Scotland to legalise gay marriage.

[Shaun]

Scotland could become the first part of the UK to introduce gay marriage after the SNP government announced plans to make the change.

Ministers confirmed they would bring forward a bill on the issue, indicating the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

Political leaders, equality organisations and some faith groups welcomed introducing same-sex marriage.

But it was strongly opposed by the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland.

The announcement was made in the wake of a government consultation which produced a record 77,508 responses.

Same-sex couples in Scotland currently have the option to enter into civil partnerships and the Holyrood government has insisted no part of the religious community would be forced to hold same-sex weddings in churches.

The Scottish government said;

it would work with UK ministers to amend equality laws to protect celebrants from legal or disciplinary action if they refuse to take part or speak out against same-sex ceremonies.
a bill would be brought forward to the Scottish Parliament later this year to bring in the change.

Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said: "We are committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal and that is why we intend to proceed with plans to allow same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships - we believe that this is the right thing to do.

She went on: "The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages and we reiterate that today. Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.

"However, our view is that to give certainty on protection for individual celebrants taking a different view from a religious body that does agree to conduct same-sex marriages, an amendment will be required to the UK Equality Act."

The Scottish government said it was now going ahead with another consultation to consider what extra measures are needed to guarantee freedom of speech, including the protection of religious beliefs of teachers and parents in schools.

Ministers said the Scottish Catholic Education Service would continue to decide on the faith content of the curriculum in Catholic denominational schools.

Welcoming the government's approach, Tom French, policy co-ordinator for the Equality Network, said: "Same-sex marriage is about equality and freedom - the freedom for couples, and religious and humanist groups that want to, to celebrate same-sex marriages, but equally, upholding the freedom of other religious groups to say no to same-sex marriages.

"That's the right way for Scotland to deal with the different opinions on this."

The Church of Scotland, which will report on its own investigation of the issue in May 2013, expressed concern the government was rushing ahead with its plans.

The Rev Alan Hamilton, convener of the Church of Scotland legal questions committee, said: "We are acutely aware that opinions differ among our own members and that many people are anxious and hurt in the current situation.

"We believe homophobia to be sinful and we reaffirm our strong pastoral commitment to all people in Scotland, regardless of sexual orientation or beliefs."

He added: "We are concerned the government will legislate without being able to effectively protect religious bodies or their ministers whose beliefs prevent them from celebrating civil-partnerships or same-sex marriages."

A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland said: "The Scottish government is embarking on a dangerous social experiment on a massive scale.

"We strongly suspect that time will show the Church to have been completely correct in explaining that same-sex sexual relationships are detrimental to any love expressed within profound friendships."

Civil partnerships in Scotland offer the same legal treatment as marriage, but are still seen as distinct from marriage.

The UK government, which is consulting on changing the status of civil ceremonies to allow gay and lesbian couples in England and Wales to get married, wants to make the change by 2015.

Gay marriage consultation

The Scottish government held a public consultation into the issue of same-sex marriage.
It had the biggest response of any Scottish government consultation.
There were 77,508 responses in total, with 14,779 from outside Scotland.
Some 64% of those who responded [including postcard and petition responses] said they were against same-sex marriage.
Excluding postcard and petition responses to the consultation from within Scotland the outcome shows 65% were in favour and 35% against.

Same sex marriages will not be conducted in Scotland before 2015.

Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has confirmed that the start of that year is the earliest new legislation would take effect.

That could bring the Scottish government's timetable into line with UK government plans to change the law in England and Wales.

Ms Sturgeon said it was "entirely feasible and entirely conceivable" that legislation would be going through the Scottish and UK parliaments at roughly the same time.

The UK government's consultation on allowing civil marriages for gay and lesbian couples closed in June 2012.

The coalition is analysing the results before publishing its formal response but Prime Minster, David Cameron, has promised legislation before the next election.

