did not stop the people practicing their faith, getting educated when it was banned and so on.

It seems a lot of people want the state to do everything for them.

The Penal Laws were aimed at anyone who was not an ANGLICAN. It discriminated against Methodists, Quakers, Presbyterians just as much as Catholics.

Why was this legal discrimination in place? Because there was an official State religion and anyone who did not support the ethos of that State religion was penalised by the State.

Now, in Ireland, we have an unofficial State religion - and people who do not support the ethos of that religion are being penalised by the State.

What you are advocating is similar to the Penal Laws.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

We have posted everything numerous times, provided links to peer reviewed studies that completely discredit your notion that gay couples cannot raise a child suitably, or as well as a straight couple. It has been discredited.

There's plenty to counter that position. It isn't my problem if you want to ignore them.

Sonics2k wrote: »

We have shown you that gay couples can already have a civil partnership in Ireland and the UK. The only thing that is different between this and a straight civil union/marriage is certain legal issues, eg inheritance, tax rights, mortgage rights and more.

I'm aware of that. I think that marriage is different, and I think that marriage is hugely important, that's why I'll defend it. I value traditional marriage, and I don't feel it should be compromised any more in society.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Time and time again posters in this thread have stated this is an issue about equality between straight and gay couples, and nothing more.

I think they're wrong. It is very very clearly a definition issue. Not an equality issue.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Gay couples have been having children for a long time, and those children end up basically the same as a child of a straight couple, in fact they often end up more liberal and fight for freedom of speech and equality in society. You could say they end up better off in many regards.

I don't believe that they end up any better, and there is absolutely no evidence to show this. I think it's absolutely blind to claim that liberalism is always best. Personally, I'm liberal in respect to some things, conservative in respect to others, and neither in respect to many others. I'm conservative about marriage, precisely because I believe it should be conserved, I.E - Left alone. It works brilliantly in society, and time and time again mothers and fathers have been shown to have unique roles in respect to their kids. Time and time again it has been shown that the nuclear family is best.

Sonics2k wrote: »

In this thread, you have had gay couples and even the children of gay couples prove you wrong and speak about how all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Again, I don't think they have proved me wrong. I don't think they've shown me sufficiently how decades of study on the roles of mothers and fathers in the family unit are wrong.

Sonics2k wrote: »

All you have done is go on about your Christian/Religious definition of marriage, which has also been discredited as you have been linked to the dictionary definition numerous times.

Not at all. If you think that then you've not been reading my posts. I'm arguing for marriage in general. I couldn't care what religion it is, and I couldn't care if it is secular. Actually, I defend traditional marriage because I think that mothers and fathers together provide children the best upbringing. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't bother would I?

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. I don't think either of us will be changing our minds any time soon.

Bobby42

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

Gay people are only looking for equal rights, not extra rights. What possible problem could you have with two people getting married? How does it effect your life in any way?

So Kim Kardashian can get married and then divorce 72 days later but two people how love each other can't because they're gay?

Bannasidhe

Personally, I don't care if it's called Marriage or Surrey with a fringe on top as long as the rights, privileges and entitlements are exactly the same for straight and gay couples.

You can keep the word marriage for all I care - I just want access to exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. Whether I chose to exercise those rights is my own business.

Canard

I find it so nice yet so odd that the amount of people here who support gay marriage is such a large majority, and in general people are in favour of it in my experience, yet its illegal. The government are starting to take a stand against the church with the whole thing of them having to report confessions of child abuse, so why the hell is gay marriage still banned? Drives me mad.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

It has to do with society at large, that's why I think society should have the right to vote on it. Marriage is a key and fundamental pillar of society, as a result people should have the full right to have a say in respect to it.

Ah!! So you want to regulate human behaviour now. That has nothing to do with this debate. Unless you've subconsciously revealed that you wish to regulate what people do in the bedroom. Laws are there to accommodate society, not for society to accommodate the law.

philologos wrote: »

In a secular society, all people should be able to bring their positions forward, and all positions should be considered on the basis of merit alone. If a Jewish politician came forward with a law that was based on the Torah or the Tanakh, but yet abounded in merit. I would support it, provided that that merit should be shown. It would be no issue to me that the idea originated in the pages of the Torah. Likewise a Hindu and the Vedas, or a Muslim and the Qur'an, or an atheist on the basis of secular philosophy. I couldn't care less provided that merit is shown, and it matters little even if I think that atheism, Hinduism and Islam are all false.

