- This topic has 19 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
If a homosexual couple so wishes to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the state then there is no rational argument against it.
If a couple, homosexual or otherwise, feel that they need a god to validate their love then they are idiots.
The state exists and like it or not, human beings are bound by its laws. God, as described by any religion, does not exist and as such, should have no bearing on the freedoms of any individual.
Marriage should be a civil, legal arrangement and nothing to do with any church.
I believe we should adopt the European model (there are the occasional good points coming from Europe) in that marriage should be a civil ceremony.
If couples then want some form of religious "blessing" or marriage service then they can have that afterwards if they so wish but such a ceremony would confer no legal status.
As regards same sex marriages I have no really strong feeling either way but if a couple of the same sex want the same legal rights bestowed on their relationship then I see no reason why not.
I have no issues with it. TBH, if two people want to marry, whether they are dwarfs, gipsies or obese, who am I to judge?
And yes, the above is on channel 4 next Tue at 9pm – but can they all live together?!?!?
Zip
what exactly is it that you are all "for" ?
what exactly do you want that is not provided for under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004?
these English solicitors identify two differences between marriage and civil partnership:
a. its not necessary to consummate a civil partnership to make it valid
b. adultery cannot be cited as a ground for dissolving a civil partnership (instead unfaithfulness is called "unreasonable behaviour"):
http://www.hja.net/what-we-do/family-la … riage.aspx
then this website says:
"A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership."
http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/
are changing those aspects what this proposal is all about ?
I have no problem whatsoever with ‘same sex’ marriages or partnerships. IMHO love is love, whether it is male/male, female/female or the generally accepted male/female. Is Insomniac asking if we really accept or approve of ‘gay marriage’?
i think insomniac is asking about this consultation just launched in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17375736
where there are already civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
such a move would change the meaning of the word "marriage" for everyone in many legal contexts.
the question is what people are seeking to achieve by a wholesale redefinition of the word "marriage" ?
is it just about introducing religious vows (of those religions that are amenable to it) into a civil partnership ceremony at the registry office (which is what Mr Tatchell seems to be after) ? if so, why not just make an amendment the Civil Partnerships Act rather than talk about "upgrading to marriage" ?
what exactly are people "for" on the proposal ?
this link – particularly some of the reader comments – is quite interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationship … qus_thread
including these:
==================================
andy preston today 02:47pmIn the end therefore, I have come to the position where I support Civil Partnership and committed gay relationships but can see no good reason or necessity for gays to want to adopt the heterosexual relationship of Marriage , which involves re-defining Marriage,and, effectively leaves heterosexuals without a dedicated procreative institution of their own – is that a fair position for the majority of the population to be put in?
Civil Partnership gives gays their own institution and Marriage gives heterosexuals theirs – there is then diversity, and equality, under Law.
your view of Marriage:
”Marriage is about the warm and fuzzy feeling…it’s lambs gambolling in the field, little puppies. ….in other words, the concept of marriage has a great aura* around it.”
I’m afraid this bears no actual resemblance to real Marriage; and I have been married three times, so I have some experience.
It may be a gay person’s idea of Marriage, looking at heterosexual relationships from the outside but never having experienced one , but even so, it’s pretty fluffy bambi Disney style dreamboat stuff.
What about the screaming pain of childbirth, after months of carrying a baby? And then the shitty nappies to be changed, and crying babies throughout the night, leaving you sleepless, knackered and having to get to work? The endless attention, protection and monitoring, schooling and rearing of children, for their first 18 yrs and beyond – not to mention the continual unremitting financial demands earning and sheer amount of time involved in rearing a family. Man and woman working side by side, a dual effort of self sacrifice and dedication is the basic requirement. And yes, there is sex, and there is love- but a Married family above all, is hard work- very hard work.
Through all that, the two individuals develop beyond the initial sexual, personality attractions, and love that brought them together initially, forging a much different relationship in the end, than that which they started out with.
This is heterosexual Marriage- but it is nothing at all like your description above You say:
”If a gay couple, or TS couple, or bi-couple choose this form to express their liove for each other, it takes nothing away from the inventory of marriage in the world”.But the point is, they can’t ‘choose this form’ in reality – because most of what is involved simply does not apply to them. They can artificially try to create that, but it is simply not their natural territory. They would simply have all the outward signage,but without having the real stuff that goes on in the inside.
