Same sex relationships should have the same legal status as heterosexual relationships under EU law
Equality for the gay and lesbian communities is best done through giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual individuals, however states are often reluctant to do so. Bringing in an EU law which would enforce rights for the gay and lesbian communities would be a huge stepping stone to overcoming prejudice and discrimination as would no longer have lesser legal rights.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
EU Should Push Forward Equality for All of its Citizens Regardless of Sexuality
The EU works for equality within society in Europe: what more brings about equality and is a stepping stone to lessen discrimination against the gay and lesbian community.
The EU places individual rights at the heart of its mission by demanding that all member states sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a legal declaration enshrining in law everyone’s right to life, freedom and self-determination. Although the ECHR does not mention same sex relationships explicitly, it does prohibit discrimination by institutions and the list of categories it gives is non-exhaustive. It is time the EU accepts that by not giving homosexual couples equal rights it denies them the right to self-determination and family life that all other EU citizens enjoy. The EU has an obligation to ensure that its member states respect the rights of all their citizens.
Introducing the civic register was a humanitarian step forward to give gay or lesbian couples the facility to protect their partners in cases of bereavement , how could anyone disagree
we in Liverpool did so before national legislation
Cllr Steve Radford Liberal Party
The EU was originally establ;ished for trade and commerce reasons, and withing this remit, yes all it's citizens should be equal. However, there has never been any requirement that the member states of the EU should share similar cultural religious or moral values or boundaries. If some states are more progressive than others in terms of gay rights this is not an issue for the EU to resolve, but it is for those nations to work on individually. I think being in the same sex goes against God's will. Even though we are given our own body by God doesn't mean we have to sin intentionally.
Gay people should have the same human rights as Heterosexuals
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." [[Cf. Loving v. Virginia: In Sullivan 90]].
People have the right to pursue happiness in a wide variety of forms, subject to this right's compatibility with like liberty for others and marriage is a central institution by which people pursue happiness.
The fact that the rights are subject to others' freedom to pursue thiers means that heterosexual marriage cannot be argued a human right. Human rights serve to protect humanity as a whole through the protection of the individual, and if any individual or group threatens this, his right to do so should not be protected. Marriage is a right because it is thought that, ultimately it provides a stable way of producing children and furthering the species. This does not apply to same sex coules as they are unable to reproduce within this relationship.
Marriage provides important benefits to individuals AND society
Marriage provides important benefits to individuals, including emotional stability and economic security.Marriage also benefits society by encouraging deep commitments between individuals, promoting the healthy rearing of children, and preserving the bonds among individuals and communities that maintain social stability (and enable the individual pursuit of happiness). (We should promote that which benefits individuals and society.)
Therefore, we should promote marriage.
Gays and lesbians are unsuited for opposite-sex marriage, but there is no prima facie reason why gays and lesbians could not receive the same benefits from same-sex marriage that straights receive from opposite-sex marriage.
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would aid society by encouraging them to live more stable, mainstream lives.
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would promote the institution of marriage by making marriage the societal ideal for all citizens. Therefore, we should allow and promote same-sex marriage. [[Andrew Sullivan, ed., Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con (New York: Vintage), 1997, pp.146-154]].
Allowing same sex marriage in some countries would be detrimental to the stability of society in various ways. In strongly catholic societies such as that of Italy and Spain the abiding cultural norms are that of traditional christianity (which forbids same sex relationhips). To permit same sex marriage would draw a more distinct line between practising Catholics and other members of society and would create much tension between the two.
Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better
Marriage is an oppressive social institution which damages those within it and harms the children whose parents are married. Marriage, however, is also an institution which is continually changing with society's changes.
If homosexuals were able to marry, their marriages would be more akin to gay and lesbian relationships in their current form than an oppressive traditional marriage. By allowing more homosexuals (who are naturally more liberal) to marry, they might be able to change social attitudes and practices towards, and within the institution, strengthening it and making it healthier both for society and those who are married.
For this reason, we should grant homosexuals as well as heterosexuals the right to marry in order to change society for the better.