All people should have a right to bring their positions forward unless their position infringe the natural rights of other.

philologos wrote: »

I believe on the basis of what evidence we have, that traditional marriage abounds in merit for all parties, and that's why I think it should be defended.

Evidence that you have yet to supply to us. I have already provided a link to a mammoth amount of evidence which includes peer reviewed papers that reveal that child brought up in same-sex families are at no disadvantage to those brought up in opposite-sex families. If there is evidence to contravene these finding (and by evidence, I mean peer reviewed papers that suggest exactly that) then please provide the. So far you haven't. Also, no matter what amount of evidence there is in favour or against same-sex families, it is no a justifiable premise to ban same-sex marriages - we have already argued this point.

philologos wrote: »

Marriage is important to society - therefore I believe society should have a full and proper say concerning it.

Already tackled this.

philologos wrote: »

Anti-democratic nonsense shouldn't be tolerated. If marriage concerns us, bring it to a vote. I would support more direct democracy in society, not less. It's like what they did in California with Proposition 8. They steamrolled over the peoples vote.

Absolute democracy is akin to dictatorship - tyranny of the majority. You have yet to argue against this point.

philologos wrote: »

We can get as close as possible. I don't believe that people should steamroll over other people with a minority opinion.

Not only does what you propose streamroll over minority opinion, but also minority rights.

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that some people have a better grasp of human rights than others. That's why I think it's anti-democratic nonsense, and I don't think people should put up with that.

Please elaborate.

philologos wrote: »

Democracy simply put, means that the people have the power (Greek - demos kratia). Direct democracy is best for society. I would prefer if the UK and other countries moved towards a Swiss model of direct democracy where people can bring forward referendums on the basis of popular support

And where is the line drawn?

philologos wrote: »

It's ridiculous, that's why it is laughable. It's absurd to say that because people actually care about the importance of marriage in terms of the nuclear family that they are in any way similar to Hitler. I don't take stuff like that seriously, and I don't think anyone else should either.

You don't understand the nature of risk and democracy. Years ago, people argued that white family were better than mixed-race family and they got their way via democracy. Nowadays, people have a better grasp on rights, which is why this issue hasn't been brought into the public arena since.

philologos wrote: »

Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. That's a marriage. If people don't want a marriage, they can seek a civil partnership.

How many times to people have to repeat themselves on this thread?

philologos wrote: »

I studied politics for a brief while at university. I know quite a bit about it. I support direct democracy, I don't support anti-democratic nonsense like what happened in California, and what is about to happen in Britain.

You've basically argued that natural rights should be brought into the public domain. This reveals to me that you have a very fractured understanding of the relationship between rights and democracy. You should study more of the philosophers of the enlightenment or some modern libertarian works.

Min

Bobby42 wrote: »

Gay people are only looking for equal rights, not extra rights. What possible problem could you have with two people getting married? How does it effect your life in any way?

So Kim Kardashian can get married and then divorce 72 days later but two people how love each other can't because they're gay?

People like Kim Kardashian show how silly state marriage is, then for same sex couples to want this...

At least you can't get divorced that quickly in this country.

You can't marry your first cousin, a family member, your pet and you may really love them.

Do same sex couples need marriage to say they love eachother? They don't need marriage as they can't have children and inside a happy marriage is the the most stable form for a couple to have children and to bring them up in.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

It's not anything to do with equality.

Marriage - is the union between a man and a woman. Anyone can be married. There is a limitation as to who one can be married to. There are a number of limitations as to who one can be married to. I.E - One cannot have more than one wife or one husband, one cannot marry someone in the same family, one can't marry a child and so on.

Anyone can marry insofar as they wish to be married (joined in union to one of the opposite gender).

This really isn't an equality issue, and yes people should have a say in so far as marriage is key to society.

not true in all societies, and multiple wives has been around since biblical times.

if civil partnership is almost marriage, why not just call it marriage? the definition of it can change

Min

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Penal Laws were aimed at anyone who was not an ANGLICAN. It discriminated against Methodists, Quakers, Presbyterians just as much as Catholics.

Why was this legal discrimination in place? Because there was an official State religion and anyone who did not support the ethos of that State religion was penalised by the State.

