Gay marriage thread

[Ferretfancy]

Where's it gone ?

[ahinton]

Where's it gone ?

Apparently to the Diversions Forum, which I did not even know existed until I popped "marriage" into the search box and found the answer to your question (I can't otherwise see it listed); pop "Diversions Forum" into the search box and up it will come with that thread at the top. See message #107 in that thread to discover why FF did this.

[handsomefortune]

i give in....melanie phillips ate it, during last night's '(i)moral maize' on r4?

[Flosshilde]

I think it a pity that the whole thread was removed because of a few (& very few) abusive posts, especially one person's excessive bile. It would surely have been sufficient for those posts to have been edited to remove the abuse, or removed altogether.

There was a rather sensible letter in today's Guardian (the second here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-heterosexuals) suggesting that 'civil partnership' be used for the legal aspect of the 'joining together' (sorry - can't think of a better term) by a civil ceremony of heterosexual or gay couples, & marriage used for the religious recognition/ceremony.

There should be no bar to any religion, denomination or sect performing such a ceremony for heterosexual or gay couples if they choose.

[scottycelt]

I think it a pity that the whole thread was removed because of a few (& very few) abusive posts, especially one person's excessive bile. It would surely have been sufficient for those posts to have been edited to remove the abuse, or removed altogether.

There was a rather sensible letter in today's Guardian (the second here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-heterosexuals) suggesting that 'civil partnership' be used for the legal aspect of the 'joining together' (sorry - can't think of a better term) by a civil ceremony of heterosexual or gay couples, & marriage used for the religious recognition/ceremony.

There should be no bar to any religion, denomination or sect performing such a ceremony for heterosexual or gay couples if they choose.

That's a refreshingly constructive post, Flossie ... but, alas, the crux of the problem would still remain.

In a secular, non-religious society 'people of faith' can hardly expect society to conform to Christian principles. That would be living in cuckoo-land. Similarly, it appears to many Christians and people of other religions (and even some secularists) that it is quite unwarranted what is now taking place and to some it is deeply upsetting.

I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens? There is then no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife' and then everybody can lead their own lives as they see fit with the same rights and responsibilities, and neither group encroaches on the other's territory. In other words. Civil Partnerships would remain exclusive to homosexuals and marriage confined to heterosexuals. This would be real 'equality' whilst at the same time respecting the rights of everybody.

The problem here is all to do with the definition of a single word called 'marriage'. As I suggested before 'Civil Partnership' could be changed to another name if the current one is not widely appreciated.

If committed couples of either sexuality are afforded the same rights and status in law but each group has a separate term for that commitment that seems not only thoroughly reasonable but eminently sensible, not least that it will avoid likely social embarrassment for couples of both sexualities along the way.

I honestly fail to see what the problem would be by going down this simple and straightforward route.

[amateur51]

I think it a pity that the whole thread was removed because of a few (& very few) abusive posts, especially one person's excessive bile. It would surely have been sufficient for those posts to have been edited to remove the abuse, or removed altogether.

There was a rather sensible letter in today's Guardian (the second here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-heterosexuals) suggesting that 'civil partnership' be used for the legal aspect of the 'joining together' (sorry - can't think of a better term) by a civil ceremony of heterosexual or gay couples, & marriage used for the religious recognition/ceremony.

There should be no bar to any religion, denomination or sect performing such a ceremony for heterosexual or gay couples if they choose.

Great post Flossie and lovely to see that Roy Burns is still putting together radical and thoughtful ideas

[Flosshilde]

That's a refreshingly constructive post, Flossie

Even 'surprisingly', Scotty?

... but, alas, the crux of the problem would still remain.

Alas indeed.

I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals.

Not, apparently, in other countries - only marriage does. Something I was not aware of. & if only for that reason the current Bill is an absolute neccessity.

[MrGongGong]

I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens?

Which is why we are going to have equal Marriage
Some countries don't recognise Civil Partnerships and that is a huge legal problem in relation to child custody and being next-of-kin etc

Why don't the churches make up another word ?
It wasn't theirs in the first place anyway
why should we be bullied by a religious minority when they supposedly subscribe to a faith of tolerance ?

