Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Gay Marriage


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 576 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Mar 2012 23:10:03 GMT
Would it be discrimination for Homosexuals to be allowed Gay Marriage while Heterosexuals continue to be denied the recognition of a Heterosexual Civil Partnership?

Posted on 15 Mar 2012 23:47:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2012 23:51:27 GMT
M. Coleman says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 10:50:33 GMT
I am non-religious, at my age do not intend to have children and have no desire to "marry". I would, however, like to give my partner the same protection and recognition enjoyed by Gay couples.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 11:15:31 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Mar 2012 11:16:05 GMT
Why would you like a civil partnership but not a marriage if you don't mind me asking. As far as I can tell the only difference between them is terminology.

EDIT: Oh, and you can't "divorce" a civil partnership on grounds of adultary.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 15:49:38 GMT
LOL. Did you answer your own question? Gays want a marriage when they already can have a civil partnership. For non-Gays there is only marriage either in church or in a registry office.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 16:05:00 GMT
But it depends on your point of view, for someone who is religous then there is a difference between the 2, for someone who isn't, like you say you are, then the terms are pretty much interchangable.

So why would you choose a civil partnership over marriage, if you are non-religous does it really matter what term is on the legal document? Like you say you don't want to get married but you do want a civil partnership, if you agree that the only difference between the two is terminology then why specifically one and not the other?

BTW I see your point about if gay people can have marriages then straight people should be able to have civil partnerships (I'm not 100% sure they can't, I think it's just uncommon), I just wonder what difference does it make to a non-religous person.

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 16:52:39 GMT
David Groom says:
I haven't really followed this debate at all. Can somebody explain to me the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage? What does it mean in legal terms to the people who opt for either - I understand marriage by the way, but not how it differes from civil partnership?

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 17:55:04 GMT
Spin says:
"marriage" is a religious concept that was adopted by secularism in the days when homosexuality was considered not only immoral but illegal. Now, the law has a problem distancing itself from the definition of the term. The word itself is innocuous, for one can refer to "a marriage of ideologies", for instance. But in terms of human consentual partnership, because the term is embedded in law and jurisprudence, those defending the law, instead of changing the legal definition of partnership, are trying to change the religious definition of "marriage" for no reason other than a personal disdain of religion, as far as I can see.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 18:26:39 GMT
@andy.....
If, as you say, 'you can't "divorce" a civil partnership on grounds of adultary.'
then that is a major difference. Not all heterosexual partnerships are based on sex (but try convincing the DHSS or is it the SS now?) so why should the couple be forced into a marriage where sex is the determining factor in so many things. One should be able to offer one's partner security and love without them having to suffer sexual restraint or suffer the risk of losing that.
The aforementioned Social Security appears to assume that two members of the same sex living together are not partners (unless they claim they are) yet assume that two of opposite sexes are sexual partners (unless they can prove different). It seems that minorities are receiving better deals than the majority in many areas of society and I don't see the fairness in that. By all means treat Gays and other minorities equally but giving them better rights than the majority will only needlessly fuel resentment. Any group which tries to take the proverbial should remember that laws can and have been reversed.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 05:55:21 GMT
Molly Brown says:
I am not sure of the current legal situation, and whether it has changed, but there is an interesting article on a straight couple who are trying to get their relationship recognised under the Civil Partnership Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 14:38:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 14:39:52 GMT
M. Coleman says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 16:37:23 GMT
It's strange you can't dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery - I read that it's because adultery is classed as between opposite sexes. But then so was marriage, so I guess the definition will change for that too.
I don't see why you couldn't site that as grounds - it's an affair between a married person and a partner not of the marriage; and as far as I am aware homosexuals are as able to have an affair as a straight person. (or is that why, because they aren't 'married' ?)
Your reply to Chief Wansum Tail's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 17:27:26 GMT
Yangonite says:
Am I missing something here?

I thought any heterosexual couple could draw up a legally binding civil contract to ratify their partnership/relationship and to indemnify both parties from financial loss if the thing goes pear-shaped.

Can't couples draw up any legal contract they like, providing they follow the necessary legal protocols.

I would imagine lawyers are only too pleased to receive a wopping fee for this sort of thing - that's if they can spare the time from PPI's, of course.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 17:36:56 GMT
Thanks for the link, Molly. Anyone know what happened?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 17:44:29 GMT
@Yangonite
Precisely. Gays can too but they DON'T HAVE TO to create a Civil Partnership.
I do wonder what the purpose is behind legislation giving minorities better rights than the majority. It only fuels resentment as we've seen with Travellers, MPs, Bankers etc. Perhaps the ultimate aim is to create a backlash which will result in minorities having less rights than the majority again. I do hope not.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 20:37:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 20:43:16 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@ Prints of Whales

Yes, I think it would be discrimination. That is why I would like it very much if civil partnerships were extended to heterosexual couples as well, as and when marriage is extended to homosexual ones. Which I would like to be very, very soon.