This argument is not backed up by substancial evidence and is mostly based upon opinion. Why is traditional heterosexual marriage an 'opressive social institution'? Eve if it started that way originally, where young girls were sold into families as part of a bartering sytem for means of reproduction, modernity has changed the 'institution by such a degree that the archaic version is no longer recognisable. House husbands are commonplace, as are two working parents, so where is the 'oppression'? Where is the housebound spouse?
Also,the statement homosexuals are 'naturally more liberal' is a gross generalisation - unless we define liberal as singularly pro-gay there is no reason why your sexuality should affect your views on, say, childcare or abortion. Your sexual orientation is hardly likely to make you more pro life (for example) than anyone else.
Banning same sex marriage mixes church & state in an illegitimate way
Civil marriage is a matter to be regulated by the state, not via any sort of religious involvement. In a secular society, we should not be pandering to religious zealots allowing them to apply religious morality on citizens. The EU is made up of a vast range of different faiths and beliefs, and we should not allow one faith to dictate what citizens can and cannot do.
It has nothing to do with faith or beliefs it is human nature naturally to make wonderful love via penis and vagina, and in so doing create more wonderful natural life. I have met thousands of of wonderful people who would not have been born if their parents were GAY. So I thank them for that.
Unitarians support equality
The Unitarian church in the UK and overseas supports the principle of equality and is calling for an end to this discrimination.
However, I think there are important things to consider about marriage:
1. Marriage should be a private matter anyway. It is nobody's business but my own whether I am married or to whom (and I would definitely never tell my employer my marital status, unlike many idiotic women who expect to be employed under their husbands' names). Private lives should be kept private;
2. The main traditional reasons for getting married are not appropriate arguments for gay couples. Marriage is traditionally seen as a means of retaining or transferring property between families and as a means of securing the birth of heirs to family fortunes. This is not an argument against gay marriage but it is a reason to consider the meaning of marriage in the first place. If gay marriage brings about change to the way in which men treat their wives as their property and fail to ensure that they pay their way (resulting in women being effectively useless to the economy if divorced), then it will be a good thing. We must, however, ensure that what remains of the legal concept of "spousal privilege" and regarding a spouse as "next of kin" are abolished (your next of kin should be your nearest relative on your mother's side) and that married women are banned from using their husbands' names as is the law in Italy and Quebec. We also need to ensure that both partners have a legal requirement to support themselves financially until they reach State retirement age and that all benefits, taxes and pensions are disagregated.
However you want to dress it up it is inhuman. We were born with vagina and penis to do just that,and is amazingly wonderful. Thank GOD myself family and friends are not gay otherwise some beautiful people would not be born.
Who says who can marry and who can't
By claiming homosexuals do not have the right to marry is equivalent to saying you cant marry someone because of your race, colour, religion, or nationality. It's wrong, and NO one has the right to revoke an individuals happiness from them. By revoking the right of happiness you are taking away a persons right to "freedom of expression", thus making it unlawful under EU law. Everyone has the right to express themselves and that includes celebrating ones love for one another through marriage.
It is unlawfull,unnatural and offensive to straights. We were born to make wonderfull love via vagina and penis to create children. Thats how we were made and it is lovely.There is no getting away from it, female and male. Anything else is perverse weak willed and against the way our wonderfull bodies were created. It is also notable that since the unfortunate acceptance of gays paedophilia has shot up .fact. I am not a krank, just someone who has been around for quite awhile with eyes wide open.
It Would Cause controversy in religious countries such as Ireland and Italy
Countries which have strong church-going populations such as Ireland, Italy and Poland would be so opposed to this legislation they might even pull out of the EU. Although homophobia is wrong and homosexuals should have the same legal recognition when becoming committed (marriage/legal union) to one another, this should not be forced upon states leaders whose populaces will clearly strongly oppose it.
Abortion is not even legal in Ireland because of their strong religious beliefs, and to force this issue on the people has the potential to lead to a backlash among these countries that would be worse, rather than better for gay rights in the short term. In any event, Ireland would simply have a referendum and vote no for the third time, which would cause a watering down of legislation to the point where there would be no point in having it.
Forcing this issue on the population would not be worth the hassle and would essentially be rendered a waste of time while also getting individuals and populations angry at the EU - something it clearly does not need given its image as an undemocratic, unaccountable supernational union.
