Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Gay marriages to be made legal.
259 Answers
http://www.dailymail....gal-Britain-2015.html
/// At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage. But the term ‘marriage’ is not used.///
In a time when more important matters should be on politicians minds, why is the term 'Marriage' that important to homosexuals, that politicians find the need to change the law, specially to accommodate them?
/// At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage. But the term ‘marriage’ is not used.///
In a time when more important matters should be on politicians minds, why is the term 'Marriage' that important to homosexuals, that politicians find the need to change the law, specially to accommodate them?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"In their continues quest for equality with heterosexuals, I wonder if gays will soon want to be classed as 'Straight'?"
AOG makes a very valid point here, which reaches the heart of the matter. The word, and the concept behind it at issue here is 'equality'.
Yes, AOG is being sarcastic in his point, but there is a serious issue behind it, which is that homosexuals continue to be treated as second-class citizens, an attitude that has no place in a modern free society.
So the concept of marriage for gay couples is simply about offering them the choice that is open to heterosexual couples, but denied to homosexual couples - a marriage service.
If a gay couple wish to have a marriage ceremony, instead of a civil service, why should the choice be denied them? It is there for heterosexual couples, and it is time this anomaly was removed.
And yes, there are always more important matters for politicians to consider, but that does nothing to negate the importance of the issue for those who are involved.
If I had a loved one serving abroad in a pointless war, I would not be impressed to find that the government thought that our finances going down the toilet was seen as 'more important'.
Fortunately, real life is not like that. Lord Tebbit remains isolated from real life, as he has for most of his political career, so his opinion is not really one of weight in this instance.
AOG makes a very valid point here, which reaches the heart of the matter. The word, and the concept behind it at issue here is 'equality'.
Yes, AOG is being sarcastic in his point, but there is a serious issue behind it, which is that homosexuals continue to be treated as second-class citizens, an attitude that has no place in a modern free society.
So the concept of marriage for gay couples is simply about offering them the choice that is open to heterosexual couples, but denied to homosexual couples - a marriage service.
If a gay couple wish to have a marriage ceremony, instead of a civil service, why should the choice be denied them? It is there for heterosexual couples, and it is time this anomaly was removed.
And yes, there are always more important matters for politicians to consider, but that does nothing to negate the importance of the issue for those who are involved.
If I had a loved one serving abroad in a pointless war, I would not be impressed to find that the government thought that our finances going down the toilet was seen as 'more important'.
Fortunately, real life is not like that. Lord Tebbit remains isolated from real life, as he has for most of his political career, so his opinion is not really one of weight in this instance.
"If a gay couple wish to have a marriage ceremony, instead of a civil service, why should the choice be denied them? It is there for heterosexual couples, and it is time this anomaly was removed."
I agree completely, and this is quoted for truth, but I'd just like to expand the point - it is not just the rights of same-sex couples which the present system blocks. It also blocks the rights of heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships (which AOG rightly sees as an anomaly - and Peter Tatchell for one would agree with him). And it also blocks the rights of religious faiths who want to give gay marriages (such as, I believe, Unitarians, who are always present in support at any gay pride parade). I don't believe churches should be forced to give gay marriages, but I find the fact that the minority who want to are barred from doing it very strange.
I agree completely, and this is quoted for truth, but I'd just like to expand the point - it is not just the rights of same-sex couples which the present system blocks. It also blocks the rights of heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships (which AOG rightly sees as an anomaly - and Peter Tatchell for one would agree with him). And it also blocks the rights of religious faiths who want to give gay marriages (such as, I believe, Unitarians, who are always present in support at any gay pride parade). I don't believe churches should be forced to give gay marriages, but I find the fact that the minority who want to are barred from doing it very strange.
we married in a registry office, which i would consider that to be a civil ceremony and therefore we are in a civil partnership even though we are, legally, considered to be married. i've never looked into it but i don't actually know what the difference is between our wedding and a civil partnership between gay people, apart from the wording.
people are just people and should not be defined by their sexuality, everyone should be given the same opportunity to get married if that's what they want. some close friends of ours, ladies, were one of the first couples to have a civil partnership and they always refer to themselves as married anyway, how else can they phrase it?
people are just people and should not be defined by their sexuality, everyone should be given the same opportunity to get married if that's what they want. some close friends of ours, ladies, were one of the first couples to have a civil partnership and they always refer to themselves as married anyway, how else can they phrase it?
I agree with you, ron, we too were married before a registrar - some (of many religions) would say that we are not therefore married in the eyes of God, but that is not what we wanted. We don't go to church, it would be false just to go to church to be married, we'd be making promises to a faith that neither of us have.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about.
By definition a “Marriage” is a union between a man and a woman. It is thus not available to same-sex couples. A “Civil Partnership” is only available to same-sex couples and is thus not available to opposite-sex couples.
Like it or not the two formats of partnership are different. I am not (for the purposes of this argument anyway) suggesting that either is inferior to the other. But it is indisputable that they are different, so different formalities apply.
By definition a “Marriage” is a union between a man and a woman. It is thus not available to same-sex couples. A “Civil Partnership” is only available to same-sex couples and is thus not available to opposite-sex couples.
Like it or not the two formats of partnership are different. I am not (for the purposes of this argument anyway) suggesting that either is inferior to the other. But it is indisputable that they are different, so different formalities apply.
-- answer removed --
Not that is particularly pertinent to this particular question, Eddie...
http://en.wikipedia.o...Recognition_Act_2004.
http://en.wikipedia.o...Recognition_Act_2004.
The orientation of same-sex love has, for centuries, been a closed closet issue. In more recent times there have been growing inroads into 'acceptance' and toleration by the staid members of society. Surely if a couple, whatever their gender, can express their feelings to one another without a backlash from the so-called puritans. It should be their choice to 'couple' with whoever they wish. It is clearly a biological issue, and one which should not be governed by political or religious orders. Unfortunately, for God knows what reason, 'coming out' is often referred to as a mildly traumatic experience. Why should that be? Why does the 'gay' person sometimes hide his/her preferences? Is it a stigma? Of course not. It is their democratic choice. Again possibly derived biologically. But they should not be pilloried as to whether their actions are illegal, unacceptable, wrong or anything else derogatory to their well-being. Of course they do not form a union to pro-create, but neither do lots of heterosexuals couples. But on their own admission they are 'different' and therefore it is understandable why there are different terms, ie marriage or civil partnership. Whichever it may be it should not matter a jot. I am certainly not homophobic, but my view has been and always will be each to his/her own. Nothing queer about that.
I'd argue it's important because it means that we're validating their partnerships as the same as ours, with the same importance - legally they were not the same (this has now been ratified in parliament - there were certain tax exclusions for e.g.) and also the social connotations that the word 'marriage' means.
As an interesting aside, when the govt. first compiled the Civil Partnerships Bill it was actually as an amendment to current matrimonial law and they were named as 'marriages', however, the Archbishop of Canterbury lobbied against this, and parliament amended the legislature as 'Civil Partnerships'; which is interesting as it shows how in our supposedly secular society, religious 'VIPs' still have an important influence.
As an interesting aside, when the govt. first compiled the Civil Partnerships Bill it was actually as an amendment to current matrimonial law and they were named as 'marriages', however, the Archbishop of Canterbury lobbied against this, and parliament amended the legislature as 'Civil Partnerships'; which is interesting as it shows how in our supposedly secular society, religious 'VIPs' still have an important influence.
