Recognition of same-sex couples Watch

Poll: Recognition of same-sex couples
Gay marriage should be legalized in the interest of equality (62)
40.79%
I support the status quo (marriage for hetero couples, and civil partnerships for gay couples) (47)
30.92%
Civil partnerships should be extended to hetero couples, and the State should not deploy the word 'marriage' in civil, legal contexts (36)
23.68%
Not sure (7)
4.61%
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 11 years ago
#61
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Who says its a religious ceremony?

Athiests can get married in the UK and most anywhere else!

Marriage is simply the binding union of two people; none of the vows relate to upholding religion in the relationship. the legal purpose of marriage is to bind the two persons together, nothing religious again.

Please provide some argument, ANY argument, for why religion (lol at "doesnt matter what religion") is an integral part of marriage.


Also, if I was gay and believed in a gay god / religion, under your definition id be allowed to get married. FAIL
I realise atheists can get married in the UK, thank you. But I believe that's wrong. Marriage should be for people who follow a recognised religion, and civil partnerships for those who don't. It seems fair enough to me.

A civil partnership is equal to a marriage, except it explicitly states it is CIVIL and dissociates itself from religion. Why would atheists object to that? They have all the same rights as a marriage, just their union is explicitly a civil one, whilst marriage still carries connotations of churches and God.

In a religious service, the service at least refers to the commitment being made in the eyes of God. So in that case, you're wrong, because religion does come into it.

Funnily enough, you can't just make up your own religion to suit you. If you genuinely believe in a recognised religion, then you can get married. And as far as I know, there aren't any recognised religions that worship a gay god. :rolleyes:

When someone uses expressions like "FAIL" I staart to losemy interest in debating with them. So if you'll excuse me, I have better things to be doing than arguing with a child who thinks declaring "FAIL" automatically makes them right :rolleyes:
0
reply
Lychee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report 11 years ago
#62
I would go for 1 and 3.

Marriage is not specifically religious it is a cultural thing. Cultures change and gay people should be able to get mariied if they want and have the same privillages as straight people. But I also believe that people should be able to enter into a civil partnership if they want to. This would be less formalised than a marriage but ensure the rights of co-habiting couples to be next of kin/ have childcare rights and financial security. I would see this being used either for couples who dont want to get married formally or for couples who may get married in the future but want to make a formal and legal commitment to each other prior to that. For example you might have one if you bought a house with a partner but were still unmarried.
0
reply
so-not-going-to-rehab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 11 years ago
#63
(Original post by KatieLouise08)
But it is very similar, marriage is recognizing two people becoming one together. Civil partnership is very similar in this but maybe more legal grounded. But its still the same basic principle

Considering that you value your Christianity as a major part of your opinion, this statement is horrendously bigoted.

Why should a same-sex couple be denied of an opportunity to show their commitment to each other, or to enjoy financial security?

'Coming together' - as you put it so vaguely - is a feature of both types of commitment, but the differences between marriage and civil partnership (i.e. the ENORMOUSLY religious element of marriage) make your point completely precarious and ill-informed.

Civil partnership doesn't represent marriage at all, they are two explicitly different things. Because of this fact, it doesn't make marriage any less special or pure - they're separate types of commitment for a reason!
0
reply
twistme
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 11 years ago
#64
(Original post by installedpear)
Marriage doesn't and can't exist between a man and a dog, or horse, or cousin, or mother, because marriage is a term dictated by the book of common prayer.
Slightly OT, but you can legally marry your cousin. Mothers are off limits though!
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#65
Report 11 years ago
#65
(Original post by Joanna May)
I realise atheists can get married in the UK, thank you. But I believe that's wrong. Marriage should be for people who follow a recognised religion, and civil partnerships for those who don't. It seems fair enough to me.

A civil partnership is equal to a marriage, except it explicitly states it is CIVIL and dissociates itself from religion. Why would atheists object to that? They have all the same rights as a marriage, just their union is explicitly a civil one, whilst marriage still carries connotations of churches and God.

In a religious service, the service at least refers to the commitment being made in the eyes of God. So in that case, you're wrong, because religion does come into it.

