[Maynia]

(Original post by Wave)
What I have always wondered though is how do they decide on who is the wife?

Would have thought this'd be obvious, but neither, or both. In a marriage of two men, each is the husband of the other. In a marriage of two women, each is the wife of the other. It's not hard.

On the more general note, this article is relevant, and the sentiments expressed by the representative are both ideally Christian and a model for how politicians should act.

[Wave]

(Original post by Maynia)
Would have thought this'd be obvious, but neither, or both. In a marriage of two men, each is the husband of the other. In a marriage of two women, each is the wife of the other. It's not hard.

Yeah but they can't both make the sandwiches?

[mcluvin]

I don't know if anyone who has previously posted is gay or bi, but I am.

Regardless of religious beliefs marriage may initially be between a man and woman, but it's a symbol for everything more than that; love.

A civil-partnership is without a doubt "equal but separate", which feels like, for example- "you can sit there with your partner with the hetrosexual couples - but you have to wear this hat". Scrap equal but separate, it should be 'together as one'.

To not have the choice to marry the person you love, is discriminatory.

[CJKay]

I don't agree with 'gay marriage' as such. Civil partnerships should suffice, unless you're being picky. If it's going to cause all this much trouble for religious folk, it just ain't worth it in the name of "but it just isn't the saaammmeeeee".

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CJKay)
I don't agree with 'gay marriage' as such. Civil partnerships should suffice, unless you're being picky. If it's going to cause all this much trouble for religious folk, it just ain't worth it in the name of "but it just isn't the saaammmeeeee".

Last I checked we lived in a secular society, meaning religious groups don't get to write the law. We have civil marriage for straight couples, why not for gay couples? Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem?

[CJKay]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Last I checked we lived in a secular society, meaning religious groups don't get to write the law. We have civil marriage for straight couples, why not for gay couples? Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem?

Last I checked marriage isn't a secular ceremony.
Personally, I don't know why, other than for legal reasons, you would even really want the marriage. I would be fine with a nice gathering of friends and family, the certificate to show it happened and then I'd be happy to call it whatever I decide at the time. Why is it not so obviously pedantic that a request in name that is going to offend a lot of people is just pointless?

[Mad Vlad]

Civil Partnerships are frequently perceived as being inferior. Being in a fairly unique situation on here in that I am currently in a Civil Partnership, I can say that it doesn't bother me that much - legally speaking, it affords me the same rights and protections that marriage does. The only difference is that it forces me to expose my sexual orientation in situations in which I'd sometimes prefer not to make such a song and dance about it, because I can't tick the box "Married" - if the option is there, I have to declare "Civil Partnership", but in passing conversation, for all intents and purposes, I'm married. I can't see a valid reason for not allowing Gay Marriage, in that it should be legal for the ceremonies to be religious (but it should not force religious groups/venues to marry gay couples) and I'm personally of the opinion that the status of a Straight or Gay couple's marriage should be identical and this distinction between the two is largely pointless.

(Original post by CJKay)
Last I checked marriage isn't a secular ceremony.
Personally, I don't know why, other than for legal reasons, you would even really want the marriage. I would be fine with a nice gathering of friends and family, the certificate to show it happened and then I'd be happy to call it whatever I decide at the time. Why is it not so obviously pedantic that a request in name that is going to offend a lot of people is just pointless?

Civil marriage has no religious content.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by CJKay)
Last I checked marriage isn't a secular ceremony.
Personally, I don't know why, other than for legal reasons, you would even really want the marriage. I would be fine with a nice gathering of friends and family, the certificate to show it happened and then it's no longer any sort of hindrance to anything. Why is it not so obviously pedantic that a request in name that is going to offend a lot of people is just pointless?

You haven't checked in the last century or so then.

Personally, I don't care. It's all just a tax break to me, and anyway for virtually all practical purposes civil partnerships give you the same rights. However, it's a point of principle. A same sex couple should be able to be married, because marriage is the way our culture recognises a stable long-term romantic relationship.

[zippyRN]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Last I checked we lived in a secular society, meaning religious groups don't get to write the law. We have civil marriage for straight couples, why not for gay couples? Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem?

The UK is a not a secular country, it has Established Religion, The Church of England, however the Church is far less involved in Party politics than in some officially Secular Nations .

the irony is as a Nation with established Christian Religion, we have gay marriage in all but name, where Secular Nations like the USA do not .

[littleone271]

I think in this day and age gay relationships should be seen as equal to heterosexual relationships and that can't just end at marriage. I'm pro gay marriage. As long as they're both happy and they're marrying for the right reasons then why not? There are plenty of heterosexual couples that get married in churches for all the wrong reasons.

I think the only thing I'm sort of unsure about in this topic is the act of bringing children into a gay relationship. I think it's sad and totally unjust because a lot of gay people would be brilliant, caring, loving parents and treat their children (adopted, IVF etc.) an awful lot better than some heterosexual people treat their children who are often totally unwanted and abused. Having said that I also think that there are an awful lot of psychological issues caused by the absence of a mother or a father during a child's development and sometimes it can't be avoided but I'm not sure it's a good idea to arrange the whole thing with that being known from the start. Also the child would have a very difficult time trying to get their head around the whole set-up because it must be very confusing for them and even these days they'd have a hard time at school about it. I suppose this is probably one of the main concerns when considering gay marriage because the more liberal we become with these sorts of things the more questions need to be answered and it kinda opens a can of worms.

[Troll_Account]

(Original post by Poppy-Fields)
Considering in England we have a "Civil Partnership" shouldn't we just go ahead and take the final step and actually pass a law on "Gay Marriage"?

Just curious for your views.

Also, do you think it will happen soon? Why/why not?

I'm not really bothered by it, but if its to force priests/imams/rabbis or something then no, it shouldnt be allowed. It should if they want to CALL it that.

I'm a going to revert to Islam this Friday. This is just a (pre?)Muslim perspective.

lol I'll feel the same way probably after. Its a secular country after all.

[HarveyCanis]

Yes, of course. Groups like the Quakers and Liberal Jews would like to recognise gay marriages but because this government discriminates against them, they can't. Not to mention that civil marriages are secular and under the legalisation of gay marriage absolutely no religious organisation would be forced to recognise these new partnerships.

Thus, there is no real reason for anyone to oppose its legalisation. Unless you're an extremely literal religious nut or *ahem* an atheist pedant. Though personally I'd much rather see marriage privatised altogether.

[Maynia]

(Original post by littleone271)
Having said that I also think that there are an awful lot of psychological issues caused by the absence of a mother or a father during a child's development and sometimes it can't be avoided but I'm not sure it's a good idea to arrange the whole thing with that being known from the start.

Honestly? 'Needs more research' is the only adequately supported position on this right now. It's such a highly politicised subject that very little actual, useful science is getting done on it. The 'studies' coming out of groups like NARTH and other such arch-conservative think-tanks aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the bias is that obvious. Looking at the most recent APA study I could find, they hold this viewpoint too:

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

"It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent... relatively few studies have focused on the offspring of lesbian or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood."


More generally, 'seperate but equal' isn't good enough. It wasn't good enough here:



and it's not good enough now.

[Silkielemon]

Why is marriage in quotation marks?

[Jeddy]

There is no logical and reasoned argument against allowing gay/lesbian marriage. I honestly believe it's not legal now because of the hold the church has had over this country and the world for so many years. It's simply a backdated tradition that is yet to be removed from our society.
On a similar point, if you argue marriage was created by religion and therefore should remain between a man and a woman, would you not agree it's become a symbol of love etc? And therefore should no longer be governed by religion.
It's similar to how big Google has become, that's still a private company, but they couldn't change it so there was nude pictures (for example) on their homepage simply because it's a symbol and a standard in modern day life. (My logic went off a bit there but hopefully you can follow it)

[there's too much love]

(Original post by G8D)
I don't really get what all this fuss is about. Marriage is traditionally (and definitionally) between a man and a woman. I don't think that really needs to change.

A legal equivalent (which more or less already exists) should suffice.

So people should have to be outed automatically about their sexuality, rather than being granted the same term?

[2ndClass]

Depends on the religious institution. So long as they're not forced to perform these ceremonies then I'm indifferent.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Civil Partnerships are frequently perceived as being inferior. Being in a fairly unique situation on here in that I am currently in a Civil Partnership, I can say that it doesn't bother me that much - legally speaking, it affords me the same rights and protections that marriage does. The only difference is that it forces me to expose my sexual orientation in situations in which I'd sometimes prefer not to make such a song and dance about it, because I can't tick the box "Married" - if the option is there, I have to declare "Civil Partnership", but in passing conversation, for all intents and purposes, I'm married. I can't see a valid reason for not allowing Gay Marriage, in that it should be legal for the ceremonies to be religious (but it should not force religious groups/venues to marry gay couples) and I'm personally of the opinion that the status of a Straight or Gay couple's marriage should be identical and this distinction between the two is largely pointless.



Civil marriage has no religious content.

As a male dating a female if I were to get married, I would actually prefer to say that I'm in a civil partnership, or at least get married in a country that allows gay marriage, as I really don't think people should be forced to out themselves.

Now I don't know what you say your sexuality is (and I don't really think that the terms hetero/homo/bi sexual have any real meaning as I don't subscribe to a binary view of sex), but presuming you've been to a 'gay' night club or two, if I were to go into one as a boy with a girlfriend, do you think I might be frowned upon? (I've heard a varying amount of reports on this, some 'gay' people saying that it makes it harder for them to know who they can and can't get with, or that they just want to be able to be away from 'straight' people, some 'gay' people saying the more the merrier etc.)

Do you think in principle my attitude towards civil partnerships and marriage is similar to this?



The way I see it is 'gay' people against 'straights' in nightclubs is essentially playing identity politics, and are helping to perpetuate the social divide that they all ready having to put up with and not enjoying.

From their point of view [not universally of course] I'm invading their safe 'haven'.


Advice? View point?

Spoiler:

Show

For the record I rarely ever go to night clubs, and haven't actually been to a 'gay' one, not least of all because I've never lived near one and can't be bothered trekking back home for hours on end.

[Xanth]

I don't see why gay people want to be 'married' when it's largely based on a religion that doesn't agree with them. I would be quite happy if churches were given the choice to allow a gay marriage to take place and if civil partnerships created exactly the same benefits. I'm gay by the way and that's pretty much how I feel. I would be afraid I would burst into flames in a church or something, lol.

Heterosexual people can and do have civil partnerships too... it's not like having a religious ceremony is better than a civil partnership. But i think the choice should be allowed - but that's not going to come easy is it.

[lekky]

(Original post by G8D)
Equivalent effect is not the same as same terms...

Redundant question. Essentially history has defined marriage as what it is, the union of a man and a woman. And to pre-empt anyone: I understand that language is fluid, but you have to admit that altering the colloquial meaning of marriage is a pretty big leap. I just don't understand the big fuss about calling it marriage, when it's definitionally not.

It just seems some offshoot from the "rights" brigade screaming victim for something that doesn't victimise them.

EDIT: to clarify, I support the opening up of legal partnership to all couples as I don't exactly agree with the idea of a "non-religious" marriage if I'm honest. Marriage is so deeply intertwined with religion that I'd rather not tarnish myself or any prospective spouse with that brush and I can't understand why any other atheist would want to either.

Marriage isn't a word associated with religion anymore. It's hardly associated with religion itself. Atheists get married. People get married on beaches not in churches. It's different to "civil partnership" -- a term that identifies lesbian and gay couples as different from "married" straight couples. A term that makes their relationship seem more legitimate.

There are a whole host of reasons why people want gay marriage. My personal reasons is the terminology, I want it to be the same. One of the hardest things for me about coming to terms with my sexuality was getting over the whole childhood thing of meet boy get married have kids live in chocolate box house and realising that might not be how it happens. I would love to be able to just get married, plain and simple, whether I end up with a man or a woman.

Religion does not extend purely to Christianity. What about Quakers? They recognise same-sex and different-sex marriage as equal and yet are not legally allowed to perform this ceremony. Under proposed Scottish legislation, they would be able to do so whilst all religions who disagree are perfectly able to opt out