Now, in Ireland, we have an unofficial State religion - and people who do not support the ethos of that religion are being penalised by the State.

What you are advocating is similar to the Penal Laws.

If we have an unofficial state religion and I take it you mean Catholicism, then why do we not have an embassy at the Vatican, while our neighbours in the UK do?

The penal laws banned what was already there, keeping the status quo is not a penal law, marriage is not an entitlement and I don't see why the state should even be involved in marriage which is the personal lives of people.
The ban on certain practices to avoid inbreeding is necessary.

Ciaran0

It's not about the definition af marriage. Nobody wants to change what marriage means just for the craic. What we want is equal rights for all, and changing the definition of marriage would just be one way to achieve that.

Maybe we should just change the definition of civil partnership so that it grants equal rights to those who avail of it. That way, marriage will still be the same marriage the religious people want it to be, and same sex couples will be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Bannasidhe

Min wrote: »

People like Kim Kardashian show how silly state marriage is, then for same sex couples to want this...

At least you can't get divorced that quickly in this country.

You can't marry your first cousin, a family member, your pet and you may really love them.

Do same sex couples need marriage to say they love eachother? They don't need marriage as they can't have children and inside a happy marriage is the the most stable form for a couple to have children and to bring them up in.

They need it so they if their partner dies their home can be recognised as spousal for the purposes of inheritance.

They need it so they are the legally recognised next-of-kin.

They need it so one has the ability to use the tax credits of the other if this makes financial sense.

They need it so they can adopt their partner's biological children. (Before anyone wants to drag 'gay adoption' into this I should point out that A) gay people can and do adopt children - but they must do this as a single person, not as a couple. married heterosexuals can already adopt the biological children of their partner due to the State's lack of recognition of un-married fathers.)


They need it so the State acknowledges that these two people are in an interdependent relationship and are treated accordingly.

All of these things are available to married heterosexual couples but most of them are currently denied under civil partnership.

Were civil partnership and marriage to contain exactly the same rights - no-one here would be complaining. The fact is, they don't.

krudler

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It's not about the definition af marriage. Nobody wants to change what marriage means just for the craic. What we want is equal rights for all, and changing the definition of marriage would just be one way to achieve that.

Maybe we should just change the definition of civil partnership so that it grants equal rights to those who avail of it. That way, marriage will still be the same marriage the religious people want it to be, and same sex couples will be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples.

that makes too much sense, can't be doing that now

Ciaran0

krudler wrote: »

that makes too much sense, can't be doing that now

Thank you. I'm quite pleased with myself for thinking of a valid point. My input in most threads is usually just trolling. Go me!

Bannasidhe

Min wrote: »

If we have an unofficial state religion and I take it you mean Catholicism, then why do we not have an embassy at the Vatican, while our neighbours in the UK do?

The penal laws banned what was already there, keeping the status quo is not a penal law, marriage is not an entitlement and I don't see why the state should even be involved in marriage which is the personal lives of people.
The ban on certain practices to avoid inbreeding is necessary.

and homosexuality has always been there - yet attempts were made to ban it.
Early Irish Law recognised the existance of homosexuality over 1000 years ago - and had no issue with it. (Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law if anyone doubts me).
Homosexuality was made illegal in Ireland by Henry VIII in the 16th century.

The utter domination of white, western Europeans was for many years the status quo - enshrined in colonial and slavery laws - should we have also maintained that?

The State is already involved - get used to it. The State grants rights and privileges to heterosexual couples via marriage legislation that is denied to gay couples. Civil Partnership does not contain the same rights.

It's quite simple - in order for the State to grant equal rights to all it's citizen's it needs to either repeal all of the marraige legislation or extend that legislation to cover homosexual couples.

As for inter-breeding - jeeze, on the one hand ye are complaining that a same sex couple cannot produce a child which is the biological product of both of them (yet!) now suddenly interbreeding has become a justification. Strawman much?

histories

philologos wrote: »

Sonics2k: I understand fully that civil partnership exists, and I'm more than happy to tolerate that much even if I disagree with it.

What I do oppose is redefining marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman and the basis on which family is primarily built. Same-sex marriage isn't in place, civil partnership is something entirely different, and I think that's the way it should be. There should be a recognition that the nuclear family is the best situation for which a child should be raised in.

Again, primarily my argument hasn't been about religion, it's been about the place of marriage and the place of family in society.