Why then would they want to insist on the right to adopt it as such,and actually get the law and definition of Marriage changed?
Do they simply want heterosexuals to feel sorry for them, so that they say, ok, -‘come and pretend you’re Married, if it makes you feel ok and valid’ , simply because they crave approval and want to be ‘normalised’?
Whatever happened to ‘gay pride’ , ‘ the wisdom of diversity ”, ‘sing if you’re glad to be gay….’ ?
Are you guys so lacking in self esteem that you need to play at being heteros, – and if you’re not allowed to play, you play the ‘discrimination’ and ‘equality’ cards.. sorry, this is wimpish.
You have the Civil Partnership – stand up and be counted; be who you are, and be proud of it; people will respect you for it.
But people will not respect you if you keep trying to ape heterosexuals, without ever having to walk the walk; it will always be a fraud, a joke, a snigger- ‘they’re playing at happy families’. Real cringing making stuff….. Just be what you are.
This whole matter is so stupid; so unnecessary; so demeaning- and not even popular among a lot of gays
This present scenario was dreamed up by ex PR man David Cameron, as a stunt to de-toxify the Conservative Party and make it appear ‘modern’ , and trying, like a fool , to ride the tiger of "gay right’s" to facilitate his scam, and hoping to outflank Labour, who he knows can’t vote against it without looking stupid.
real__world
15 minutes ago
Extremely well put and I think the line ‘playing at happy families’ applies in some cases.
In my opinion, there’s only two possible reasons there’s this militant gay hype over having a marriage rather than a civil partnership and its either a total lack of self confidence or trouble making by a few gay militants. I believe its the the latter.
There’s no practical or fiscal reason to demand marriage over a CP and as you’ve spelled out very clearly, there are irrefutable differences between a hetero-sexual marriage and a gay partnership that a name can’t change.
No matter what it is called, there are fundamental differences that evolution laid down and nothing will alter that.
=====================================
Of course I’m for it, I don’t see any rational argument against it. Doesn’t harm anyone, doesn’t cost the government or taxpayers any more money.
The argument against it is that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was put together at great time and expense to create a legal institution for same-sex couples.
The legal institution for heterosexual couples is Marriage.
The legal institution of Marriage ties into many other laws from the angle that heterosexual couples procreate. Sex is required to validate a Marriage, which can be annulled for non-consummation.
Same-sex couples are not progenitors. Sex is not required to validate a Civil Partnership, which cannot be annulled for lack of it.
So there are two separate legal codes that address two separate real-life situations. The present law recognises diversity and gives equality.
Why now want to jumble it all up?
Is it just to please a few narcissists / militant gays who want to try and pretend there is no difference between the two situations because they like better the sound of "being married" rather than "being in a civil partnership"? Or because they focus their whole lives on their sexual orientation and just enjoy causing trouble?
It would be irrational and incur huge costs to review every law that currently uses the word "married", to see how it would work in a world where suddenly the world "married" has a different meaning to what it had when each of those laws was passed.
So why are you "for" it ?
The legal institution of Marriage ties into many other laws from the angle that heterosexual couples procreate.
That is a preposterous stance implying that any marriage entered into, for example, by a post-menopausal woman would not be valid due to the inability to procreate.
What about couples who get married who have no intention to procreate?
When we got married we were adamant we were not going to have children – does that make our marriage invalid?
If there is a "fault" in the difference between marriage and a civil partnership then I think the current emphasis on marriage is wrong.
I am quite honest in the main reason I got married was financial as, at the time, there were distinct taxation advantages in being married. Unfortunately these advantages have been severely eroded since then.
The only other advantage of a marriage / civil partnership is it, theoretically, simplifies inheritance issues should one of the partners dies intestate.
I know of a couple who had been together for 20 years but had not married. When he died his Mother came along and claimed his entire estate and she won because he had not made a will and his partner could not be bothered to fight it.
I would much prefer that the Civil Partnership model be used for all couples be they the traditional male / female or same sex composition.
If couples want some pseudo superstitious service to bless their loins and wombs then so be it – that should be their choice but should form no part of the legal process.
Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Am 100% athiest and don’t personally have any problem with gays getting "married". However, I do have some sympathy with religeous groups when it goes against their beliefs. (Though don’t have any sympathy with that crazy bishop).
