1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News 18 arguments made against gay marriage in the House of Lords

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dublin Boy, Jun 6, 2013.

  1. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Many in the upper house feel strongly that gay marriage legislation should not be allowed to pass. Here are a few of their reasons.

    1. It would make the word “marriage” meaningless (also, something to do with Lewis Carroll).

    Lord Dear:

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’, Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ But ‘glory’ doesn't mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’, Alice objected. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.

    I would suggest that if we substitute the word “marriage” for “glory” we get somewhere very close to the essence of today’s debate. As Humpty Dumpty might have said: “There’s a nice knock-down argument for you. Marriage means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
    2. It would be confusing and awkward for everyone.

    Archbishop of Canterbury:

    The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape, with same-gender and different-gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as a covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society, as we have already heard, is weakened.
    3. Those who are anti-gay marriage could be accused of a hate crime.

    Lord Waddington:

    From the obligation to care for any children, and to consummate the marriage or face a decree of nullity, to the commitment to sexual fidelity, with the threat of divorce on the grounds of adultery, there is no way in which the union of a man and a woman, with all these serious implications, can be compared with the wish of a couple to see their partnership publicly recognised.

    Ordinary people with deep feelings about the sanctity of marriage will also be demonised as homophobic and will be very lucky if they do not finish up accused of hate crime.
    4. It would diminish the role of women.

    Bishop of Leicester:

    I could not help noticing in the debate in this House on International Women’s Day the underlying assumption that women bring a special quality to the public square and that the complementarity of men and women is what enriches and stabilises society. Yet, in the realm of public discourse, assertion of sexual difference in relation to marriage has become practically unspeakable, in spite of the fact that it is implicitly assumed by most people in the course of everyday life. Equal marriage will bring to an end the one major social institution that enshrines that complementarity.
    5. It would lead to state-sanctioned polygamy.

    Lord Anderson of Swansea:

    Today, the borders are clear. Where, then, are the new borders as one sets out on this path? There will be increased pressures for polygamy. In short, marriage should surely not be available for everyone, even if they love one another. The state cannot lightly modify the meaning of words that have stood the test of time, as with Orwellian Newspeak.
    6. Gay people will regret it in the long run.

    Baroness Cumberlege:

    I believe that, in time, LGBT people will regret attaching their unions to heterosexual marriage. Soon they will say, “No, we are different. We want be different and we need to create our own institution”. Like a flag, a motto or a name, they need to find their own terminology, their own symbols to express their rights and their different contribution to society—acknowledgment and respect for their own institution of partnership. I urge these people to be bold, to be confident and eschew the institutions of others, to build their own and be themselves.
    7. Marriage can only exist for heterosexual couples.

    Lord Campbell-Savours:

    The truth is that I cannot get my head round two people of the same sex being in a relationship defined as a marriage, however much they love each other. I hold to a simple traditional view that the word “marriage” can apply only in heterosexual relationships.
    8. The Prime Minister has introduced the Bill on a whim.

    Lord Naseby:

    There has been no Green Paper, no White Paper and no royal commission. Much has been done on a whim, sadly, and that is not a good start for any controversial piece of legislation. It is made even sadder by the fact that three days before the election one of the candidates for Prime Minister stated that he was “not planning” to introduce same-sex marriage.
    9. Removing the requirement for consummation from marriage will lead to inter-sibling unions.

    Lord Edmiston:

    The reason marriage is limited to one man and one woman is that it takes no more and no less to produce children. If we were to accept that love is the precondition for marriage, why should we restrict it? If there is no possibility of genetic offspring or indeed no requirement for consummation, why should not close relatives get married? If that were to happen, I can see all sorts of interesting possibilities for inheritance tax planning. We would open a Pandora’s Box. I do not believe we have looked closely enough at the unintended consequences.
    10. Not even gay people support gay marriage.

    Lord Singh of Wimbledon:

    There is no evidence of majority support for this measure, even in the gay community. In an article in the Daily Mail, the well known columnist Andrew Pierce writes that he is a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Alan Duncan, the International Development Minister, who is in a civil partnership, is implacably opposed to gay marriage. David Starkey, the openly gay historian, is also opposed to the concept of gay marriage. The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, who was the first Cabinet Minister to enter into a civil partnership, has openly criticised the idea of gay marriage, saying that the move to smash centuries of church teaching is “pure politics” and not wanted by the gay community, which has already won equality through civil partnerships.
    11. It is hurting people’s feelings.

    Marquess of Lothian:

    Far from achieving understanding, it is already creating confusion. Far from building harmony, it will create disharmony, anger and long-lasting hurt.
    12. The disagreement over gay marriage risks reversing the progress that has already been made on gay rights.

    Lord Dannatt:

    I fear that the atmosphere created by the tabling of the Bill is potentially divisive. For decades there have been vigorous debates about the acceptability of homosexual orientation and lifestyles. Tempers have been raised and emotions have flowed, but whatever individuals thought about homosexual or heterosexual lifestyles, an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance has been established in all but the most narrow-minded circles. The tabling of the Bill runs the risk of driving a cart and horses through that atmosphere, which has been carefully built up, of acceptance building on previous tolerance.
    13. Some of the phrasing in the Bill is a bit convoluted.

