Gay marriage thread

[jean]

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

Yes - as far a civil unions are concerned, anyway.

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

Not by me you weren't.

But as I have said, the horses were more easily frightened even just a few years ago.

[Julien Sorel]

Can I ask you a question Mr scottycelt? Obviously I can, but whether you'll answer it is another matter.

Do you think it correct that what you call homosexual actions are legal? Or do you think that a secularist error and if it were to be reversed that would the correct thing to do?

[MrGongGong]

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

Given that many countries don't recognise CP as equal to marriage even though most of us who are in or who know folk who have CP then there really is no problem in having civil marriage.
What would solve the stupid nonsense once and for all would be to make the whole thing a civil process and let the Jedi, Tufty Club, Zoroastrians or anyone else have their own thing whenever in addition like many countries do ...................

give it up Scotty we are going to get equality whether you like it or not


Don't ask him that Julien ....... it's a whole can of worms indeed

[scottycelt]

Can I ask you a question Mr scottycelt? Obviously I can, but whether you'll answer it is another matter.

Do you think it correct that what you call homosexual actions are legal? Or do you think that a secularist error and if it were to be reversed that would the correct thing to do?

Did I use the word 'actions' ... ?

I certainly don't think people should be imprisoned or persecuted by the state or others for indulging in mutually-agreed sexual behaviour, even if I personally find that behaviour particularly odd. Therefore I would oppose any attempted return to illegality. However, I feel pretty confident that particular scenario is most unlikely to happen in the rest of my lifetime at least!

Now maybe you can finally answer my long-standing question:

Do you agree that the exclusion of heterosexuals from CPs but not homosexuals from Marriage makes a total nonsense of the much-vaunted 'equality' argument for 'gay marriage'?

If not, why not?

[Julien Sorel]

Now maybe you can finally answer my long-standing question:

Do you agree that the exclusion of heterosexuals from CPs but not homosexuals from Marriage makes a total nonsense of the much-vaunted 'equality' argument for 'gay marriage'?

If not, why not?

I haven't made any equality argument or vaunted it. If Civil Partnerships are available to same sex couples then I think they should be available to different sex couples; if civil marriage is available to different sex couples then I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to same sex couples.

Much of this, of course, has to do with the relation between marital status and property and financial arrangements. But that's the business of a State which pressurised by religious groups has bribed people to marry.

But no: in terms of civil marriage there will be equality. How is that made a nonsense of? And you keep bringing this up, though you oppose both Civil Partnerships and marriage for same sex couples.

Thanks for your answer. It shows that things change since I would be surprised if the Catholic Church hadn't lobbied wherever against the legalisation of homosexuality (to use a short term for a longer more complicated human situation). So things aren't set in stone. You think it's perfectly correct that people should, legally, be in a position to be clear they are gay / lesbian / bisexual? Good.

[Flosshilde]

Do you agree that the exclusion of heterosexuals from CPs but not homosexuals from Marriage makes a total nonsense of the much-vaunted 'equality' argument for 'gay marriage'?

If not, why not?

It doesn't because once we have same-sex marriage, the term 'marriage' will apply to legally recognised relationships between two people of the same gender & between two people of different genders. The term 'civil partnership' will be redundant, as it was only introduced because the CofE insisted that it couldn't be a 'marriage'.

[scottycelt]

IBut no: in terms of civil marriage there will be equality. How is that made a nonsense of? And you keep bringing this up, though you oppose both Civil Partnerships and marriage for same sex couples.

You continue to evade the issue. Under the proposed arrangements that you support there will be most definitely inequality. Instead of haranguing myself for continuing to mention this I would have thought that, as a man deeply concerned about 'equal rights' for all, you might have acknowledged this clear discrimination against heterosexuals yet you appear quite relaxed about it all. Why?

Though I would never have campaigned for the introduction of CPs anymore than you might have campaigned for state-sponsored Catholic schools, I see the current arrangements as broadly fair and equitable in a secular society and have said so repeatedly on this forum. I see no need for change. There is a lot I don't like about modern secular society in much the same way as you clearly dislike anything to do with the Catholic Church. Yet we all have to come to terms with reality and make the best of a bad lot.

So why do you now falsely state that I oppose the current existence of CPs? I am quite content for these to remain 'homosexist' and Marriage as 'heterosexist'. Each to their own space and lifestyle.

That's what I call real equality!

[Richard Barrett]

Amen.

[Julien Sorel]

I don't evade the issue. Civil partnerships were introduced because the Churches and you would have gone into even greater hissy fits if the word marriage had been used. If there's now an anomaly that's the reason: the sensibilities of the religious.

There will be equality in civil marriage.

You've said before you were opposed to Civil Partnerships. Take a look at your own archive of posts. I'd lose my already rapidly diminishing will to live if I had to do it for you.

[scottycelt]

I don't evade the issue. Civil partnerships were introduced because the Churches and you would have gone into even greater hissy fits if the word marriage had been used. If there's now an anomaly that's the reason: the sensibilities of the religious.

There will be equality in civil marriage.

You've said before you were opposed to Civil Partnerships. Take a look at your own archive of posts. I'd lose my already rapidly diminishing will to live if I had to do it for you.

I'm not surprised ...

Here is a section from my very first contribution to this thread.

<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.>

Almost identical to the sentiments in my last post. Of course, in my perfect world there wouldn't be CPs just as in your perfect world there wouldn't be a Catholic Church. Alas, it isn't a perfect world for either or any of us.

'Nuff said.

[MrGongGong]

[i]<i've always understood civil partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals.

you have "understood" wrongly......... Ok

[Beef Oven]

I'm not surprised ...

Here is a section from my very first contribution to this thread.

<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.>

Almost identical to the sentiments in my last post. Of course, in my perfect world there wouldn't be CPs just as in your perfect world there wouldn't be a Catholic Church. Alas, it isn't a perfect world for either or any of us.

'Nuff said.

That was my understanding too

[scottycelt]

Do calm down Mr GG and have another glass of Talisker on me ...

According to WIKI:

<Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.>

[MrGongGong]

but not in the rest of the world

[amateur51]

What a lot of patronising twaddle.

Care to explain why, Mr Pee?