The Scottish government's plans go further. It wants to allow both civil and religious ceremonies, with opt-outs for religious organisations that do not support same sex marriage.

Ms Sturgeon said changes to the UK Equality Act are needed for Scottish legislation to be effective.

The Home Office said: "If changes are needed, they will be made."

It may be the ministry regards passage of its own legislation on same sex marriage as the most convenient way to do this.

If reform happens in Scotland at the same time as in England and Wales, it will allow the Scottish and UK governments to lean on each other in responding to criticism.

There are no plans to allow same sex couple to marry in Northern Ireland.

:worship:

[Mystic Mock]

No offence but out of all the British countries I did not expect Scotland to make the first steps towards gay marriage, good news though.

[Saph]

^ me neither. I'm glad too :)

[Shaun]

Scotland have a much more liberal government than England and Northern Ireland do - I imagine Wales will probably put similar plans in motion soon.

[Z]

I kind of think this is all a bit of a moot point and I've never understood why there's such clamour for gay marriage. The religious bodies that oppose it aren't going to suddenly become tolerant because of legislation; so if they refuse service to gay couples are they going to be harangued through equality laws until they're forced into it? What if they say no and gay couples aren't able to get a marriage anywhere in the country? Then they have a 'right' that they can't actually have. It's a total stand off and I just think it's pointless. Half the people who get married in a church only do so because they want the big white dress in a grand hall, not because they're religious - there's such a crisis of faith in the UK that that's my honest opinion. Argh I could rant about this for hours, it's such a pointless struggle for nothing. Either way, one group will be left very bitterly disappointed by legal outcomes.

[Niall]

This is awesome. :lovedup: Hopefully it'll push the rest of the country into doing the same.

I kind of think this is all a bit of a moot point and I've never understood why there's such clamour for gay marriage. The religious bodies that oppose it aren't going to suddenly become tolerant because of legislation; so if they refuse service to gay couples are they going to be harangued through equality laws until they're forced into it? What if they say no and gay couples aren't able to get a marriage anywhere in the country? Then they have a 'right' that they can't actually have. It's a total stand off and I just think it's pointless. Half the people who get married in a church only do so because they want the big white dress in a grand hall, not because they're religious - there's such a crisis of faith in the UK that that's my honest opinion. Argh I could rant about this for hours, it's such a pointless struggle for nothing. Either way, one group will be left very bitterly disappointed by legal outcomes.

There are religious gays you know (myself being one of them). (I've been through that whole argument in another thread anyway and I really can't be arsed going over it again however.)

[Marc]

Sorry but am I being retarded? I thought same sex couples could get married already?

[GypsyGoth]

I guess gods belong to all people who believe in them and not just the priests. So maybe if a religion is allowed to preach and recruit in a country, it should have to obey the laws of that country.

Sorry but am I being retarded? I thought same sex couples could get married already?

In civil ceremonies yep.


Also I think it's a good step forward :worship:

[Black Dagger]

Sorry but am I being retarded? I thought same sex couples could get married already?

Civil partnership... it's not technically classed as a 'marriage'

Well done Scotland <3.

[Marc]

Ahh right, okay sorry :blush2:

See I thought it already happened.. because it's normal in my eyes.

[BizarreCharisma]

I don't get it when the homophobes bang on about the "Sactity of Marriage" when there are couples getting divorced after less than a year these days, so why would letting gay couples marry change anything?

[Redway]

Sorry but am I being retarded? I thought same sex couples could get married already?

Technically, they can but it's called civil partnership. So basically if you're in a civil partnership you have the same rights as in a marriage but it's given a different title.

[Redway]

Anyway, this is a great step forward and I'm glad to hear this. Hopefully more places in the world - including the rest of the UK - follows on. It's only right that we're all given equal rights.

[bbfan1991]

Anyway, this is a great step forward and I'm glad to hear this. Hopefully more places in the world - including the rest of the UK - follows on. It's only right that we're all given equal rights.