Nature Suggests That Same Sex Marriage is Illogical
For our society to survive, we need to procreate; two men cannot do this, nor can two women: human life on earth can only be sustained if society continues to have relationships with a member of the other sex (i.e. one man and one women).
Nature suggests that monogamous, heterosexual pairings are the best arrangements in which to rear children, or otherwise nature would permit same-sex couples to procreate. Opposite-sex marriage recognizes and conforms to this natural teleology of the body, while same-sex marriage does not. Conforming to the teleology of the body promotes happiness, while opposing it results in suffering. We should promote that which promotes happiness and oppose that which promotes suffering 1.
1 Andrew Sullivan, ed., Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con (New York: Vintage), 1997]]
Humans lost the right to claim that ‘natural’ things are best when we started playing God ourselves. Contraception and IVF both go against the natural reproductive processes (either by limiting or enhancing them) but we accept that their benefits to the happiness of the individuals involved far outweigh any outdated concepts of natural law. The same applies to same sex marriage. Although these relationships will not produce offspring they will significantly improve the quality of life of the individuals involved. The state should be promoting the wellbeing of its citizens wherever possible and this is an example of where it could do so. Also, allowing same sex marriage will not lead to the death of the species as no one reproduces any more. It will not make more people gay any more than not allowing same sex marriage makes more people straight.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman: why should this change now?
The longstanding traditions of society have evolved over many years and represent the collective wisdom of many generations. These traditions have been fairly successful in promoting progress and social order. Modern changes to these traditions are risky and often have disastrous societal results.
Therefore, we should support the longstanding traditions of our society.
One longstanding tradition of our society is the limitation of marriage to one man and one woman. Allowing same-sex marriage would drastically harm or change traditional marriage, leading to unknown but probably harmful consequences for social stability.
Therefore, we should support tradition by promoting traditional marriage and opposing same-sex marriage [[http://carnap.umd.edu/queer/marriagenotes.htm]].
Why should tradition be a stumbling block to progress? It used to be a tradition that only white middle class males could vote because people thought that woman, working class people or black people voting would lead to an erosion of society. The concept of a strong and loving family is surely more important than a bond between a man and a woman. Same sex couples are just as able to form loving families than a mixed sex couple therefore some vague notion of 'tradition' should be no barrier to a couples happiness.
The same types of considerations that oppose same-sex marriage are the considerations that oppose polygamous, adult/child, incestuous, and other non-standard marriages.
If we were to allow same-sex marriage, we would have no principled grounds upon which to oppose these other forms of marriage.
Polygamous, adult/child, incestuous, and other non-standard marriages are bad and should not be allowed.
Therefore, we should oppose same-sex marriage as a way of keeping the door shut to these other forms of marriage [[http://carnap.umd.edu/queer/marriagenotes.htm]].
The reason we don't allow the types of marriage stated is because of issues of consent. A child cannot consent to be married, in cases of incest there is huge potential for grooming to have occurred before the age of consent and there is also a large amount of coercion involved in polygamy. In contrast same sex marriage would be between consenting adults and is therefore not analogous to the "non-standard" marriages mentioned. Rather than losing the moral high ground we would strengthen it as we would gain clear criteria (adult and consenting) for what makes a relationship acceptable.
Marriage is an Oppressive Institution
Marriage oppresses those within it, and harms married couple's children; Gay rights movements have for decades promised a change from the oppressive socio-sexual norms, structures and traditions. Thus by gay men or women petitioning to be allowed into this institution actually betrays the entire ethos of the gay liberation movement by ensuring their own oppression.
For this reason, homosexual individuals should not petition for the 'right' to be oppressed.
Again, a completely unsubstanciated argument. Why is marriage opressive and harmful to children? Perhaps the traditional structure of marriage (two parents - female stays at home and male breadwinner) is a outdated and damages the work of feminists etc. but very few marriages are strictly like this now anyway. The modern family unit often comprises of two working parents and retired grandparents or even half brothers, sisters, and step parents.
It is not right that same sex people have the same status as straights, it is repugnant and abhorent to the majority.
No its a sick subject.
No it is a sick subject that is why not many no voters will not enter the debate.
What do you think?