[.eXe]

(Original post by mmmpie)
~

Have a look at posts 199 and 200. I think that is a good compromise.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by .eXe)
Have a look at posts 199 and 200. I think that is a good compromise.

Acceptable to me, although I can't see it happening in practice.

Deleting "Marriage" and "Civil Partnership" as legal terms and replacing them with something altogether new seems contrary to your change-averse position though.

[IPlayThePiccolo]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318

What does everyone think about this?

I for one am relieved that the Church of England is continuing to defend the traditional idea and sacred institution of marriage.

I understand where the church are coming from and I guess we do live in a society where people are allowed to make their opinions known, so they have the right to say this. But I think that SOME Christians spend too much time worrying over these things and shunning gay marriage, and forgetting that one of the most important commands is love thy neighbour :P

[.eXe]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Acceptable to me, although I can't see it happening in practice.

Deleting "Marriage" and "Civil Partnership" as legal terms and replacing them with something altogether new seems contrary to your change-averse position though.

No you missed his point. We aren't deleting and/or changing marriage but rather reassigning its position.

Marriage has always held a position is both societal terms and legal terms.

What Psyk suggested (and what I agree with) is that marriage must remain a societal interpretation of a union, and in doing that can retain its original meaning. However, in a legal sense, the word should be replaced by another term which can be more comprehensive and incorporate homosexuals as well.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by .eXe)
No you missed his point. We aren't deleting and/or changing marriage but rather reassigning its position.

Marriage has always held a position is both societal terms and legal terms.

What Psyk suggested (and what I agree with) is that marriage must remain a societal interpretation of a union, and in doing that can retain its original meaning. However, in a legal sense, the word should be replaced by another term which can be more comprehensive and incorporate homosexuals as well.

Yes, I got that.

You realise that many same-sex couples would identify themselves as married for sociocultural reasons, and would be no more or less correct in doing so than mixed-sex couples. So the end result would be the same as if you'd legalised same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnerships, only you'd have introduced a additional piece of legal jargon and everyone would be 'kerfuffled' or what you want to call it.

[.eXe]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Yes, I got that.

You realise that many same-sex couples would identify themselves as married for sociocultural reasons, and would be no more or less correct in doing so than mixed-sex couples. So the end result would be the same as if you'd legalised same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnerships, only you'd have introduced a additional piece of legal jargon and everyone would be 'kerfuffled' or what you want to call it.

Sure, they can identify them as married. Just like they can technically identify themselves as being married even now. They can't be legally identified as married but it's not like the government is stopping them from identifying themselves as however they wish to. So I don't really see what your point is.

Also, yes I will have introduced another term of "legal jargon" as you put it, but the point of that is simple. The original definition of marriage does not change, and this compromise helps incorporate homosexuals in.

Why should traditional married couples have to change their personal definition of marriage?

In this compromise, the definition remains the same and poses no threat to heterosexually married couples, as should be the case.

However, from a legal standpoint, there must be some unity, and I'm afraid that introducing another term is the only way to compromise.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by .eXe)
Sure, they can identify them as married. Just like they can technically identify themselves as being married even now. They can't be legally identified as married but it's not like the government is stopping them from identifying themselves as however they wish to. So I don't really see what your point is.

Also, yes I will have introduced another term of "legal jargon" as you put it, but the point of that is simple. The original definition of marriage does not change, and this compromise helps incorporate homosexuals in.

Why should traditional married couples have to change their personal definition of marriage?

In this compromise, the definition remains the same and poses no threat to heterosexually married couples, as should be the case.

However, from a legal standpoint, there must be some unity, and I'm afraid that introducing another term is the only way to compromise.

One of the arguments for same-sex marriage (and to a lesser extent for mixed-sex civil partnerships) is that almost any time you declare your marital status the categories "Married" and "Civil Partner" are distinguished, which effectively requires people to out themselves. Your jargon solution would certainly resolve that.

In what way is the relationship of any mixed-sex couple altered, threatened, or even the least bit affected by same-sex marriage? No couple's "personal definition of marriage" is changed, at least not in the sense of how they define their own relationship.

[Psyk]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Acceptable to me, although I can't see it happening in practice.

Deleting "Marriage" and "Civil Partnership" as legal terms and replacing them with something altogether new seems contrary to your change-averse position though.

No, I don't see it happening in practice either. Unfortunately, many of these "pro-marriage" types (the ones who confusingly are against people getting married) wouldn't see it as a compromise, they would see it as destroying marriage entirely. I think some people struggle to get their head around the idea that marriage can exist without the state dictating it to them.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Psyk)
No, I don't see it happening in practice either. Unfortunately, many of these "pro-marriage" types (the ones who confusingly are against people getting married) wouldn't see it as a compromise, they would see it as destroying marriage entirely. I think some people struggle to get their head around the idea that marriage can exist without the state dictating it to them.

