The Gay Marriage Topic!

[BigT]

Gay couples wouldn't be religiously married, it would be a civil marriage. Done somewhere like a registry office or some other non-religious place.

I personally couldn't give a stuff either way and if it turns out like this then all well and good and everybody's happy.
However I can see this still won't be good enough for a few and they will insist on forcing the the church into a possition that they have to marry homosexuals, at which point they will just ban all weddings in church.

 

[adsyrah]

However I can see this still won't be good enough for a few and they will insist on forcing the the church into a possition that they have to marry homosexuals, at which point they will just ban all weddings in church.

TBH I think this should be the case anyway. It's how it works in France.

ONLY the state can marry a couple. The church / synagogue / mosque / wherever can allow or deny whoever they like for a "blessing" or "ceremony" of some kind, but that ceremony has no legal standing. The couple have to go to a registry office separately to actually legally be married.

 

[Bear]

However I can see this still won't be good enough for a few and they will insist on forcing the the church into a possition that they have to marry homosexuals, at which point they will just ban all weddings in church.

TBH I think this should be the case anyway. It's how it works in France.

ONLY the state can marry a couple. The church / synagogue / mosque / wherever can allow or deny whoever they like for a "blessing" or "ceremony" of some kind, but that ceremony has no legal standing. The couple have to go to a registry office separately to actually legally be married.

And I think that is exactly how it should work, it seems that you can only traditionally have a big ceremony to mark the occasion in a church and that's not fair to non-churchgoers!

 

[Thomas]

I'm a straight 19 year old male, yet I feel very strongly that gay marriage should be supported.

That's all I have to say on the issue. Just a big thumbs up. Doesn't offend me and I'd sign anything to help the cause.

 

[BigT]

And I think that is exactly how it should work, it seems that you can only traditionally have a big ceremony to mark the occasion in a church and that's not fair to non-churchgoers!

I don't agree that you can only have a large ceremony in a church there are many hotels that will quite happily rape your wallet to hold large gatherings and ceremony's.
Like I said I don't really have an opinion either way as I don't know the full facts, but I also wouldn't want to spoil it for the masses by closing down churches to please a few.

 

[Dar]

And I think that is exactly how it should work, it seems that you can only traditionally have a big ceremony to mark the occasion in a church and that's not fair to non-churchgoers!

I don't agree that you can only have a large ceremony in a church there are many hotels that will quite happily rape your wallet to hold large gatherings and ceremony's.
Like I said I don't really have an opinion either way as I don't know the full facts, but I also wouldn't want to spoil it for the masses by closing down churches to please a few.

Why on earth would churches have to close? The only mention of churches and other religious buildings is that they wouldn't be allowed to conduct gay marriages. There's no mention of closing churches down.

 

[BigT]

And I think that is exactly how it should work, it seems that you can only traditionally have a big ceremony to mark the occasion in a church and that's not fair to non-churchgoers!

I don't agree that you can only have a large ceremony in a church there are many hotels that will quite happily rape your wallet to hold large gatherings and ceremony's.
Like I said I don't really have an opinion either way as I don't know the full facts, but I also wouldn't want to spoil it for the masses by closing down churches to please a few.

Why on earth would churches have to close? The only mention of churches and other religious buildings is that they wouldn't be allowed to conduct gay marriages. There's no mention of closing churches down.

Because with dwindling congregations a lot of churches rely on the revenue from marriages, if that was to change because of them not being able to hold marriages anymore then a lot would close.

 

[Dar]

But they could still conduct marriages, just not gay marriages. This won't affect the church in any way shape or form.

 

[BigT]

But they could still conduct marriages, just not gay marriages. This won't affect the church in any way shape or form.

