Scottish government to approve same-sex marriages

[amateur51]

It is not good at all if we allow people to think that's all that matters.

Has anyone ever questioned the reasons for male/female couples' getting married?

[jean]

No, that's just the point - it's always assumed that the primary reason is because they love each other and the rest is secondary.

[amateur51]

No, that's just the point - it's always assumed that the primary reason is because they love each other and the rest is secondary.

Didn't Chas & Di rather kick that one down the road, in recent memory jean?

[jean]

No. Dynastic marriages have always had their own rules, and have little to do with the rest of us.

It's precisely because the cynical assumptions attached to this sort of marriage have been allowed to become prominent in the case of gay people that posters can write (as EA did above) of their whinging if they don't get what they want.

If you were thinking primarily of people loving each other, that sort of language would be really offensive.

[Pianorak]

Looking into the History of Marriage in England is quite interesting. The concept of marriage seems to have changed more often than I have had hot dinners!

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. . .

More: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/AT...n_western.html

[MrGongGong]

There are very good legal reasons for getting married (though it's not really a form of tax avoidance any more !)
you can live with someone most of your life yet never have that recognised if they die
if you have children , not all countries recognise civil partnerships so that you can be in a tricky legal situation if , for example, your child is ill whilst abroad and you will not be regarded as a legitimate parent

it would be much simpler if we got rid of the whole religious wedding nonsense as a legal entity so that everyone was civilly married and those folk who wanted to do the church, temple , sacred stones thing could get on with it by themselves ..........

[amateur51]

There are very good legal reasons for getting married (though it's not really a form of tax avoidance any more !)
you can live with someone most of your life yet never have that recognised if they die
if you have children , not all countries recognise civil partnerships so that you can be in a tricky legal situation if , for example, your child is ill whilst abroad and you will not be regarded as a legitimate parent

it would be much simpler if we got rid of the whole religious wedding nonsense as a legal entity so that everyone was civilly married and those folk who wanted to do the church, temple , sacred stones thing could get on with it by themselves ..........

Ever the voice of sweet reason, MrGG ..

[french frank]

it would be much simpler if we got rid of the whole religious wedding nonsense as a legal entity so that everyone was civilly married and those folk who wanted to do the church, temple , sacred stones thing could get on with it by themselves ..........

It isn't, of course, a 'legal entity' in the sense of being a legal requirement that people go through a religious ceremony.

I would suggest that the Catholic church (in particular) be allowed to continue to refuse marriage to gay couples. And if any gay Catholics are outraged, they might contemplate why they have been willing to remain members of a church that will not ordain women as priests. As may any other gays who haven't been in the forefront of the battle to change minds on that issue.

[Flosshilde]

I would suggest that the Catholic church (in particular) be allowed to continue to refuse marriage to gay couples. And if any gay Catholics are outraged, they might contemplate why they have been willing to remain members of a church that will not ordain women as priests. As may any other gays who haven't been in the forefront of the battle to change minds on that issue.

Absolutely agree, ff. I used to thgink the same about gays in the police & the armed forces, but at least those institutions have changed (or been changed), whereas the Catholic church (& elements of the CofE) seem determined not to change.

[Ferretfancy]

I've been in a civil partnership since it became possible after December 2005, and it has made a big difference to our lives after a very long relationship. Frankly, I did not expect to feel very different, we had the simplest of ceremonies followed by lunch with friends and relatives, but life does feel different now
I was never particularly closeted, as I have felt that would be demeaning for both of us, but nevertheless life has changed, it's a matter of self recognition.

Would marriage make a difference? Probably not in our case, but to argue that misses the point. Security in the legal sense also means stability in the personal sense, and that matters very deeply for some, particularly to those with religious beliefs.

As for the churches, the level of their hatred is mind boggling, disguised as it is by a facade of caring. The only answer for the C of E must be disestablishment and the removal of bishops from the House of Lords. We could then have all forms of marriage legalised as civil events, and those who wish additionally to marry in church should go on fighting for the right to do so .

