[Sean9001]

(Original post by NB_ide)
an institution that rather disapproves of their lifestyle and promotes many things they (and most other younger people today) disagree with.
Discuss.

That's far too broad a brushstroke. Many religious people support gay marriage in the name of fairness and equality. It can seem otherwise because the opposition use more memorable, pernicious language. But common sense reminds us that the unhappy party in disputes tends to be heard the most with no regard to the merit of what they are saying.

[Sean9001]

(Original post by tufc)
The answer is to give civil partnerships the same legal consequence as marriage, not to essentially tear apart an age-old institution that underpins society.

You are living in the 14th Century if you really think marriage underpins society. People get married for the sake of it. To show love and commitment. Not purely for the creation of children, especially as plenty of children are raised by competent unmarried couples.

Equally, there is more to marriage than symbolising orientation superiority. Namely (as mentioned) demonstrating commitment, love and appreciation of one another. You degrade the institution of marriage by implying that it does not. Extending the right to marry increases the fortitude of marriage, rather than tears it apart. Because it would embody those principles that are seen as inalienable in 21st Century Britain.

Age-old institutions have to, and do change. Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples will receive the right to marry. Be it now, or later. Stop antagonising the debate and accept the rightfully inevitable.

[Cephalus]

Yes but God defined marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not two men (or women)

[DalePie]

The Quakers and sections of the Jewish religeon actively want to marry gay couples. They have been lobbying for years about the issue. So I would imagine gay people who worship within these religeons would like to get married in church.

I know Pagans want gay marriage too, unsure as to if they have churches though? I'm not really up on that but I'm sure others are.

[Gremlins]

(Original post by tufc)
No, I'm acting on fact. The English word 'marriage' dates from 1300, and exclusively refers to the civil union between a man and woman. Can you really not understand that that means that the very idea of gay marriage is a misnomer, a contradiction in terms?

And? Book is etymologically related to beech (as in the tree) because that's what they were written on. That doesn't mean books written on paper aren't real books.

[AdamChurcher]

Yet what difference would it make if civil partnerships were given exactly the same legal rights as marriage?
Are you trying to protect marriage itself as a whole exclusively for straight couples or are you simply trying to protect the word 'Marriage'?

[aja89]

There are plenty of same sex couples that happen to have religious beliefs as well.

[tufc]

(Original post by Sean9001)
You are living in the 14th Century if you really think marriage underpins society. People get married for the sake of it. To show love and commitment. Not purely for the creation of children, especially as plenty of children are raised by competent unmarried couples.

Yes, and they understand the seriousness of the commitment element you acknowledge because of marriage's historical nature. People who still see marriage as permanent see it that way because of its attachment to history.

Equally, there is more to marriage than symbolising orientation superiority. Namely (as mentioned) demonstrating commitment, love and appreciation of one another. You degrade the institution of marriage by implying that it does not. Extending the right to marry increases the fortitude of marriage, rather than tears it apart. Because it would embody those principles that are seen as inalienable in 21st Century Britain.

Marriage is not an inalienable right. In fact, seeing as it's a relationship with the state that's voluntarily created by the individual, it's not really even a 'right'. It's not about 'orientation superiority'; if the situation was inverted, marriage had always been for those of all orientations, and people were now trying to make it heterosexual only, I would oppose them. Why? Because marriage is not marriage without its history. It was a word specifically created to define the civil union between a man and a woman: to change it to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman means it is no longer marriage

Age-old institutions have to, and do change. Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples will receive the right to marry. Be it now, or later. Stop antagonising the debate and accept the rightfully inevitable.

It won't change in my lifetime. It certainly won't happen under this government, as Cameron's backbench support is pitiful at best. I also see absolutely no need to change it on an issue of principle when gay people can be given the same legal status through civil partnerships.

[Bella_trixxx]

(Original post by tufc)
It's certainly a changing institution, though 'evolving' implies positive progress.
The lack of respect for marriage is becoming more and more widespread. I believe 'gay marriage' will add to that.

Pity the evidence doesn't agree with you.

"In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...e-sex-marriage

"Policy Exchange said that the number of divorces had decreased in Holland, Belgium, Canada and South Africa since gay marriage was introduced."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226426963152

[Scienceisgood]

I'm not all that bothered and when I find Mr Right, I will be happy, married or not.
Marriage is not really anything to me, so, I suppose it depends on the person.