As I understand it, that is true at the moment and I don't really have a problem with it.
I was just making the comment that there is a chance that this won't keep a small few happy until they try and force the church into a corner at which point they will have no choice but to stop all marriages and this in turn will cause some churches to close.
If people think this is a price worth paying then fine, but although I only go for weddings, christenings and funerals the same as most I still think it will be sad if a lot of churches shut.
I agree with equality but I just have a feeling where this is going.

 

[Tom]

Everything I've read from people in this thread that support/want the change tells me that they're fighting for a name and nothing more.

They/you say that it has nothing to do with religion - well in that case the only difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is the name, because the Civil Union grants the same rights for homosexuals as what marriage does between heterosexuals, unless I'm mistaken? (I have briefly researched it before I posted).

And it's fine by me if that's what people want, but I remain confused as to why anyone would be so passionate about it really.

 

[Sam]

Because with dwindling congregations a lot of churches rely on the revenue from marriages, if that was to change because of them not being able to hold marriages anymore then a lot would close.

Why should churches stay open, if so few people are going to them? It's clear that barely anyone in Britain is properly Christian these days, and even those numbers are falling fast. If people aren't interested in going to church anymore, why should the state prop them up?

I don't agree that you can only have a large ceremony in a church there are many hotels that will quite happily rape your wallet to hold large gatherings and ceremony's.

Can we please not use horrific sexual violence against women for such a casual and trivial simile as like being billed for a wedding? It's really quite horrible and potentially upsetting.

Like I said I don't really have an opinion either way as I don't know the full facts, but I also wouldn't want to spoil it for the masses by closing down churches to please a few.

Evidently, since nothing in this legislation would possibly have any impact on the closure of churches.

And it's fine by me if that's what people want, but I remain confused as to why anyone would be so passionate about it really.

Having separate names for the same thing does nothing but enforce difference and inequality. I return again to the analogy about black people before the civil rights movement being legally forced into using different, but identical, drinking fountains to white people. It's a very direct analogy. Would you be "confused as to why anyone would be so passionate" about that?

Anyway, here's a gem from former Tory minister Lord Tebbit!

Lord Tebbit: If gays can marry people of the opposite sex, there is no marriage inequality

Lord Tebbit has spoken out again against gay marriages (Photo: James Robertson Photography)
Former Conservative party chairman Lord Tebbit has said if gay people are able to marry members of the opposite sex there is no marriage inequality and has repeated his call to allow siblings to become civil partners.

Speaking in a series of interviews with the Belfast News Letter, the former minister said no one had approached him saying marriage for gay couples or House of Lords reform was a priority.

Asked then what he thought about the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge to legalise gay marriages, he said: “What? I mean, steady on chaps. Let’s get a grip on reality.

“I think that that springs partly from Coalition games that if you give us reform of the House of Lords which makes sure that there’s always a blocking minority of Liberals in the electoral system which we shall devise, we will give you the re-drawing of the constituency boundaries. And if you don’t, we won’t.

“I don’t think I would have taken on gay marriage – it’s not perhaps the most important thing in the world. But perhaps that’s the point, particularly when we have civil partnerships.”

Lord Tebbit says there is, however, an argument for amending the law on civil partnerships, but only to allow siblings to form them.

He said it is “extremely inequitable that two sisters who have devoted their lives to looking after a parent should be prohibited from entering into a partnership which would be to their economic advantage, whereas two women otherwise can do so.”

He also questioned why there was not “more discussion about whether it’s in the best interests of children that they should be brought up in civil partnerships or so-called gay marriage and I think too little attention has been paid to that”.

Echoing an argument espoused last year by former presidential candidacy hopeful Michele Bachmann, Lord Tebbit suggested there was no inequality because gay people were able to marry people of the opposite sex.

He said: “When I get extremely irritated about it, I say: There is no inequality. Any male can marry, barring the restrictions on consanguinity, any female. Any female can marry any male. I’m terribly sorry sir, you want to do something that I don’t wish to do. That’s your problem, not my problem.”