I agree with this:).

[the truth]

so do individual churches have the right to refuse a gay couples request to get married in their church? If for example a Church in Glasgow was asked to perform a gay marriage and they said no we dont do gay marriages, could the couple take legal action against that Church?

[Mystic Mock]

so do individual churches have the right to refuse a gay couples request to get married in their church? If for example a Church in Glasgow was asked to perform a gay marriage and they said no we dont do gay marriages, could the couple take legal action against that Church?

I would think so.

[Jords]

Ahh right, okay sorry :blush2:

See I thought it already happened.. because it's normal in my eyes.

I thought it had already happened too :S

[arista]

Civil partnership... it's not technically classed as a 'marriage'

Well done Scotland <3.


Its the same time England is doing it.

So Well Done England first.

[iRyan]

I kind of think this is all a bit of a moot point and I've never understood why there's such clamour for gay marriage. The religious bodies that oppose it aren't going to suddenly become tolerant because of legislation; so if they refuse service to gay couples are they going to be harangued through equality laws until they're forced into it? What if they say no and gay couples aren't able to get a marriage anywhere in the country? Then they have a 'right' that they can't actually have. It's a total stand off and I just think it's pointless. Half the people who get married in a church only do so because they want the big white dress in a grand hall, not because they're religious - there's such a crisis of faith in the UK that that's my honest opinion. Argh I could rant about this for hours, it's such a pointless struggle for nothing. Either way, one group will be left very bitterly disappointed by legal outcomes.

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in America gay people want marriage as opposed to civil partnerships because civil partnerships don't offer the same legal benefits that marriage does, I believe.

[Redway]

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in America gay people want marriage as opposed to civil partnerships because civil partnerships don't offer the same legal benefits that marriage does, I believe.

You know, that explains so much...

[Ellen]

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in America gay people want marriage as opposed to civil partnerships because civil partnerships don't offer the same legal benefits that marriage does, I believe.

A civil partnership in the uk has the same legal rights has a marriage, the only difference is the name.

[Livia]

A civil partnership in the uk has the same legal rights has a marriage, the only difference is the name.

Exactly.

If they do legalise gay "marriage" this will in no way force the church into conducting gay marriages. And if the gay lobby tried to force the church under equality law, then in the name of equality, the Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. etc. etc. will be all forced to legalise it also. This will not happen.

Niall is right, there was a whole discussion about this on another thread, so at the risk of going over the same ground... I see no reason why religious gay people could not have a civil marriage and a religious blessing, like divorced heterosexual couples have been doing for decades and decades without feeling like they were being marginalised.

[Tom4784]

My thoughts are similar to Livia's really.

If I was going to marry a man I wouldn't get caught up in what the official ceremony was called, I'd be more bothered about getting the same rights as a straight couple and seeing as they already already do I find the rest of it a little pedantic.

[Shaun]

I find it sad that the pursuit of total equality is seen as pedantic :idc:

[Munchkins]

How lovely :)
hopefully we will follow the same

[rayheartbliss]

Sorry but am I being retarded? I thought same sex couples could get married already?

i think i might be retarded too

[King Gizzard]

You can get a civil partnership or whatever it's called, it's marriage but just not called..marriage

[Shaun]

marriage is religious :tongue: it's not religious at all.

[lostalex]

You can get a civil partnership or whatever it's called, it's marriage but just not called..marriage

yea, it's like having a separate drinking fountain for "coloreds", right?

[lostalex]

Any one who wants to talk about "traditional marriage" , let's talk about the old days of "traditional" marriage, back when little girls were forced to marry old men, and when multiple women were married to one man, and when women were considered the PROPERTY of men. that's "TRADITIONAL" marriage.

"Traditional" marriage was pedophilia and polygamy. But people defending "traditional" marriage think that gay marriage is offensive?? really?

[Redway]

Does anybody know what rights a married couple in the USA have that a civil partneship doesn't?

[Z]

I totally understand your point of view Shaun but my line of thinking is more just "why?"

Why would gay couples want to be blessed by an institution that has persecuted them for centuries? If anything I think it's just bad marketing that people aren't happy with civil partnerships. If it was properly highlighted that you get the exact same deal with a civil partnership as you get with a marriage, and that the only difference is the presence or absence of religion, I feel like this wouldn't be nearly as big an issue. As Livia rightfully said, this will turn into a legal battle of equality very quickly. One case that springs to mind is that B&B that refused a gay couple service or whatever the story was, and they were forced to apologise or whatever for the refusal. So people aren't allowed the right of refusal anymore? Where do we draw the line? Not all religions are going to be bullied into accepting this - and if they are, they're certainly not going to lie down and be nice about it - imagine a gay wedding where the institution (church/mosque/synagogue/whatever your faith may be) has been forced to hold the service. Can you imagine how hostile that atmosphere would be? Yeah, it's not okay that some religious people are really unaccepting of their fellow human beings and the way they are, but that's just the way some people are. Legislate all you want, intolerant people will always be intolerant. I just feel that on this issue, it has gone as far as it needs to go. Civil partnerships provide the same level of legal protection as marriages do.

Another situation that I know will come up - what happens when we get our first married gay couple wanting a divorce? Can you imagine the finger pointing and revelling that opposing churches will indulge in?

[lostalex]

zee, gay couples arn't asking for the blessing of the church! they are asking for EQUAL RIGHTS under the GOVERMENT.

Unfortunately in the UK there is no separation of church and state, because you have a National church, so it makes it more complicated, but it's about being EQUAL, it has nothing to do with BIGOTS in CHURCHES recognizing us, it has to do with equality.

If the government said there are NO legally recognized marriages, that would be fine, the problem is not what you call it, the problem is that you have 2 separate standards. it must be 1 standard for everyone. whether you call it marriage or civil unions it needs to be the same for everyone, that is equality.

[MTVN]

I don't think churches will be forced into doing gay marriages, the main reason that's such an issue here is because the CofE is still connected with the State and is seen as conducting marriages on behalf of it. There are some churches who actually do want to marry gay people though, and like Niall said there are gay Christians. Sure calling it a marriage might be more symbolic than anything but so what, isn't marriage meant to be a symbolic thing anyway

[lostalex]

I don't think churches will be forced into doing gay marriages, the main reason that's such an issue here is because the CofE is still connected with the State and is seen as conducting marriages on behalf of it. There are some churches who actually do want to marry gay people though, and like Niall said there are gay Christians. Sure calling it a marriage might be more symbolic than anything but so what, isn't marriage meant to be a symbolic thing anyway

There are already plenty of churches that already perform gay marriages. getting "married" in the eyes of God is not the issue, plenty of people are already married in the church.

We are talking about the government and the law.

It's already legal for gay people to get married in front of God, God has nothing to do with it, God has always blessed and confirmed gay marriages, we are only talking about the government and recognition by the government.

[Redway]

I don't think churches will be forced into doing gay marriages, the main reason that's such an issue here is because the CofE is still connected with the State and is seen as conducting marriages on behalf of it. There are some churches who actually do want to marry gay people though, and like Niall said there are gay Christians. Sure calling it a marriage might be more symbolic than anything but so what, isn't marriage meant to be a symbolic thing anyway

Of course they won't be forced into doing gay marriage. As Livia said, if you're going to dabble into equality, if you want to force the church into gay marriage, you'll have to do it with all other religious groups and that simply won't happen.

Religion in general is based on bigotry and downright wicked nonsense. If I was gay I wouldn't choose to be part of a group that wouldn't accept me based on a small part of who I am.

[Redway]

There are already plenty of churches that already perform gay marriages. getting "married" in the eyes of God is not the issue, plenty of people are already married in the church.

