Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[John Skelton]

Phew,, I do hope you're right there, but if I tell someone I'm married everyone knows I have a wife ... so no confusion there. If someone tells me they are in a civil partnership, again no confusion.

Whereas if your new friend ,Dave, gets his way it might be one hell of a job trying to separate the Jo's from the Joe's?

Why complicate current simplicity due to a totally bogus 'equality' point?

It isn't a totally bogus equality point for the people who want to be treated equally. Which is what this is about: the campaigners aren't asking for preferential treatment. They want everyone to be treated equally. Some people, same-sex or heterosexual or whatever, find a marriage ceremony provides some ritual context for their partnership. Others don't, and a civil partnership suits them much better. Something which itself has been cited as undermining the institution of marriage, etc.

I don't see why it matters if someone you have just been introduced to can't make up his or her mind whether you are married to Joe or Jo. You could always say something like 'I'm married to Jo, she's a nuclear physicist' if it worries you so much.

So now - if civil partnerships were available for heterosexual as well as same-sex couples that would cause confusion? How or what or who does it help that someone know about your sexuality from your married or civil status? There are loads of single people out there. They don't all go around wearing a badge saying "Hi! I'm Bert and I'm straight".

salymap makes a very good point about the treatment of single people in society. Much of which has to do with the State propping up marriage in the face of its declining popularity.

And the "new friend Dave" remark is pathetic. People have been campaigning for equality in marriage and civil partnership for a long time; much longer than David Cameron's interest in the subject. I don't support them because of Cameron. I just support them.

[scottycelt]

I don't see why it matters if someone you have just been introduced to can't make up his or her mind whether you are married to Joe or Jo. You could always say something like 'I'm married to Jo, she's a nuclear physicist' if it worries you so much.

So now - if civil partnerships were available for heterosexual as well as same-sex couples that would cause confusion? How or what or who does it help that someone know about your sexuality from your married or civil status? There are loads of single people out there. They don't all go around wearing a badge saying "Hi! I'm Bert and I'm straight".

It is not a case of automatically knowing a person's sexuality (orientation) but their gender. Furthermore, the only people of which I'm aware who go around publicly wearing badges boasting about their sexuality are to be seen on Gay Pride marches. Why have you never commented on that in your oft-stated desire for 'inclusion' and 'equality' regarding sexual orientation? Just curious, that's all ...

And the "new friend Dave" remark is pathetic. People have been campaigning for equality in marriage and civil partnership for a long time; much longer than David Cameron's interest in the subject. I don't support them because of Cameron. I just support them.

Well, I know that, but it is a nice irony to some, even if you humourlessly fail to appreciate that irony and subsequent teasing ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It is not a case of automatically knowing a person's sexuality but their gender

???

Is your argument, then, that same sex marriages (and heterosexual Civil Partnerships) shouldn't be allowed because then you wouldn't know the difference between men and women?

[John Skelton]

Why is it important to know the gender of someone's partner, civil or married? If you need to know you can always ask.

Why have you never commented on that in your oft-stated desire for 'inclusion' and 'equality' regarding sexual orientation? Just curious, that's all ... Because it's got f-all to do with anything?

Well, I know that, but it is a nice irony to some, even if you humourlessly fail to appreciate that irony and subsequent teasing ... It's a "nice irony" to you. Cameron also opposes capital punishment. Am I supposed to become a string 'em up enthusiast because of that? He probably thinks eating babies is wrong. Am I supposed to become an enthusiast for infanticidal cannibalism to dissociate myself from him?

If you had a sense of humour you'd be an aardvark.

Incidentally: you have, as always do, ignored the stuff that doesn't suit you. For centuries the ancient tradition of marriage meant that in marriage a woman had no rights independent of her husband. People campaigned, and their political and social interventions led to change. Should the previous state of affairs or status quo be restored then?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Please can someone explain the need to call civil partnership "marriage"? It's how people are respected that is the real issue, not labels.

[John Skelton]

Please can someone explain the need to call civil partnership "marriage"? It's how people are respected that is the real issue, not labels.

But labels are important. By reserving civil partnership for same-sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples the State makes a distinction between types of partnership based on sexuality. If both are open to all then people can make a decision based on what makes them happy. Some people will be happier with a civil partnership; others might want what they see as a more formal or ritual arrangement (some in a registry office or similar, some in those churches or religious organisations that will perform same-sex marriages).

No church will be compelled to to perform same-sex marriages. What is the difficulty? - unless someone thinks it goes against the Word of God, which certain contributors here may well do - with treating all people who enter into legal partnerships the same way? (I wish it was easier for people not to be obliged to make these commitments and still be treated in the same way within current society. But it isn't so easy, at least from a practical point of view).