Funnily enough, you can't just make up your own religion to suit you. If you genuinely believe in a recognised religion, then you can get married. And as far as I know, there aren't any recognised religions that worship a gay god. :rolleyes:

When someone uses expressions like "FAIL" I staart to losemy interest in debating with them. So if you'll excuse me, I have better things to be doing than arguing with a child who thinks declaring "FAIL" automatically makes them right :rolleyes:
Neopaganism is a recognise religion in the UK that believes in the equality of homosexual and heterosexual partnerships. Under your formulation, gays following this religion SHOULD be allowed to marry.

Funnily enough, you cant just keep redefining marriage more narrowly to suit your biggotted agenda.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 11 years ago
#66
(Original post by Lychee)
I would go for 1 and 3.

Marriage is not specifically religious it is a cultural thing. Cultures change and gay people should be able to get mariied if they want and have the same privillages as straight people. But I also believe that people should be able to enter into a civil partnership if they want to. This would be less formalised than a marriage but ensure the rights of co-habiting couples to be next of kin/ have childcare rights and financial security. I would see this being used either for couples who dont want to get married formally or for couples who may get married in the future but want to make a formal and legal commitment to each other prior to that. For example you might have one if you bought a house with a partner but were still unmarried.
spot on.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#67
Report 11 years ago
#67
(Original post by so-not-going-to-rehab)
Considering that you value your Christianity as a major part of your opinion, this statement is horrendously bigoted.

Why should a same-sex couple be denied of an opportunity to show their commitment to each other, or to enjoy financial security?

'Coming together' - as you put it so vaguely - is a feature of both types of commitment, but the differences between marriage and civil partnership (i.e. the ENORMOUSLY religious element of marriage) make your point completely precarious and ill-informed.

Civil partnership doesn't represent marriage at all, they are two explicitly different things. Because of this fact, it doesn't make marriage any less special or pure - they're separate types of commitment for a reason!
Well actually they arent that separate; civil ceremonies of marriage have no conspicuous religious element or even tacit requirement. 2 staight atheists can get married.

For this reason the same needs to be extended to gays.
0
reply
Ella_belle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#68
Report 11 years ago
#68
(Original post by Joanna May)
IIn a religious service, the service at least refers to the commitment being made in the eyes of God. So in that case, you're wrong, because religion does come into it.
Actually, no. What you're referring to is the wedding CEREMONY. Everyone in this country has to get married in a civil, it can just be carried out in conjunction with a religious ceremony if the couple wish.

A marriage is usually formalised at a wedding or marriage ceremony, which is officiated either by a religious official or by a State approved celebrant. In many European and some Latin American countries, a religious ceremony must be held separately from the civil ceremony. Some countries — such as Belgium, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Turkey — require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries — notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain — both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the State to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the State is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) — the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognised by the State under the law.
Marriage is legal concept, not a religious one. Athiests tend to just do the civil bit, religious people add a bit to the ceremony where they are blessed in the eyes of their Deity/deities. Sorry, but although the Judeo-Christian tradition came up with a lot of things, it can't claim marriage :rolleyes:.

Also, although the 'gay religion' doesn't exist, Buddhism does completely accept gay people. So gay people can be religious. And your point falls down.

Personally, I think that not letting gay people get married is a bit churlish. Seeing as the legal rights are pretty much the same with civil partnership, we're essentially just making gay people have a separate ceremony in order to keep our archaic heterosexual traditions.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#69
Report 11 years ago
#69
Exactly. If Marriage was this religious only concept, atheists wouldnt be able to marry, buddhist or pagan gays would be able to marry, and omitting the civil element of the ceremony would make no difference.

Game set match tbh.
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#70
Report 11 years ago
#70
A brother and sister for example; or two brothers/two sisters even (who have chosen not to marry or have children) that have property, pensions or assets they wish the other to inherit without the imposition of inheritance tax are not offered to same opportunities afforded to homosexual/lesbian couples.

