# Marriage equality



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

We've got near universal consensus by the main three political parties, overwhelming support of the general public, and a promise that it will be implemented before the next election - so what's taking so long? And why are the two largest Christian religions in this country spending millions of pounds on trying to prevent a civil law from being passed? Surely they could learn from some of the smaller religions and focus on helping the needy and feeding the hungry with their vast assets rather than attacking minorities?

I wonder what the general feeling is on this forum.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

I used to be against it, but now Idgaf either way. Talking to people and seeing things their side had made me rethink my views.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

doesnt bother me. at the end of the day if 2 people love each other why should they not be allowed to marry.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I think it's so wrong the way various Churches are condemning it. Churches and religion have nothing to do with the state, so should have no influence over it at all. I think it's disgusting that in the modern world we still have inequality over something so simple. Why should gay people be prevented from getting married where they want, particularly if they're religious, just because some dude in a dress says that it's a sin?! Who made them judge, jury and executioner? Ugh it makes me so angry!


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

Is this basically asking whether gay marriage should be legal?

I say it should be legal, in this day and age, marriage is about rights, you cohabit, you don't have the same rights as if you are married. Gays should have the same rights as Straight people.

I'm not sure why there is all this controversy, because when all said and done (IMO) the bible is like any other book, and it suggests guidelines to live by and God will forgive you of your sins when you die. I believe that religion is made up by the people that gives them some meaning rather than just having no purpose. It serves as something that people can live by.

I was a practising Catholic when I was younger, but now, there has been a lot of corruption, and I honestly believe everyone is the same. We are all humans and as a race we all have vices!

Marriage is also about the joining of two people who want to spend their lives together, what does it matter if they are the same sex, its none of anyone else's business!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

I personally think no religion should have a say in any politics anymore, not christian, muslim, none of them. Should take religion out of the gov and leave it in the home and churches.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I personally think no religion should have a say in any politics anymore, not christian, muslim, none of them. Should take religion out of the gov and leave it in the home and churches.


Couldn't agree more with you on this. Religion, regardless of denomination, gives people an excuse to commit unspeakable acts and then hide behind their 'god'. My view is that your (generic 'your') god, in whatever form you choose to worship, is for you and you alone. You don't force your opinions on others, you don't judge others based on your opinions and you certainly don't harm others based on your opinions.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Couldn't agree more with you on this. Religion, regardless of denomination, gives people an excuse to commit unspeakable acts and then hide behind their 'god'. My view is that your (generic 'your') god, in whatever form you choose to worship, is for you and you alone. You don't force your opinions on others, you don't judge others based on your opinions and you certainly don't harm others based on your opinions.


it just has eff all to do with average familys, there are to many religions, and they mostly contradict each other, and why should athiests have to live under the rule of a god that they dont even believe in..If it was up to me, i'd stop all of them even trying to form political groups as well... and take out existing ties in laws to "god". Would also give them nothing to cry about if its fair across the board, they can cry in their mosques and synagogues instead.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> it just has eff all to do with average familys, there are to many religions, and they mostly contradict each other, and why should athiests have to live under the rule of a god that they dont even believe in..If it was up to me, i'd stop all of them even trying to form political groups as well... and take out existing ties in laws to "god".


In a lot of ways we're still heavily influenced by the Dark Ages and the iron-fisted control various religious leaders had on their followers. Humans, by nature, struggle to take responsibility for their actions and like to think (as with all creatures at the tops of their food chains) that nothing can harm them and they are always right. Unfortunately our superior intellect is now working against us. Our brains, coupled with the complete stupidity religions tend to involve, mean we think it's our right to have our religion shoved down other people's throats. When a religious fanatic comes up against an atheist, saving said atheist's soul becomes a matter of huge importance because it assures fanatics place in Heaven/Paradise/the Everlasting/etc.

What the fanatics don't realise is that it's all a load of bullturd.


----------



## tattoogirl73 (Jun 25, 2011)

i think gay marriage should be legal. why shouldn't a gay couple have the same rights as me and my oh? if two people love each other, it shouldn't matter what sex they are as long as they are serious about the commitment that they want to make to each other. i think the church, or rather the people behind it, are a bit hypocritical with their views :thumbdown:


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> it just has eff all to do with average familys, there are to many religions, and they mostly contradict each other, and why should athiests have to live under the rule of a god that they dont even believe in..If it was up to me, i'd stop all of them even trying to form political groups as well... and take out existing ties in laws to "god". *Would also give them nothing to cry about if its fair across the board, they can cry in their mosques and synagogues instead.*


Why specifically Jews and Muslims though? There are plenty of Christian fanatics. Heck, I live in a country where there were two bombs denoted down the road from where I live, and no less than 5 bombs were set off in the area around my uni, all in the space of 5 months. Religious fanatics are in every religion.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Why specifically Jews and Muslims though? There are plenty of Christian fanatics. Heck, I live in a country where there were two bombs denoted down the road from where I live, and no less than 5 bombs were set off in the area around my uni, all in the space of 5 months. Religious fanatics are in every religion.


There are more acts of terrorism by Christians in the US than Muslims - even accounting for proportionality.

People really need to stop assuming that Christianity is a force for good in this world - it's as selfish and as dangerous as any other religion, and in many cases more so.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Better idea: With the divorced rates nowadays, save tax money by removing _all_ legally recognized marriage.

I'm not how to answer the poll. lol


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Why specifically Jews and Muslims though? There are plenty of Christian fanatics. Heck, I live in a country where there were two bombs denoted down the road from where I live, and no less than 5 bombs were set off in the area around my uni, all in the space of 5 months. Religious fanatics are in every religion.


I didnt mention just them, i stated all religions, dont twist my words, I couldnt be arsed listing every damn religion under the sun, but my point was clear. If you read my second post you will see i mentioned christians too


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I didnt mention just them, i stated all religions, dont twist my words, I couldnt be arsed listing every damn religion under the sun, but my point was clear.


I'm not twisting anything, I was just wondering why you phrased it in that way as I don't think your point was hugely clear if you were referencing religious fanatics across the board.

I do agree that religion and politics don't mix though, and should be kept at separate as possible. The more I study politics (it's my degree), the more I look at places like the US and think that's not a good way to run a country. They bang on about keeping the state and the church separate, yet many of the states refuse to legalise gay marriage because 'it says in the Bible it's wrong'. Yet these are the same states that allow marriage between cousins :thumbdown:


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I'm not twisting anything, I was just wondering why you phrased it in that way as I don't think your point was hugely clear if you were referencing religious fanatics across the board.


oh get off my nut sack will you, as I said, I mentioned ALL religions and christians in my second post... would you have prefered i mentioned every bloody chapel, and religion, a page long? so the dumb could get what ALL religions actually meant


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't give a hoot about anything that people do which might be deemed slightly controversial to other people.

What makes me laugh is when people say "its unnatural". BS is what I say. Go back in time and you will find man has been making love to his "brother" since the beginning of time. Animals have no modesty when it comes to loving the same gender. We are just a species that likes to control everything.

Let people live in peace and find something that really is an actual problem to start worrying about.

It makes me sick when I have conversations with people who are too worried about upsetting family members or work colleagues to be happy when they really shouldn't have to be concerned about it.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

and who the hell mentioned fanatics ? wasnt me, but sure add more words to my post for me lol.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> oh get off my nut sack will you, as I said, I mentioned ALL religions and christians in my second post... would you have prefered i mentioned every bloody chapel, and religion, a page long? so the dumb could get what ALL religions actually meant


Dude chill out, fact is from my end, it wasn't absolutely clear what you meant. Maybe instead of lashing out at other people you should think about what you write and how you come across. The whole idea of this forum is to debate, is it not? Well that's exactly what I'm doing.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Dude chill out, fact is from my end, it wasn't absolutely clear what you meant. Maybe instead of lashing out at other people you should think about what you write and how you come across. The whole idea of this forum is to debate, is it not? Well that's exactly what I'm doing.


you mentioned fanatics not me.. when I states all religions out of politics, it was the entire religion, not just the extremists. And debating isnt taking two words from a post and ignoring others and other posts btw.


----------



## BullyMolly (Sep 26, 2011)

If someone falls in love with the same sex, it doesnt affect me one little bit. IMO it should be legal. There are more things in life for me to get my knickers in a twist over 
Love is love at the end of the day :001_wub:


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> you mentioned fanatics not me.. when I states all religions out of politics, it was the entire religion, not just the extremists. And debating isnt taking two words from a post and ignoring others and other posts btw.


I already said I agree with you on that point. It was me that brought in fanatics, usually because it's the fanatics that cause the problems, like with this legalising gay marriage debate.

And I'm not taking two words out of your posts and ignoring the others. For a grown woman you're acting very childishly.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> I personally think *no* religion should have a say in any politics anymore, not *christian*, muslim, *none *of them. Should take* religion* out of the gov and leave it in the home and churches.





Waterlily said:


> it just has eff all to do with average familys, there are to many religions, and they mostly contradict each other, and why should athiests have to live under the rule of a god that they dont even believe in..If it was up to me, i'd stop *all of them *even trying to form political groups as well... and take out existing ties in laws to "god". Would also give them nothing to cry about if its fair across the board, they can cry in their mosques and synagogues instead.





Rabbitmonkee said:


> Why specifically Jews and Muslims though? There are plenty of Christian fanatics. Heck, I live in a country where there were two bombs denoted down the road from where I live, and no less than 5 bombs were set off in the area around my uni, all in the space of 5 months. Religious fanatics are in every religion.





Rabbitmonkee said:


> I already said I agree with you on that point. It was me that brought in fanatics, usually because it's the fanatics that cause the problems, like with this legalising gay marriage debate.
> 
> And I'm not taking two words out of your posts and ignoring the others. For a grown woman you're acting very childishly.


you said why jews and muslims ? thats childish by not reading full posts. Ive bolded it for you so you dont get more confused about what I _actually_ said.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> you said why jews and muslims ? thats childish by not reading full posts. Ive bolded it for you so you dont get more confused about what I _actually_ said.


I know exactly what you _actually_ said. _My_ point was you contradicted yourself by saying



Waterlily said:


> they can cry in their mosques and synagogues instead.


Either way, this is a really stupid debate, what was said really doesn't matter as we both have very valid points and do agree on the details.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I know exactly what you _actually_ said. _My_ point was you contradicted yourself by saying
> 
> Either way, this is a really stupid debate, what was said really doesn't matter as we both have very valid points and do agree on the details.


lol srsly ? wheres the contradiction there? should I repeat the post i just bolded for you the words you didnt bother reading... yawn,... have fun "debating" cos I cba posting to someone that cant even read.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

I fail to see why these people are desperate to marry in a place which openly condems them, who are they proving a point to?

Will they be holding these marriages in Synagogues and Mosques? Why is Christianity singled out?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> lol srsly ? wheres the contradiction there? should I repeat the post i just bolded for you the words you didnt bother reading... yawn,... have fun "debating" cos I cba posting to someone that cant even read.


Whatever you say Lils


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Starlite said:


> I fail to see why these people are desperate to marry in a place which openly condems them, who are they proving a point to?
> 
> Will they be holding these marriages in Synagogues and Mosques? Why is Christianity singled out?


I believe they will although I'm not 100% sure.

I don't think it's a case of proving a point, if you're gay but very religious and want to get married in the sight of the god you worship, why shouldn't you?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I believe they will although I'm not 100% sure.
> 
> I don't think it's a case of proving a point, if you're gay but very religious and want to get married in the sight of the god you worship, why shouldn't you?


because all mainstream religions condem the act of homosexuality and even non practice so i very much doubt you would be getting Gods Blessing, this is what i dont understand. Why go into a house of Worship and attempt to receive a blessing for something which they consider heinous?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Starlite said:


> because all mainstream religions condem the act of homosexuality and even non practice so i very much doubt you would be getting Gods Blessing, this is what i dont understand. Why go into a house of Worship and attempt to receive a blessing for something which they consider heinous?


Because not everyone in the religion sees it as heinous. There are very few people that follow the word of their religion to the letter, the idea is to adapt it and take the basics out of it, which is what most people do today. Hence why it's possible to be gay, still love your respective god and want to get married with his blessing - you don't see yourself as wrong as you believe your god loves you for the way you are, the way you were born, so your god would be happy to bless your marriage.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Starlite said:


> I fail to see why these people are desperate to marry in a place which openly condems them, who are they proving a point to?
> 
> Will they be holding these marriages in Synagogues and Mosques? Why is Christianity singled out?


I don't know where you got the idea that this is about same sex couples being desperate to marry in churches  it's not. It's about civil marrage and the proposed law would currently forbid same sex marrages from occuring in a religious institutions (even if the institution WANTS to marry same sex couples).