[scottycelt]

???

Is your argument, then, that same sex marriages (and heterosexual Civil Partnerships) shouldn't be allowed because then you wouldn't know the difference between men and women?

My point is simply that if a man/woman say they are married I immediately know the gender of their partner, and the same is true of current civil partnerships .... I'm for keeping things as they are at present.

[Vile Consort]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

You asked what is the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership? The main, obvious, one I gave as an answer which can hardly be described as not answering the question!

O course I can't tell whether a couple are married, civilly-partnered, or just out on a date simply by looking at them, in the same way as I can't tell whether a car-driver has a licence or not by the length of his/her nose.

Surely that's the whole point of being in possession of certificates?

By separate 'identities' I was referring to separate sexual identities which at present marriage recognises and civil partnerships do not.

I wasn't suggesting you might be able to tell whether people were married by simply looking at them, but by considering any material consideration other than the actual wording on the certificate.

What I am trying to get at is whether you objection is simply to the use of the word "marriage" to describe a relationship between two people of the same sex, or whether you perceive some actual difference between a marriage and a civil partnership other than the sex of one of the people involved.

[scottycelt]

. [/I] Because it's got f-all to do with anything

I suddenly feel those familiar withdrawal symptoms erupting again ...

[MrGongGong]

Please can someone explain the need to call civil partnership "marriage"? It's how people are respected that is the real issue, not labels.

Because (as has been said countless times !!) "civil partnership" is a made up phrase to appease people who think the whole edifice of society will crumble if we call gay people who are married to each other "married". Surely this shows how its time to get the church disestablished ? Lets do what the rest of the world (and those of many beliefs other than christianity in the UK ) do. Do the church thing if that's your bag BUT have the registry (or Register as they are all now called !) to make it lawful. If the only objection , (apart from the obvious rampant homophobia and bigotry from idiots like the Scottish cardinal ) is that "it makes it hard to know what gender someone is" then that strikes me as more than a little pathetic.

[scottycelt]

I wasn't suggesting you might be able to tell whether people were married by simply looking at them, but by considering any material consideration other than the actual wording on the certificate.

What I am trying to get at is whether you objection is simply to the use of the word "marriage" to describe a relationship between two people of the same sex, or whether you perceive some actual difference between a marriage and a civil partnership other than the sex of one of the people involved.

My answer is really the same one that I gave to ferney ..

I have my own beliefs which would be (and certainly are here) roundly mocked by our tolerant 'liberals', but I also recognise that this is an imperfect world and modern secular society will reflect opposing beliefs and cultures.

With my secular hat on, I believe that the current arrangements are 'fair' to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The former have marriage and the latter, civil partnerships. In essence and in legal terms both seem very similar, which you. yourself, appear to be indicating. Neither impinges on the other.

Marriage is the word that has always been used to describe the official Church/State-sponsored union of a man and a woman. In the same way as the sun is the sun and the moon is the moon. It's not just an all-encompassing label, it's two gender relationship is its very meaning and purpose.

It immediately loses this meaning if we are now to include same-sex couples, as indeed it would if we had, say, a single marriage of three or four heterosexuals.

So yes, any personal morality apart, why change the meaning of the word when there are plenty of others from which to choose, if 'Civil Partnership' has suddenly and rather mysteriously become unacceptable?

[anotherbob]

Yet another thread involving religion which generates much heat but little light. I simply can't understand why anyone is bothered by what people want to call a marriage. The word has been used in many different ways signifying "joining together" why not the loving association of two homosexuals? What difference does it make to anyone not involved?

[Lateralthinking1]

get the church disestablished?

I have only just realised that scottycelt has been posting relentlessly on a consultation that will only apply in England and Wales.



No. I can't go along with disestablishment. Scotland and Wales have a huge number of mostly admirable things that define them. England has got virtually nothing and what it does have needs checks and balances.

If Scotland does get independence, there is the serious possibility that England will just become the Conservative Party at prayer. Every indication from the historical voting patterns is that we will become a one-party state for the next 50-100 years.

[MrGongGong]

With my secular hat on, I believe that the current arrangements are 'fair' to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I do think you are being deliberately obtuse about this !
You have clearly stated that you are heterosexual but are now presuming to speak for homosexual people as well ? I guess if you have your "secular" hat on you are excused the rampant bigotry and homophobia of your church ? and I always thought that religion was supposed to inform ALL of ones life ? I didn't realise "pick and mix relativism" was part of the doctrine ?

[scottycelt]

I have only just realised that scottycelt has been posting relentlessly on a consultation that will only apply in England and Wales.

.

You obviously still haven't realised that I currently reside in Leafy Cheshire, Lat ...