'Civil Partnership' versus 'marriage'- you indicate that you are aware that there is a difference between the two terms. There is little legal difference- it's mostly to do with terminology- but the cultural difference is vast. Marriage is a very old concept- it pre-dates all existing religions and is predominantly social, in that people were considered to be 'married' when they made some sort of public declaration of commitment, be that via a big ceremony or simply by co-habiting. Common-law marriage isn't legally recognised any more in most of the UK (I think Scotland still has it though, to a certain extent), but not very long ago historically speaking it was fairly standard. Frankly, I would like it if it was still recognised- having gone through the process of getting a joint mortgage I would say that it demonstrates a level of commitment worthy of being officially recognised! Co-habiting for over ten years- that's longer than a lot of formal marriages last, that should count for something.

I do understand why some straight couples don't want to get 'married'- there's a lot of baggage associated with the term. Ironically, a lot of gay couples want to get married (as opposed to civilly partnered) BECAUSE of the long history of the term. When the traditional male/female ownership/chattal aspect is out of the picture what remains is the social and cultural weight of a term that has, for all of it's history, meant 'two people publically declaring their commitment to each other'.

I don't want a minority to have more rights than the majority- I want everyone to have the same rights.
My prefered outcome of the upcoming consultation would be-
Marriage open to all
Civil Partnerships open to all
The Church of England given the right to decline to marry a couple they don't want to marry, so any religious group that wants to conduct a same-sex marriage can do so- and don't have to if they don't want to.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 20:41:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 20:45:58 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@ Prints of Whales
Who's forcing anyone into marriage? Yes, gay people don't have to get a civil partnership. Straight people don't have to get married. If you want the legal protection either offers, though, that's the hoop you have to jump through. I would be very happy if you had the option of the civil partnership hoop. I want the marriage hoop. Then we really would have equal rights.
Where are gay people getting a better deal?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 20:42:40 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@Kodokushi
It kinda ignore the existance of bisexuals, too...
It's a silly definition. Your suggestion makes much more sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 20:53:14 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@Spin

No. Marriage is not an inherantly religious concept. It pre-dates all current religions by a long way and was a social term.
There is no serious attempt to change the religious definition of marriage, only the secular one (two exceptions, possibly- on the one hand there probably are people who are members of a religious organisation who are working to get their church, etc to recognise same-sex partnerships, but that's an internal matter; and there's always an extreme fringe in any movement that will got to extreams).
Most people pushing for same-sex marriage are not concerned with religion in the first place, or are religious themselves (the Quakers, for example, are strong supporters of same-sex marriage). And every time the topic has come up, religious exemptions are included- the paperwork for the current consultation on the matter specifically states that religious marriage will NOT be affected by the outcome.

This is a pro-equality, not anti-religious, matter.

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 20:56:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 20:59:53 GMT
J A R P says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 21:08:11 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@Jason Powell
Interesting. I think you're begging the question a bit re 'choice', but that aside-
Are you suggesting that anti-homosexuality is an attempt to define the Self through active opposition to the Other, based on the idea that the Other is an active aggressor? A depressing thought, but one that might explain a lot....

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 21:26:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 21:30:22 GMT
J A R P says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 21:58:59 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@ Jason Powell

Ahem. Bisexuals are NOT by definition unfaithful. They are simply, by definition, capable of being sexually attracted to both sexes rather than to one or the other, but that no more means that they HAVE to act on it once committed to someone they love than a straight person HAS to act on their attration to another member of the opposite sex or a gay person HAS to act on their attraction to another member of the same sex.

I agree that the drive to form a life-long pair bond with another person is a strong motivation force that can indeed be all-consuming- but how does that lead to viewing gay people as an aggressor? If you said that a straight person might see another straight person of the same sex as being a rival for a potential partner, I could understand that... I suppose a straight man could see a gay woman as being a potential rival, but that would assume an innate bisexuality which you have just, apparently, discounted.

Heterosexuality is unarguably the 'norm'. So is right-handedness. For some people, however, homosexuality and left-handedness is natural. To try to ignore that in order to fit in with the 'norm' can be highly damaging- not very long ago left-handed children were forced to use their right hands for everything- the results were not pretty.

To ask a gay person to go against their nature, to find someone of the opposite sex to make a life with, is no better. They may well love the person they find- there are many forms of love- but something that many people find to be an important part of a relationship will not be there- physical desire.

You write very movingly of the pain of loneliness and I am always very happy to hear of two people who manage to form a strong and lasting romantic relationship. But straight people are not going to be able to form that with someone of the same sex, and gay people will not be able to form that with someone of the opposite sex.

The subject should be trivial- it should be a no-brainer. "Want to marry? Sure, no problem." But it wasn't politicians who brought it up- it was those who have found the person in whom they found themselves, but weren't allowed to marry them.

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 22:36:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2012 04:09:00 GMT
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Adrian. Those in the majority are sick and tired of being dictated to by the noisy minorities, mainly - and not surprisingly - on the political left, whose aim at heart is anarchy and the revolutionary tearing down of all standards they decide are archaic.

Heterosexual inclinations are normal, homosexual leanings are not - it's that simple.

Despite children being wickedly taught that homosexuality is 'normal' and 'normal' for a child to have two mummies or two daddies the human species will continue without those who play for the other team.

Marriage will and must remain the union of a male and a female. Anything else is an aberration.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 22:57:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 22:58:29 GMT
E. Maddison says:
@Jason Powell

Votewinning? I think Roger Edward Deshon (post above this one) would disagree with you there.
This matter is what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'controversial'- and possibly even 'courageous'....
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  576
Initial post:  15 Mar 2012
Latest post:  21 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions