[NB_ide]

Genuine question: in what sense can single-sex couples currently not "get married"? I know gay couples who casually refer to themselves as married and so on but I understand that technically they're "in a civil partnership" or whatever, is that right?

Can someone explain why people currently make a huge fuss about whether or not we should allow gay "marriage", and what they specifically mean by it and what difference it would make?

Is it literally all about the name, the word "marriage" as used on legal documents or something?

Just wondering, please fill me in.

thanks

[AB5493]

Basically yes it is all about the name, lots of people say it's wrong to have one thing for straight couples and another thing for homosexual couples. Although civil partnerships give them all the same rights.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by AB5493)
Basically yes it is all about the name, lots of people say it's wrong to have one thing for straight couples and another thing for homosexual couples. Although civil partnerships give them all the same rights.

Really? Is that it?

But people go absolutely ape **** about it like it's some HUGE issue, I assumed there was some substance to it.

Do you think a lot of people don't realise that gay marriage, for all intents and purposes, does actually exist and is allowed and accepted? And so they join the cause and stuff but aren't really interested about the details. If this thread was something vague like "should we allow gay marriage?!" it would have 100 replies by now, haha.

All seems a bit weird to me, a bit pedantic. It's like demanding someone produce men's blouses, when we already have shirts which are basically the same thing. But it's a good sign for the gay community, I guess, when all they have left to fight for is small syntactic details that make no difference, on legal documents most people will never see, they must realise that their lifestyle is about as accepted as it's ever going to be.

[nexttime]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Really? Is that it?

But people go absolutely ape **** about it like it's some HUGE issue, I assumed there was some substance to it.

Outside the UK, there is a lot of substance to it. I think only a couple of US states allow civil partnership as we do here.

Also, you have to understand that marriage is entirely a symbolic thing. The legal contract is not the important part (at least, initially!). And then there are things like whether they should be allowed to be 'partnershipped' in churches like everyone else, or whether churches are allowed to say no, etc.

Clearly, rights here are pretty good. Its not the UK that people get worked up about though.

[JCC-MGS]

Civil partnership ceremonies aren't allowed to take place in religious venues or include religious readings, iconography, music etc. Lifting the ban on gay marriage means that churches, if they want to, can give same-sex couples a religious ceremony.

[the_educator]

It is a sign of prejudice that there is not an equality of title, which legitimises marriage which is after all only a title, even if there is equality of rights and benefits. This is a much broader issue about gay marriage and it is a good thing to send out a strong message to the rest of the world about our committment to progressive, humane social policies. Currently, only 10 out of the 196 countries in the world allow gay marriage and the situation in many is even more severe eg prison sentences, death penalty. To those who are subject to this prejudice, it is a huge morale boost, those who are not do not appreciate its significance.

[HJFSS]

Having "seperate but equal" forms of marriage for gay people is just as discriminatory as the "seperate but equal" schools for black people were.

Also civil partnerships have a few disadvantages compared to real marriage. Somebody in another thread noted that civil partners of knights don't receive the same title as spouses would, for example.

[someonesomewherexx]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Genuine question: in what sense can single-sex couples currently not "get married"? I know gay couples who casually refer to themselves as married and so on but I understand that technically they're "in a civil partnership" or whatever, is that right?

Can someone explain why people currently make a huge fuss about whether or not we should allow gay "marriage", and what they specifically mean by it and what difference it would make?

Is it literally all about the name, the word "marriage" as used on legal documents or something?

Just wondering, please fill me in.

thanks

[Psyk]

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Civil partnership ceremonies aren't allowed to take place in religious venues or include religious readings, iconography, music etc. Lifting the ban on gay marriage means that churches, if they want to, can give same-sex couples a religious ceremony.

Last I heard, even if they same sex partnerships are "legalised" (i.e. counted as marriages according to the law), there will still be a ban on performing same sex wedding ceremonies in a religious setting.

Which is pretty shocking from a religious freedom point of view. I don't see why it's any of the government's business whether religions do or do not allow gay marriages.