Civil partnerships were opposed by some because it might lead to gays wanting "marriage". That’s been proved right. Now, some oppose gay marriage because they fear it will lead to someone taking the Church to court over "sexual discrimination" for not allowing gays to marry in church. It may not happen tomorrow or in a decade’s time, but may well come some day. As I say, I have no objection to it myself, but religeous groups will. For some, the definition of "marriage" means it is only possible between man and woman.
A "civil partnership" just sounds like an agreement between Government and civil service. Not surprised they prefer "marriage".
The meaning of "Gay" has changed in the last 60 years. Wonder if gays can find another word they’d like used instead of "marriage". For example a "romantage". It would have all the rights of marriage without (at least officially) being called "marriage". May be that could help religeous groups accept it. Might even make it possible to have a "romantage" in church, with a religeous ceremony.
Value Is EverythingPaul,
You might think it preposterous, but you only need to read English marriage law to see it is all about procreation.
In societies around the world, over centuries, the law hasn’t involved itself in marriage because its "a commitment between two loving consensual couples". Outside of the couple, what interest – or right – has the state got in regulating that?
The law has always gotten involved for more practical reasons: to record lineage and deal with its consequences as regards property and status once such a relationship produces new offspring. Biological ancestry and succession are fundamental to the legal involvement. Blood descendants are what societies and laws have deemed important.
The centrality of the progenitor angle informs the rule that non-consummation is grounds for annulment of marriage.
The progenitor aspect is also the basis for the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
The progenitor aspect is also the impetus for the requirement of monogamy.
None of this applies to non-progenitor, same-sex unions.
Not only do same-sex unions not need to be addressed by law the same way as different-sex unions – it would destroy the whole purpose of legal involvement if they were.
There is no equality where unlike situations are treated alike.
And you’re right – the marriage stuff also doesn’t apply to other non-progenitor unions. So there is no logic or fairness in letting only gays benefit from the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
Having once allowed, through that Act, the principle of legal involvement/regulation in "a commitment between two loving consensual couples", now equality and non-discrimination require the benefits of CPs to be available to all committed, loving, consensual couples.
Where is the logic in applying pro-genitive restrictions to CPs ?
Why shouldn’t there be CPs between sister and sister to get the inheritance tax benefits of a CP (the Burden sisters case)?
Why does a CP have to be limited to two people ? After all, intimate commercial partnerships involve many people in one union.
There are a lot of things about CPs that have not been thought-through.
Presumably because the main driving force behind CPs was not to make them a logical part of the legal framework of society, but just to pander to the sensibilities of one particular lobby group.
This has ended up putting one type of non-progenitive "relationship" into a privileged position over others.
Because of the Civil Partnership Act, gays have ended up having more rights than everyone else.
Ginger,
I agree that this is another "drip, drip" against religious freedom. In the US things have already developed where you foresee: discrimination suits against churches for not allowing their buildings to be used for gay marriages.
The bigger question for the UK in this context is what interest the state has in encouraging things like the present debate, and in the passing of unequal and discriminatory legislation like the Civil Partnership Act 2004 ?
One answer is that a big-government, state-ist mentality requires the breaking of all loyalty to any other organisation or figure.
In the UK, the state doesn’t like the family – since the 1960s its offered women the option to marry the state. By creating dependence on itself, it gains greater control over individual lives.
The state clearly also doesn’t like the church – witness various attacks on religious beliefs, particularly when it comes to education and faith schools.
While on this topic it may suit the the state to sponsor discord, it has no intrinsic interest in the debate, other than the tactical opportunity it offers to further attack religious loyalties.
Wit,
I don’t see it as a "drip, drip against religious freedom". On the whole I believe religeous groups have too much power/influence. However, on this particular issue I can understand their objection. Even though I do not share that objection.I do find it sad people are going to court to try and force any religeous groups to use their buildings or anything else.
I don’t see the Government/State are in any way anti-church. It is quite right they should be very careful with faith schools. They tend to be insular and can (note "can" and not "does") lead to religeous bigotry. Every non-extremist religon should be taught in our schools. Children of different faiths should learn and understand their neighbours (and hopefully class-mates) beliefs. It’s all too easy for "history" lessons to be slanted one particular way in "faith" schools. Creating a "them and us / right and wrong". The State should ensure there is no religeous "sponsored discord" in any education. But we’re getting off thread topic.
Government aren’t "attacking religious groups". Although some of the daft things they’ve said recently, it’s hard not to disagree with Bishops etc. Does that count as "attacking"?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.