    Lord Quirk:

    This is perhaps especially manifest in the 60-page document, laughably called Explanatory Notes, which has several explanations such as this one on page 29, which states that,

    “‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage … In a similar way, ‘wife’ will include … a man married to a man”.

    Such linguistic acrobatics, distorting the marital bed into a Procrustean one, are inherent in the Bill at present. They smack, not so much of Humpty Dumpty’s world—as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, implied this morning—as of the dystopias of Jonathan Swift and George Orwell. After all, Lewis Carroll was only joking; Swift and Orwell were deadly serious.
    14. The Famous Lesbian Queen Conundrum (explained in more detail by Lord Tebbit here).

    Lord Tebbit:

    There is, I believe, no bar to a lesbian succeeding to the Throne. It may happen. It probably will, at some stage. What, then, if she marries and her partner bears a child by an anonymous sperm donor? Is that child the heir to the Throne? If the Queen herself subsequently bore a child by an anonymous donor, which child then, if either, would inherit the Throne? The possibilities must have been discussed in the deep consideration of this Bill in government, so the Minister must know the answer. If she does not know it immediately, I am sure that her officials will be able to give it to her, because it has all been discussed thoroughly.
    15. People might lose their jobs.

    Lord Davies of Stamford:

    The one that has been mentioned is the fate of people who might lose their jobs as a result of this Bill being enacted. We should all be extremely concerned about that. What about registrars, whom no one has mentioned? As I read the Bill, registrars, unlike priests and ministers of religion, will not have the opportunity to opt out. Are they all going to be fired? Are they going to be compensated? Is a decent effort going to be made to find them another decent job? We need to know. We cannot possibly allow this Bill to go on the statute book without having an answer to those questions.
    16. Some doctors are apparently against it.

    Lord Hylton:

    There is ample evidence that public opinion, including medical opinion, is against the Bill.
    17. Civil partnerships already perform the legal functions of a marriage.

    Bishop of Exeter:

    Why was civil partnership insufficient? Such partnerships already allow couples to share the legal benefits of marriage and, if there are remaining differences, it is easy to amend the law. I struggle to hear what is missing.
    18. Not everyone agrees about it.

    Lord Flight:

    If there is one single point on which I think this Bill should not proceed, it is that the nation is absolutely divided. I do not know whether it is 70% one way or the other or if it is 50/50, but it is clear that, in the main, the senior part of the country believes in the traditional role of marriage and wishes to keep it, while a lot of younger people think that it is all a load of hooey and ask, basically, why anyone should get married. There is an absolute divide, and in this sort of territory I believe that it is a mistake to push through legislation until there is some form of consensus.

    18 arguments made against gay marriage in the House of Lords
     
  2. Argentwing

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,696
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    So many fancy words! And yet so little in the way of sound, unbiased reasoning. All I saw was one slippery slope argument after another, followed by predictions of how sacred and perfectly-defined marriage will be annihilated because one more or one less participant has a dick.
     
  3. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    A Lesbian Queen heh, There are already rumors about Charles & his Beard :roflmao:
     
  4. The Dude

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    #11 "It is hurting people's feelings"

    I have never considered this, but on second thought, this is a pretty valid argument. I must reconsider my pro-same sex marriage stance now. Way to go Marquess of Lothian!
     
  5. Spurned

    Spurned Guest

    How?

    How? IT IS NOT DIFFERENT TO NORMAL MARRIAGE. There are two people joining in matrimony or whatever, they're tying a knot, two families are coming together. It is NOT being redefined and recreated or whatever, it isn't unfair, it's the opposite!

    We're not dicks, if someone attacks an LGBT person for being LGBT (and the attacker blatantly shows it), THAT'S when we'll get them done for a hate crime. If anti-gay marriage person attacks an LGBT for other reasons, WE WILL NOT CLASS IT AS HATE CRIME.

    What?! Oh, so there wouldn't be a housewife, no one would cook the dinners, no one would clean the house? That's what most people will think at the look of this statement, and that's sexist! It's disgusting, ANYONE can do that, two men, two women, two people can decide who does what in THEIR relationship. WOMEN ARE NOT NECESSARY IN A MARRIAGE.

    (Left out 5 cos I don't understand "State-sanctioned", though it probably is just a "WHAT?!" answer)

    WE WANT TO BE SEEN AS NORMAL :***:ING PEOPLE! We don't want to be "different to everyone else", yeah we have a flag and that, but it doesn't mean we don't want to be treated differently. If I married my girlfriend now, I'm fairly sure we'd be together for quite a while and it'd be the same between any relationship. LOVE IS LOVE, NO MATTER WHO BETWEEN, WE HAVE THE SAME FEELINGS.

    Fair enough, you can't get your head around it, but we're not forcing it upon you. In my opinion, it should be down to the church if they want to marry two people in a same-sex relationship.