Perhaps you should try understand what I'm saying before you jump in and criticise it?

I think democratically, David Cameron and the Tories should recognise that over 472,000 people as of today have suggested that they have concerned with his proposal. That's the largest petition in the UK since the last Government. As a result, there should be a proper consultation, and a proper referendum, and the British people should speak. If they decide to legalise same-sex marriage, I will respect that democratic decision. If the Tories just steamroll right past the public on this, that's when I have issues.

That's democracy, and that's the correct procedure to use in a manner that affects something as pivotal as marriage.

FIRST HIGHLIGHTED BIT

(1) The definition is rather arbitrary, before the case of Loving v Virginia in the US men and women of a different race were not allowed to get married.

(2) The Constitution of Ireland does not define marriage, the ECHR does not define marriage, the ICESCR does not define marriage and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not define marriage.

(3) This notion of man and woman only is the judgments of the Courts based on the opinion of society at the time. The law is a living thing. It is meant to be interpreted in light of current social attitudes. Society has moved forward.

SECOND BIT
(1) Have you ever read the Kilkenny Incest Report? You can't turn around and say that the best place for the child is the nuclear family if you had ever read that. The abuse those two girls, particularly the eldest suffered was horrific. Obviously not the best place for those children.

(2) The best home for a child is one where it is loved and safe. THIS IS ALL! The importance placed on the family in this country is one of the reasons child abuse is allowed to go on for as long as it does before the State steps in. "Exceptional Circumstances", so says the Constitution, the damage is already done at that stage.

(3) The importance placed on the family means (i) married couples can't give their children up for adoption, (ii) unmarried mothers can have their consent removed by the Courts if they change their mind about giving their child up for adoption, (iii) this removal of consent if not applicable to a mother who gets married to the father, see Baby Ann case, (iv) unmarried fathers have no rights.

As to the part where you feel you should be entitled to vote, I would ask you why? Why should you or anyone else be allowed to deny other human beings the same rights and protections under the law that you get to enjoy?

And why would you want to deny people such rights? Right now there are thousands of people getting married across the globe, it is not impacting you, me or Joe Bloggs down the street. Why is it such a problem if two people of the same sex get married? Look at all the celebrities who get married and divorced within the year, if they even make it that long. Those people have made a mockery out of marriage but no one is coming out and saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

In 2012 the family is no longer a married man and woman and the children. We have single fathers, single mothers, cohabiting couple and same-sex couples. The idea of the family as pictured by the drafters of the Constitution in 1937 has changed completely.

When you treat people as being less under the law then you are inviting society to do the same thing.

histories

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It's not about the definition af marriage. Nobody wants to change what marriage means just for the craic. What we want is equal rights for all, and changing the definition of marriage would just be one way to achieve that.

Maybe we should just change the definition of civil partnership so that it grants equal rights to those who avail of it. That way, marriage will still be the same marriage the religious people want it to be, and same sex couples will be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Sir, I like the cut of your jib! Not bothered what they call it so long as the rights are equal. The bigots get to feel superior and the rest of the worlds population can get on with living their lives.

Ciaran0

histories wrote: »

Sir, I like the cut of your jib! Not bothered what they call it so long as the rights are equal. The bigots get to feel superior and the rest of the worlds population can get on with living their lives.

Exactly, like them religious folks aren't gonna change their beliefs and it'd be unfair to ask them to. So let's just sidestep them and make the changes elsewhere. Once everyone is treated properly it's all good in the hood

Pedant

histories wrote: »

the ECHR does not define marriage, the ICESCR does not define marriage and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not define marriage.

Marriage isn't defined or mentioned specifically as a right in those conventions, but the right to marriage may be interpreted as falling under some of the rights enshrined the those conventions.

For example, the right to hang a painting in my hallway isn't specifically mentioned in, say the ECHR, but it falls under the right to freedom of expression, etc..

In relation to the ECHR, I'd argue that Article 12 on marriage, conflicts with articles 10, 11 and 14 (expression, association and discrimination, respectively).

histories

Pedant wrote: »

Marriage isn't defined or mentioned specifically as a right in those conventions, but the right to marriage may be interpreted as falling under some of the rights enshrined the those conventions.

For example, the right to hang a painting in my hallway isn't specifically mentioned in, say the ECHR, but it falls under the right to freedom of expression, etc..

