"I'm not unsympathetic to your viewpoint..." bullshit.

Fiedler - Listen. I don't think two men getting married will destroy the meaning of the word marriage. Just visit a country where gay marriage is legal, people are still getting married, and it is still as meaningful as it had been before. Gay marriage has been legal for a decade in Canada. And marriage still means pretty much the same thing. You can theorize all you like, but when there's real world data for you to look at, you have no business making an argument like this based on speculation.

@ fulhamish - Also, I have to say, a certain important point is unclear from your posts. So I'm going to ask directly. In the UK, is it possible for a heterosexual couple to have a ceremony performed by someone other than a clergyman, a non-religious, secular official of some sort. Someone like a judge, who's authority comes from the government first and foremost. If not, has this been possible at any point in the recent past?

Also, fiedler I suspect that the reason for the fact that gay marriage has not caused people to think that marrying a dog should be allowed or that marriage has no meaning is because they're capable of recognizing that there's a substantial difference between two men who have both said "we want to be married to each other" and a man and a dog. They recognize that the cutoff at "heterosexual couple only" is an arbitrary one, and that a relationship between two gay men or two lesbian women is as meaningful as a heterosexual relationship. This isn't a complicated concept fiedler. Two people who love each other, has more meaning to most people than someone imposing some sort of relationship on a dog. You haven't demonstrated anything through reducto ad absurdum, because your point was dumb.

Answering the question re the UK, you can get married by a local official. Most marriages are not religious, although many still are.

So apparently fulhamish has phrased his argument in a misleading and dishonest way in order to obscure pertinent facts and try to trap his opponents into taking a ridiculous and indefensible position that does not in any way actually reflect reality. Colour me surprised.

Also @ fiedler I've taken some time to digest your argument and I see what you're getting at. If you'll forgive me putting it so bluntly, what you're getting at is still stupid. Here's why. There's more than one facet to the definition of marriage. Part of it is about two people who feel a certain way about each other making a commitment to one another, in the eyes of society, and for some people, part of the definition involves the gender of the people involved. However in a way these two aspects are not necessarily linked. As long as two people of the same gender are capable of making a meaningful emotional commitment to one another, there is no reason why changing the gender requirements should change the commitment aspect of the definition. The thing about reducto ad absurdum is that the absurd conclusion needs to actually be a logical extension of the argument you're critiquing with it. In this case, I don't think it is.

Mafia +1 - fielder has been practing reduction to the illogical. Removing the aspect of consent is illogical as it is a key component to marriage. Fielder, your dog loves you (and you him), but if you put him up for adoption, he would love his next owner and his next owner would love him back. It's a different kind of love. It's more parent/child than an equal partnership where each wants the other to be 100% happy even at the cost of their own life. Your dog loves you, but couldn't give a fuck if you were happy when you were at work or if you even like your job. Your spouse, on the other hand, should be concerned with your happiness 100% of the time (and you with theirs).

I am not sure what is dishonest about my argument. Registrars do and can marry people in the UK, indeed several have been sacked and resigned because they have been forced to carry out civil partnership ceremonies despite their firmly held convictions. Here is an example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9074643/Religion-in-modern-Britain-ten-recent-conflicts.html

Note the piece also contains several other examples of discrimination.

I am not happy with the arbitrary branding of people as ''self-loathing'' by Mafia. It seems a poor way to engage with the argument. I see that he proposes self-loathing Gays, I have seen reference to self-loathing heterosexuals who are supposedly secretly gay and supposedly self-loathing anti-zionist Jews. It smacks of ad hominem to me and a refusal to engage with the arguments presented.
Then again Mafia's responses to my posts have been full of such attacks, so I am not surprised.

Well, nobody in the US is ever forced to perform a marriage ceremony. As far as licensing, then if a clerk chooses not to issue a license duly authorized by the state, they should be sacked. But they are just issuing a license, not performing the ceremony. You were disingenous when you asked if churches should be forced to marry people. Obviously, even in the UK, they aren't forced to. So it was a disingenous argument you made. You essentially implied that granting gays the right to get married would also grant them the right to get married naywhere they want and that simply isn't the case here *or* in the UK, where they already have that right (albeit with the fucked up civil union thing).

@ Draug. Many prominant gay campaigners want to force this on places of worship. Here is an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8321679/Sentamu-dont-force-churches-to-conduct-gay-weddings.html
The same guy likes to out gays: http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/outing/church.htm

I have no problem at all with fag marriage, provided the minister intones "I now pronounce you fag and fag".

Daug, each of our states is different. Some states do not recognize such marriages, so the clerk can not be sacked for something that is not a law.

Draug, actually, churches have been sued in the US already for refusing to host a gay marriage ceremony, and at least one has lost (at the trial level). This is certain to be a big issue.

@semck - Well, that is an easy victory for the church in the US. The first amendment guarantees freedom religion andbthe church just need say it against their beliefs and SCOTUS will almost certainly uphold their right to not conduct the ceremony.

@Stressed - I was referring to after SCOTUS - declares it discriminatory or in those states where the law allows it. Obviously in a state were it is forbidden, it isn't an issue to a clerk.

Here's an interesting analysis of Obama's remarks on SCOTUSblog.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/05/obama-on-gay-marriage-the-fine-print/

"I am not happy with the arbitrary branding of people as ''self-loathing'' by Mafia." - It's not arbitrary. I read the article. He said things that do express a deep seated prejudice against gay people. He also happens to be gay... that's kind of what self-loathing means. It's not an arbitrary declaration. I have evidence to back my position up, in the article you posted.