There does seem to be a division between the people that think marriage should enable and reflect peoples relationships, and the people that think peoples relationships should fulfil and realise marriage. Kinda chicken and egg.

[TheSmallYellowDuck]

May already have been posted but...

I was somewhat amused.

[heyhey922]

(Original post by .eXe)
You're somewhat right about that, and I'll also add that the definition of marriage has varied widely in terms of geography and culture.

However, I am of course speaking of local definitions of marriage...so if in Canada for example, if marriage has been defined as xy, I see no reason to change it to also include z just because z feels discriminated against all of a sudden.

Z have always felt discriminated against.

Its just until 100 years ago or so if some was found out to be Z they would be burned at the stake.

It was believed that Z had a mental illness.

When this was disproved they said Z chose to be this way.

When this was disproved they said Z would be unfit parents.

After all the times what people thought about Z was proved wrong, possessed by devil, mental illness etc the law was changed, it is simply happening again in light of new evidence.

[Labqueen]

I saw this posted by one of my friends earlier in the year on facebook and I had to laugh as it does seem to cover the majority of arguements put forward as to why homosexual people should not be allowed to marry. I think the counter arguements are pretty accurate when you give it a wee bit of thought.


10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by .eXe)
Sure, they can identify them as married. Just like they can technically identify themselves as being married even now. They can't be legally identified as married but it's not like the government is stopping them from identifying themselves as however they wish to. So I don't really see what your point is.

Also, yes I will have introduced another term of "legal jargon" as you put it, but the point of that is simple. The original definition of marriage does not change, and this compromise helps incorporate homosexuals in.

Why should traditional married couples have to change their personal definition of marriage?

In this compromise, the definition remains the same and poses no threat to heterosexually married couples, as should be the case.

However, from a legal standpoint, there must be some unity, and I'm afraid that introducing another term is the only way to compromise.

Since you happen to come from/live in Canada can you enlighten us what happened there since they legalised same sex marriage? Has society collapsed? Did they change the definition of the word marriage or created another word or language? What about the heterosexual couples did they have to flee from the country since the altered definition posed a threat to their marriage? I am right to expect the churches have also ceased performing marriage ceremonies for the same reasons? You must have lots of evidence to demonstrate the existence of all those issues there.

[heyhey922]

(Original post by Sephiroth)
You should check how long they last.

ONS:

509 Civil partnerships dissolutions
113,000 Divorces

now what?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by heyhey922)
ONS:

509 Civil partnerships dissolutions
113,000 Divorces

now what?

How many new marriages and civil partnerships in the same period, out of interest?

[heyhey922]

(Original post by mmmpie)
How many new marriages and civil partnerships in the same period, out of interest?

Marriges 232K

CP: 6.3K

[mmmpie]

(Original post by heyhey922)
Marriges 232K

CP: 6.3K

And they say gay people are undermining the sanctity of marriage.

[Labqueen]

(Original post by mmmpie)
How many new marriages and civil partnerships in the same period, out of interest?

You can't really take the statistics with a comparison on dissolutions of civil partnerships against divorce rates. The Civil Partnership act was only introduced in 2005, marriage between a male and female has been legal for many many years. How many of the divorce figures are from newly married couples and how many are from marriages which have spanned decades. Also a civil partnership can not be dissolved within the first year so you would need to know which year the CP occured and was then dissolved.

[Labqueen]

(Original post by mmmpie)
And they say gay people are undermining the sanctity of marriage.

That arguement is always thrown in, as in post 216, the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Labqueen)
You can't really take the statistics with a comparison on dissolutions of civil partnerships against divorce rates. The Civil Partnership act was only introduced in 2005, marriage between a male and female has been legal for many many years. How many of the divorce figures are from newly married couples and how many are from marriages which have spanned decades. Also a civil partnership can not be dissolved within the first year so you would need to know which year the CP occured and was then dissolved.

I know all this, which is why I didn't attempt to derive any statistics from the ONS figures that heyhey992 quoted. I asked for the formation rate to compare with the dissolution rate purely to give a sense of scale - the bare figures for divorce/dissolution aren't terribly informative on their own. You can however get a rough sense that, notwithstanding deaths, the number of civil partnerships is increasing relatively rapidly, while the number of marriages is barely crawling up.

(Original post by Labqueen)
That arguement is always thrown in, as in post 216, the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Don't forget Kim Kardashian