[Jester94]

Separate = inherently unequal, so having a separate institution for homosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation is inherently unfair.

There are some legal differences between civil marriage and civil partnerships which, even if they are only minor, show that the two aren't the same thing. However, it is about more than just the legal rights accorded by civil marriage instead of civil partnerships, it is also a matter of principle. Why should we be denied the right to marry the person we are in love with, purely because that person is the same gender we are?

People often bring up religious objections to gay marriage, as if religion has the monopoly on marriage (when in fact it pre-existed religion), though in the current debate these religious objections mean absolutely nothing, for the current debate is whether to allow civil marriage for gay people. However, I do agree that, while it is hypocritical of us to force churches to perform gay marriages against their will, the government should, instead of maintaining a blanket ban on religious marriage for gay people, allow religions and churches the freedom to decide whether they would like to offer it or not (for there are some, albeit smaller, religions that would like to be able to offer marriage to gay people)

[RandZul'Zorander]

Separate is inherently unequal. Even providing all the rights and privilages are the same, why then are homosexual's relegated to having a separate institution. By this logic, segregation isn't a problem and was never a problem. Water fountains for African Americans in the US provided the same public water, schools had the same federal curriculums. However that doesn't make it correct. Especially if they are providing the same thing why call it something else? It just doesn't make sense to make a separate institution to fulfill the same desire/right that an already existing one fulfills.

(Original post by Jester94)
x

It's funny that you commented just as I was about to lol

[Jester94]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
It's funny that you commented just as I was about to lol

What can I say, great minds think alike

[tazarooni89]

As far as I can tell, it's mostly an issue of language and semantics, rather than an issue of rights.

I guess the idea is that, we don't use different terminology for black people's marriages and white people's marriages, or disabled people's marriages and able-bodied people's marriages, etc. so why do we need a different word for gay people's marriages?
The fact that we say 'civil partnership' instead of 'marriage' for gay people, I suppose is interpreted by some to insinuate that gay relationships are more different to conventional relationships than they like to think they are.

Though unless you're abiding by some "no sex/relationships/cohabitation etc. before marriage" rule (as is the law in some countries), then whether gay or straight, I wouldn't say marriage has much substance to it, besides a few tax breaks and the like. I don't see how a married couple is fundamentally much different to an unmarried couple. Again, it's more about the wording and tradition rather than anything material.

[anarchism101]

With the exception of the Church of England, I don't think it should be any of the state's business whether churches do or don't marry people.

What should be understood is that marriage is merely a relationship between people. It's got nothing to do with anyone else. Everyone's marriage is different anyway, because it's theirs, it will be unique because they are unique individuals. That's what often irritates me when people talk about 'defining marriage'. The definition of marriage is for those getting married to decide.

Under that view, gay couples (and polygamists, and anyone else you can think of) already can get married, in the sense that they can have a ceremony called 'marriage' and declare themselves to be married to everyone they know.

The problem is, however, that for various reasons, the state does need to have some sort of tab on whether you're in a long term relationship. However, in the legal documents that establish this, heterosexual couples can call it 'marriage' and gay couples have to call it 'civil partnership'. And this has become internalised. Because straight people can have 'marriage' written on a piece of paper from the government, people have come to thing that this piece of paper is marriage which, understandably, has left those who can't get them feeling discriminated against, which is true.

[Scienceisgood]

As a homosexual myself, I DON'T WANT ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT, I just want to be treated equally.
However, marriage is seen in both religious views and legal views of the government as a courtship of sorts between people.

This is where I draw the line though. Marriage is mainly under religion and many religions would sooner see me killed because I was born this way and have no say in my own sexuality.
So, in this I suppose I sit on the fence because whilst it doesn't bother me because a civil partnership is basically the same as marriage, it is just seen that way in the eyes of religion, I would say I am fine with it. All the legal binding mumbo jumbo goes with a civil partnership as a marriage does.
So, I don't really care, if it goes ahead, then that's fine but if it doesn't, I'm just as happy with a civil partnership.