[Mr Pee]

If committed couples of either sexuality are afforded the same rights and status in law but each group has a separate term for that commitment that seems not only thoroughly reasonable but eminently sensible, not least that it will avoid likely social embarrassment for couples of both sexualities along the way.

I honestly fail to see what the problem would be by going down this simple and straightforward route.

Netiher do I Scotty. Seems like an excellent solution.

[MrGongGong]

Netiher do I Scotty. Seems like an excellent solution.

Try READING the reason why this doesn't work ?
Those opposed don't want equal rights ......... which is the problem
they dress it up in linguistics but it's clear what is meant

[ahinton]

Netiher do I Scotty. Seems like an excellent solution.

Does it? OK - try running that one past a divorce lawyer and see how far you don't get! As soon as you start to try to enshrine in law different terminologies for what is effective the same thing and you do so in a consciously divisive way (which is what would be the outcome of what scotty suggests and with which you appear to agree), you immediately set up a minefield for the practical traversal of which the only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.

[scottycelt]

Does it? OK - try running that one past a divorce lawyer and see how far you don't get! As soon as you start to try to enshrine in law different terminologies for what is effective the same thing and you do so in a consciously divisive way (which is what would be the outcome of what scotty suggests and with which you appear to agree), you immediately set up a minefield for the practical traversal of which the only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.

Well under the current proposals homosexuals couldn't be sued for divorce by their 'married' partners on the grounds of adultery but heterosexuals could well be so bang goes any illusion of there being no 'division' in the proposals. There is also the issue of heterosexuals being barred from Civil Partnerships which will still be available to homosexuals. Some 'equality' that ...

Politicians make law not lawyers. There is no reason that I can see that giving homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights and responsibilities in partnerships but under separate headings (after all we already distinguish between MALE and FEMALE as being equal in law but different) should cause any sort of real problem whatsoever.

[scottycelt]

Try READING the reason why this doesn't work ?
Those opposed don't want equal rights ......... which is the problem
they dress it up in linguistics but it's clear what is meant

No, in fact, it appears to be those in favour who are not too concerned about 'equal rights', as has been clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, Mr GG.

There is little point in just talking about 'equal rights' if we don't actually mean 'equal rights'!

It's also rather a bit rich for some in favour to now somewhat bizarrely object to the other side's use of 'linguistics' ...

[MrGongGong]

No, in fact, it appears to be those in favour who are not too concerned about 'equal rights', as has been clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, Mr GG.

There is little point in just talking about 'equal rights' if we don't actually mean 'equal rights'!

It's also rather a bit rich for some in favour to now somewhat bizarrely object to the other side's use of 'linguistics' ...

Did you not read why Civil Marriage isn't regarded as equal ?

the comment about linguistics relates to some of the guff i heard from MP's
going on about "traditional marriage" etc etc and making up nonsense history to try and support
then all the nonsense about teachers being forced to teach things they don't agree with

[ahinton]

Well under the current proposals homosexuals couldn't be sued for divorce by their 'married' partners on the grounds of adultery but heterosexuals could well be so bang goes any illusion of there being no 'division' in the proposals. There is also the issue of heterosexuals being barred from Civil Partnerships which will still be available to homosexuals. Some 'equality' that ...

Fair points up to a point but, in each case, give it all the kind of time that will likewise be necessary for Churches in order each to decide for themselves how they will approach, interpret and act in accordance (or not) with this new legislation and all may eventually be well; this is, after all, a most significant change in legislation and some of the fallout from it will inevitably and understandably take some time to complete.

Politicians make law not lawyers. There is no reason that I can see that giving homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights and responsibilities in partnerships but under separate headings (after all we already distinguish between MALE and FEMALE as being equal in law but different) should cause any sort of real problem whatsoever.

Should it be assumed that, by "separate headings", you mean that you'd be more comfortable were those identical rights to be enshrined in statute in ways that would ensure the application and use of different terminology for heterosexual married couples than for homosexual ones - and, if so, what and why?