We are talking about the government and the law.

It's already legal for gay people to get married in front of God, God has nothing to do with it, God has always blessed and confirmed gay marriages, we are only talking about the government and recognition by the government.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that...

[Vicky.]

Heh. A little offtopic but this has just reminded me of something. We needed another godmother for the baby when it comes (gav wants a christening, I dont really as am not religious but happy to let him do his thing) and one of our gay mates said he wanted to do it. So that should be a fun day, standing in church announcing a gay man as our childs godmother. Really looking forward to it :D

On topic, good to know the worlds coming up to date a bit. But as I said in the other thread about this, I really dont get why its so much of a big deal. Civil partnerships in the UK have exactly the same rights as marriages as far as I am aware, so basically, its a load of fuss over a name IMO :S

[MTVN]

There are already plenty of churches that already perform gay marriages. getting "married" in the eyes of God is not the issue, plenty of people are already married in the church.

We are talking about the government and the law.

It's already legal for gay people to get married in front of God, God has nothing to do with it, God has always blessed and confirmed gay marriages, we are only talking about the government and recognition by the government.

Yeah I realise we're talking about the government, that doesn't contradict anything I said

Of course they won't be forced into doing gay marriage. As Livia said, if you're going to dabble into equality, if you want to force the church into gay marriage, you'll have to do it with all other religious groups and that simply won't happen.

Religion in general is based on bigotry and downright wicked nonsense. If I was gay I wouldn't choose to be part of a group that wouldn't accept me based on a small part of who I am.

Yeah but my point is its mainly being made such an issue because of the CofE's relationship with the State

[Redway]

Heh. A little offtopic but this has just reminded me of something. We needed another godmother for the baby when it comes (gav wants a christening, I dont really as am not religious but happy to let him do his thing) and one of our gay mates said he wanted to do it. So that should be a fun day, standing in church announcing a gay man as our childs godmother. Really looking forward to it :D

On topic, good to know the worlds coming up to date a bit. But as I said in the other thread about this, I really dont get why its so much of a big deal. Civil partnerships in the UK have exactly the same rights as marriages as far as I am aware, so basically, its a load of fuss over a name IMO :S

Off topic - sounds interesting. ;)

On topic, I understand what you're saying and that stands a very valid point but if the government is prepared to give gay couples in a civil partnership the same rights as straight couples in a marriage, I really don't see why they can't just call it a marriage. After all, if it's virtually the same thing - the only distinguishing factor being an unnecessary title - why the different titles?

[Vicky.]

Off topic - sounds interesting. ;)

On topic, I understand what you're saying and that stands a very valid point but if the government is prepared to give gay couples in a civil partnership the same rights as straight couples in a marriage, I really don't see why they can't just call it a marriage. After all, if it's virtually the same thing - the only distinguishing factor being an unnecessary title - why the different titles?

Oh I know, it works both ways. Just seems a massive fuss about nothing (but a name) no matter whichever way you look at it :p

[Redway]

Oh I know, it works both ways. Just seems a massive fuss about nothing (but a name) no matter whichever way you look at it :p

On this basis I agree. Whilst I believe that the titles should be the same, people tend to overreact and any person ignorant on this topic would think we're in the dark ages given the way people get so worked up over terminology.

[Grotbags]

To address the religious aspect of same sex marriage, there doesn't HAVE to be a religious aspect. Marriages performed in a registry office, on a beach, in a town hall, wherever are civil marriages. Religion doesn't have to come into it.

I may not be 100% right about this, but I believe that churches will not be forced to perform same sex marriages but they can if they want to.

As for why we can't be happy with civil partnerships, seperate but equal is not equal. As Lostalex said, it is the same as having seperate drinking fountains for 'coloured' and 'non-coloured' people.

Also, the B&B couple refused service solely on the two gentlemen's sexuality. They broke the law. A business (which is what they were) refusing service based on sexual orientation, race etc etc is breaking the law and has to be held accountable for that. If they were not prepared to cater to ALL people they should not have opened a B&B.

[lostalex]

On this basis I agree. Whilst I believe that the titles should be the same, people tend to overreact and any person ignorant on this topic would think we're in the dark ages given the way people get so worked up over terminology.

if it's just about terminology then what's the big deal? Equal rights for everyone. one law for everyone. i agree with you, why do some people get so worked up over the issue of everyone having having equal rights? you'd think we solved this issue 50 years ago, but no, there are still epople all over the world that think it makes sense to have one set of laws for str8 people, and another set of laws for gay people. if that's not segregation then what is the meaning of segregation?

[Tom4784]

I find it sad that the pursuit of total equality is seen as pedantic :idc:

It's equal where it matters, I don't really see the importance of the name. If the legal rights and benefits weren't the same then I'd obviously take offense but since they're the same I'm not too fussed about it. The main battle has already been won by granting gay couples equal rights, anything more is just icing on the cake.

[Redway]

if it's just about terminology then what's the big deal? Equal rights for everyone. one law for everyone. i agree with you, why do some people get so worked up over the issue of everyone having having equal rights? you'd think we solved this issue 50 years ago, but no, there are still epople all over the world that think it makes sense to have one set of laws for str8 people, and another set of laws for gay people. if that's not segregation then what is the meaning of segregation?

It works both ways, though.

As I stated earlier, I fail to see the issue with just calling it gay marriage but it is just a title. Fact. End of. You can't dispute it, no matter which way you look at it: fact. End. I don't concur with it being called civil partnership but it's still only a title and there are simply far more significant and interesting issues than a title.

[Z]

It's just perception of the importance of marriage. If heterosexual couples celebrated civil partnerships in more of a showboating way than they do with weddings, I feel like this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. In other words, if it becomes 'cooler' to get civil partnerships (what with the crisis of faith in the UK, this is completely feasible) than marriages, then nobody would be fussed about acquiring the right to do something that nobody does anymore. That's partly why I think this is such a silly fight for a right.

[Shaun]

As for why we can't be happy with civil partnerships, seperate but equal is not equal. As Lostalex said, it is the same as having seperate drinking fountains for 'coloured' and 'non-coloured' people.

This is really the crux of my stance on the whole issue. It may appear trivial to some because you don't value a Christian wedding ceremony as much as some (perhaps homosexual) people do.

And I know this would require similar legislation against other denominations, and I know that will be another long and frustrating struggle, but I believe the goal to be worth it.

If it's such an insignificant thing, or a 'moot point', to you then I'm confused as to why you're getting involved in it.

[Z]

I'm allowed my opinion just as much as the next person.

[Niall]

As for why we can't be happy with civil partnerships, seperate but equal is not equal. As Lostalex said, it is the same as having seperate drinking fountains for 'coloured' and 'non-coloured' people.


Pretty much my entire feelings on the matter.

[Shaun]

I'm allowed my opinion just as much as the next person.

the dying cry of the lost argument :pipe:

[Redway]

I have to say these constant threads about this topic are grating. I'm not the biggest fan of this civil partnership thing but banging on about it on a weekly basis is about as entertaining as GCSE chemistry.

[Z]

the dying cry of the lost argument :pipe:

Fine, be a **** about it. I, and others, have given several examples as to why this is, in our opinion, pointless. You do not agree with that. Clearly this is not an issue anyone will change their mind on because it comes down to individual perception of the importance of religion, as we have all clarified. Why are you turning it into a pissing contest? Shut up.

[lostalex]

I have to say these constant threads about this topic are grating. I'm not the biggest fan of this civil partnership thing but banging on about it on a weekly basis is about as entertaining as GCSE chemistry.

so i guess equal rights only matters if it effects you directly?? really?

[Z]

so i guess equal rights only matters if it effects you directly?? really?

Well it's true, isn't it? You can't care about everything in the world that's unjust or unfair; and obviously things that hit closer to home are going to matter more to you. But that's neither here nor there; Redway's contributing to the discussion so I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

[Redway]

so i guess equal rights only matters if it effects you directly?? really?

Twisting my words, I see. :idc:

I never said that equal rights don't matter - feel free to check all my posts on this thread. I just don't see the merit in this discussion being carried out on such a regular basis.

Read my posts properly before quoting me.

[Livia]

This is really the crux of my stance on the whole issue. It may appear trivial to some because you don't value a Christian wedding ceremony as much as some (perhaps homosexual) people do.

And I know this would require similar legislation against other denominations, and I know that will be another long and frustrating struggle, but I believe the goal to be worth it.

If it's such an insignificant thing, or a 'moot point', to you then I'm confused as to why you're getting involved in it.

When I got married I could not marry in a synagogue because my husband was not a Jew. I accept that and I understand it. I can't force my faith to accept something that flies in the face of it, but I don't feel segregated or pushed out of my faith. I don't think you can legislate to force a faith to accept something that flies in the face of it.

I agree that gay people should be allowed to marry just like heterosexual couples, but I doubt many religions would ever allow gay marriage and if you force one, you would have to force them all. Having said that, I'm sure there will be parts of certain religions who will accept and welcome marriage between gay people, and people who marry outside their religion, and divorcees, and if they choose to that's great.

[Grotbags]

It's just perception of the importance of marriage. If heterosexual couples celebrated civil partnerships in more of a showboating way than they do with weddings, I feel like this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. In other words, if it becomes 'cooler' to get civil partnerships (what with the crisis of faith in the UK, this is completely feasible) than marriages, then nobody would be fussed about acquiring the right to do something that nobody does anymore. That's partly why I think this is such a silly fight for a right.

Firstly, heterosexuals cannot have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships are only for same sex couples. That in itself is unfair.

I absolutely take issue with you saying that it is a silly fight for a right. It may seem silly to you, but it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Doesn't that seem silly now?

It is not about being cool or trendy, it is about being treated equally.

[Redway]

Firstly, heterosexuals cannot have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships are only for same sex couples. That in itself is unfair.

I absolutely take issue with you saying that it is a silly fight for a right. It may seem silly to you, but it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Doesn't that seem silly now?

It is not about being cool or trendy, it is about being treated equally.

Those are not good comparisons at all. Being denied the same rights as someone for no good reason is not tantamount to a matter of titles.

[Z]

Firstly, heterosexuals cannot have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships are only for same sex couples. That in itself is unfair.

I absolutely take issue with you saying that it is a silly fight for a right. It may seem silly to you, but it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Doesn't that seem silly now?

It is not about being cool or trendy, it is about being treated equally.

Do we have to get into the semantics of the names? Heterosexual couples can get married at the registry office, sans religious contexts. It's a civil partnership, seeing as it's done through a civil registry office. My parents were united at a civil ceremony.

It's silly to fight for this right in my humble opinion, because it's an issue that extends way beyond the right to get married - and, in my view, it's not something worth fighting for when we're already at a place where homosexual couples are given all the same rights through this method of uniting two people.

[Niall]

I don't see any negatives to it really. I just want to be able to say "I'm married" and mean that in the definition of the word 'married', and not have to use that as a another word for civil partnership. That might be fussy, but its something I want. Both a civil partnership and marriage are quite different things in my head.

[Ninastar]

I think Greg makes a fair point :pipe:

[Grotbags]

Do we have to get into the semantics of the names? Heterosexual couples can get married at the registry office, sans religious contexts. It's a civil partnership, seeing as it's done through a civil registry office. My parents were united at a civil ceremony.

It's silly to fight for this right in my humble opinion, because it's an issue that extends way beyond the right to get married - and, in my view, it's not something worth fighting for when we're already at a place where homosexual couples are given all the same rights through this method of uniting two people.

But it is not a civil ceremony, it is a civil marriage, which is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread.

It really is pointless arguing about it anyway as whether you (not you personally, the 'royal' you) like it or not, same-sex/equal marriage will happen.

To just touch upon the religious aspect though, I think Betty Bowers said it best so I'll just post her video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

And also this -

[Z]

Thanks Caitlin... it's not that I want to undermine what makes other people happy, I just personally think it's gone as far as it needs to go. Why do people want the right to be acknowledged by something so hateful and backwards? In my eyes it's almost like trying to seek approval that will never be forthcoming. Take civil partnership and celebrate it, it's a huge victory, why are people trying to put marriage on a pedestal and put civil partnership on a downer, as if it's not good? It's brilliant. Maybe I'm only comfortable with having this view because I was never brought up around religion, I don't know.

[Ninastar]

Well said

[MTVN]

Even if a civil partnership has the same legal rights and everything it's still a bit of a kick in the teeth and basically saying "you don't deserve the same title as heterosexual couples". Like that picture grotbags posted shows, marriage is a continually evolving institution, people would think it mad now if someone said interracial couples shouldn't be able to have a "marriage", even if they were offered a partnership with the same rights but that was the case in the US only 50 years ago

[Z]

But this comes back to my view that people are putting marriage on this huge pedestal that shouldn't exist. If you can take a partnership with the same rights instead of getting this exclusive members club marriage... so what?! Your happiness is still in tact, you're not the one with the problem, it's the bigoted institution with the problem, and to me, it's okay to accept the conclusion that leaves everybody happy. This whole issue is touching on a much larger problem that has no obvious solution - because it's not just limited to one institution or one country - it's a global concept under many different faiths followed by millions, probably billions, of people. You try telling however many billion people to accept change to one part of their belief system because one government said so - see how that goes down. Discussing this topic is really difficult, I'm going to have to leave this thread and not look in it again, it goes round and round in circles when really it's about another thing entirely.

[Niall]

Thanks Caitlin... it's not that I want to undermine what makes other people happy, I just personally think it's gone as far as it needs to go. Why do people want the right to be acknowledged by something so hateful and backwards? In my eyes it's almost like trying to seek approval that will never be forthcoming. Take civil partnership and celebrate it, it's a huge victory, why are people trying to put marriage on a pedestal and put civil partnership on a downer, as if it's not good? It's brilliant. Maybe I'm only comfortable with having this view because I was never brought up around religion, I don't know.

I think thats the point.

For me, entering into a civil partnership, being as similar to marriage as it is, feels like having to take diet coke over the real thing. I'd much rather have marriage as an option. A civil partnership would feel a bit.. hollow to me. I think thats because I've been brought up in a Catholic family though etc etc.

[Z]

Well that's fair enough Niall :) ultimately I hope there's a happy conclusion to this piece of legislation.

[Grotbags]

I think thats the point.

For me, entering into a civil partnership, being as similar to marriage as it is, feels like having to take diet coke over the real thing. I'd much rather have marriage as an option. A civil partnership would feel a bit.. hollow to me. I think thats because I've been brought up in a Catholic family though etc etc.

+1

[MTVN]

But I agree with that really Zee, I don't really care much for marriage, it's evolved and varied so much throughout time and across the world that I think it's dumb when you still have people going on about "preserving the sanctity of marriage". Like someone else said in this thread, a few hundred years ago you'd have girls being forced into marriage from about 12 or 13, you'd have to marry within your class, you'd need a good dowry etc. etc. and in some countries today being married means the man having several wives and them being completely subservient. I'd be quite happy to never get married tbh

But then that's just me. It's about offering the choice, a lot of gay people might agree with you and not care about having the "married" status, but that won't go for all of them and it's still of great symbolic importance for them to have equal status and be afforded the same right as straight couples