I find it highly ironic that the church of England won't stop going on about how marrying same sex couples will 'undermine the status of marrage' when the only reason the CoE exists is because a king wanted the right to divorce in order to have multiple wives.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> I fail to see why these people are desperate to marry in a place which openly condems them, who are they proving a point to?
> 
> Will they be holding these marriages in Synagogues and Mosques? Why is Christianity singled out?


This is civil marriage, not religious. It is nothing to do with religion but they're still trying to ban it.

Why do you think this has anything to do with proving a point by marrying in church? There are quite a few religions - Quakers, Jews, Pagans etc that want to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but they will be prevented from doing so because of the Church of England and the Catholic Church who are spending millions of pounds in an effort to prevent it.

Who has told you that Christianity is being 'singled out'? You've been had, my friend!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> because all mainstream religions condem the act of homosexuality and even non practice so i very much doubt you would be getting Gods Blessing, this is what i dont understand. Why go into a house of Worship and attempt to receive a blessing for something which they consider heinous?


Significant parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity all support marriage equality.

You make the mistake of thinking that the church 'owns' the concept of God - it doesn't.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Is it the wording that people are objecting to? The ceremony is the joining of a couple whether you call it a civil ceremony or marriage. Is it just the fact that legally a same sex ceremony isn't called a 'marriage'? Or is it the fact the ceremony cannot be held on 'holy' ground?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> Is it the wording that people are objecting to? The ceremony is the joining of a couple whether you call it a civil ceremony or marriage. Is it just the fact that legally a same sex ceremony isn't called a 'marriage'? Or is it the fact the ceremony cannot be held on 'holy' ground?


For me - it's an issue of 'separate is not equal'.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

I was brought up and as a catholic, christened, confession etc, I was married in a registry office after living in sin in the eyes of the church, I am still living in sin after 30 years of marriage in the eyes of the church,as you may have gathered I am a very lapsed catholic,it is not only the gay community who are discriminated against where religion is concerned


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

skip said:


> I was brought up and as a catholic, christened, confession etc, I was married in a registry office after living in sin in the eyes of the church, I am still living in sin after 30 years of marriage in the eyes of the church,as you may have gathered I am a very lapsed catholic,it is not only the gay community who are discriminated against where religion is concerned


Absolutely - it's not the only group that is discriminated against, but to put it in context - you were prevented (I assume) from marrying in a church that you weren't an active member of - if you were gay, the Church would be trying to stop you from marrying even in a registry office in a civil ceremony.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Because not everyone in the religion sees it as heinous. There are very few people that follow the word of their religion to the letter, the idea is to adapt it and take the basics out of it, which is what most people do today. Hence why it's possible to be gay, still love your respective god and want to get married with his blessing - you don't see yourself as wrong as you believe your god loves you for the way you are, the way you were born, so your god would be happy to bless your marriage.


im a practicing Catholic, i have gay cousins and friends and wish them all the happiness in the world. The fact is the Catholic church consider the act of homosexuality a sin tho, that doesnt change and i cant see it doing so either so the union cannot be Blessed as that would mean its being accepted by the church..



lennythecloud said:


> I don't know where you got the idea that this is about same sex couples being desperate to marry in churches  it's not. It's about civil marrage and the proposed law would currently forbid same sex marrages from occuring in a religious institutions (even if the institution WANTS to marry same sex couples).
> 
> I find it highly ironic that the church of England won't stop going on about how marrying same sex couples will 'undermine the status of marrage' when the only reason the CoE exists is because a king wanted the right to divorce in order to have multiple wives.


im aware the majority of gays couldnt care less about marriages in a church it is the Government who is pushing it. Im all for gays having the same rights as a married couple, but not pushing it on people who dont want it in their place of worship.



WriterC said:


> This is civil marriage, not religious. It is nothing to do with religion but they're still trying to ban it.
> 
> Why do you think this has anything to do with proving a point by marrying in church? There are quite a few religions - Quakers, Jews, Pagans etc that want to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but they will be prevented from doing so because of the Church of England and the Catholic Church who are spending millions of pounds in an effort to prevent it.
> 
> Who has told you that Christianity is being 'singled out'? You've been had, my friend!


so the majority of the news is not covering the fact the CHRISTIAN churches are fighting it then?



WriterC said:


> Significant parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity all support marriage equality.
> 
> You make the mistake of thinking that the church 'owns' the concept of God - it doesn't.


marriage equality yes, not same sex marriage. Im well aware no catholic or protestant owns God, we all have our own beliefs.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> ]im aware the majority of gays couldnt care less about marriages in a church it is the Government who is pushing it. Im all for gays having the same rights as a married couple, but not pushing it on people who dont want it in their place of worship.


The Government isn't pushing for any same-sex religious ceremonies. I don't know where you're getting your information from but it sounds as if you've been listening to the lies of some religions.



Starlite said:


> ]so the majority of the news is not covering the fact the CHRISTIAN churches are fighting it then?


The Christian churches (CofE and Catholic) are fighting against civil marriage equality - nothing to do with religion at all. In fact, the legislation specifically prohibits religious ceremonies because of the protests, despite some religions wanting to perform them.



Starlite said:


> ]marriage equality yes, not same sex marriage. Im well aware no catholic or protestant owns God, we all have our own beliefs.


Marriage equality is same sex marriage and many religions support it.

Why do you believe that civil marriage equality shouldn't be the case? Why should your religious believes affect me?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Starlite said:


> im a practicing Catholic, i have gay cousins and friends and wish them all the happiness in the world. The fact is the Catholic church consider the act of homosexuality a sin tho, that doesnt change and i cant see it doing so either so the union cannot be Blessed as that would mean its being accepted by the church..


The Catholic Church does indeed consider homosexual acts a sin. Yet at one point they also considered women without head coverings a sin. Up until recently even being of homosexual orientation was a sin. The Catholic Church will sway to modern conformities, it's just a matter of time and how much fuss they want to kick up in the meantime.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

About 20 years ago, I recall reading in a national newspaper that the catholic church had refused to marry a heteresexual couple who could not consumate their marriage because the man was paralysed from the waist down. The church's opinion was that marriage was for procreation of children, and they could not do that and therefore the church would not marry them.

I just thought I would remind people that the church is very presumptious in its ideals and really has no right to dictate anything that is not wholly religious.

I will not vote, as from my own opinion, I think marriage is outdated and was only ever invented so that men could keep control over his wife and her wealth.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> The Government isn't pushing for any same-sex religious ceremonies. I don't know where you're getting your information from but it sounds as if you've been listening to the lies of some religions.
> 
> The Christian churches (CofE and Catholic) are fighting against civil marriage equality - nothing to do with religion at all. In fact, the legislation specifically prohibits religious ceremonies because of the protests, despite some religions wanting to perform them.
> 
> ...


can you tell me where in the Quran or Bible which supports homosexuality, Im intriqued. My views hold just as much weight as yours, should they not do so because I happen to be religious?

also with all the Human Rights rubbish I cannot see the opt out being an option, they would most likely face court action.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> The Catholic Church does indeed consider homosexual acts a sin. Yet at one point they also considered women without head coverings a sin. Up until recently even being of homosexual orientation was a sin. The Catholic Church will sway to modern conformities, it's just a matter of time and how much fuss they want to kick up in the meantime.


Indeed they were marrying gay couples in the middle ages! Only rich gay couples, of course. Then again, according to the church at the time, only rich people needed to marry. The poor were allowed to live 'as in marriage'. As long as they went to church and made contributions, obviously.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> , I think marriage is outdated and was only ever invented so that men could keep control over his wife and her wealth.


I agree, its archaic and has eff all to do with actual heart to soul commitment, which is what being together means anyway. You dont need a priest to tell you to be loyal and honour and blah etc someone you want for life. 
All it does is keep lawyers in a job.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> can you tell me where in the Quran or Bible which supports homosexuality, Im intriqued.


I haven't mentioned Islam, and nor have I mentioned their holy book. I haven't even mentioned the Bible. Why would I need to show something that 'supports homosexuality'? I'm arguing against religious interference in my life.

What has your religion got to do with civil law?



Starlite said:


> My views hold just as much weight as yours, should they not do so because I happen to be religious?


I'm not saying that you can't hold your own views - I'm saying that you can't use them to negatively influence my life. Not without a fight anyway. A fight you'll lose.



Starlite said:


> also with all the Human Rights rubbish I cannot see the opt out being an option, they would most likely face court action.


There's no opt out or opt in - this is *civil law*. Nothing to do with religion at all.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I agree, its archaic and has eff all to do with actual heart to soul commitment, which is what being together means anyway. You dont need a priest to tell you to be loyal and honour and blah etc someone you want for life.
> All it does is keep lawyers in a job.


Actually, it's a lot more than that. It's giving my OH the legal right to make decisions on my behalf when I'm incapable. Allowing him the right to visit me in the hospital if I'm unconscious, and to make decisions regarding my treatment if I can't. It gives our children a more stable foundation to be raised and makes it easier to transfer family assets upon death without paying 'death taxes'. The list goes on and on.

If you choose not to take advantage of marriage, then that's fine, but don't belittle the essential legal protections that come with it to the people who have been denied them.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> You don't force your opinions on others, you don't judge others based on your opinions and you certainly don't harm others based on your opinions.





WriterC said:


> Absolutely - it's not the only group that is discriminated against, but to put it in context - you were prevented (I assume) from marrying in a church that you weren't an active member of - if you were gay, the Church would be trying to stop you from marrying even in a registry office in a civil ceremony.


I will be very honest and say personally I am not bothered either way, too many other more important things in life to stress about, sorry don't mean to offend anyone

If we are talking about Catholic churches then they don't recognise divorce or marriage of folks who have been divorced, so anyone in those group has a choice to get married somewhere else - why should they change whatever their beliefs are for one group of people not another? No idea on statistics but I would imagine there are more divorced people than gay couples wanting to get married in a catholic church. Honestly baffles me what the fuss is about

I had not heard any church was fighting against civil marriage for gay people but if thats true then I imagine it because they will be forced to carry out gay marriages whether they want to or not (bit like the gay adoption issue) so surely thats double standards - forcing your opinions on others?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> Actually, it's a lot more than that. It's giving my OH the legal right to make decisions on my behalf when I'm incapable. Allowing him the right to visit me in the hospital if I'm unconscious, and to make decisions regarding my treatment if I can't. It gives our children a more stable foundation to be raised and makes it easier to transfer family assets upon death without paying 'death taxes'. The list goes on and on.
> 
> If you choose not to take advantage of marriage, then that's fine, but don't belittle the essential legal protections that come with it to the people who have been denied them.


power of attorney does the same thing tho. So does a will. I wasnt belittling it either, was just stating my view on it.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> I haven't mentioned Islam, and nor have I mentioned their holy book. I haven't even mentioned the Bible. Why would I need to show something that 'supports homosexuality'? I'm arguing against religious interference in my life.
> 
> What has your religion got to do with civil law?
> 
> ...


*Marriage equality is same sex marriage and many religions support it. *

your claim above, I would have assumed you would have had some evidence to back that statement up as you do with everything else.

_The key proposals of the consultation are:
civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a *voluntary* basis for faith groups and with no religious content_

IE opt in/out, you can refuse. This could be taken as being against a persons human rights if they refuse.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> I will be very honest and say personally I am not bothered either way, too many other more important things in life to stress about, sorry don't mean to offend anyone
> 
> If we are talking about Catholic churches then they don't recognise divorce or marriage of folks who have been divorced, so anyone in those group has a choice to get married somewhere else - why should they change whatever their beliefs are for one group of people not another? No idea on statistics but I would imagine there are more divorced people than gay couples wanting to get married in a catholic church. Honestly baffles me what the fuss is about
> 
> *I had not heard any church was fighting against civil marriage for gay people but if thats true then I imagine it because they will be forced to carry out gay marriages whether they want to or not (bit like the gay adoption issue) so surely thats double standards - forcing your opinions on others?*


Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion - they are not carried out in religious institutions, they don't even allow the mere mention of religion or anything religious.

I don't know how clearer it can be said.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> power of attorney does the same thing tho. So does a will. I wasnt belittling it either, was just stating my view on it.


Don't know if its the same in Aus Lils but in the UK majority of assets can be transferred between spouses free of various taxes. If that is what the issue is then its a non argument anyway - get the same with civil gay marriages so again don't see what the issue is


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Actually, it's a lot more than that. It's giving my OH the legal right to make decisions on my behalf when I'm incapable. Allowing him the right to visit me in the hospital if I'm unconscious, and to make decisions regarding my treatment if I can't. It gives our children a more stable foundation to be raised and makes it easier to transfer family assets upon death without paying 'death taxes'. The list goes on and on.
> 
> If you choose not to take advantage of marriage, then that's fine, but don't belittle the essential legal protections that come with it to the people who have been denied them.


I don't know about the UK, but in the states you can easily give anyone power of attorney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> *Marriage equality is same sex marriage and many religions support it. *
> 
> your claim above, I would have assumed you would have had some evidence to back that statement up as you do with everything else.