He also said he would put five pounds on Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for London’s Vauxhall constituency, an area popular with gay people, not supporting marriage equality. He praised Ms Hoey for having “common ground” with Tories.

PinkNews.co.uk was not immediately able to contact Ms Hoey. However, the Coalition for Equal Marriage records her as not having expressed a voting intention on any marriage equality legislation, preferring to wait for the results of the government’s recent public consultation. It said she been “generally supportive” of the idea in an email to a constituent.

Earlier this year, Lord Tebbit said the prime minister’s reasons for supporting marriage equality were “absurd”, describing it as “another contagion from his Lib Dem partners”.

He said: “Within the can of worms that Mr Cameron is determined to open there are several nests of snakes. Why should a marriage be confined to just two persons? What is the barrier to the marriage of sisters, brothers or even parents and children?”

Lord Tebbit left the House of Commons in 1992 and his constituency was taken over by Iain Duncan Smith, who would go on to become the Conservative party leader ten years later. Mr Duncan Smith, who is Catholic and now Work and Pensions Secretary, recently announced his support for marriage equality.

 

[Meat Pie]

Whilst I entirely agree with the sentiments in your last post Sam, I must take issue with one small thing where you single out the word rape as only being a violent crime against women, when it is also a crime committed against men. I feel concerned that when people specifically single out females as the only victims, it has the potential to push embarrassed male victims into not reporting their attacks.

Although the point about not using rape as a simile is a good one. I know I have done so in the past and upon reflection I can see the potential for harm so won't do so in future.

As for churches refusing gay marriages, I think that is simply unacceptable. We no longer allow the BNP to refuse people membership on the basis of race, so why on earth should we allow bigoted religious discrimination to get in the way of gay people being married in a church? There's no difference.

 

[Sam]

Whilst I entirely agree with the sentiments in your last post Sam, I must take issue with one small thing where you single out the word rape as only being a violent crime against women, when it is also a crime committed against men. I feel concerned that when people specifically single out females as the only victims, it has the potential to push embarrassed male victims into not reporting their attacks.

Although the point about not using rape as a simile is a good one. I know I have done so in the past and upon reflection I can see the potential for harm so won't do so in future.

Fair point! It's just the fact that the term is being used so flippantly by (presumably) a man that makes it so problematic specifically about female rape, though you're right, rape can be committed against men too.

It's not that I am opposed to its use as a simile or metaphor in all cases. I think in some extreme circumstances, it can be accurate and appropriate. Such as using it as a simile for colonial activities by force in other countries, especially those committed by the British empire. It's just the use of the term so casually to compare being charged over the odds by a hotel to a horrific and traumatising violent assault that I find so disturbing. Same with the term 'frape', I try and say 'facejack' instead these days.

 

[BigT]

Are you two for real or are you like some kind of comedy left wing act, Jesus I'm sure on the campus your act goes down a storm but in the real world your going to get crucified.
Not everyone has a Phd in English but I think the term rape is quite fitting as anyone would who's ever received a bill for a hotel wedding will agree.
It's a sorry state of affairs when you can't make a legitimate point of concern without having the thought police twisting what your saying, if your offended get over it, it won't be the worst thing that happens to you today that's for sure.

Now back on topic, I think that you have just proved my point about the current proposals not being enough for a small few.
I will repeat I don't care one way or the other as it doesn't effect me, but it will be a shame if church's close as a result of being forced to do something that they don't agree with.
It's not like it's a minor mention in the bible is it, its in the 10 commandments, which is fundermentel to the christian way of life.
You mention about the BNP being forced to take black members and this also I don't agree with, not that I condone it but if thats what they stand for then so be it, who are we to say how different people live and what they think you just don't vote for them.
The problem at the moment is we are trying to make everyone the same and tell them what they should think and what they should do, well we're not all the same and I think that's a good thing.

 

[Tom]

Well said BigT - it seems to me that words are what are driving people's passions here in general.

Sam, your drinking fountain analogy is flawed as it relates to physical restriction, obstruction and cattlepenning of humans.

Most of the arguments I've read here are saying that no one is asking to be married in a church - IE they are not interested in any religious connection to a marriage. So with the Civil Unions providing a de facto marriage - that is in everything but name - it still comes across that it is simply a phrase that is being fought for and nothing else.

Once again, I am not opposed to anything people are fighting for - but I like many others would probably fail to understand why this is deemed as such an important issue when there are far more pressing sociological LGBT issues. If you were to hold a national referendum on this, I'd say the turnout would be very low.

 

[Fredward]

Re: Re: The Gay Marriage Topic!

Fair point! It's just the fact that the term is being used so flippantly by (presumably) a man that makes it so problematic specifically about female rape, though you're right, rape can be committed against men too.

An off topic yet interesting little legal tid bit.

Woman can not be condemmed for rape. As from a legal stand point the definition specifys a gender (male) obviously there can be homosexual rape, but a woman cannot rape a man.

Obviously they can be convicted of abuse, but not rape.


I don't agree with it at all... Found out a few weeks ago....Just a little legal tid bit I thought slightly relevent...


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[adsyrah]

Now back on topic, I think that you have just proved my point about the current proposals not being enough for a small few.
I will repeat I don't care one way or the other as it doesn't effect me, but it will be a shame if church's close as a result of being forced to do something that they don't agree with.
It's not like it's a minor mention in the bible is it, its in the 10 commandments, which is fundermentel to the christian way of life.
You mention about the BNP being forced to take black members and this also I don't agree with, not that I condone it but if thats what they stand for then so be it, who are we to say how different people live and what they think you just don't vote for them.
The problem at the moment is we are trying to make everyone the same and tell them what they should think and what they should do, well we're not all the same and I think that's a good thing.

We're not all the same, you're right. But my love for my boyfriend is exactly the same as my bother's love for his wife.

I guess it comes down to what you believe "marraige" means. To me, it's the recognition that two people intent to be lifelong partners - emotionally AND sexually. That's why I don't buy this allowing two brothers / sisters to get married argument. It's underhanded scaremongering by bigoted minds who want to disgust fence-sitters by making equal marriage sound like a stepping stone to legalising incest.

I want to marry my boyfriend one day. Not enter a civil partnership. Yes, on paper they may be nearly equal (though I understand there are different rules when it comes to annulment - consummation being one). But, you know what, I think people take civil partnerships less seriously than civil weddings. They're different in people's minds even though they're legally the same thing. It may just be a case of semantics, but to me it's an important one.

Plus...

• Making gay marriage legal will make it much harder for a future unsavoury goverment to suddenly make civil partnerships illegal - at the moment a government can just tear up civil partnership legislation
• Not all countries who recognise same-sex marriage recognise civil partnerships / unions (I'm pretty sure this is right - correct me if I'm wrong)
• If, by some people's arguments, civil partnerships are the same as marriage in everything but name why not just change the bloody name? It'll shut people like me up who don't like all this "separate but equal" crap
• This seems like a case of legislation that'll affect only gay people and will make them happier. It's a no-brainer - why would anyone not want to make a minority in society happier?
• I've not heard one logical argument against the proposed legislation

 

[Meat Pie]

Listen BigT, I've used that word inappropriately in the past too, but when it's pointed out to me that it could hurt very vulnerable people, I just put my hands up and say "I didn't think and sorry for that, I won't do it again." I think that's a far more grown up response then trying to defend actions which belittle the seriousness of sexual abuse. But by all means, go on using the term rape to your hearts content, just don't expect everyone to take it so lightly and recognise that there is potential to needlessly hurt sexual abuse victims.

I will repeat I don't care one way or the other as it doesn't effect me

How lovely. I just wish to say that I care about things which don't directly effect me because I find some things morally repugnant, and I want us all to live in a better world. Maybe you need to broaden your world view and see that important issues don't always have to involve yourself?

but it will be a shame if church's close as a result of being forced to do something that they don't agree with.