Although, I see why people want to. I mean, I am not religious so I don't want to get married in a church. So, I suppose it comes down to having the oppertunity to do something and being able to do so freely without prejedice.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by SecretDuck)
Of course they want the right to marriage! Civil partnerships give them far less rights than a heterosexual couple. They want this to change.

For example?

The Wikipeda page on Civil Partnership in the United Kingdom has this to say about it:
"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce."

Can you tell me where exactly you think this paragraph has gone wrong?

[zak_kamz]

Maybe they can ask the Mosque to get them married?

[Ham22]

What is a non religious marriage between a hetero couple called?

[SecretDuck]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
For example?

Civil partnerships are not recognised in all countries whereas marriage is. Some people marry just to get their partner's visa (financial marriage).

I meant to say that gay rights campaigners have been complaining that they have less rights under civil partnerships. And some heterosexual couples want to have civil partnerships.

I just wanted to put the different views on this topic and debate a bit.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by SecretDuck)
Civil partnerships are not recognised in all countries whereas marriage is.

Well there isn't anything we can do about that, is there? Gay marriage isn't recognised in those countries either. So I don't see how renaming "civil partnership" to "marriage" in this country is going to have any effect upon their rights in those other countries.

Some people marry just to get their partner's visa (financial marriage).

In this country, civil partnership grants the same visa and citizenship rights as marriage. In other countries which don't recognise same-sex unions, it wouldn't really matter whether we rename "civil partnership" to "marriage" or not - members of the same sex cannot gain visas or citizenship rights in this manner. Again, there's nothing we can do about that.

I meant to say that gay rights campaigners have been complaining that they have less rights under civil partnerships.

Yes, I know they've been complaining about it. My question is about whether or not this is actually true though.

And some heterosexual couples want to have civil partnerships.

In that case, my question would apply in reverse. What is the difference between civil partnership and marriage, which could cause a heterosexual couple to prefer civil partnership above marriage? So far, to me it just looks like the same thing with a different name.

[Dee Leigh]

I don't think some of them care.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yes but God defined marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not two men (or women)

And im defining it as between two people.... Problem? Marriage has changed through the years, this addition is nothing...

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well there isn't anything we can do about that, is there? Gay marriage isn't recognised in those countries either. So I don't see how renaming "civil partnership" to "marriage" in this country is going to have any effect upon their rights in those other countries.



In this country, civil partnership grants the same visa and citizenship rights as marriage. In other countries which don't recognise same-sex unions, it wouldn't really matter whether we rename "civil partnership" to "marriage" or not - members of the same sex cannot gain visas or citizenship rights in this manner. Again, there's nothing we can do about that.



Yes, I know they've been complaining about it. My question is about whether or not this is actually true though.



In that case, my question would apply in reverse. What is the difference between civil partnership and marriage, which could cause a heterosexual couple to prefer civil partnership above marriage? So far, to me it just looks like the same thing with a different name.

I'm sure we've had this debate before...
Is this really going to start again?

[SecretDuck]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well there isn't anything we can do about that, is there? Gay marriage isn't recognised in those countries either. So I don't see how renaming "civil partnership" to "marriage" in this country is going to have any effect upon their rights in those other countries.

And neither is polygamy, and doesn't it go against many religious texts also? I admit that as much as I want the option of both civil partnerships and marriage to be available to everyone, I don't see it being very likely. Not under this parliament anyway.

Also, marriage has been portrayed in thousands of movies and tv series as something very positive but we don't see much movies where the main characters have civil partnerships. It's the status of marriage and it's connotations which stir the problem. Oh and the inability to choose. Not all heterosexual couples want to get "married" and some would prefer to be labelled as simply "partners".

It's not just the problem that gay marriage doesn't exist - its also the problem that heterosexual civil partnerships don't exist as well.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by tufc)
No, but all its history and respect is gained from its religious past.



I don't want to make this a theological argument, as I'm an agnostic. I'm not Christian; however, I do believe in the merits of a fundamentally Christian society. The majority of British people who get married in churches aren't practising Christians, they're basically agnostics or atheists, who want to get married in a church because they feel that it's a key part of their culture. Neither of my parents were particularly religious, but as my dad put it, when you stand at the altar, and make those vows, you're not making vows just to any Christian god, you're making vows to the whole morality of the human species.

A christian society is so good? The religion that butchered thousands of people in the name of its God, and hand picked the books in the bible so that they could keep control? Marriage predates Christianity by a long way.