Yes - I have evidence - here's some - BBC News - Labour host meeting of faith groups backing gay marriage



Starlite said:


> _The key proposals of the consultation are:
> civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a *voluntary* basis for faith groups and *with no religious content*_
> 
> IE opt in/out, you can refuse. This could be taken as being against a persons human rights if they refuse.


Erm.. I'm honestly struggling not to laugh, but did you bother to read the entire quote when you posted it? Pay particular attention to the "with no religious content" part.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Don't know if its the same in Aus Lils but in the UK majority of assets can be transferred between spouses free of various taxes. If that is what the issue is then its a non argument anyway - get the same with civil gay marriages so again don't see what the issue is


I dunno about the legal or tax sides of it, ive never been married, but I was only meaning the commitment side of things tbh.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> I don't know about the UK, but in the states you can easily give anyone power of attorney.
> 
> Power of attorney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


same as the UK


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion - they are not carried out in religious institutions, they don't even allow the mere mention of religion or anything religious.
> 
> I don't know how clearer it can be said.


So you can get married, have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples so what is the beef - you want to get married in certain churches? Honestly I really don't understand!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DogLover1981 said:


> I don't know about the UK, but in the states you can easily give anyone power of attorney.
> 
> Power of attorney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which can and has been ignored when the couple in question are gay. Even in states which have full equality, certain hospitals have ignored the law.

In any case, being able to give one (of the 11,000 plus) legal rights and benefits that marriage grants, isn't really a justification to prevent equality.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Yes - I have evidence - here's some - BBC News - Labour host meeting of faith groups backing gay marriage
> 
> Erm.. I'm honestly struggling not to laugh, but did you bother to read the entire quote when you posted it? Pay particular attention to the "with no religious content" part.


you're laughing, did you actually read all of the article you linked?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> So you can get married, have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples so what is the beef - you want to get married in certain churches? Honestly I really don't understand!


We can't get married - that's the problem!


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Actually, it's a lot more than that. It's giving my OH the legal right to make decisions on my behalf when I'm incapable. Allowing him the right to visit me in the hospital if I'm unconscious, and to make decisions regarding my treatment if I can't. It gives our children a more stable foundation to be raised and makes it easier to transfer family assets upon death without paying 'death taxes'. The list goes on and on.
> 
> *If you choose not to take advantage of marriage, then that's fine, but don't belittle the essential legal protections that come with it to the people who have been denied them*.


I have always understood that the rights of a couple in a civil ceremony are the same as those of a married couple  If I am wrong in this please tell me in what way do they differ?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> you're laughing, did you actually read all of the article you linked?


Yes. You asked for proof that other religions support marriage equality and I provided it.

Having trouble comprehending it?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> So you can get married, have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples so what is the beef - you want to get married in certain churches? Honestly I really don't understand!


now now, dont question someone who isnt really interested in your opinion if its different!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> We can't get married - that's the problem!


Still don't know what you mean unless its you want to get married in a church?


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Marriage shouldn't be legally recognized at all. That would be a solution to the debate about gay marriage and save governments from dealing with the costs of divorce cases.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> I have always understood that the rights of a couple in a civil ceremony are the same as those of a married couple  If I am wrong in this please tell me in what way do they differ?


I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean Civil Partnerships?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Still don't know what you mean unless its you want to get married in a church?


Gay couples cannot get married in the UK. I'm really not sure why you can't understand that.


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

I can see why a same-sex couple may want to be "married" in the same way I can see how a hetero couple may not want to be "married" and get a civil partnership.

In my opinion *civil* marriage *or* partnership should be available to couples of either orientation.

To add to the Catholic Church bit - my local church will not marry you if you say you do not want children. To them marriage is for procreation so no kids - no point.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Golgotha_tramp said:


> I can see why a same-sex couple may want to be "married" in the same way I can see how a hetero couple may not want to be "married" and get a civil partnership.
> 
> In my opinion *civil* marriage *or* partnership should be available to couples of either orientation.
> 
> To add to the Catholic Church bit - my local church will not marry you if you say you do not want children. To them marriage is for procreation so no kids - no point.


yea, the choice should be there for all regardless of if they want to use it or not.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> I have always understood that the rights of a couple in a civil ceremony are the same as those of a married couple  If I am wrong in this please tell me in what way do they differ?


They do have the same rights in the eyes of the law, but you cannot call a civil partnership a marriage because the term 'marriage' is a law-protected term and refers to a union within a religious building.

So whilst lawfully they have exactly the same rights, the issue is that civil partners don't have the same religious standing as a married couple. This doesn't just extend to gay couples, it also extends to divorced couples. My parents got divorced but have not yet been annulled, so my Mom can't get remarried in a church. My Mom is quite religious and would love to get married in a church, so if this law is passed, it means she can.

Another argument to this are gay couples - many gay people are still very religious and would love to get married in their religious building. The current law allows religious leaders to refuse to marry them. If this new law is brought it, it means that religious leaders must, by law, marry the couple, regardless of sexual orientation, divorce, etc.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

WriterC said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean Civil Partnerships?


Yes - a civil partnership carries the same rights as a marriage does it not? the only difference is the word marriage, am I right?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> Yes - a civil partnership carries the same rights as a marriage does it not? the only difference is the word marriage, am I right?


See my above comment


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> We can't get married - that's the problem!





WriterC said:


> Yes. You asked for proof that other religions support marriage equality and I provided it.
> 
> Having trouble comprehending it?


nope, i still dont see any backing in religious texts and the description given in the article about the groups who attended is limited to say the least.

Also my qoute included "faith groups", ie Christians.

_Although ministers say the ban on same-sex couples marrying in a religious service will remain in force, the Church of England fears this could be challenged in European courts._

from your own artcicle.
_
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership._

so i still dont see your issue.


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> They do have the same rights in the eyes of the law, but you cannot call a civil partnership a marriage because the term 'marriage' is a law-protected term and refers to a union within a religious building.


Not true, I am getting married in the council house, there is no religion but it is a marriage. They cannot call it a marriage as that is not what it is recognised as (in terms of ticked boxes, paperwork and database fields).


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> So you can get married, have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples so what is the beef - you want to get married in certain churches? Honestly I really don't understand!


Homosexual couples cannot have a civil marriage, only a civil partnership. Heterosexual couples cannot have a civil partnership, only a civil marriage.

Despite what religious organisations that think they invented and therefore own the concept of marrage tell you, the government isn't planning on forcing churches to marry homosexuals. The government is only currently proposing equality under civil law.

It may seem like a small thing but if black people were only allowed civil partnerships rather than marriage like the rest of the population what sort of message wouldthat send? How about if it was decided that over 60's, jews or people with a low income could only enter into civil partnerships? It suggests inequality and it might not matter to you but it matters to alot of people. Homosexuality has only been made legal in the UK in the last century and still holds the death penalty in some countries - we need to show that we've completely moved away from that.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Which can and has been ignored when the couple in question are gay. Even in states which have full equality, certain hospitals have ignored the law.
> 
> In any case, being able to give one (of the 11,000 plus) legal rights and benefits that marriage grants, isn't really a justification to prevent equality.


Everyone comes across some rule or law thats a bit pants because you don't meet certain criteria, lifes a behatch afraid. I have two uncles who have never married they bought a farm in 50's along with 3 of their other brothers (including my dad) other brothers moved on married had families etc but these two have jointly held the property for decades. Now if one dies before the other - obviously fairly likely - the one still living will be in doodoo their home will have to be sold to pay taxes. They are normal working class blokes just happen to have bought a small farm when you could hardly give them away so their only asset is a nice place with quite a bit of land. In your world they are terribly discriminated against being neither married, whether straight or gay. Should all the laws be changed for them?


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I think we cross posted RM


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Homosexual couples cannot have a civil marriage, only a civil partnership. Heterosexual couples cannot have a civil partnership, only a civil marriage.
> 
> Despite what religious organisations that think they invented and therefore own the concept of marrage tell you, the government isn't planning on forcing churches to marry homosexuals. The government is only currently proposing equality under civil law.
> 
> It may seem like a small thing but if black people were only allowed civil partnerships rather than marriage like the rest of the population what sort of message wouldthat send? How about if it was decided that over 60's, jews or people with a low income could only enter into civil partnerships? It suggests inequality and it might not matter to you but it matters to alot of people. Homosexuality has only been made legal in the UK in the last century and still holds the death penalty in some countries - we need to show that we've completely moved away from that.


so the religious should be forced to marry those who commit a sin according to their texts because those people want it, do you not see the hypocricy there at all?


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

just because its not something id do myself, i feel that it shouldnt stop others from being happy. everyone is entitle to live their lives how they want to.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

The way I see it is this.

Regarding law: all marriage should be equal, whatever the gender of the couple.

Regarding religion; if your religion does not recognise that a marriage between two people of the same gender is as valid and important as a marriage between two people of opposite gender, then you need to examine whether or not you want to follow a religion with such nonsensical views.

Simplistic? Yes. But that's what it all boils down to.


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

Starlite said:


> so the religious should be forced to marry those who commit a sin according to their texts because those people want it, do you not see the hypocricy there at all?


No, gay couples should be allowed to go to the same place that they would have a civil partnership but instead of being "civil partnered" they would be "married". Legally there can be no religious stuff (not even pop songs that say chapel) so the church (any church) is not involved.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Think about it, why is a relationship between two individuals (and a private one at that), of any concern to the government or public in general to begin with? Why should governments even bother dealing with marriages when the divorce rate is so high?


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I think the whole thing is a fuss about NOTHING.

If people fall in love and want to get married what's the big deal? We've done it for ever. Gender? WHO CARES? People are just people.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

So, as I understand it, this is nothing to do with religion but is really about the word 'marriage'
Such a small word to cause such a lot of conflict  Does it really matter so much that not all partnerships are called marriage when in all but name they are?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

ozrex said:


> I think the whole thing is a fuss about NOTHING.
> 
> If people fall in love and want to get married what's the big deal? We've done it for ever. Gender? WHO CARES? People are just people.


okay so re's my wee sum up, sorry to quote you directly!

People want to get married, ok.
the Gov want to make it acceptable for gay marriages in religious places on a voluntary basis, those who attempt to opt out can be taken to court for a breach of human rights and potentially forced to marry that couple despite them not wishing to.
I cannot see the fairness there at all.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Starlite said:


> so the religious should be forced to marry those who commit a sin according to their texts because those people want it, do you not see the hypocricy there at all?


Nobody is forcing churches to conduct homosexual marrage, you've been told this at least 3 times in this thread and still don't seem to grasp that at the moment this is purely a civil issue. Because of the bigger religious institutions shouting louder, some such as quakers and liberal jews won't be allowed to conduct homosexual marriage even though they have said they want to. Why are their religious freedoms less important than anyone elses?

To decide that homosexuality is a sin from the bible takes alot of interpreting and it's clear that not all churches agree. The bible says alot of things that are disregarded today, i'm sure you'll agree that women should not speak in church?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I dont see how being gay or straight should affect how you are allowed to live in this country or any other. We are all people and should all have the same rights. My brother is gay and i would love to be able to actually see him get married if/when he wanted to. No one should dictate how others live and they should be allowed to live how they want without fearing repercussions


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Everyone comes across some rule or law thats a bit pants because you don't meet certain criteria, lifes a behatch afraid. I have two uncles who have never married they bought a farm in 50's along with 3 of their other brothers (including my dad) other brothers moved on married had families etc but these two have jointly held the property for decades. Now if one dies before the other - obviously fairly likely - the one still living will be in doodoo their home will have to be sold to pay taxes. They are normal working class blokes just happen to have bought a small farm when you could hardly give them away so their only asset is a nice place with quite a bit of land. In your world they are terribly discriminated against being neither married, whether straight or gay. Should all the laws be changed for them?


If they hold the property jointly then it won't have to be sold. Ownership will be transferred the remaining brother.

I don't care about your uncles' choices in life - that's their business. And actually comparing your uncles' choice to buy a farm (it didn't just happen), with my inability to marry because I happened to fall in love with a man and not a woman, is grossly offensive.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Starlite said:


> those who attempt to opt out can be taken to court for a breach of human rights and potentially forced to marry that couple despite them not wishing to.
> I cannot see the fairness there at all.


I do agree with that bit, its ludicrous to hand one group a right by taking it off another. Religions have the right to keep their places of worship sacred imo. But i doubt that they would be forced to, surely not.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Gay couples cannot get married in the UK. I'm really not sure why you can't understand that.





Rabbitmonkee said:


> They do have the same rights in the eyes of the law, but you cannot call a civil partnership a marriage because the term 'marriage' is a law-protected term and refers to a union within a religious building.
> 
> So whilst lawfully they have exactly the same rights, the issue is that civil partners don't have the same religious standing as a married couple. This doesn't just extend to gay couples, it also extends to divorced couples. My parents got divorced but have not yet been annulled, so my Mom can't get remarried in a church. My Mom is quite religious and would love to get married in a church, so if this law is passed, it means she can.
> 
> Another argument to this are gay couples - many gay people are still very religious and would love to get married in their religious building. The current law allows religious leaders to refuse to marry them. If this new law is brought it, it means that religious leaders must, by law, marry the couple, regardless of sexual orientation, divorce, etc.


Sorry it just seems to be splitting hairs to me or to use your arguments trying to force others who don't share the same views to bend to your will. If the law was changed and you were allowed to to call a civil partnership a marriage (which seems to be what the arguement is here but not 100% sure)I really don't think you would be happy with that either. If churches were able to opt in or out I don't think you would be happy with that - you would want the "right" to marry wherever and remove other peoples choice.

As I said I am not at all bothered either way and because of that can see both sides - you trying to force religeous individuals to do what you want is just as bad, well actually it might even be worse if they are saying do as you please but don't ask me to participate because of personal/religeous beliefs and you are saying no you MUST do what I want rather you find a place of worship that would be happy to marry you.

Perhaps the only answer is to abolish religeon and marriage altogether!


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> So, as I understand it, this is nothing to do with religion but is really about the word 'marriage'
> Such a small word to cause such a lot of conflict  Does it really matter so much that not all partnerships are called marriage when in all but name they are?


It doesn't really matter what it's called whether it be marriage, civil partnerships, etc. (I'm talking about marriage and civil partnerships in general) It would be better if the states didn't recognize any of it.

If someone still wanted to have a marriage ceremony, they could do it at a church or somewhere else.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> okay so re's my wee sum up, sorry to quote you directly!
> 
> People want to get married, ok.
> *the Gov want to* make it acceptable for gay marriages in religious places on a voluntary basis, those who attempt to opt out can be taken to court for a breach of human rights and potentially forced to marry that couple despite them not wishing to.
> I cannot see the fairness there at all.


No, they don't. You've been corrected on this repeatedly.

Please stop lying in an effort to bolster your own homophobia.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I do agree with that bit, its ludicrous to hand one group a right by taking it off another. Religions have the right to keep their places of worship sacred imo. But i doubt that they would be forced to, surely not.


That's only happening in his head.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

I'll be as clear as I can - the only people wanting to force religions to do something against their will (or not do, as is the case) are the Church of England and the Catholic Church. They are the only groups infringing on religious liberty by demanding that no religion can carry out a religious same-sex marriage ceremony.

But, of course, to the homophobic, that translates to - the nasty, evil, deviant gays are trying to destroy my poor, little put-upon, never-hurt-a-fly religion.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> I do agree with that bit, its ludicrous to hand one group a right by taking it off another. Religions have the right to keep their places of worship sacred imo. But i doubt that they would be forced to, surely not.


human rights are a joke her Lil



WriterC said:


> No, they don't. You've been corrected on this repeatedly.
> 
> Please stop lying in an effort to bolster your own homophobia.


Im homophobic because I dont agree with you lol, ok. Im female by the way :laugh:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> If they hold the property jointly then it won't have to be sold. Ownership will be transferred the remaining brother.
> 
> I don't care about your uncles' choices in life - that's their business. And actually comparing your uncles' choice to buy a farm (it didn't just happen), with my inability to marry because I happened to fall in love with a man and not a woman, is grossly offensive.


Sorry you are wrong - ownership of assets can only move tax free between married couples (either hetroxsexual marriage or same sex civil partnership).

I am sure my uncles don't care about your life choices either, neither do I to be perfectly honest, and they would probably find it equally offensive that you think your life choices should mean you get preferential treatment tax wise over them! I haven't tried to pretend I care either way but at least I don't have double standards over one group or another.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> human rights are a joke her Lil
> 
> Im homophobic because I dont agree with you lol, ok. Im female by the way :laugh:


No, you're homophobic because you think gay people shouldn't have equality.

Do you really think that being female means you can't be homophobic?:laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Sorry you are wrong - ownership of assets can only move tax free between married couples (either hetroxsexual marriage or same sex civil partnership).


I'm really not wrong. When a property is held jointly, upon death, the surviving owner owns 100% of that property - regardless of how they are related.



DoodlesRule said:


> I am sure my uncles don't care about your life choices either, neither do I to be perfectly honest, and they would probably find it equally offensive that you think your life choices should mean you get preferential treatment tax wise over them! I haven't tried to pretend I care either way but at least I don't have double standards over one group or another.


You think people choose to be gay?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> No, you're homophobic because you think gay people shouldn't have equality.
> 
> Do you really think that being female means you can't be homophobic?:laugh::laugh::laugh:


I dont see why it matters tho if someone doesnt agree with the gay lifestyle, its forced on people to accept it or else kind of attitude and thats wrong, so fkn what really, its their right to not approve as much as its gays rights to be well .. gay.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> I dont see why it matters tho if someone doesnt agree with the gay lifestyle, its forced on people to accept it or else kind of attitude and thats wrong, so fkn what really, its their right to not approve as much as its gays rights to be well .. gay.


1. What's the gay lifestyle?
2. You don't have to accept anything other than my right to equality. 
3. You don't even have to accept that, but try and stop it and you'll go the same way as those who opposed racial equality.
4. Is that the same rights that people eyes have the right to have blue eyes?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Not read all the thread - decided Monday was Wine O'clock and am on my 3rd glass 

On the face of it I was hoorified that churches on the whole don't want to accept Gay Marriage in a religious concept.

I am a sworn Athiest - no interest in religion at all - prefer science myself 

But looking into it more - I'm not sure I support Gay Marriages for all churches 

Most religious unions are primarily for the procreation of children - same sex partnerships cannot biologically have kids together.

If a religion does not believe in homosexuality who am I to impose my believes on them

I do believe churches should be able to offer religious ceromonies to gay couples if they want to - but I don't believe they should be forced.

A civil partnership gives someone all the same rights as a religious marriage - if a person is gay and religious then surely they want to be married in a church that accepts them rather than a church that is forced to carry out the service.

I got married in a registary office my partnership/marriage is no less valuable than a religious marriage.

Not even sure any of that makes sense - maybe I shouldn't have the 4th galss of wine afterall


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> I'll be as clear as I can - the only people wanting to force religions to do something against their will (or not do, as is the case) are the Church of England and the Catholic Church. They are the only groups infringing on religious liberty by demanding that no religion can carry out a religious same-sex marriage ceremony.
> 
> But, of course, to the homophobic, that translates to - the nasty, evil, deviant gays are trying to destroy my poor, little put-upon, never-hurt-a-fly religion.


Argh so anyone who thinks well let the CoE and Catholics hold their views and allow same sex marriage anywhere else if thats what those churches want, is what? It does not make someone homophobic simply because they don't believe other people should be allowed no choice if it doesn't agree with your views!

The way you come across I don't think you want a religious same sex marriage - you want the pope to marry you to prove a point!


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> So, as I understand it, this is nothing to do with religion but is really about the word 'marriage'
> Such a small word to cause such a lot of conflict  Does it really matter so much that not all partnerships are called marriage when in all but name they are?
> A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


I must admit, I like saying I am married. i wouldn't want to say a civil partnership. I never thought getting married would change us, we had lived together for 8 years, but it has. We feel more secure and I love being able to say "my husband". I think everyone should have that option.

My sister has recently become religious and started going to church and although she's happy, I think its possibly one of the worst things to happen. Its changed her and not for the good and i think its such a shame. Religion has a lot to answer for.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Argh so anyone who thinks well let the CoE and Catholics hold their views and allow same sex marriage anywhere else if thats what those churches want, is what? It does not make someone homophobic simply because they don't believe other people should be allowed no choice if it doesn't agree with your views!
> 
> The way you come across I don't think you want a religious same sex marriage - you want the pope to marry you to prove a point!


Where are you getting that from? I don't care if a religion doesn't want to marry me - I'm above all that - but I do care when a religion uses its money and influence to try and stop me marrying under civil law.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> 1. What's the gay lifestyle?
> 2. You don't have to accept anything other than my right to equality.
> 3. You don't even have to accept that, but try and stop it and you'll go the same way as those who opposed racial equality.
> 4. Is that the same rights that people eyes have the right to have blue eyes?


Sure, of course, .....but rights aside... people should also have the right to not approve of same sex couples rooting each other. Just cos you think its natural or whatever doesnt mean others wont find it putrid, really thats just how i see it, we all have a right to an opinion whether it offends or not, cos at the end of the day someones always gonna be offended. 
will add thats not how i see them, lol.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> Sure, of course, .....but rights aside... people should also have the right to not approve of same sex couples rooting each other. Just cos you think its natural or whatever doesnt mean others wont find it putrid, really thats just how i see it, we all have a right to an opinion whether it offends or not, cos at the end of the day someones always gonna be offended.
> will add thats not how i see them, lol.


They have the right to not approve - they don't have the right to deny us equality.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Where are you getting that from? I don't care if a religion doesn't want to marry me - I'm above all that - but I do care when a religion uses its money and influence to try and stop me marrying under civil law.


I actually doubt either the COE or Catholic churches in the uk have much money or influence over anything anymore.

Why are you the only person who seem to have heard about them trying to stop civil partnerships, where are you getting that from? I have only heard they are fighting not to be forced to carry out gay marriages


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> They have the right to not approve - they don't have the right to deny us equality.


yes i agree.


----------



## BullyMolly (Sep 26, 2011)

I got married in a registry office, does that mean I'm not married but in fact have a partnership? 
Because on my "Certificate of Marriage" it says I'm married? Also I had to pay for a publication that I was getting "Married", so that if anyone had any objections to this, then to come forward? 
I'm confused now


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

This poll is badly worded. The question you seem to be asking is, should civil partnerships be replaced by homosexual marriage. At least, I assume the proposal is to replace them not to allow both options to homosexuals when heterosexuals do not have the option of a civil partnership. What I really don't understand is why homosexuals want their partnerships to be officially called marriage. What is wrong with the way things stand at present - all equal under the law, but one term being used of a heterosexual committed relationship and the other of a homosexual one. What is the objection to that?

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> I actually doubt either the COE or Catholic churches in the uk have much money or influence over anything anymore.
> 
> Why are you the only person who seem to have heard about them trying to stop civil partnerships? I have only heard they are fighting not to be forced to carry out gay marriages


1. Civil Partnerships are already law
2. The Bishops in the House of Lords have plenty of influence.
3. I'm the only person? Really? :laugh: Catholic church in Scotland steps up campaign against gay marriage | Society | guardian.co.uk But, for balance, have a look at this too - Under Rowan Williams, the church has failed gay people | Jeffrey John | Comment is free | The Guardian
4. Your ignorance (and clear misunderstanding) of something does not mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

And let's be clear here - from the proposals -


> make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals


Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office

It can't get much clearer than that - so you have to wonder why certain people keep lying about it?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> This poll is badly worded. The question you seem to be asking is, should civil partnerships be replaced by homosexual marriage. At least, I assume the proposal is to replace them not to allow both options to homosexuals when heterosexuals do not have the option of a civil partnership. What I really don't understand is why homosexuals want their partnerships to be officially called marriage. What is wrong with the way things stand at present - all equal under the law, but one term being used of a heterosexual committed relationship and the other of a homosexual one. What is the objection to that?
> 
> Liz


Separate is not equal. That's the issue.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Why specifically Jews and Muslims though? There are plenty of Christian fanatics. Heck, I live in a country where there were two bombs denoted down the road from where I live, and no less than 5 bombs were set off in the area around my uni, all in the space of 5 months.


By Christians? Which churches were they members of?

Liz


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> I actually doubt either the COE or Catholic churches in the uk have much money or influence over anything anymore.


They clearly do. Homosexual civil marriage would have been passed years ago if it wasn't for their lobbying.



DoodlesRule said:


> Why are you the only person who seem to have heard about them trying to stop civil partnerships, where are you getting that from? I have only heard they are fighting not to be forced to carry out gay marriages


Both the catholic church and the C of E fought against homosexuality being legalised and they haven't changed their spots. They are fighting legeslation to change CIVIL marriage laws and the only bit of it that concerns them is the part that says they CANNOT carry out homosexual marriages, even is they wanted to. This is not about them being forced to carry out gay marriage, it really can't be said any clearer.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

CharleyRogan said:


> I say it should be legal, in this day and age, marriage is about rights, you cohabit, you don't have the same rights as if you are married. Gays should have the same rights as Straight people.


What rights do married people have, that homosexuals in civil partnerships do not have?

Liz


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> 1. 4. Your ignorance (and clear misunderstanding) of something does not mean it doesn't exist.


Lol your ignorance & bigotry doesn't mean it does exist either! I am in England not Scotland!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Lol your ignorance & bigotry doesn't mean it does exist either! I am in England not Scotland!


