Gay marriage thread

[anotherbob]

I am at a loss to understand what all the fuss is about here. People are free to share their lives with whomever they choose regardless of what label society might attach to such a relationship based on their gender or sexual orientation. I assume people who espouse religious faith are in daily contact with the deity of their choice on a personal level and they really don't need the blessing of the anachronistic worldly agencies of these deities, most of which have been set up on instructions provided by a succession of worldly folk with a wide range of axes to grind whose claim to be in personal contact with the deity or its representative is no more nor less valid than anyone else's.

[Flosshilde]

...I absolutely share your feminist critique of marriage. I would never personally want to get married. I think it's a deeply heterosexist institution. But as a democrat, I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish. I want the right to get married, precisely so I can have the freedom to reject it...

Which is exactly what I think - people should have the freedom to make a choice. I supported the right of lesbians & gay men to join the army without having to hide, or even to be Christians for the same reason - so that they/I could make the choice - not have it made for me.

[Flosshilde]

I would like to point out that, as I said way back on this or the other thread (can't remember which), some countries do not recognise civil partnerships; therefore, although people in a civil partnership might enjoy all the rights & privileges of marriage in the UK, if they would not if they went to a country that did not recognise CPs. They would therefore not have the rights of the next of kin if one of them was ill, for example. Why should the Pope, & the Arch bish of Cant, & the Chief Rabbi, & the equivalent Muslim leader, be able to deny that to people?

[Julien Sorel]

And you did need to be more specific there, because the particular corner you're trying to back scotty into at that point isn't quite the neat angular shape you'd like it to be.

I'm not trying to back scottycelt into any corner. When it suits him he uses the disparity between different sex and same sex situations (the latter will be able to enter into Civil Partnerships or marry, the former only the latter) as an explanation of why, in his view, there is an inequality involved. And that to invoke equality is bogus. But it's the case that, OK some, campaigners for same sex marriage support the extension of Civil Partnerships.

(He does something similar when 'explaining' in his terms why Feminism in his terms is 'obviously' sexist).

And the corner I'm trying to back him out of is his opportunistic use of arguments he doesn't for a moment agree with. Because as he's said he opposes same sex Civil Partnerships.

If all he said was same sex relationships are, in his and his Church's view, if sexual against God's plan then I'd think it was a weird and terrible thing to believe - but I'd leave it at that. It's the use of decoy arguments (like the 70 year old Indian woman giving birth, who turned out - of course - to have had IVF treatment) gets my goat. Daft, maybe, but there it is.

I should have been more specific, but if someone had written 'Liverpool FC supporters wore Tee-Shirts in support of banned striker Luis Suárez' I'd not have assumed that meant all of them.

[MrGongGong]

I would like to point out that, as I said way back on this or the other thread (can't remember which), some countries do not recognise civil partnerships; therefore, although people in a civil partnership might enjoy all the rights & privileges of marriage in the UK, if they would not if they went to a country that did not recognise CPs. They would therefore not have the rights of the next of kin if one of them was ill, for example. Why should the Pope, & the Arch bish of Cant, & the Chief Rabbi, & the equivalent Muslim leader, be able to deny that to people?

I think I said this as well and it seems to be overlooked by many.
So if I was in a CP and went abroad with my partner and one of us died, in many countries the living partner would have NO rights which would default to the family of the deceased. Given that for many non heterosexual people (and many "straight" folk as well) ones relationship with ones family might NOT be exactly one of great understanding this creates a situation that is simply wrong and unequal. If I dropped down dead I certainly don't want one of my daft relatives deciding what happens when my wish is to have my body cast into the sea accompanied by a selection of music by John Cage and a bit of Honkyoku

[jean]

And the corner I'm trying to back him out of is his opportunistic use of arguments he doesn't for a moment agree with. Because as he's said he opposes same sex Civil Partnerships.

Fair enough.

...if someone had written 'Liverpool FC supporters wore Tee-Shirts in support of banned striker Luis Suárez' I'd not have assumed that meant all of them.

I would expect that to mean that a significant majority of supporters present on the occasion referred to were indeed so attired.

Though as I have no interest whatsoever in the doings of Liverpool FC, I may be missing something here.

[jean]

I would like to point out that, as I said way back on this or the other thread (can't remember which), some countries do not recognise civil partnerships; therefore, although people in a civil partnership might enjoy all the rights & privileges of marriage in the UK, if they would not if they went to a country that did not recognise CPs.

That's a very good point.

Could you please tell Peter Tatchell, because it's an aspect of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples that doesn't seem to have occurred to him?

[scottycelt]

I know that, and I've written about it several times on this and other threads.