What a ludicrous statement. If church's have to close due to a breakthrough for equality , then it shows what an awful backwards system it was operating. I'm sure the church will cope, it has managed to get this far and in the process it has deradicalized many of it's views to fit in with modern society, so I'm sure it can adapt further.

You mention about the BNP being forced to take black members and this also I don't agree with, not that I condone it but if thats what they stand for then so be it, who are we to say how different people live and what they think you just don't vote for them.
The problem at the moment is we are trying to make everyone the same and tell them what they should think and what they should do, well we're not all the same and I think that's a good thing.

So... You actively support people's right to discriminate against anyone for any reason because of their personal beliefs?

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the right for The BNP to have racist policies and say racist things, the same applies with homophobia and church (as long of course those things are not inciting violence). It is the darker side of the freedom of speech, but a freedom that ought be defended all the same. However, these organisations shouldn't be allowed special permissions to actively discriminate against certain types of people by refusing them the services that their organisations offer. No-one should get to bypass the basic rules of decency that the rest of society operates on.

Fredward - If that's true, I find that very disturbing, and once again knocks the confidence of men to report their attackers.

 

[Kelpie]

However I can see this still won't be good enough for a few and they will insist on forcing the the church into a possition that they have to marry homosexuals, at which point they will just ban all weddings in church.

TBH I think this should be the case anyway. It's how it works in France.

ONLY the state can marry a couple. The church / synagogue / mosque / wherever can allow or deny whoever they like for a "blessing" or "ceremony" of some kind, but that ceremony has no legal standing. The couple have to go to a registry office separately to actually legally be married.

To specify a few things - in the UK the ONLY church where the Vicar automatically has the power/status of registrar conferred upon them and the building automatically approved to hold marriages is the Church of England.

All other branches of the Christian faith (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc) are not. For any wedding held in those, buildings have to apply to be a registered venue and their Priest/Reverend/Pastor etc are not legally entitled to act as registrars. They either have to become one seperately themselves or an independent civil registrar attend to oversee the wedding. The pastor can lead the ceremony, but the registrar must be there to witness (this happened in the case of my friend and her husband whose small baptist church was first registered for their wedding!) Or, as many other faiths do, marry in a civil registry office first, then have a religious ceremony/blessing after. So those talking of churches closing, that's clearly not the case already.

The concept of marriage pre-dates any of the current major religions of the world. Its a civil institution - always has been, always will be - NOT a purely religious one. The present faiths of the world didn't invent it! So as far as I'm concerned, the only body with any right to decide the law of who can and cannot be married is the state and government. A religious buildng and group are completely within their rights however to choose not to conduct weddings for particular groups people if that falls within their religious beliefs (I'm not just stating gay couples, but divorcees for example - as is still the case with many faiths refusing to, despite it being perfectly legal), and the government shouldn't force them to either. However they should have no right of say on the civil law.

From a purely legal, civil stand point marriage should be the right of both gay and straight couples. There is no reason it shouldn't be. Which is what the consultation and proposed legislation is about and I support wholeheartedly

 

[Sam]

Are you two for real or are you like some kind of comedy left wing act, Jesus I'm sure on the campus your act goes down a storm but in the real world your going to get crucified.
Not everyone has a Phd in English but I think the term rape is quite fitting as anyone would who's ever received a bill for a hotel wedding will agree.

Yeah! Are we even for real?! Suggesting that it might not be morally acceptable to compare a violent, life-ruining and traumatising sexual assault to being charged a lot by a hotel. Watch out, it's the bloody Communist Party trying to tell us what we can and can't say! It's political correctness gone mad, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat.

You can't excuse your crap and offensive use of language just by insulting us because we're (I think Meat Pie is?) students. It's a cop-out.