Some people may be in favour forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their will. They are incorrect to do so. Forcing churches to perform gay marriages against their wishes is not a necessary or essential part of making gay marriage legal. That is not what I am arguing for here.

The issue of civil registrars refusing to perform gay marriage is a different one. They're government officials and the government isn't allowed to discriminate, in the same way a church is. A government must serve all of it's citizens equally.

The reason I call your argument misleading fulhamish is because you framed your argument in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for me to answer your question "what is the demand here?" with the actual, correct answer "gay and lesbian couples want to be able to be married by civil registrars and clergymen willing to carry out the ceremony, and have their marriages recognized as MARRIAGES and not 'civil partnerships' or any other, bullshit made up term."

Also, in the very same post in which I called Brian Sewell self loathing, I also did provide counter arguments to his "points" (if they can be called that)... so uhhh, yeah no the argument that I'm just dismissing him with those words and not engaging with the arguments he's making also doesn't pass muster. An ad hominem argument is one which REPLACES actual substantive argument with a personal attack. An actually substantive argument, with an insult tacked on is not an ad hominem attack.

I can't be the only one who misread "many prominent gay campaigners" as "this one gay campaigner who breaks the normal trend and happens to be convenient for my point" and didn't realize it on rereading the first few times.

Finally, I'm not apologizing for insulting other people in this debate. The fact that this issue is a debate at all is insulting to me. You're arguing that it's correct or permissible to deny me the rights and privileges you enjoy. You're arguing that my relationships mean less than yours or that my feelings for the people who I have feelings for are comparable to a man's desire to have sex with his dog. And people who want to make arguments like that aren't entitled to my courtesy, and aren't entitled to my politeness. Even if like Mr. Sewell, they happen to be gay themselves.

Whenever anyone tells me they're for traditional marriage, I always ask them how they like the spouse their father chose for them. The purpose and definition of marriage has been in flux since at least the industrial revolution.

Mr Obama is in election mode, he's got people discussing gay marriage and all those people that are either supportive or ambivalent to the issue will be against Romneys hard line anti-gay stance........ it's Men against boys for the Whitehouse, something I'm sure a few people find attractive, as long as the boys are consenting adults it's OK

That would be so clever NigeeBaby, if only it made sense even just a little.

Also @fulhamish - My responses to you have not been "full of" ad hominem attacks. I called you a "heteronormative asshole" once, in the middle of a sentence explaining why Civil Partnerships are a slap in the face to the gay community, and suggested you "go fuck yourself" once in response to an article which suggested that allowing gays access to the institution of marriage would ruin it for everyone else. If you don't want people speaking to you that way you should consider not acting so openly bigoted towards them. I find it generally works.
In fact compared with how bigoted and insulting the great majority of your and fiedler's arguments have been I think I've shown remarkable restraint.

Also I'd like to issue a correction. I said above that I responded to the substance of Mr. Sewells argument in the same post where I called him "self loathing". This is incorrect. I actually responded to, what have laughably been called his "points" a few posts later. I do not feel this error changes the substance of my replies to accusations of using ad hominem attacks, however I do apologize for any confusion this error may have caused.

@Mafia: Keep promoting this lie you have invented that I seriously compared gay marriage to 'sex with a dog'. I guess it takes the focus off what an intolerant little hater you have demonstrated yourself to be here.

All this intolerance and hatred from someone who probably considers himself a persecuted minority. Laughably ironic. But thanks for giving "this fucktard the light of day". Very generous. LoL.

@everyone- after reading this long thread at 2 in the morning, I must say why are we having this debate? A) does it really affect any of us who are straight in a negative way if LGBT are allowed to get married? or does it just hurt your feelings because you don't like them? also, B) stop pulling this religion crap into it. Those who are using religion as a reason why "it should be banned" need to think twice... "Gay marriage is a sin"... so is premarital sex, so how many of you are sinners? my guess is a lot, probably most, of you... being drunk(not drinking, but getting drunk) is also "a sin", but my guess is most of you(myself included) have done that as well. my point being, "being a sin" holds no water to oppose gay rights, neither does "against my religion" because it isn't you that is involved, but two other people who may not have the same religion as you, if they have one at all. and finally C) regarding the whole civil rights thing: Sure, this isn't as "severe" as the Civil rights movement... but it's starting to get pretty damn up there... I mean no we don't turn fire hoses on gays and such... but we still see hate crimes against them... and as someone stated earlier: the whole deal with marriage vs. Civil Union is a less-severe form of segregation that needs to be put to an end... sooner rather than later preferably...

ok so gay marriage gets legalized (hypothetically) Where does it end??? What about bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or people that are into inanimate objects? Is it not just a slippery slope when we start legalizing everything in the name of love?

@ Mafia the only right and privilage you seem to be demanding is the right to call yourself married, at least in the context of the UK. You have tacitly conceeded, by not
putting up a significant argument to the contrary, that in all other respects,Gay people have full legal equality in the UK.
The thing about ''rights and privilages'' is that one group's ascertion of their rights can diminish those of another's. Some people, as Mr Sewell a little crassly points out, believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. They believe that gay marriage diminishes the sanctity of the instituion. Some people would even wish to force them to conduct gay marriages. I grant that this is not your position, but Peter Tatchell (the guy I referenced) is not some left-field campaigner, he is perhaps the most prominant gay rights campaigner in the UK. In the final analysis we all have an interest and involvement, or should have, in how society organises its affairs and the rights and privilages of one group should be balanced against those of others.

Finally go ahead with your a-h attacks if you wish, but the higher pitched you get the less of an argument you present. If you told me to ''go fuck yourself'' face to face, I would knock you out, but I suppose that is the nature of internet debate for some of us and I must accept it.