To be clear - you're saying that the Church of England and the Catholic Church are not campaigning against the introduction of civil marriage for gay couples?


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

lizward said:


> What rights do married people have, that homosexuals in civil partnerships do not have?
> 
> Liz


They are the same Liz, they just want it to be called marriage not a partnership


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> About 20 years ago, I recall reading in a national newspaper that the catholic church had refused to marry a heteresexual couple who could not consumate their marriage because the man was paralysed from the waist down. The church's opinion was that marriage was for procreation of children, and they could not do that and therefore the church would not marry them.
> 
> I just thought I would remind people that the church is very presumptious in its ideals and really has no right to dictate anything that is not wholly religious.
> 
> I will not vote, as from my own opinion, I think marriage is outdated and was only ever invented so that men could keep control over his wife and her wealth.


After 2 failed marriages, I'm inclined to agree with you on that last paragraph.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> To be clear - you're saying that the Church of England and the Catholic Church are not campaigning against the introduction of civil marriage for gay couples?


Just spell it out for the thickies like me so its clear - are you saying civil partnership is something completely different than civil marriage, you have one but want the other?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> The Government isn't pushing for any same-sex religious ceremonies. I don't know where you're getting your information from but it sounds as if you've been listening to the lies of some religions.


Not YET, no. A few years ago they were not pushing for homosexual marriage, theyw ere going to leave it at civil partnerships. Churches are afraid that if this is allowed, we will be forced to permit homosexual marriages in our churches if we don't want to find ourselves in court. The fear of that is well founded - look at what has happened to two sets of Christian B&B owners just because they refused a double room (not a twin room!) to homosexual couples.

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Just spell it out for the thickies like me so its clear - are you saying civil partnership is something completely different than civil marriage, you have one but want the other?


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I deserve (and will have) equality. Separate is not equal.

Care to answer my question or will you refuse to because you know you'll be shown up?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Not YET, no. A few years ago they were not pushing for homosexual marriage, theyw ere going to leave it at civil partnerships.


I was. Separate is not equal. Your religious views will not deny me equality.



lizward said:


> Churches are afraid that if this is allowed, we will be forced to permit homosexual marriages in our churches if we don't want to find ourselves in court.


It's not happened anywhere else. That's seems to be rather clutching at straws. I do wonder that if this is the case, then why all the fuss against civil marriage? That can't have any religion in it.



lizward said:


> The fear of that is well founded - look at what has happened to two sets of Christian B&B owners just because they refused a double room (not a twin room!) to homosexual couples.
> 
> Liz


How awful! That business owners are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws! Oh the horror! And these couples wanted to be treated the same as other couples?! In a business open to the public?! MONSTERS!


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> If this new law is brought it, it means that religious leaders must, by law, marry the couple, regardless of sexual orientation, divorce, etc.


Is that what is being proposed???


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Is that what is being proposed???


No.

Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

WriterC said:


> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I deserve (and will have) equality. Separate is not equal.
> 
> Care to answer my question or will you refuse to because you know you'll be shown up?


Do you really believe in the idea of marriage or is it that you want the right to choose to be married to someone of the sex as yourself. Are you planning on marriage in the future?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Haven't read all the thread, but marriage is a religious state, you make vows before God. If people want to be joined together in marriage in a non-religious way then surely they should seek for something other than marriage? I think people confuse the status of being married, as being legally referred to as a couple, the two shouldn't be the same


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Do you really believe in the idea of marriage or is it that you want the right to choose to be married to someone of the sex as yourself. Are you planning on marriage in the future?


Both. And yes. We'll get married in 2015, when it's made law. Or 2016 depending on the month it's enacted.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Haven't read all the thread, but marriage is a religious state, you make vows before God. If people want to be joined together in marriage in a non-religious way then surely they should seek for something other than marriage? I think people confuse the status of being married, as being legally referred to as a couple, the two shouldn't be the same


Marriage isn't a religious state - it's been around for a lot longer than any of the current religions.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I deserve (and will have) equality. Separate is not equal.
> 
> Care to answer my question or will you refuse to because you know you'll be shown up?


Lol what was your question!

Shown up for what, I am not gay but I am not religious either I believe in live & let live. What is you want & deserve & will have equality in - you said you don't want a religious ceremony, you already have equality in the eyes of the law so is all this fuss because you want it simply called a marriage rather than a civil partnership? Or do you think a church, any church, should not have the right to say no sorry I don't want to do this. Just what is it you are battling for?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Separate is not equal. That's the issue.


In what respect are they not equal? What does marriage give me that a civil partnership does not give you?

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Lol what was your question!
> 
> Shown up for what, I am not gay but I am not religious either I believe in live & let live. What is you want & deserve & will have equality in - you said you don't want a religious ceremony, you already have equality in the eyes of the law so is all this fuss because you want it simply called a marriage rather than a civil partnership? Or do you think a church, any church, should not have the right to say no sorry I don't want to do this. Just what is it you are battling for?


Actually, I don't have equality in the eyes of the law. Separate is not equal. If it was, do you really think the Conservatives would be the political party proposing it?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> In what respect are they not equal? What does marriage give me that a civil partnership does not give you?
> 
> Liz


Legally, only a few things - but semantically, everything. No one grows up wanting to get 'civil partnered'.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

lizward said:


> What rights do married people have, that homosexuals in civil partnerships do not have?
> 
> Liz


Segregating groups of people purely because of prejudice is not a healthy way for society to operate, history has taught us that time and time again.

Apartheid literally means segregation and in South Africa began by seperating people along racial lines. Non-white people could initially do alot of the things white people could do, just seperately - any problem with that? Or is that sort of seperation ok as long as they can do the same things? The same could be said for the racial segregation in the USA or the Nazi policy for Jewish segregation.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Marriage isn't a religious state - it's been around for a lot longer than any of the current religions.


So when in a marriage are you not asked to make vows before God? As far as I'm aware, and as far as history tells us, marriage is a contract between two people and the God they believe in.

I have no qualms about same sex relationships, but why convert something unsuitable, why not instead press for something that gives same sex couples the same standing, rather than say they can be *married* when realistically, that's never going to be accepted?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Haven't read all the thread, but marriage is a religious state, you make vows before God. If people want to be joined together in marriage in a non-religious way then surely they should seek for something other than marriage? I think people confuse the status of being married, as being legally referred to as a couple, the two shouldn't be the same


Marriage is a contract....something new I learnt tonight.... It can be recognised by a state, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local authority.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> It's not happened anywhere else. That's seems to be rather clutching at straws. I do wonder that if this is the case, then why all the fuss against civil marriage? That can't have any religion in it.


Because we don't believe that the homosexual lobby will shut up until they FORCE everyone to applaud them (if not force us all to be homosexual!) Within my lifetime, male homosexual practice was illegal. Now, upsetting a homosexual person is just about the worst hate crime possible - even worse than upsetting a Muslim. 


> How awful! That business owners are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws! Oh the horror! And these couples wanted to be treated the same as other couples?! In a business open to the public?! MONSTERS!


It was also the B&B owners' own home.

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So when in a marriage are you not asked to make vows before God?


Doesn't that depend on where you get married?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> As far as I'm aware, and as far as history tells us, marriage is a contract between two people and the God they believe in.


If you're religious it is. But not everyone is. As for what history tells us - gay people and gay marriages have been around for as long as straight people and straight marriages.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have no qualms about same sex relationships, but why convert something unsuitable, why not instead press for something that gives same sex couples the same standing, rather than say they can be *married* when realistically, that's never going to be accepted?


It's not unsuitable. The exact same arguments that you've given were made about interracial couples - which is obviously still such a huge issue in the world.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

WriterC said:


> No.
> 
> Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office


Thanks for the link - very clear - can't see anything on this that I wouldn't support - don't see why there are any objections.

I will say all the Gay couples I know who have civil partnerships all say they are married and refer to their spouses as husband/wife or simply partner.
Seems silly to me not to use the word marriage, civil partenrship is too much of a mouthful to keep saying


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Legally, only a few things - but semantically, everything. No one grows up wanting to get 'civil partnered'.


I rather doubt if any little girl playing at weddings thinks in terms of marrying another little girl, but there it is.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> No.
> 
> Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office


Thank you. I can't see any proposal there to allow heterosexuals to enter into civil partnerships, why is the government wanting to discriminate against heterosexuals?

Liz


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *So when in a marriage are you not asked to make vows before God?* As far as I'm aware, and as far as history tells us, marriage is a contract between two people and the God they believe in.
> 
> I have no qualms about same sex relationships, but why convert something unsuitable, why not instead press for something that gives same sex couples the same standing, rather than say they can be *married* when realistically, that's never going to be accepted?


A civil *marriage* in a registry office or other designated place is still a marriage with no religious vows involved.
With a civil *partnership* a gay couple still have the same rights but cannot, by law, be called married. I think that what is being asked for is the term marriage to be allowed for every ceremony. 
I can understand though that churches are concerned that they may be forced to perform ceremonies which they do not agree with, due religious beliefs and teachings.
ETA to clarify, the term churches was used to mean any religious group of whatever persuasion


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Legally, only a few things


Namely ...?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Because we don't believe that the homosexual lobby will shut up until they FORCE everyone to applaud them (if not force us all to be homosexual!)


How do you force someone to be gay?



lizward said:


> Within my lifetime, male homosexual practice was illegal.


And aren't you glad such hateful laws were done away with?



lizward said:


> Now, upsetting a homosexual person is just about the worst hate crime possible - even worse than upsetting a Muslim.


How awful! Such discrimination! I don't know how you cope!



lizward said:


> It was also the B&B owners' own home.


Actually, it wasn't. In both cases the couples had separate living spaces. But that's not the issue. If you run a business, regardless of wherever it's based, you do it within the law and if you disagree with the law then you accept the consequences.

Please explain why your religious views should affect my life?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> I rather doubt if any little girl playing at weddings thinks in terms of marrying another little girl, but there it is.
> 
> Liz


Why do you think that?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Please explain why your religious views should affect my life?


Please explain why your desire to have sex with someone of your own gender should mean the curtailing of my religious freedom?

Liz


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

WriterC may I ask if you are currently in civil partnership or would you rather wait until it can be a marriage?
Idle curiosity


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Thank you. I can't see any proposal there to allow heterosexuals to enter into civil partnerships, why is the government wanting to discriminate against heterosexuals?
> 
> Liz


I don't know - you'd have to ask them. Perhaps you could campaign for it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So why on earth would you want to perform a religious ceremony, that doesn't necessarily apply to you, to gain a legal right? Why not just push for a legal right to be recognised?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So when in a marriage are you not asked to make vows before God? As far as I'm aware, and as far as history tells us, marriage is a contract between two people and the God they believe in.


That's not what history tells us. Marriage existed before recorded history and throughout ancient civilizations often with no real link to religion. Civil marriage has no requirement for religion



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have no qualms about same sex relationships, but why convert something unsuitable, why not instead press for something that gives same sex couples the same standing, rather than say they can be *married* when realistically, that's never going to be accepted?


It is very likely that civil homosexual marriage will happen in the next few years. There is cross party and wide public support so it will happen, the religious opposition will just mean it takes longer.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> WriterC may I ask if you are currently in civil partnership or would you rather wait until it can be a marriage?
> Idle curiosity


I'm not. I've never been good at accepting a few crumbs in place of the real deal.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So why on earth would you want to perform a religious ceremony, that doesn't necessarily apply to you, to gain a legal right? Why not just push for a legal right to be recognised?


Is this to me? I'm not wanting a religious ceremony.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So why on earth would you want to perform a religious ceremony, that doesn't necessarily apply to you, to gain a legal right? Why not just push for a legal right to be recognised?


Civil Marriage involves no religion. It cannot be clearer.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Actually, I don't have equality in the eyes of the law. Separate is not equal. If it was, do you really think the Conservatives would be the political party proposing it?


Why can't you just spell out exactly what it is you do want? Separate isn't equal for me either then, I don't want a marriage I want a civil partnership why can't I have that just because I am not gay?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Writerc....

When you do start arrangements for your marriage, are you hoping to sign the contract in a church or anywhere that will marry a same sex couple?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Please explain why your desire to have sex with someone of your own gender should mean the curtailing of my religious freedom?
> 
> Liz


It doesn't, put simply. Do you really think that your religious beliefs give the 'freedom' to prevent others from having civil rights?

How would my getting married in a civil ceremony 'curtail your religion freedom'?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Writerc....
> 
> When you do start arrangements for your marriage, are you hoping to sign the contract in a church or anywhere that will marry a same sex couple?


I've answered this repeatedly - I don't want any religion near my civil ceremony.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

WriterC said:


> I've answered this repeatedly - I don't want any religion near my civil ceremony.


I didn't see the answers you had posted until I sent mine.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Why can't you just spell out exactly what it is you do want? Separate isn't equal for me either then, I don't want a marriage I want a civil partnership why can't I have that just because I am not gay?


