[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Zee

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

the dying cry of the lost argument

[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]

Originally Posted by Shaun

the dying cry of the lost argument

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

Twisting my words, I see.

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]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Grotbags

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]

Originally Posted by Grotbags

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

[Grotbags]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Niall

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