    Not everyone are going to magically turn gay and every single child born over the next few years will not pop out as lesbian or gay and unable to have children when in a relationship. Their children will not be lesbian or gay just because their parents are, have you even done your research on children growing up with same-sex parents? A percentage of the time, the child is just adopted and in no blood relation to the same-sex parents (and the real parents are hetero), so if you believe that "homosexuality is passed through blood", you have your answer.

    Wow, you found a few people who don't support gay marriage. Have you spoken to the LGBT public, LGBT people who AREN'T quite famous and high in the industries or whatnot, have you heard their view? Clearly not. Get your :***:ing shit together and actually LISTEN TO PEOPLE. Listen to LGBT people, we're not all against the idea. Some people are and that is their rightful opinion, as long as they don't shove their reasons why they're against gay marriage down my throat (like I am with religion.) There is a big group of LGBT people who support it and you won't listen because you're ignorant and only care about the people in the top end of politics and etc.

    HOW?! Okay, some people are homophobic and that is fine, their beliefs, you don't have to view gay marriages or whatnot, but this whole gay marriage vs. anti-gay marriage is just making it worse for homophobics/those "people" you speak about. They don't want to read it in the news if they're highly against everything, so why are you pushing it even further?

    I have no clue what the Bill is, but some LGBT people don't even get rights. Some of us are attacked pretty much daily without even one of the most important human rights, freedom of speech. Don't talk about what rights we have when a lot of us are deprived of the human ones.

    Um, the whole heir thing would carry on as normal?! I can't remember exactly how it goes, but it's something like eldest child is next heir? I think. Whoever the father is, it's the Queen who's most important (in this situation), I'm fairly sure if she was the Queen and wanted a child, she wouldn't pick an anonymous person. She'd pick someone she'd like, someone trustworthy and etc.

    HAHAHA WHAT?! Registrars can leave their job when they wish, and I'm sorry to say, but there are more jobs out there. Yeah, it's a tough time now, but in a few years (idk how many to be exact, maybe 20-30) there will be more opportunities. People are working on opening businesses to give youth nowadays jobs which they've been searching for for quite a while.

    Big woop :eek:. What have doctors got to do with LGBT marriage? Fairly sure they don't marry people, they're not priests. If they're homophobic and don't help out an LGBT person in hospital (if that's what they may be implying also), they're gonna get fired. A life could be lost and it was down to them. No work, no income.

    "I'm in a civil partnership." is a mouthful compared to "I'm married.", it doesn't feel the same AT ALL, it's a different word, it just... it doesn't feel right. Not to a percentage of us. Try being in our shoes for a day, the ones who don't like it.

    ASK THEM. You don't know, so don't make a :***:ing statement saying "Not everyone agrees." when you don't even know how many people agree/don't. I have to say, I do kind of agree it's a bad territory to push through the legislation, though it does depend how much of the country agrees and don't agree with gay marriage. After all, it could be ridiculous. 98% of the country could be for and 2% against. Would we have to wait until those 2% deceased or changed their minds? It wouldn't be worth it, would it?

    Agh, sorry about the whole rant, you can tell I ended up more calmer. I just took my own interpretations from the article and commented on it, so I'm sorry if I got something wrong. >.< Also, sorry this is really long. Just, agh! People!
     
  6. malachite

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,769
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Orlando
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Archbishop of Canterbury:

    The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape, with same-gender and different-gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as a covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society, as we have already heard, is weakened.

    Kinda like how they redefined it when society decided women who weren't virgins SHOULDN'T be stoned to death?
    no not that, they must mean when the marrying age was changed from 14 to 18.
    Not that either? Well, how about when we made divorce not that big a deal, instead of this "you're in it for life" kind deal.

    Don't act like what you have is suddenly special just because someone else wants it too.
     
  7. Just Jess

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    Just wanted to see how that sounded.

    And in spirit with the requirement that marriages be consummated and produce offspring, according to Lord Edmiston:

     
  8. Jinkies

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The problem with all of these arguments is that they all hold a claim, which automatically puts them in the position of the burden of proof, none of which they have. Even the most plausible ones of these have no proof of their claims.
     
  9. eatsleepclimb

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    THANK YOU Spurned! you're awesome!!!
     
  10. Mykayla

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Don't try to inject logic into this! You know what that does to these people!
     
  11. Hexagon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Earth
    Hehe
     
  12. Martjain

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
  13. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Very Interesting Response :thumbsup:
     
  14. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
  15. Miz Purple

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville,FL
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    18. Not everyone agrees about it.

    LOL seriosly!?! guess what you will never get an entire country to agree on anything , and thatgs not just gay marriage any bill that comes up people are always divided on every issue some people for and some against . for all these reasons i say take a look at your fellow european country the netherlands who legalized it 12 years ago none of that has happened to them so why would it happen in england.
     
  16. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Lol :slight_smile: I know!
     
  17. Spurned

    Spurned Guest

    Just noticed this topic. Thanks to all the responses to my rant, ahaha, it's just been annoying me lately. :lol: