[rayheartbliss]

Originally Posted by Marc

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 it's not religious at all.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Nathan

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.]

Originally Posted by Redway

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

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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]

Originally Posted by Grotbags

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]

Originally Posted by Grotbags

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.