Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wolfie

Gay marriages

Recommended Posts

I couldn't really care less if two women or two men want to get married although I don't really agree with it but it's upto them who they love and want to spend their lives with I suppose.

 

Why do they want it changing though as they already have 'marriage' but under a slightly different 'name'. Is it worth spending £4 million on implementing when it wont really make any difference other than givin same sex couples a slightly different piece of paper and allow them to use the word 'marriage' rather than 'partnership'.

 

At present civil partnerships give same sex couples the exact same rights and responsibilities as a civil marriage does to opposite sex couples ie same property rights, inheritance tax, social security, pension benefits, parental responsibility for partners child, next of kin rights, formal divorce proceedings etc etc.

 

How will changing it affect insurances though as at present when asked about marital status the options are usually along the lines of 'married', 'civil partnership', 'single', 'cohabiting' etc etc.

 

Is this why they want it changing as maybe 'civil partnerships' return a higher premium that 'married' although I'm not sure if it would so just a guess.

 

Like I say it makes no difference to me what people do but I do think that the present way of having the two slightly seperate but meaning the same is better.

 

If same sex couples already have the same rights as married people (regardless of whether they are now allowed to be prounounced 'husband and husband' or 'wife and wife' in a church) then I recon people who have 'cohabited' for over a certain number of years should have the exact same 'rights and responsibilities' too.

 

The last part of that sentence will probably wind Obs up B):lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does our Government intend to change the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 16.

· (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

· (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

· (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

Seems to me there is too much time spent pandering to minority factions of the population at large. The idea of wasting parliamentary time debating this when we are in a calamitous financial crisis. Perhaps our leaders intriduce this pile ofpap to keep our minds off serious stuff. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what Boris says there is no need to add to it as it seems to fit already as it is not specific in saying that only a combination of 'men and women' (ie of opposite sex) can 'marry' anyway.

 

It could just as easily be read to mean that all/any "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry [anyone of their choice regardless of same gender or not] and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

 

Maybe a ban on marriage all together would be the better option and it could also reduce 'divorce' rates, the need for solicitors and lengthy matrimonial court battles and costs.

 

Maybe people would even stay together and actually work things out if they didn't think they would be automatically entitled to at least half of their other halfs belongings, property, money and stuff :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you claim the same rights for cohabiting couples Diz, when marriage or civil partnership is a legally recognised contract between two people, carrying rights and responsibilities; including making their offspring legitimate? Homosexuals already have civil partnerships, which protects the interests of either partner and qualifies a partner for certain pension rights in the event of the death of one - so no probs. What this is all about, is proving a point: like the feminists did with things like men only golf clubs etc, so they'll not stop until they get what they want. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bunch of attention seekers. Have they no life of their own without demanding this, that and "the other"?

 

Do you mean gay people, or the churches? The description would apply to the more vocal element in both camps (pun intended), probably to the embarassment of the more stable people in both camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is being persecuted?

 

Well, that just the question, isn't it? Probably all of us, at some time or another. But certain groups like to think they're being persecuted when they can't get their own way. There are, of course, some small but very vocal groups who like to assume they can speak for every person who shares some faith similar to their own - for example Christian people of the fundamentalist sects who presume to speak on behalf of all Christians, while they quietly condemn most other Christian groups anyway. They identify with the courageous and genuinely persecuted Christians in their New Testament and think if someone in modern society doesn't do what they think they should do, that's persecution - despite the accepted presence of Christian churches all over Britain, the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, and a distinct absence of lions, amphitheatres and so on. It shows a definite lack of historical context, common sense, and emotional maturity, but it happens quite a lot. (And of course it has a negative impact on the few genuine cases where Christian people actually are treated as less than equal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that just the question, isn't it?

 

 

Yes that is why I asked it but you haven't answered it, can you expand on the persecution and hysteria of and from the "church"? I thought all the posturing was coming from the gay front whilst churchgoers were simply hoping that they wouldn't have same sex marriages thrust upon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the terms ' husband and wife' and 'bride and bridegroom' are now to be written out of the marriage ceremony so as not to discriminate against gays. :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders if and how it would affect any of you if gays were allowed to marry? :unsure:

 

I think we heard you the first time. :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is why I asked it but you haven't answered it, can you expand on the persecution and hysteria of and from the "church"? I thought all the posturing was coming from the gay front whilst churchgoers were simply hoping that they wouldn't have same sex marriages thrust upon them.

 

Well, I asked for clarification on what exactly the issues are with the gay marriage thing, because the really relevant questions didn't seme to have been clarified by the people making a noise about it.

 

But with regard to church cries of persecution I was speaking of wider issues. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the many public statements about Christians being persecuted. It happens a lot. Comments about `militant' atheists who threaten the churches, for instance. Now, obviously there are some very strident atheists who shout a lot - though it could also be pointed out that some Christians shout a lot more - but I must say I have never seen an atheist being `militant.' Sometimes silly, beside the point, showing a distinct lack of understanding and empathy, yes, but militant? No. I'd be interested to see one of these militant atheists, but no-one seems to be able to point one out. The best they can usually do is Richard Dawkins, who is usually behaving like a gentleman and not looking in the least militant.

 

There's a lot of noise about people not being allowed to wear crosses at work, and similar stuff. When these cases come to court they always get thrown out once the full story is heard.

 

But most of the `persecution' cries seem to come from people who can't tolerate anyone thinking and believing something different from themselves. Look beyond the noise and that's usually what you find. The sad thing is, there are Christians (and others) who genuinely are persecuted in different parts of the world and who often show real courage and patience in such situations. In my view people who moan about `persecution' just because they can't have their own way and impose their will on everyone else don't bear comparison with those who show courage and patience in genuine adversity.

 

This is why I asked what the issues really are with the gay marriage question. If the churches are really being forced to marry people they don't approve of, then surely that's wrong. But if they're just being told that gay marriages are going to be recognised in society as a marriage, and churches can choose to do them if they approve, that's a very different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we do as they do in France, all marriages are civil marriages, and if you'd like a religeus cemromony you go and have a church wedding after, the one that counts in law is the civil one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we heard you the first time. :roll: :roll:

 

 

Yes, I know you heard (read really) me the first time but nobody answered and why didn't anyone answer? Because nobody could answer because in reality it wouldn't affect any of you in anyway and you are all just objecting for the sake of it. Keep your noses out and let the gay people live their lives as they wish to. It's none of your business and not affecting you in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the last I heard, we had freedom of speech in this country, unlike many others. so it doesn't matter if it's any of my business or not, I and others are entitled to comment. whether you like it or not. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once married (bigamously too!) to a good (male) friend of mine.

 

I was his best man and, apparently, the registrar was a bit p*ssed and entered the names of the bride and the witness in the wrong boxes, having us sign in the same.

 

It wasn't noticed until the records were filed a couple of weeks later.

 

So it didn't last long, but we never had a crossed word!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey you want to check up on that Fugs as you never know what little windfall you may still be 'entitled' to from that or indeed what 'rights' you legitimafe wife may still have against you :wink::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know you heard (read really) me the first time but nobody answered and why didn't anyone answer? Because nobody could answer because in reality it wouldn't affect any of you in anyway and you are all just objecting for the sake of it. Keep your noses out and let the gay people live their lives as they wish to. It's none of your business and not affecting you in any way.

 

I think you need a forum to yourself where your arrogance would only be read by yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These gay weddings, I presume they are optional? Having read some of the paranoid posts on the subject I'm beginning to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...