I have spelt it out - but I'll do it again, because you seem to have something preventing you from being able to grasp it - civil marriage.

I'd completely support your right to have a Civil Partnership.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> I've answered this repeatedly - I don't want any religion near my civil ceremony.


Gawd what do you want then, sorry but you really are not making any sense whatsoever no clearer what you want at all!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Gawd what do you want then, sorry but you really are not making any sense whatsoever no clearer what you want at all!


Civil Marriage.

(98th time's the charm!)


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> I have spelt it out - but I'll do it again, because you seem to have something preventing you from being able to grasp it - civil marriage.
> 
> I'd completely support your right to have a Civil Partnership.


So you want a different word - what a load of fuss about absolutely nothing at all! Where do we go next, stop saying men or women we should merely be referred to as people! I want to be able to say on my Passport I am a Martian simply so that I can, its my right and I demand that!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> That's not what history tells us. Marriage existed before recorded history and throughout ancient civilizations often with no real link to religion. Civil marriage has no requirement for religion
> 
> It is very likely that civil homosexual marriage will happen in the next few years. There is cross party and wide public support so it will happen, the religious opposition will just mean it takes longer.


I'd like to see your proof for the first claim, partnerships in various forms have existed throughout history, however, the term marriage is a recent innovation, and refers to religious ceremonies. Whether or not you choose to interpret the meaning of a marriage or partnership to include other forms of partnership is up to you, but you can't realistically apply a term that was invented in the 11th century to anything prior?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> So you want a different word - what a load of fuss about absolutely nothing at all! Where do we go next, stop saying men or women we should merely be referred to as people! I want to be able to say on my Passport I am a Martian simply so that I can, its my right and I demand that!


If it's 'absolutely nothing at all' then there shouldn't be a problem, should there?

You may think equality is not worth it but I do. And I'm sure that when you prove you were born on Mars, that you'll be able to have 'Martian' on your passport. Until then, stop it with the non sequiturs - they're very boring.

Ultimately, none of this changes anything - marriage equality will pass.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Its just a word - you obviously feel strongly about this but I think you will find the majority really don't care one way or the other, try another poll:

Do you think marriage should only relate to the union of a male & female

Do you think Marriage should refer to any union ie male/female and also same sex

Do you not care/have no feelings either way/its just a word doesn't matter

Probably the majority would be the last option. A more controversial one though would be:

Which is more important the rights of gay people or religious beliefs?
or
Neither, they should have equal priority with neither side trying to force their view on each other


You have the same legal status but are now splitting hairs over a word, I personally think you are doing more harm than good


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Its just a word - you obviously feel strongly about this but I think you will find the majority really don't care one way or the other, try another poll:
> 
> Do you think marriage should only relate to the union of a male & female
> 
> ...


100% of the people in this poll support marriage equality regardless of all those factors. Strange that, isn't it?

I'm about to go to bed but I do feel that I should offer your uncles some advice - get proper legal advice because your claims are wrong and must be causing them so much worry. This will explain it so you don't further worry your elderly uncles http://www.colemans-solicitors.com/site/publications/property_held_jointly.html.:)


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'd like to see your proof for the first claim, partnerships in various forms have existed throughout history, however, the term marriage is a recent innovation, and refers to religious ceremonies. Whether or not you choose to interpret the meaning of a marriage or partnership to include other forms of partnership is up to you, but you can't realistically apply a term that was invented in the 11th century to anything prior?


The word 'marriage' comes from the Roman word 'maritare' which is latin for 'to marry'. The Romans had marriage, no historical doubt about that.

The word marriage did not enter the English language to distiguish non-religious and religious partnerships and was only eventually tied to religion because of the law of the land.

Would any of the religious partnerships between non-british nationals throughout history be called marriage? or not because they don't use the english word 'marriage' and may not be christian...


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

For me, personally, my thoughts are that marriage should remain something that is sacred between a man and a woman. 

Marriage has been discussed in the holy books long before it was brought into British law, so saying religion and marriage have nothing to do with each other just isn't correct. They are totally intertwined. There is a non religious provision already in place for people who wish to be recognised as partners by law but who cannot be married; civil partnership is a provision identical to marriage except for name.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Its just a word - you obviously feel strongly about this but I think you will find the majority really don't care one way or the other, try another poll:
> 
> Do you think marriage should only relate to the union of a male & female
> 
> ...


I think that might make an interesting poll


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> The word 'marriage' comes from the Roman word 'maritare' which is latin for 'to marry'. The Romans had marriage, no historical doubt about that.
> 
> The word marriage did not enter the English language to distiguish non-religious and religious partnerships and was only eventually tied to religion because of the law of the land.
> 
> Would any of the religious partnerships between non-british nationals throughout history be called marriage? or not because they don't use the english word 'marriage' and may not be christian...


No one has said marriage is a solely Christian term, that's your take on it.

The word marriage isn't roman in origin, the term marriage is french. I never said the word marriage entered the the English language to distinguish between religious and non-religious partnerships, I merely said that in today's society why do you need to have a marriage, if a union is recognised by other means?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

WriterC said:


> 100% of the people in this poll support marriage equality regardless of all those factors. Strange that, isn't it?
> 
> I'm about to go to bed but I do feel that I should offer your uncles some advice - get proper legal advice because your claims are wrong and must be causing them so much worry. This will explain it so you don't further worry your elderly uncles http://www.colemans-solicitors.com/site/publications/property_held_jointly.html.:)


Lol Thats just the percentage of people who answered! Look through your thread and count up all the people who didn't do the poll because neither answer fits.

IHT would apply


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Grace_Lily said:


> Marriage has been discussed in the holy books long before it was brought into British law, so saying religion and marriage have nothing to do with each other just isn't correct. They are totally intertwined.


It was equally discussed in none holy books. The marriage that was around at the time of Jesus was often non-religious.

Nobody is claiming that religion has nothing to do with marriage, it clearly does, but it doesn't own marriage and never has. Civil marriage is recognised in the UK as non-religious and the church is in no way 'intertwined' with it. I don't see the church campaigning to end civil marriage for athiests and adulterers, and if they believe marriage to be sacred only to religious people why don't they?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Lol Thats just the percentage of people who answered! Look through your thread and count up all the people who didn't do the poll because neither answer fits.
> 
> IHT would apply


It wouldn't on any properties held jointly. They would transfer totally to the other owner - that's how it works. There is a distinction between tenants in common and joint tenants.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Grace_Lily said:


> For me, personally, my thoughts are that marriage should remain something that is sacred between a man and a woman.
> 
> Marriage has been discussed in the holy books long before it was brought into British law, so saying religion and marriage have nothing to do with each other just isn't correct. They are totally intertwined. There is a non religious provision already in place for people who wish to be recognised as partners by law but who cannot be married; civil partnership is a provision identical to marriage except for name.


If we accept your argument, then why should religious same-sex marriages be banned in those religions that wish to ordain them?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No one has said marriage is a solely Christian term, that's your take on it.
> 
> The word marriage isn't roman in origin, the term marriage is french. I never said the word marriage entered the the English language to distinguish between religious and non-religious partnerships, I merely said that in today's society why do you need to have a marriage, if a union is recognised by other means?


Where exactly do you think the french term came from? Not out of thin air but like much of the french language it came directly from the latin. 'maritare' -> 'marier' -> 'marriage' it's pretty obvious.

You tried to argue that during history marriage was wholely linked to religion. I argued it wasn't but you claimed the only valid use of the word marriage is going by the definition of the term when it first was coined in the english language (despite origins of the word dating back to roman times). The only way that argument works is if the word marriage in the 11th (ish) century was used for a religious distinction, if it wasn't then it's just another word for the partnerships that have existed since the start of recorded history (many of which historian refer to as marriage).

Your last question has been answered a fair few times in this thread, it's about equality under civil law.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Jeez, what have I missed!? 



DoodlesRule said:


> Sorry it just seems to be splitting hairs to me or to use your arguments trying to force others who don't share the same views to bend to your will. If the law was changed and you were allowed to to call a civil partnership a marriage (which seems to be what the arguement is here but not 100% sure)I really don't think you would be happy with that either. If churches were able to opt in or out I don't think you would be happy with that - you would want the "right" to marry wherever and remove other peoples choice.
> 
> As I said I am not at all bothered either way and because of that can see both sides - you trying to force religeous individuals to do what you want is just as bad, well actually it might even be worse if they are saying do as you please but don't ask me to participate because of personal/religeous beliefs and you are saying no you MUST do what I want rather you find a place of worship that would be happy to marry you.
> 
> Perhaps the only answer is to abolish religeon and marriage altogether!


As this was in response to one of my posts, I would like to reply.

If the law was passed and civil partnerships for gay people were recognised as civil marriages, I would be over the moon. I have no desire to force any church of any religion into marrying gay couples. What I currently object to is a bunch of old, uneducated, jumped up, hypocritical men who, frankly do not live in the real world, coming out into said real world and banging on about 'moral right' and sin. If you're (generic you) part of an organisation that condoned and covered up the sex abuse that went on in both the Catholic and CoE churches, then in my book you have no right to voice an opinion because you're a hypocrite.

I agree that it would be much better for gay couples to be married in a church that happily accepted them for who they are, rather than being forced to preside over the union, and I would never say to this denomination or that denomination 'you have to marry these people'. The various churches have their view, I have mine. As long as everyone's views aren't shoved down another's neck, it's fine and dandy. Unfortunately the Catholic and CoE churches don't have this ethos.



Fleur said:


> Not read all the thread - decided Monday was Wine O'clock and am on my 3rd glass
> 
> On the face of it I was hoorified that churches on the whole don't want to accept Gay Marriage in a religious concept.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, it's mostly the point I've been trying to make, just much better written 



lizward said:


> By Christians? Which churches were they members of?
> 
> Liz


Yep, by Christians. I live in Derry in Northern Ireland, which I imagine would set off alarm bells  Despite being a predominantly Catholic city, we are still regularly bombed by both sides of the extremists. These people hide behind their religion and use it as an excuse to cause trouble, but the fact of the matter is that it's nothing to do with religion, it's just a bunch of twits trying to kick off the troubles again because they can't accept that there's a working peace agreement and people are getting on.



lymorelynn said:


> A civil *marriage* in a registry office or other designated place is still a marriage with no religious vows involved.
> With a civil *partnership* a gay couple still have the same rights but cannot, by law, be called married. I think that what is being asked for is the term marriage to be allowed for every ceremony.
> I can understand though that churches are concerned that they may be forced to perform ceremonies which they do not agree with, due religious beliefs and teachings.
> ETA to clarify, the term churches was used to mean any religious group of whatever persuasion


Yes, it's the use of the term 'marriage' that's being argued here - gay ceremonies are currently called partnerships, whereas heterosexual ceremonies are called marriage. The aim is to have every ceremony called a marriage, hence why it's called the "Marriage Equality Act". It is a little confusing but that is the general gist.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Please explain why your desire to have sex with someone of your own gender should mean the curtailing of my religious freedom?
> 
> Liz


Another thing - why is always about sex with you lot? Marriage is about love.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

Historically, only the wealthy and important, in feudal times, in Brit, had religious and LEGALLY BINDING marriages. It was about men using daughters to gain powerful/wealthy relatives, up to Royalty status. They included religion, to underline this bond of family power for life, to protect wealth, landholdings and political pacts. The Great Unwashed married by jumping over a broom.

The marriage act of late? 18th century/early 19th?, century, brought in a whole lot of conditions not in England before, where marriage NOT between important and wealthy could be 'conducted' by all sorts of people with no religious standing.

Those new rules are why Gretna Green became THE place for those who wanted to avoid the formal legalities, (where one was too young, where banns weren't read, MOST IMPORTANTLY, to marry without parental consent, for dodgy marriages), as it was close to the Englsh border, and in Scotland, the local blacksmith could still preside over the marriage, almost no questions asked. I think the girl had to be over 12, maybe even younger?; the lad over 14? and they had to swear they were not already married to anyone else, and weren't brother and sister. (Not swearing to this, read about it, DECADES ago, BUT it's pretty close). In Scotland THAT was a binding marriage, AND recognised in England, hence the Gretna Green marriage is a term still infamous, even if most are unaware of why we use the term.

As ever, religion warps history to insist on the historic importance it never had, in the general populace common law marriages, certainly in Britain. As to the argument that marriage is only for couples who can procreate, I'd like to see that follow through said to some old heterosexual pensioners who meet and fall in love and want to marry. 

To deny marriage equality is just so meanspirited. NO ONE here has said that god believers have to marry gays if they don't want to, there are plenty of much bigger hearted religionists who are happy to... I would imagine most gays would prefer civil ceremonies. 