In relation to the ECHR, I'd argue that Article 12 on marriage, conflicts with articles 10, 11 and 14 (expression, association and discrimination, respectively).

Well, Article 12 is titled the Right to Marry, "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family..." Pretty specific. Also I don't see how it would conflict with Article 14 which, as you said, prohibits discrimination. Not allowing same-sex couples the rights and protections under the law IS discrimination; gender discrimination, family status discrimination, ie. not recognising their rights as a family, discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

As for Arts 10 and 11, those rights are subject to limitations including the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Take religion out of the debate and keep the focus legal i.e. same-sex couples can get married in the registry office or as Ciaran said just expand civil partnership to include all those rights that heterosexual married couples have. These are legal issues not religious ones.*

*I know you didn't reference religion.

Bobby42

To those arguing that gay people should not be allowed to marry because the nuclear family is the best environment for children - how is having a society with institutionalised discrimination against gay people a safe environment for children, especially gay children?
Wouldn't the high rates of suicides amongst the LGBT community show that treating gay people like second class citizens is harmful to society as whole?

So you want to protect children by not allowing gay marriage, even if that results in a higher rate of suicides amongst LGBT youth. Great logic.

krudler

Bobby42 wrote: »

To those arguing that gay people should not be allowed to marry because the nuclear family is the best environment for children - how is having a society with institutionalised discrimination against gay people a safe environment for children, especially gay children?
Wouldn't the high rates of suicides amongst the LGBT community show that treating gay people like second class citizens is harmful to society as whole?

So you want to protect children by not allowing gay marriage, even if that results in a higher rate of suicides amongst LGBT youth. Great logic.

gay children dont exist, its just a phase, and lack of bible studies.

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not a natural right.

When did it become a natural right, these days it seems everyone feels they have a right to this, that and the other, or else they are being discriminated against.

What is natural about marriage?. Name me another species that marries.

fran17

Ghost Buster wrote: »

What is natural about marriage?. Name me another species that marries.

i suppose the question could also be posed then to name another species which practises homosexuality...

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

Ghost Buster wrote: »

What is natural about marriage?. Name me another species that marries.

i suppose the question could also be posed then to name another species which practises homosexuality...

Giraffes, chimpanzees, lions etc; present in most animals tbh and illustrates the fact that you know little about what you are discussing and you are rather deluded in your viewpoint.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

krudler

fran17 wrote: »

i suppose the question could also be posed then to name another species which practises homosexuality...

lots of them?

Bannasidhe

fran17 wrote: »

i suppose the question could also be posed then to name another species which practises homosexuality...

My next door neighbour's dogs - a jack russell and a lab :eek: - my OH witnessed it as she was painting the fence. She videoed it in case no-one believed her....:p

fran17

Corkfeen wrote: »

Giraffes, chimpanzees, lions etc; present in most animals tbh and illustrates the fact that you know little about what you are discussing and you are rather deluded in your viewpoint.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

and there was me thinking it was only the two homosexual penguins in san francisco zoo

Corkfeen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

fran17 wrote: »

i suppose the question could also be posed then to name another species which practises homosexuality...

My next door neighbour's dogs - a jack russell and a lab :eek: - my OH witnessed it as she was painting the fence. She videoed it in case no-one believed her....:p

Please tell me the Labrador wasn't doing the mounting, if it was, the Jack Russell is lucky to be alive.

fran17

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My next door neighbour's dogs - a jack russell and a lab :eek: - my OH witnessed it as she was painting the fence. She videoed it in case no-one believed her....:p

sounds like a case for the dog whisperer

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

Please tell me the Labrador wasn't doing the mounting, if it was, the Jack Russell is lucky to be alive.

Fellatio - who knew jack russells could suck.

krudler

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/561375_400814769941229_113544412001601_1252598_1185374876_n.jpg

I can really see why the anti-gay marriage brigade are threatened

philologos

Regard these as my closing remarks.

krudler wrote: »

I know, next thing you'll be telling me blacks can marry whites, it'll be the end of the world. societies views change, and its a good thing.

There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined, and as a result I cannot make that jump in assumption, and I don't find it intellectually honest to make a comparison like that.

Bobby42 wrote: »

Gay people are only looking for equal rights, not extra rights. What possible problem could you have with two people getting married? How does it effect your life in any way?

