Gay marriage thread

[Pabmusic]

...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.

Hmmm. We actually have laws to ensure that males and females are treated equally. We are in fact different because of nature. These laws are (sadly) necessary because until quite recently females were not treated as the equals of males; it was not the other way round. Much of this misogyny is enshrined in the Bible of course, and often stems from it, and there are many sects within Christianity, Judaism and Islam (to mention just the Abrahamic faiths) that actively discriminate against women.

Because of this, the state takes it upon itself to ensure equality in law. It is the state that defines marriage, not religion; it has redefined it many times. Until 1929 it was legal to marry a 12-year-old girl, for instance. This new definition will be a very big change, but that is no argument for saying it shouldn't be done, or that it should be avoided by a semantic reshuffle. We do not approach male-female equality by saying that there should be different semantics for each sex, because we know that one system would eventually be seen as inferior to the other (guess which?).

These proposals will not change marriage for heterosexual couples, simply extend the range of those whom it includes.

[I've waited a long time for this -]

It's marriage, Scotty, but not as we know it.

[scottycelt]

Hmmm. We actually have laws to ensure that males and females are treated equally. We are in fact different because of nature. These laws are (sadly) necessary because until quite recently females were not treated as the equals of males; it was not the other way round. Much of this misogyny is enshrined in the Bible of course, and often stems from it, and there are many sects within Christianity, Judaism and Islam (to mention just the Abrahamic faiths) that actively discriminate against women.

Because of this, the state takes it upon itself to ensure equality in law. It is the state that defines marriage, not religion; it has redefined it many times. Until 1929 it was legal to marry a 12-year-old girl, for instance. This new definition will be a very big change, but that is no argument for saying it shouldn't be done, or that it should be avoided by a semantic reshuffle. We do not approach male-female equality by saying that there should be different semantics for each sex, because we know that one system would eventually be seen as inferior to the other (guess which?).

These proposals will not change marriage for heterosexual couples, simply extend the range of those whom it includes.

[I've waited a long time for this -]

It's marriage, Scotty, but not as we know it.

But marriage by definition means the formal commitment of a man + woman (or woman + man if you feel that sounds less Biblically 'misogynistic' and more acceptable, Pab!). Definition and Meaning are quite different from Terms and Conditions. We have different words for different things because they are different. It makes life much easier and more meaningful when we tell our friends that we have a dog and cat (or two dogs or two cats) at home rather than simply saying we have two pets, because dogs and cats must be 'equal' and there must be no 'discrimination' between the two.

Again, no one here has demonstrated where Civil Partnerships are actually 'inferior' in law to Marriages. I've certainly failed to come up with anything on websites which deal with the issue. Mr GG, in his own delightfully gentle way, did vaguely mention something about countries not recognising Civil Partnerships. Well it could just be that if the proposed changes take effect some of these countries will no longer recognise areas of UK marriage as well!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-gay-marriage-law-will-impact-on-adoptions-say-russian-officials-8484022.html

I agree entirely that men and women are 'in fact different because of nature and we actually have laws to ensure males and females are treated equally'.

That is precisely why we have Marriage and Civil Partnerships because the State demands equality but still (currently) recognises that there is a difference between men and women and therefore the logical thing might appear to be to actually differentiate ?

If Marriage is considered discriminatory because it excludes homosexuals, exactly the same in reverse can be claimed by heterosexuals regarding Civil Partnerships.

So how is one group advantaged or disadvantaged any more than the other? Where exactly is the 'inequality'?

[Flay]

[I've waited a long time for this -]

It's marriage, Scotty, but not as we know it.

[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 ...

I take your first point but, I think, as with several other issues that arise from the new legislation, other areas of the law will be required to fall into place with it and this will, as is always the case, take time. As to the second, does the new law actually bar heterosexuals from Civil Partnerships? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but that's the first that I'd heard of this. By opposite-sex "Civil Partnerships" I mean of course the arrangements wherein a woman and a man commit themselves to one another fully but do not enter into a marriage as understood by law.

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.

No, scotty, there's nothing obviously "wrong" with this per se, but I can see all sorts of confusion arising from it, especially in the case of bisexuals who are now granted an option - or rather the right - in law to marry someone of either sex.

[ahinton]

But marriage by definition means the formal commitment of a man + woman (or woman + man if you feel that sounds less Biblically 'misogynistic' and more acceptable, Pab!). Definition and Meaning are quite different from Terms and Conditions. We have different words for different things because they are different.

Your assertion here is dependent upon the notion of "definition" - but from what source to you support this particular "definition? In other words, who determined it in the first place? Are you not resorting to that Bible again, albeit perhaps unwittingly?

[MrGongGong]

But marriage by definition means the formal commitment of a man + woman (or woman + man if you feel that sounds less Biblically 'misogynistic' and more acceptable, Pab!). Definition and Meaning are quite different from Terms and Conditions. We have different words for different things because they are different.

According to whom ?
Just because you write it and people say it doesn't make it true

So you really ARE suggesting that "different words for different things because they are different." ???

So i guess this is redundant then ?

http://www.bifroest.demon.co.uk/misc/homophones-list.html

Don't you listen to Zep ? (or Rolf ? )

And if you are right (and there are some real linguists in the room) about not using the same word to mean different things then that would IMV make poetry a bit redundant as well.

I do find this odd as Christianity (and the same is true in other traditions) makes extensive use of parable and metaphor and is not based on such Concrete Language (someone with ASD is likely to find it confusing if they went to a church and heard someone talking about "good shepherds" yet there were no sheepdogs in the depictions of Jesus ).