[Lateralthinking1]

What will be the new legal requirement in Scotland on the the Muslim, Hindu and Jewish faiths? I cannot believe that there will be same sex marriages in mosques. There should be no exemptions for other faiths before anyone talks about disestablishment.

I agree that the same rights should be available to all and I therefore support the Scottish proposal as far as I understand it. But I vehemently oppose preferential tax arrangements for all married people. It is blatant discrimination against the unmarried.

And while I think that marriage was arguably once the proverbial good thing, the fact that many people sleep with large numbers of people before marriage, have children outside marriage, and divorce on umpteen occasions, just makes it ridiculous. Every time I see a white wedding, I think not of God but the X Factor and guess how many or few years the recording contract will last.

[amateur51]

I've been in a civil partnership since it became possible after December 2005, and it has made a big difference to our lives after a very long relationship. Frankly, I did not expect to feel very different, we had the simplest of ceremonies followed by lunch with friends and relatives, but life does feel different now
I was never particularly closeted, as I have felt that would be demeaning for both of us, but nevertheless life has changed, it's a matter of self recognition.

Would marriage make a difference? Probably not in our case, but to argue that misses the point. Security in the legal sense also means stability in the personal sense, and that matters very deeply for some, particularly to those with religious beliefs.

As for the churches, the level of their hatred is mind boggling, disguised as it is by a facade of caring. The only answer for the C of E must be disestablishment and the removal of bishops from the House of Lords. We could then have all forms of marriage legalised as civil events, and those who wish additionally to marry in church should go on fighting for the right to do so .

Thanks for telling us about how your life has changed for the better, Ferret - I'm really pleased for you

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And while I think that marriage was arguably once the proverbial good thing, the fact that many people sleep with large numbers of people before marriage, have children outside marriage, and divorce on umpteen occasions, just makes it ridiculous. Every time I see a white wedding, I think not of God but the X Factor and guess how many or few years the recording contract will last.

Wow! Gasp! Whew!

But you do have a very good point. However, the hedonistic behaviour of some does not mean that marriage is in itself a bad thing. It just means that it can be difficult and some marraiages fail because there are those who lack the necessary commitment. (I do not put all, or even the majority of failed marraiages into that category, but it is significant nevertheless.)

[Lateralthinking1]

Wow! Gasp! Whew!

But you do have a very good point. However, the hedonistic behaviour of some does not mean that marriage is in itself a bad thing. It just means that it can be difficult and some marraiages fail because there are those who lack the necessary commitment. (I do not put all, or even the majority of failed marraiages into that category, but it is significant nevertheless.)

A lot of expressions there Eine!

Probably I think that church marriages should only be available to church going people. That is people who have been going to church for 5-10 years plus and, seeing that it is now 2012, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

The rest can take place in a church if people wish but they should be just a state marriage in terms of the paperwork. That does not preclude people who were not religious earlier on in their lives but it does require a demonstration of commitment.

I do wonder whether Protestantism and Catholicism have been especially targeted. Ten years down the line there'll be that figure of the number of Muslim same sex marriages since the legislation. My bet at Ladbrokes would be that the number will be zero.

Will it be said that Islam is no different from Mrs Miggins who refused a same sex couple entry to a guest house or will the consensus be that it has minority rights to discriminate? I have always believed in universal equality, not an a la carte menu.

[french frank]

I think that the important point is the situation vis-à-vis the state. If the state recognises gay marriage that should satisfy - certainly if people don't belong to any religious faith. I don't know what the proportion is between civil and church weddings, but a lot of people who have no religious belief don't get married in church, even if many do.

If the people do belong to a religious faith and their church won't recognise their marriage, the issue is between them and their church.

Religions are based on beliefs, and I don't think it's right to force people by law to accept, in carrying out their personal business (insofar as it does not affect the general public at large - and that it important) things that they don't believe or which they think are wrong. If that makes them progressively less relevant in society, so be it. Some things change very slowly, but they do change.

The Catholic church is still medieval. I have to say I do feel a bit sorry for the old CoE which is much more riven over these changes but which has moved considerably further than the Catholic church (who was that stocky Tory woman MP, btw, who left the CoE to become a Catholic because she wouldn't accept women priests?).