It's not about equality. It's a definition issue. The LGBT lobby have issues with marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman. "Equality" is a red herring in this debate.

I've explained in full in my previous posts why I support defending traditional marriage.

Bobby42 wrote: »

So Kim Kardashian can get married and then divorce 72 days later but two people how love each other can't because they're gay?

That's not a great example as it is exclusive to the laws of the US rather than Ireland or other countries.

Firstly, you've assumed that I think that is acceptable. I don't, I think it's horrible that people treat marriage so flippantly. I agree with Ireland's perspective in ensuring that people are separated for 4 years before divorce. I think it makes people consider much more the impact of divorce on all involved. Divorce should be the last option rather than the first option in relationship issues.

Pedant wrote: »

Ah!! So you want to regulate human behaviour now. That has nothing to do with this debate. Unless you've subconsciously revealed that you wish to regulate what people do in the bedroom. Laws are there to accommodate society, not for society to accommodate the law.

Where did you pull that out of? - I never suggested anything in respect to the "bedroom" and that's not the point of my argument. Please keep to what my posts are saying rather than what you want them to say.

I said that marriage is a fundamental pillar of society and the basis of the family, as a result it is an interest of society. Civil partnership provides LGBT couples all the rights they need in respect to formalising a relationship. The key difference is in respect to family. Keeping marriage as the union between a man and a woman is based on the understanding that the nuclear family is best.

Pedant wrote: »

All people should have a right to bring their positions forward unless their position infringe the natural rights of other.

All people have the right to be married. The restriction is in who they can be married to. There are other restrictions to who one can be married to other than that it must be to the opposite gender. One can't marry their siblings, or their parents for example.

Pedant wrote: »

Evidence that you have yet to supply to us. I have already provided a link to a mammoth amount of evidence which includes peer reviewed papers that reveal that child brought up in same-sex families are at no disadvantage to those brought up in opposite-sex families. If there is evidence to contravene these finding (and by evidence, I mean peer reviewed papers that suggest exactly that) then please provide the. So far you haven't. Also, no matter what amount of evidence there is in favour or against same-sex families, it is no a justifiable premise to ban same-sex marriages - we have already argued this point.

I've presented evidence that gender roles count in respect to children's upbringing. You can look this up on even a cursory look of Google Scholar for example. There's not a "mammoth" amount of evidence to suggest that over 30 years of research on gender roles is wrong.

Pedant wrote: »

Already tackled this.

I don't believe you have really.

Pedant wrote: »

Absolute democracy is akin to dictatorship - tyranny of the majority. You have yet to argue against this point.

I'd rather the people had the say rather than an exclusive minority steamrolling over their will for society. This is our society, and society should determine what is right.

I'm an advocate of direct democracy in issues that affect society at large. Marriage and its definition does. Therefore I think there should be a referendum.

Pedant wrote: »

Not only does what you propose streamroll over minority opinion, but also minority rights.

See above, the alternative that you present isn't much better. Actually it's significantly worse. It amounts to aristocracy casually steamrolling over the public will.

Direct democracy has flaws, all political systems do, but it is a heck of a lot better than allowing legislators to ignore the public will.

Pedant wrote: »

Please elaborate.

I don't believe a select group of politicians have a better understanding of human rights than the general public. Not allowing the public to have a say on something that affects society at large is worse, not better.

Pedant wrote: »

And where is the line drawn?

In Switzerland there has to be 50,000 people to back a proposal for a referendum before one will go through. There's a threshold, obviously the State can't be paying for every referendum, but direct democracy I find is a much better system than casually ignoring the public. Obviously in proportion nearly 500,000 people as have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition is significantly greater than that. Which is why I think that David Cameron needs to sit down and actually think about this in a full public consulation.

I think it's a disgrace that people can ignore a significant portion of the public on this issue. I think it's a disgrace that in California the public verdict was ignored. That's fundamentally wrong in basic democracy as far as I see it.

Pedant wrote: »

You don't understand the nature of risk and democracy. Years ago, people argued that white family were better than mixed-race family and they got their way via democracy. Nowadays, people have a better grasp on rights, which is why this issue hasn't been brought into the public arena since.

See the point I made to krudler. That's not a valid point in this argument. There's no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.

Pedant wrote: »

You've basically argued that natural rights should be brought into the public domain. This reveals to me that you have a very fractured understanding of the relationship between rights and democracy. You should study more of the philosophers of the enlightenment or some modern libertarian works.

