Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Marry??????
Okay,
I'd like to know what others think about the difference between civil partnerships and marriage.
- Does it matter?
- If you are gay, do you feel strongly about this, or is it the same thing under a different name?
-Do you think civil partnerships should be scrapped and gay couples allowed to marry?
- Is it discriminatory to separate the two? Is a civil partnership a lesser form of marriage?
-Are gay rights campaigners making a fuss about nothing for being outraged about this issue?
For those who don't know -
the civil partnership act confers all the same financial and legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, so in this area there is absolutely no differences between marriage and civil partnerships.
- However, married couples have the right to annul the marriage due to lack of consummation and can divorce on the grounds of adultery, whereas these provisions were purposefully omitted from the civil partnership act. Basically all reference to the intimacy of same sex relationships has been ignored, which shows a certain level of disdain for gay sex. Is this offensive? discriminatory? or does consummation simply not matter in modern society ?(the act was passed in 2004)
SO, FOR THOSE WHO CBA TO READ:
Should same sex marriage be allowed?
Is segregating gay people from this institution discimination? - e.g if only blonde people were allowed to marry this would be outrageous, is it any different because we seperate gay people?
- How much does religion factor in the debate? - as marriage was never intended for same sex couples, and is a religious institution. what about religious gay people??
(sorry for the long post)
I'd like to know what others think about the difference between civil partnerships and marriage.
- Does it matter?
- If you are gay, do you feel strongly about this, or is it the same thing under a different name?
-Do you think civil partnerships should be scrapped and gay couples allowed to marry?
- Is it discriminatory to separate the two? Is a civil partnership a lesser form of marriage?
-Are gay rights campaigners making a fuss about nothing for being outraged about this issue?
For those who don't know -
the civil partnership act confers all the same financial and legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, so in this area there is absolutely no differences between marriage and civil partnerships.
- However, married couples have the right to annul the marriage due to lack of consummation and can divorce on the grounds of adultery, whereas these provisions were purposefully omitted from the civil partnership act. Basically all reference to the intimacy of same sex relationships has been ignored, which shows a certain level of disdain for gay sex. Is this offensive? discriminatory? or does consummation simply not matter in modern society ?(the act was passed in 2004)
SO, FOR THOSE WHO CBA TO READ:
Should same sex marriage be allowed?
Is segregating gay people from this institution discimination? - e.g if only blonde people were allowed to marry this would be outrageous, is it any different because we seperate gay people?
- How much does religion factor in the debate? - as marriage was never intended for same sex couples, and is a religious institution. what about religious gay people??
(sorry for the long post)
Scroll to see replies
Yes. Love is love, and people who are upset about the definition of marriage being changed should get over it. People change the definition of marriage all the time, with open marriages etc.
If marriage is a religious institution, what about people who are atheists and get married in a registry office? Gay people should at least be allowed that even if certain religions don't recognise gay marriage.
If marriage is a religious institution, what about people who are atheists and get married in a registry office? Gay people should at least be allowed that even if certain religions don't recognise gay marriage.
Original post by IndigoRockGirl
Yes. Love is love, and people who are upset about the definition of marriage being changed should get over it. People change the definition of marriage all the time, with open marriages etc.
If marriage is a religious institution, what about people who are atheists and get married in a registry office? Gay people should at least be allowed that even if certain religions don't recognise gay marriage.
If marriage is a religious institution, what about people who are atheists and get married in a registry office? Gay people should at least be allowed that even if certain religions don't recognise gay marriage.
but isnt it enough that we've given them civil partnerships? which in essence is exactly the same thing? why do you think it matters so much that its given a different name? dont you think its just a technicality?
Original post by ST3V1E
but isnt it enough that we've given them civil partnerships? which in essence is exactly the same thing? why do you think it matters so much that its given a different name? dont you think its just a technicality?
If it's "exactly the same thing" as a marriage, why should it be given a different name?
Original post by ST3V1E
but isnt it enough that we've given them civil partnerships? which in essence is exactly the same thing? why do you think it matters so much that its given a different name? dont you think its just a technicality?
No, I don't, because the love between two men or two women is exactly the same as the love between a man and a woman, and so marriage between two men or two women should be called the same thing as between a man and a woman. 'Civil partnerships' are kind of condescending, it's like saying 'Ok, you can have to same rights as married people, but it's not really the same'.
so you think giving it a different name implies it is worse?
Do you think it's worth campaigning for change in the law, even paying tens of thousands of pounds worth in legal battles (as some same-sex couples have) to obtain the title "married" rather than civil partner, when it actually makes no practical difference to your life (all the same rules for pensions, taxes, wills, responsibility to care for and love are identical to marriage)?
why does something different have to be worse?
some people would say that civil partnerships reflect modern society which is no longer bound by outdated religious restraints? and by law marriage is void if it is not between a man and a woman, would you suggest that a civil partnership is somehow worse? less worthy of having than marriage?
Do you think it's worth campaigning for change in the law, even paying tens of thousands of pounds worth in legal battles (as some same-sex couples have) to obtain the title "married" rather than civil partner, when it actually makes no practical difference to your life (all the same rules for pensions, taxes, wills, responsibility to care for and love are identical to marriage)?
why does something different have to be worse?
some people would say that civil partnerships reflect modern society which is no longer bound by outdated religious restraints? and by law marriage is void if it is not between a man and a woman, would you suggest that a civil partnership is somehow worse? less worthy of having than marriage?
Original post by ST3V1E
but isnt it enough that we've given them civil partnerships? which in essence is exactly the same thing? why do you think it matters so much that its given a different name? dont you think its just a technicality?
I find the way you've worded that really, condescending. It implies that there's a big divide between "us straight people" and those "gay people"
Love is love, whatever the gender of each person may be. I don't see why a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman is morally different to a man and a female getting wed.
Original post by ST3V1E
Yes, if you love someone regardless of their gender, you should be allowed to get married.
I tend to call gay couples who are in a civil partnership married anyway to be honest XD
But I'll never say that churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples, in the same way that they shouldn't be forced to marry anyone who doesn't abide by their religion in the full. Many Christian denominations aren't outright against homosexuals as such, but if they believe that the Bible should be interpreted in such a way that gay marriage within the church is not allowed, that's up to them. As long as there is some way for homosexual couples to be legally joined in a way that is the equivalent of marriage, I'm happy.
But I'll never say that churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples, in the same way that they shouldn't be forced to marry anyone who doesn't abide by their religion in the full. Many Christian denominations aren't outright against homosexuals as such, but if they believe that the Bible should be interpreted in such a way that gay marriage within the church is not allowed, that's up to them. As long as there is some way for homosexual couples to be legally joined in a way that is the equivalent of marriage, I'm happy.
Yes, gay couples should be allowed to get married. I'm not sure why they'd want marriage, but whatever. To be honest I don't really understand why either side of this issue is so bothered by it. I get the symbolic significance and all that, but it really changes nothing in a society with much greater problems on our plates.
Original post by sarahthegemini
I find the way you've worded that really, condescending. It implies that there's a big divide between "us straight people" and those "gay people"
Love is love, whatever the gender of each person may be. I don't see why a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman is morally different to a man and a female getting wed.
Love is love, whatever the gender of each person may be. I don't see why a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman is morally different to a man and a female getting wed.
The word 'given' is not tremendously appreciated either. To be blunt, while there are straight people out there who are allies and have done a lot of work aiming for gay marriage, the majority of straight people have not 'given' non-straight people anything. Pretty much every advance in rights for LGBT+ people has been hard-won through protests and campaigns.
As for civil partnerships, they aren't identically equal to marriages. You can't call them a marriage, you can't always hold them in a religious place of worship (I honestly can't remember if some churches are allowed to hold them if they want to, or not - it was a proposed amendment and I can't remember if it went through) and if you go abroad, they often aren't recognised the same. To the extend that some people have had problems with being allowed to visit their civil partners while their partners were in hospital in other countries, because they weren't recognised as next of kin.
It annoys me beyond belief that straight people get to vote on whether I should be allowed to marry someone I love or not - and that they can then tell me that it doesn't matter, when they're not in the same situation themselves. I don't give a toss if people think it's unnecessary or a waste of money in legal fees or whatever. I want the right in law to marry someone who I'm in love with, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable request.
Original post by ST3V1E
but isnt it enough that we've given them civil partnerships? which in essence is exactly the same thing? why do you think it matters so much that its given a different name? dont you think its just a technicality?
So do you agree with 'separate but equal' facilities for black and white people as well then?
If not, why?
Original post by The Bagel Guy
I have no opinion whatsoever on this.
But I was under the impression marriage was a religous thing.
What with the bible etc. being against gays wouldn't it therefore defeat the idea of marriage?
Might be wrong though.
PS. If they're handed marriage they'll just whine about something else.
But I was under the impression marriage was a religous thing.
What with the bible etc. being against gays wouldn't it therefore defeat the idea of marriage?
Might be wrong though.
PS. If they're handed marriage they'll just whine about something else.
You'd be 'whining' too if someone denied you an inherent freedom because of something you couldn't help...
Original post by ST3V1E
x
I'm not sure anyone should be allowed to marry, it mostly just seems to cause problems.
However if people are going to keep on signing legally binding contracts saying that they'll stay with this person that (in relative terms) they only just met, until they die, then gay people should be able to get a chunk of the insanity on equal terms.
Are you really so thick as to reply
Giving it a different name implies that it is different........
and that is what the other poster was pointing out..
It shouldn't be different. End of.
I really do not like the rather ugly overtones creeping into your replies.
I think everyone here understands that you have no interest in debate.
I think everyone here recognizes attitudes like yours.
Original post by ST3V1E
so you think giving it a different name implies it is worse?
Giving it a different name implies that it is different........
and that is what the other poster was pointing out..
It shouldn't be different. End of.
I really do not like the rather ugly overtones creeping into your replies.
I think everyone here understands that you have no interest in debate.
I think everyone here recognizes attitudes like yours.
Original post by MancStudent098
I'm not sure anyone should be allowed to marry, it mostly just seems to cause problems.
However if people are going to keep on signing legally binding contracts saying that they'll stay with this person that (in relative terms) they only just met, until they die, then gay people should be able to get a chunk of the insanity on equal terms.
However if people are going to keep on signing legally binding contracts saying that they'll stay with this person that (in relative terms) they only just met, until they die, then gay people should be able to get a chunk of the insanity on equal terms.
Since when was marriage a legally binding contract promising to stay with someone until they die?
It hasn't been that way for an awfully long time. We're talking well over a century.
Haven't you heard of divorce
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Since when was marriage a legally binding contract promising to stay with someone until they die?
It hasn't been that way for an awfully long time. We're talking well over a century.
Haven't you heard of divorce
It hasn't been that way for an awfully long time. We're talking well over a century.
Haven't you heard of divorce
Sure, you can break the 'contract' (and the quote marks are because sooner or later some idiot is going to start niggling over the correct definition of a contract), if you don't mind divvying up all of your stuff with the other person (and that's the minimum assuming it's amicable, lord help you if there are kids involved/(s)he hates your guts etc).
However I would still call into question the sanity of promising to stay with someone you've known for say 5-10 years for the next 50 or 60, legally binding or not. I'm well aware though that I'm in a minority on that one.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