Why are the most rabied Believers here screamng their rights are infringed, when no gay couple would want anything to do with them and their individual churches. It's supposed to be a joyous day. Who wants to share that with a judgemental, disapproving, often historically and biologically ignorant official? Gay people are demanding the right to have equality, the anti gay marriage lobby are trying to deny equality, to people they will rarely meet, as most gays discovering those views would go out of their way to avoid such meanspiritedness. Writing as an old straight, well educated woman.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

How many of the most judgemental are even aware of the EXTRAORDINARY and beloved war heroes, scientists, authors, etc who were gay, or had gay experiences and/or loved being around gay people. People whose actions saved thousands in their war work, in their research.

I remember in her ignorance, my mother told me I would perhaps meet 3 or 4 gay men in my life. At the time, she was trying to encourage a romance between me and a gay farmers son, of a 'good' catholic family of 9 children, 2 were gay, 2 bisexual, and may have been happily gay, but married, and had affairs, so they kept their family happy.

I keep hearing that man CHOOSES to be gay, and it is because god created man with free will. Most christians believe animals have no free will and that makes us special. It is established that there are gay roosters, gay rams, gay bulls, gay horses, ... The list goes on and on. They are as your god made them. Didn't not notice. 'He' is omniscient. Didn't botch it. 'He' is without fault. So... faulty god, or rather fond of gay everythings, cos they are still being born...


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

lizward said:


> Because we don't believe that the homosexual lobby will shut up until they FORCE everyone to applaud them (if not force us all to be homosexual!) Within my lifetime, male homosexual practice was illegal. Now, upsetting a homosexual person is just about the worst hate crime possible - even worse than upsetting a Muslim.
> 
> It was also the B&B owners' own home.
> 
> Liz


Just to put your mind at rest us "homosexuals" are very happy for you to continue in heterosexual relationships. And I most certainly don't want anyone to applaud me either. 
ANY hate crime agains any protected characteristic is wrong by law! None is more severely punished than the other.

As for the b&B owners, the CHOSE to open their home as a business, therefore they are required to adhere to relevant laws and legislation. It is like saying the shouldn't need to comply with the HEalth and safety at work act.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

WriterC said:


> Indeed they were marrying gay couples in the middle ages! Only rich gay couples, of course. Then again, according to the church at the time, only rich people needed to marry. The poor were allowed to live 'as in marriage'. As long as they went to church and made contributions, obviously.


I would love to know where you gleaned this piece of information. The only place in history I know of that allowed gay marriage for rich people, and everything else you have mentioned, is ancient Rome, which was a long time before the catholic church.

I would be interested in references please.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Poll doesn't make sense.

Marriage now means nothing for too many people, just a status symbol. If talking about legalities it's not really about marriage but simply legal recognition. Marriage I cannot agree with. Legal recognition of a partnership I can be it for gays or for heterosexual couples who don't want the "religious aspect". For the religious side of things it would depend on the religion's point of view.

In the UK state and church are intertwined. Get used to it and blame Henry VIII. Here in Germany if you want recognition by the church for a marriage you have to get married twice. 1 state, 1 church. (makes anniversaries a pain).

If you want to do a poll such as this and get true answers, make it anonymous or you are fanning potential "hate". As it stands I am sure if you disagree with the PC answer you will be persecuted in some way shape or form either now or in the future. Congrats to Grace_Lily for actually standing up for her views, not easy to do in today's PC environment.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

When A Medieval Knight Could Marry Another Medieval Knight | The Awl

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

The church is not the permanent and sole link to marriage in Britain. There are and were plenty of people with no interest in religion, who chose to marry in registry offices, gardens, private homes, hotels, with no religious links or representative. If you are going to make sweeping statements, can you keep up with the current monarch's reign and times?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

OK so you have the same standing atm as married hetrosexuals, if you dont what is different?
You want to apply the word defined as the union of a man and a woman to a homosexual union.
Despite marriage being a sacrament in the religious world like Catholicism and despite hating religion you wish to use the term?

I just dont see the logic here!

To me you want to use marriage as a way of getting one up on people of faith, to what end? Why are their wants and needs any less than yours that you should be able to defile something they consider holy in the eyes of God? Is this a "coz I can" moment?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> I don't know - you'd have to ask them. Perhaps you could campaign for it?


Actually when civil partnerships were first proposed, there was a proposal in the House of Lords (by Baroness O'Cathain) for it to be allowed for heterosexuals as well. The thought was to protect, for example, pairs of sisters living together. The proposal was defeated. So what you are asking for is choices that heterosexuals do not have. Discrimination, in other words.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> It doesn't, put simply. Do you really think that your religious beliefs give the 'freedom' to prevent others from having civil rights?
> 
> How would my getting married in a civil ceremony 'curtail your religion freedom'?


It WOULD curtail my religious freedom if I was required to conduct a marriage for you or to allow one in the building in which I worship, and that is my concern. Simply, I do not beleive that the homosexual lobby are going to be happy until every one of us bows and scrapes to their every whim. Already we are expected to promote your lifestyle choices as equal, in schools where teachers are expected to proclaim that it is perfectly normal for homosexual couples to raise children, in adoption agencies where discrimination against smokers, fat people, those over 40, and anyone who practices religion, is fine but homosexuals may not be refused a child as long as they meet the other criteria, in providing accommodation for homosexuals on holiday as if we are expected to believe that you can't possibly sleep apart for one night. People can face disciplinary action for not supporting gay pride marches (why on earth are those even NEEDED When you now have equal rights in everything?) and so on and so on. A small minority (1 in 66 I think was the recent figure, not 1 in 10) are allowed to dictate to everyone else in society and the government just lets them. That is what bothers me.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'd like to see your proof for the first claim, partnerships in various forms have existed throughout history, however, the term marriage is a recent innovation, and refers to religious ceremonies. Whether or not you choose to interpret the meaning of a marriage or partnership to include other forms of partnership is up to you, but you can't realistically apply a term that was invented in the 11th century to anything prior?


Are you seriously claiming that marriage did not exist before the 11th century?

liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> 100% of the people in this poll support marriage equality regardless of all those factors. Strange that, isn't it?


The rest of us probably were not sure what you meant by "marriage equality" - that's why I didn't vote. Reword your poll and I will be pleased to vote.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Yep, by Christians. I live in Derry in Northern Ireland, which I imagine would set off alarm bells  Despite being a predominantly Catholic city, we are still regularly bombed by both sides of the extremists. These people hide behind their religion and use it as an excuse to cause trouble, but the fact of the matter is that it's nothing to do with religion, it's just a bunch of twits trying to kick off the troubles again because they can't accept that there's a working peace agreement and people are getting on.


Ah, I hadn't realised any of that was still going on. As you say, it's actually nothing to do with their religion (I will believe it is, when I hear that the people concerned are in church every time it is open and reading their Bibles (Protestants) / praying their rosaries (Catholics) every day.)

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Another thing - why is always about sex with you lot? Marriage is about love.


O so it's not going to involve sex? Fair enough then, in that case why do you want to call it marriage? The term "civil partnership" to cover all close friendships that do not involve sex would be a great idea.

Liz


----------



## BullyMolly (Sep 26, 2011)

lizward said:


> O so it's not going to involve sex? Fair enough then, in that case why do you want to call it marriage? The term "civil partnership" to cover all close friendships that do not involve sex would be a great idea.
> 
> Liz


Agreed, A marriage isn't valid until consummated.

ETA: at least thats how I understand it


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

househens said:


> It is established that there are gay roosters, gay rams, gay bulls, gay horses, ...


Truly homosexual? Or simply attempting to mate with their own gender because there are no females around? Or simply practicing dominance behaviour (as you see in dogs)?

Liz


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

marriage invlves sex between two consenting adults...and headaches are no excuse!

I do not see why anyone gay should escape scott free just because of their sexual orientation?

no way!!!! equal rights all around!!!!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lizward said:


> Truly homosexual? Or simply attempting to mate with their own gender because there are no females around? Or simply practicing dominance behaviour (as you see in dogs)?
> 
> Liz


Male dogs don't hump to 'dominate' at all, there are a variety of reasons/situations which would depend on each dog & the scenario.

Alot of animals have gay relationships/encounters despite the availibility of females, there are many stories of this & it is a common behaviour within many groups.

One story that I remember is this ..... 'Gay' penguin couple given egg of their own - Telegraph


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

househens said:


> When A Medieval Knight Could Marry Another Medieval Knight | The Awl
> 
> Gay marriage is as old as history, rooted in the mists of antiquity.
> 
> The church is not the permanent and sole link to marriage in Britain. There are and were plenty of people with no interest in religion, who chose to marry in registry offices, gardens, private homes, hotels, with no religious links or representative. If you are going to make sweeping statements, can you keep up with the current monarch's reign and times?


That is very interesting, but I hasten to point out that it refers to Europe and Mediterranean societies, not England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. I would also like to know where he has got his information from. I would like to see contemporary writings, such as the Ango Saxon Chronicles, or Pepys Diary.

I can find books which will tell me the holocaust never happened, doesn't mean I would believe them.

The Old Testament (Deuteronomy) states quite clearly: Though shalt not love mankind as womankind. I do not believe that the early catholic church would have overlooked such a law, despite all the other old testament laws it chose to ignore.

The quote has been edited since my reply. I was referring to the first link.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

There are people who love each other, choose to marry. and don't want sex. Their marriages are very strong, because they both feel that way. Happily. I had an acquaintance who was an English midwife, who told me she had met a number of heterosexual couples who had happily married, because they had finally found a like mind. They had used AI. 

Again, I read earlier, of a couple denied marriage in the Catholic church because the husband was totally paralysed, waist down. I find this truly offensive AND it isn't even universal. This is that catholic priests obsession with sex. There are multi thousands of couples celebrated for that same love and married in all churches. 

Name me a priest who would DARE tell his congregation that he had refused 2 infirm old age pensioners in their late 80's, marriage because medically they cannot have traditional sex and/or have children. There are thousands of such couples married and happy. The hippocracy of most religions, the meanspiritedness, the judgemental ignorance just takes my breath away. 

There are heterosexual couples who don't have sex for decades. Can't stand talking to each other. THEIR marriage is so often celibrated for it's length, despite it being hatefilled. Almost all those marriages are religious, as others would just pack it in. 

There are even more heterosexual couples who indulge in the same acts as gay men, and perhaps prefer it. NOBODY dreams of demanding to know what they may want to do for sex that night, or demands they have twin rooms or go elsewhere, at a B and B. 

What of the B and B owners denying a double bed to a gay couple, but WOULD allow them a twin room. Name a teenager who hasn't worked out you CAN have sex in a single bed. Just ASTOUNDING hippocracy. You have to pretend you are just friends. REALLY?? You don't see that is solidly entrenched unspoken inequality?

So LW you would have no problem if a Catholic said to you, that if you stayed in their B and B, that you could only have a twin room or sleep in seperate rooms, because to Catholics, you aren't married in the eyes of God? You'd be fine with that, would you? The implication that you're sex deviants, and promiscuous, just because you aren't Catholic and married in that church? You wouldn't cavil at that?

The research on animal homosexuality is conducted by scientists, peer reviewed and altho many churches are willing to believe unprovable rants of visions by people displaying classic symptoms of schizophrenia, bipolar problems and anorexia, science is not. Clearly the homosexuality was displayed as a clear preference for males, over the available females, clearly scientists are aware of the mechanics of penetrative sex. 

We aren't talking about opportunistic sex, eg at sea, in heterosexual, often married, all male crews. Unlike the Church, they don't notice something and then claim they immediately have an opinion, and an interpretation, AND any disagreement is evil/wrong. It's repeatedly observed, recorded, everything is able to be observed by other observers, proven again by repeated experiments.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

Not read the whole 20 pages,  erm to start with I thought same sex marriage was already legal  welcome to the world of your other half scagging you for every penny when they dont fancy you anymore  if you are asking that gays be allowed to marry in church well I feel that that should be left up to the individual religion/vicar/priest. I saw a couple of posts stating religion should stay out of politics, but then the same should be reciprocated and politics should stay put of religion, you can't have it both ways.

Personally not anti gay, bi or anything else if two people are happy etc and blah. Live and let live.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm looking forward to Writerc's replies as they flounce back into the wonderful world of PF's later.

Writerc....have you experienced prejudice amongst your own family members regarding the 'thread title'?


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> That is very interesting, but I hasten to point out that it refers to Europe and Mediterranean societies, not England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. I would also like to know where he has got his information from. I would like to see contemporary writings, such as the Ango Saxon Chronicles, or Pepys Diary.
> .