There should also be an option for them on the poll if we are to be inclusive.- since the 'status quo' is discriminatory as it is - both on this poll and in legislation.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 11 years ago
#71
(Original post by yawn)
A brother and sister for example; or two brothers/two sisters even (who have chosen not to marry or have children) that have property, pensions or assets they wish the other to inherit without the imposition of inheritance tax are not offered to same opportunities afforded to homosexual/lesbian couples.

There should also be an option for them on the poll if we are to be inclusive.- since the 'status quo' is discriminatory as it is - both on this poll and in legislation.
co-habiting brothers and sisters are fairly well protected by the common law if I remember correctly
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#72
Report 11 years ago
#72
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
co-habiting brothers and sisters are fairly well protected by the common law if I remember correctly
No, they're not.

A recent situation that was featured in a newspaper told of a brother and sister wanting to cite each other as their heirs to their pensions, the shared home and their savings.

They were told they would have to pay inheritance tax on transfer because a) they weren't married and b) they weren't in a civil partnership, nor could they be.

They took their case to law citing their human rights and were rejected.

The civil partnership provision needs to be extended to cover the same acquisition of rights - as that afforded to homosexual/lesbian couples - for co-habiting couples who cannot be given the rights to next-of-kin decisions and inheritance rights because they don't or can't marry.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#73
Report 11 years ago
#73
(Original post by yawn)
No, they're not.

A recent situation that was featured in a newspaper told of a brother and sister wanting to cite each other as their heirs to their pensions, the shared home and their savings.

They were told they would have to pay inheritance tax on transfer because a) they weren't married and b) they weren't in a civil partnership, nor could they be.

They took their case to law citing their human rights and were rejected.

The civil partnership provision needs to be extended to cover the same acquisition of rights - as that afforded to homosexual/lesbian couples - for co-habiting couples who cannot be given the rights to next-of-kin decisions and inheritance rights because they don't or can't marry.
I agree on that, but think its a different point to the one in this thread; most of the legal protection afforded to married couples is already given to gay ones and eventually it will be all. This debate is on whether religious people (well, bigotted christians) have a monopoly on 'marriage' as a concept. Which of course they dont and shouldnt.
0
reply
K.T.
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#74
Report 11 years ago
#74
Voted option 3, on the grounds that the two-tier 'marriage/civil partnership' status quo is a pathetic excuse of enshrining the superiority of religious beliefs in law.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 11 years ago
#75
co-habiting brothers and sisters are fairly well protected by the common law if I remember correctly
No, there is no protection for co-habiting couples whatsoever

In principles termd, I definitely think that homosexual couples should be allowed to be referred to as married. If I was the government, I wouldn't be pushing it through Parliament though simply because it would antagonise religious people for not really much reason.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 11 years ago
#76
Get the state out of marriage!
0
reply
mrsvandertramp
Badges: 0
#77
Report 11 years ago
#77
I disagree with everyone who claims marriage is solely a religious practice. Is it not the case that unions resembling marriage pre-date any form of organised religion practiced today?

I also think people's fundamental interpretation of the Bible is shocking, seeing as most of the guidelines given are more cultural than spiritual. Surely a merciful, tolerant God would embrace all variations of marriage?

Another interesting fact people are failing to consider is that there are homosexual people who still consider themselves to be Christian. Should they not be allowed a religious service because they disagree with one aspect of the religion. If that is the case, anyone who uses contraception or is pro-abortion should be banned from getting married, after all, that's the teaching of the Church as well
0
reply
Howells
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 11 years ago
#78
I'm gay and a Christian (Anglican ), and I support the 2nd option on the poll because I've always seen marriage as a Christian thing (even though I'm aware it's not really ) whereas civil partnerships/ceremonies are primarily for same-sex couples. However, I agree that this should be extended to brothers/sisters cohabiting or those in similar situations.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#79
Report 11 years ago
#79
Marriage was not an invention of Christianity and in any event heterosexual couples can get secular marriage through a registry office. There's no good reason for preventing same-sex marriage.
0
reply
Solid_Snake_100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 11 years ago
#80
this is a stupid poll, you havent even said (I dislike the status quo)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (102)
24%
No (323)
76%

Watched Threads

View All