The idea (as espoused be some of the mp's in the debate) that somehow Marriage was historically about "love" shows an ignorance of history , Historically it was about property, ownership and possession. Some of this was changed in 1882 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/75) but some things (marital rape was only criminalised in 1991) change much slower.

Again, no one here has demonstrated where Civil Partnerships are actually 'inferior' in law to Marriages

" It is important to remember however that in France non-married couples, whether in a PACS or a UK civil partnership, do not have the same rights as married couples in each others estates on death."

http://www.mayowynnebaxter.co.uk/blog/uk-civil-partnerships-fully-recognised-france-traps/

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/practice-points/equal-civil-marriage-death-or-disappearance-spouse-overseas

come off it that took me 5 minutes (and I don't have ultra fast internet)

[scottycelt]

I take your first point but, I think, as with several other issues that arise from the new legislation, other areas of the law will be required to fall into place with it and this will, as is always the case, take time. As to the second, does the new law actually bar heterosexuals from Civil Partnerships? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but that's the first that I'd heard of this. By opposite-sex "Civil Partnerships" I mean of course the arrangements wherein a woman and a man commit themselves to one another fully but do not enter into a marriage as understood by law..

As the law stands heterosexuals are barred from entering Civil Partnerships. According to Mr Cameron, 'there are no plans to change the current law regarding Civil Partnerships'. I can only take the PM at his word, though I readily concede that the historical evidence might indicate that this may well be a somewhat naive and rather foolish thing to do.

No, scotty, there's nothing obviously "wrong" with this per se, but I can see all sorts of confusion arising from it, especially in the case of bisexuals who are now granted an option - or rather the right - in law to marry someone of either sex.

Not really, ahinton, bisexuals would have to choose one way or the other the gender of their partner (quite obviously) and therefore in the eyes of the law they would be in either an official heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Accordingly there should be no confusion, rather it might tend to resolve their current ambiguity!

[MrGongGong]

As the law stands heterosexuals are barred from entering Civil Partnerships. According to Mr Cameron, 'there are no plans to change the current law regarding Civil Partnerships'. I can only take the PM at his word, though I readily concede that the historical evidence might indicate that this may well be a somewhat naive and rather foolish thing to do. !

If it had been possible I would have probably opted for a Civil Partnership rather than have the link to a religion that I don't believe in.
Hopefully this will be the start of the end of the link between church and state which is long overdue.

[scottycelt]

Your assertion here is dependent upon the notion of "definition" - but from what source to you support this particular "definition? In other words, who determined it in the first place? Are you not resorting to that Bible again, albeit perhaps unwittingly?

Again maybe naively, I generally consult my dictionaries for definitions, ahinton.

How do you determine yours (definitions) ... ?

[scottycelt]

If it had been possible I would have probably opted for a Civil Partnership rather than have the link to a religion that I don't believe in.
Hopefully this will be the start of the end of the link between church and state which is long overdue.

So as a heterosexual you have been outrageously discriminated against, Mr GG ... shameful!!

As a man steadfastly supporting 'equal rights', I assume you would also have permitted your wife to have a say in the matter of marriage or civil partnership as well ... ?

[MrGongGong]

As a man steadfastly supporting 'equal rights', I assume you would also have permitted your wife to have a say in the matter of marriage or civil partnership as well ... ?

I don't presume to speak for anyone else

[scottycelt]

" It is important to remember however that in France non-married couples, whether in a PACS or a UK civil partnership, do not have the same rights as married couples in each others estates on death."

http://www.mayowynnebaxter.co.uk/blog/uk-civil-partnerships-fully-recognised-france-traps/

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/practice-points/equal-civil-marriage-death-or-disappearance-spouse-overseas

come off it that took me 5 minutes (and I don't have ultra fast internet)

We are talking about the law of England & Wales, not that of France, Mr GG ...

Laws are different in all countries whether it concerns tax, marriage, civil partnerships or anything else.

Are you suggesting the English and Welsh should frame their laws simply to suit the French?

Even I, as a fellow-Europhile, would never dare to suggest that, Mr GG!

[Stephen Whitaker]

If it had been possible I would have probably opted for a Civil Partnership rather than have the link to a religion that I don't believe in.
Hopefully this will be the start of the end of the link between church and state which is long overdue.

From 1837, marriages could take place in a local register office, instead of a church, these have no link to any religion and never have done.

[ahinton]

Again maybe naively, I generally consult my dictionaries for definitions, ahinton.

How do you determine yours (definitions) ... ?

What I was referring to (as well you know!) was the source of this definition and I take yours to be broadly of religious origin (and sit corrected if you can tell me that this is not so). Definitions change over time just as language changes and, as marriage is a legal contract, a change in the law (or, more properly in this case, an expansion of the law) means a change in how that contract is defined, albeit more in terms of who may enter into it than what its terms and conditions are.

[ahinton]

We are talking about the law of England & Wales, not that of France, Mr GG ...

Laws are different in all countries whether it concerns tax, marriage, civil partnerships or anything else.

Are you suggesting the English and Welsh should frame their laws simply to suit the French?

Even I, as a fellow-Europhile, would never dare to suggest that, Mr GG!

Whilst I'm sure that he isn't, I'm even more so that he's not accordingly implying that English and Welsh people should not marry French people! Yes, the laws are different but when an English woman marries a French man those differences have to be taken into consideration.