Direct democracy is better as far as I'm concerned. You're supporting elites having a role in determining what is best for society. I think the people should have that role.

histories wrote: »

FIRST HIGHLIGHTED BIT

(1) The definition is rather arbitrary, before the case of Loving v Virginia in the US men and women of a different race were not allowed to get married.

See above. There is no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.

histories wrote: »

(2) The Constitution of Ireland does not define marriage, the ECHR does not define marriage, the ICESCR does not define marriage and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not define marriage.

Firstly, the Marriage Act 2004 does and the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in that way after that Gilligan and Zappone case of 2006.

Secondly, this is about British law, not Irish law.

histories wrote: »

(3) This notion of man and woman only is the judgments of the Courts based on the opinion of society at the time. The law is a living thing. It is meant to be interpreted in light of current social attitudes. Society has moved forward.

I don't think it has moved forward in such a way that traditional marriage should be compromised. LGBT people have civil partnerships, there is no need for marriage. Marriage, as the union between a mand and a woman is better for children. Therefore I support it. The nuclear family has been shown to have advantages again and again in research.

histories wrote: »

(1) Have you ever read the Kilkenny Incest Report? You can't turn around and say that the best place for the child is the nuclear family if you had ever read that. The abuse those two girls, particularly the eldest suffered was horrific. Obviously not the best place for those children.

This is a rubbish argument. You're saying because things that are wrong happen very very rarely in nuclear families that they should be discounted. That's nonsense, and it doesn't prove anything.

There's clear research to show that in the vast vast vast majority of cases it is best for a child to have a mother and a father joined together in marriage.

histories wrote: »

(2) The best home for a child is one where it is loved and safe. THIS IS ALL! The importance placed on the family in this country is one of the reasons child abuse is allowed to go on for as long as it does before the State steps in. "Exceptional Circumstances", so says the Constitution, the damage is already done at that stage.

That's not true on the basis of any research. Not all family structures are equally beneficial and that has been clearly shown in quite a number of studies.

histories wrote: »

(3) The importance placed on the family means (i) married couples can't give their children up for adoption, (ii) unmarried mothers can have their consent removed by the Courts if they change their mind about giving their child up for adoption, (iii) this removal of consent if not applicable to a mother who gets married to the father, see Baby Ann case, (iv) unmarried fathers have no rights.

(i) I asked someone else about this, and asked them to cite the particular law, they weren't able to show me where this was. Could you? I'm interested.
(ii) If you've given your child to another family, that's extremely serious, and one should think long and hard before they do that.
(iii) Elaborate on this.
(iv) This is why people should get married before they have children surely?

histories wrote: »

As to the part where you feel you should be entitled to vote, I would ask you why? Why should you or anyone else be allowed to deny other human beings the same rights and protections under the law that you get to enjoy?

I'm not interested in denying rights as I've said already. I'm opposing changing the definition of marriage. It isn't an equality issue it's very clearly a definition issue.

I've clearly said numerous times that I think that the reason I think we should have a referendum on this is that marriage is pivotal to society and the direction it goes in. It's important enough to warrant a vote.

histories wrote: »

And why would you want to deny people such rights? Right now there are thousands of people getting married across the globe, it is not impacting you, me or Joe Bloggs down the street. Why is it such a problem if two people of the same sex get married? Look at all the celebrities who get married and divorced within the year, if they even make it that long. Those people have made a mockery out of marriage but no one is coming out and saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

I'm not interested in denying rights as I've said already. For the umpteenth time, everyone has the right to be married the restriction is in who they can be married to. There are numerous restrictions on this, including in respect to whether or not family members can be married.

histories wrote: »

In 2012 the family is no longer a married man and woman and the children. We have single fathers, single mothers, cohabiting couple and same-sex couples. The idea of the family as pictured by the drafters of the Constitution in 1937 has changed completely.

When you treat people as being less under the law then you are inviting society to do the same thing.

I think you're wrong. For the most part, marriage still plays a significant role in society. Research has clearly shown traditional marriage to be better for children than in the case of other family structures. That's not to say that children can't be raised in other family structures, it's only to say that the Government should promote traditional marriage and encourage that as the best for children to be raised in.

And with that, I can't imagine that I've got much more to say on this issue.