The problem with Peter Tatchell is that he sees marriage as per se an oppressive institution, and civil partnerships as a more equal alternative that should be available to everyone.

That's why he's always marching heterosexual couples up to register offices demanding civil partnerships for themselves and getting sent away in a blaze of publicity.

I wish he'd stop it.

In fact, I wish he'd shut up about it altogether, as Julie Bindel has the good sense to do. Here he is, in conversation with her:

...I absolutely share your feminist critique of marriage. I would never personally want to get married. I think it's a deeply heterosexist institution. But as a democrat, I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish. I want the right to get married, precisely so I can have the freedom to reject it...

Tatchell is hopelessly muddled but at least we have got some honesty here. He recognises (correctly) that marriage is 'a deeply heterosexist institution' yet he wants the right to get married precisely so that he can have the freedom to reject it. He is a homosexual so he should have no real interest in a 'heterosexist institution'. He doesn't, of course, and he, personally, would be glad if it disappeared altogether.

So those who claim that 'gay marriage' is more about "gender politics" and "sexuality" than any real concern for the institution itself might appear somewhat vindicated following such a discussion. Surely heterosexuals (or heterosexists if preferred) would be wise to note the words of Tatchell and others before tamely surrendering to Dave's Grand Social Plan?

Do trust this doesn't come across as too 'devious and obtuse' ... if it does, cover your eyes, Member Flossie!

[MrGongGong]

you really don't get it do you Scotty
All people want is to be treated EQUALLY
nothing more
no special treatment
given that a CP (and I don't mean the Eton variety ) isn't internationally recognised there is a real need for Gay people to have the same rights with regard to their partners and children
what a bunch of bigoted sad old men in frocks think matters little .......

Tatchell is hopelessly muddled

Whereas cardinal .................

[jean]

So those who claim that 'gay marriage' is more about "gender politics" and "sexuality" than any real concern for the institution itself might appear somewhat vindicated following such a discussion.

Only if they imagined Tatchell's views were more representative of what gay people think than they actually are.

In my experience, gay people who (like me) welcomed the opportunity to have our partnerships recognised were happy with their being labelled 'civil partnerships' for the time being because we realised that public opinion wasn't quite ready for them to be called 'marriage', which is really what they are.

For that reason alone, when I'm asked (as Alan Bennett was in the RT interview) 'Are you going to upgrade?' I answer 'No - because we're married already anyway.'

[scottycelt]

Only if they imagined Tatchell's views were more representative of what gay people think than they actually are.

In my experience, gay people who (like me) welcomed the opportunity to have our partnerships recognised were happy with their being labelled 'civil partnerships' for the time being because we realised that public opinion wasn't quite ready for them to be called 'marriage', which is really what they are.

For that reason alone, when I'm asked (as Alan Bennett was in the RT interview) 'Are you going to upgrade?' I answer 'No - because we're married already anyway.'

Yes, I take your point, jean ... and it may well be a minority gay view.

Which, of course, again begs the question that if gay people are generally happy with CPs why is it necessary to interfere with the 'deeply heterosexist' nature of marriage?

I simply cannot see what's so terribly unfair about the status quo as CPs are in turn "deeply homosexist"...

[scottycelt]

you really don't get it do you Scotty ..

I can only agree with you there, Mr GG ...

[scottycelt]

Fair enough....

It's not at all.

I explained to Mr Sorel that I raised the subject of the homosexual exclusivity of CPs to expose the bogus nature of the 'equality' argument of those in favour of 'gay marriage'.

Needless to say Mr Sorel simply ignored that and went on his customary last line of defence, a personal attack.

I drew my own conclusions, others can draw theirs.

[jean]

It's not at all.

I explained to Mr Sorel that I raised the subject of the homosexual exclusivity of CPs to expose the bogus nature of the 'equality' argument of those in favour of 'gay marriage'.

But I had already explained to you that the 'civil partnership' label was only there as interim term for what everyone knows is really civil marriage.

That is why I was rather sorry that Mr Sorel appeared to make the views of Tatchell more central to the argument here than I believe they are.

Marriage is only heterosexist if it's confined to heterosexuals.

Old 70s feminists (like Bindel) were wont to describe marriage as sexist, which is a quite different argument.

[scottycelt]

But I had already explained to you that the 'civil partnership' label was only there as interim term for what everyone knows is really civil marriage..

So you are saying that there is really no difference, it's only the label that is the problem?

When 'homosexist' Civil Partnerships first appeared we were assured that there were no plans to alter the traditional 'heterosexist' status of marriage. Seemed fair enough.

One might wonder what suddenly caused the dramatic conversion to inequality rather than equality?