You can find stuff that will tell you Richard I was gay, think that was mostly to do with him being away on crusades a lot, but you can also find a whole load of stuff telling you that the couriers dreaded their wives having to come to court because if they were anywhere near attractive he, err, had his way. :ihih:


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

Newfiesmum, I suggest you buy or order the book from your local library, and if it is written with the scholarship implied, it will have a long bibliography of everything he researched. It will also cite chapter, page, and line of direct quotes. There is another book written by the same author in the article.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

househens said:


> There are people who love each other, choose to marry. and don't want sex. Their marriages are very strong, because they both feel that way. Happily. I had an acquaintance who was an English midwife, who told me she had met a number of heterosexual couples who had happily married, because they had finally found a like mind. They had used AI.
> 
> Again, I read earlier, of a couple denied marriage in the Catholic church because the husband was totally paralysed, waist down. I find this truly offensive AND it isn't even universal. This is that catholic priests obsession with sex. There are multi thousands of couples celebrated for that same love and married in all churches.
> 
> ...


I had to address the bold bit because yes I would take a seperate bedroom, their house their rules and I actually respect people and their religion. If I went to Abu Dubai I would follow their custom of not kissing in public etc because it is respectful to do so, if someone asks me to take my shoes off when I go into their house I would do so, see where Im going here?


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

bird said:


> Not read the whole 20 pages,  erm to start with I thought same sex marriage was already legal  welcome to the world of your other half scagging you for every penny when they dont fancy you anymore  if you are asking that gays be allowed to marry in church well I feel that that should be left up to the individual religion/vicar/priest. I saw a couple of posts stating *religion should stay out of politics*, but then the same should be reciprocated and *politics should stay put of religion*, you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Personally not anti gay, bi or anything else if two people are happy etc and blah. Live and let live.


Thats what i think in a nut shell.
I do have gay friends who are quite happy with the civil partnership,dont know if they are in the minority or not


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Its just a word - you obviously feel strongly about this but I think you will find the majority really don't care one way or the other, try another poll:
> 
> Do you think marriage should only relate to the union of a male & female
> 
> ...





WriterC said:


> 100% of the people in this poll support marriage equality regardless of all those factors. Strange that, isn't it?
> 
> I'm about to go to bed but I do feel that I should offer your uncles some advice - get proper legal advice because your claims are wrong and must be causing them so much worry. This will explain it so you don't further worry your elderly uncles http://www.colemans-solicitors.com/site/publications/property_held_jointly.html.:)


I think that the majority of people gave their support to marriage equality before knowing exactly what it was you were asking WriterC. Most people want equality and I do think that the poll was somewhat biased in its proposition don't you?
I do agree that this is now splitting hairs over a word.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Absolutely - it's not the only group that is discriminated against, but to put it in context - you were prevented (I assume) from marrying in a church that you weren't an active member of - if you were gay, the Church would be trying to stop you from marrying even in a registry office in a civil ceremony.


To be honest i knew the churches general feeling on this without asking, i also felt it would be hypocritical to get married in church and didnt expect them to change the rules for me


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I have nothing against people of same sex relationships - but I really do not understand why just changing one word is going to make any difference - I know a few couples who have had civil partnerships and they are ecstatic - had a fab day and class themselves as married - I look at them as married too! - it seems to me that maybe you are being pedantic and want this name change because in doing so, you think this deems that everyone then thinks that a same sex partnership is acceptable and right - but like many things in life that is not going to happen - because many religious/non religous people dont agree - and to be fair that is also their right.

Marriage IMO should be done because you LOVE someone and want to commit to them it should not be a token to shove in the faces of those who dissaprove - which is how your posts come across - hostile and with the thought that everyone who disagrees with you is homophobic - absolute ******.

I live with a black man - many people may not approve or agree - ive had elderly couples cross the road and tut when they have seen us walking down the road - I dont like it but thats life and you cannot expect everyone to agree or support these sorts of subjects - what you CAN do is live your life REGARDLESS - the changing of a word will not make you any less happy in your relationship because what you have together will not suddenly change because a law has or has not been passed.

Just my opinion


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

If you both love each other enough to want to stay together forever. Marriage won't change that anyway.

I must admit Writerc that you may not be aware of it but you do come across as an angry person, wishing to challenge people's views and opinions, which is fair enough. But you are just getting peoples back up in the way you address them.

To be honest the way you have paraded yourself around petforums handing out red reps for pathetic reasons and including with them some truly awful and sometimes upsetting messages, myself included, I don't give a toss whether you get 'married' or not. I don't care who wears the dress  I don't care which way you swing. I don't care if you walk down the high street with a ginger beard swinging your handbag and swishing your a line skirt....you haven't been polite enough to deserve my view. I don't give a toss how you reply. You can give me more red reps and i'll happily post them up for all to see....you are nothing new honeysuckle....you won't change the world.

Peace :Yawn:

eta, you forgot 1 more option in your poll

option 3 I don't give a rats arse!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

24 years married, id only have gotten 12 if id killed her the first week, id be free now

equality?

i get 33% of the quilt IF im lucky

guess which is her glass










as for sex, yes please, ive not had Octobers yet


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Gay marriage was legalized in my state after civil partnerships were legalized a year prior. The world didn't come crashing down and it didn't affect me much. I believe in 20 years it will be legal in most places and most people won't even give it a second thought.

I do, however, feel marriage should just be removed from legal recognition altogether due to the high divorce rates and the amount of money it would save the states. I'm not sure if that will happen though.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I definitely think gay marriage should be legal. Why should their sexual preference be used to discriminate against them.
There is a lot worse in this world than same sex marriages!


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

I too have a lot of same sex partnership friends have been to one civil partnership and didnt see it that different to when I married my second hubby in a registry office, some of my friends are just happy living with each other and don't wish to be joined in partnership/marriage as they say it is just for man/woman. I have not got a problem with any other persons sexuality,how, who or where  as long as they don't include me and mine in their sex lives.

Just wonder if those that do shout about actually have a problem with their own sexuality, none of my friends seem to worry what others think or believe in ?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I would love to know where you gleaned this piece of information. The only place in history I know of that allowed gay marriage for rich people, and everything else you have mentioned, is ancient Rome, which was a long time before the catholic church.
> 
> I would be interested in references please.


Gay marriage is as old as history, rooted in the mists of antiquity.

And please note that I said the church, not the country.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Actually when civil partnerships were first proposed, there was a proposal in the House of Lords (by Baroness O'Cathain) for it to be allowed for heterosexuals as well. The thought was to protect, for example, pairs of sisters living together. The proposal was defeated. So what you are asking for is choices that heterosexuals do not have. Discrimination, in other words.
> 
> Liz


No I'm not. I've already said that I'd fully support any heterosexual couple who wish to have a Civil Partnership.

It's grossly offensive that you consider gay couples to be the same as siblings.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> It WOULD curtail my religious freedom if I was required to conduct a marriage for you or to allow one in the building in which I worship, and that is my concern.


You wouldn't be required. This is civil marriage - nothing to do with your religion. So again, why should your religious beliefs affect my life?



lizward said:


> Simply, I do not beleive that the homosexual lobby are going to be happy until every one of us bows and scrapes to their every whim.


And I don't believe in your religion - so you keep your religion out of my life and we won't have a problem.



lizward said:


> Already we are expected to promote your lifestyle choices as equal, in schools where teachers are expected to proclaim that it is perfectly normal for homosexual couples to raise children,


Why isn't it? Do you think gay people should not be allowed to raise their own children?



lizward said:


> in adoption agencies where discrimination against smokers, fat people, those over 40, and anyone who practices religion, is fine but homosexuals may not be refused a child as long as they meet the other criteria,


Actually, once again, you're wrong. But you do seem to have this obsession that your religion is being persecuted because you're being stopped from discriminating based on your beliefs.



lizward said:


> in providing accommodation for homosexuals on holiday as if we are expected to believe that you can't possibly sleep apart for one night.


You're expected to conform with the law. Nothing else. If you people think that gay people and straight people should be treated differently then that's fine - but you don't open up a business and illegally discriminate. You are not the victims here, no matter what you would like everyone to think.



lizward said:


> People can face disciplinary action for not supporting gay pride marches (why on earth are those even NEEDED When you now have equal rights in everything?) and so on and so on.


No they don't. And they're needed because people like you would like to discriminate against us and have everyone believe that we're against nature just because that is what you believe.



lizward said:


> A small minority (1 in 66 I think was the recent figure, not 1 in 10) are allowed to dictate to everyone else in society and the government just lets them. That is what bothers me.


That was one figure - others have been far higher - including one in six.



lizward said:


> The rest of us probably were not sure what you meant by "marriage equality" - that's why I didn't vote. Reword your poll and I will be pleased to vote.
> 
> Liz


I shan't reword something that is plainly written because you can't understand it.



lizward said:


> O so it's not going to involve sex? Fair enough then, in that case why do you want to call it marriage? The term "civil partnership" to cover all close friendships that do not involve sex would be a great idea.
> 
> Liz


It won't involve any more sex than a heterosexual marriage but you haven't described those in such derogatory terms.

After having special privilege for so long, I do understand that it must be hard for you to accept that you're no more special than anyone else. Equality is a reality - so you're just going to have to deal with that.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Ah, I hadn't realised any of that was still going on. As you say, it's actually nothing to do with their religion (I will believe it is, when I hear that the people concerned are in church every time it is open and reading their Bibles (Protestants) / praying their rosaries (Catholics) every day.)
> 
> Liz


What about the Army of God? Will you be pretending that they're not Christians too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

Of course to you, Christian terrorists are held to such a different standard as Muslim ones.



Lavenderb said:


> I'm looking forward to Writerc's replies as they flounce back into the wonderful world of PF's later.
> 
> Writerc....have you experienced prejudice amongst your own family members regarding the 'thread title'?


Awww 'flounce' - how progressive of you.

And no, I haven't. Not even from my Catholic aunt and her Irish Catholic husband and family. But then they're real Christians - no judging or hate, and they actually help people without shouting persecution from the rooftops.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

skip said:


> To be honest i knew the churches general feeling on this without asking, i also felt it would be hypocritical to get married in church and didnt expect them to change the rules for me


I'm not expecting them to do anything but butt out of my civil rights.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> If you both love each other enough to want to stay together forever. Marriage won't change that anyway.
> 
> I must admit Writerc that you may not be aware of it but you do come across as an angry person, wishing to challenge people's views and opinions, which is fair enough. But you are just getting peoples back up in the way you address them.
> 
> ...


Are you still annoyed because I proved you were lying? If you didn't care then why did you PM me with your sad little message?

I do hope you get the help you obviously need and I bear you no ill will.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Are we getting a tad annoyed because everyone didnt jump to agree with you?

Equality laws in themselves seperate people and create factions, why is one group entitled to special protection under the law but another isnt? Thats another thread i suppose!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> Are we getting a tad annoyed because everyone didnt jump to agree with you?
> 
> Equality laws in themselves seperate people and create factions, why is one group entitled to special protection under the law but another isnt? Thats another thread i suppose!


Not at all - I quite like debating with people who keep demonstrating that they haven't the first clue of the facts of a situation.

Indeed - why should you religion have special protection under the law? Why should Christianity be protected under special laws which ignore all other religions?

I'd be very interested in why you think equality laws separate people? Segregation separated people - was that OK for you? Do you think a business should be able to hang a sign saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'? Equality laws stopped that happening.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> Do you think a business should be able to hang a sign saying no dogs'?


Yes  ..


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> Yes  ..


I could say something very cruel and cutting.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> Yes  ..


about No pussies, dear WL?:devil:


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WriterC said:


> I could say something very cruel and cutting.


lol pls dont hold back  But im a pedegree, pure bred b1tch :001_unsure:


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

waterlily said:


> lol pls dont hold back  but im a pedegree, pure bred b1tch :d:001_unsure:


:d:d:d .


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

WL a bitch? Never!!!! she is a feline...all the way!!!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

cheekyscrip said:


> WL a bitch? Never!!!! she is a feline...all the way!!!


lol and I dont believe in declawing ... soo


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> lol and I dont believe in declawing ... soo


and that is why I will not marry you! whatever your or my church says!!!
PS at least you shave...
so...maybe?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

cheekyscrip said:


> and that is why I will not marry you! whatever your or my church says!!!


what  you dont want this pussy ? :ihih:


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

But businesses do say no dogs


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> what  you dont want this pussy ? :ihih:


in afterthought i said...maybe!!!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

tashi said:


> But businesses do say no dogs


They don't liken black people to them though. Not anymore. But they did before equality legislation. Which is apparently a bad thing to those who think they have the right to discriminate.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> It's grossly offensive that you consider gay couples to be the same as siblings.


Of course I don't. I think that siblings and others who have non-sexual reasons for wanting to live with another person should be able to have the right in law to make sure that person is protected in the event of the other person's death, that's all. Why do you want rights (choice between two legally recognised forms of partnership) that we heterosexuals do not have?

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Why isn't it? Do you think gay people should not be allowed to raise their own children?


This isn't about their own children, it's about someone else's children.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> what  you dont want this pussy ? :ihih:





cheekyscrip said:


> in afterthought i said...maybe!!!


God! You straights! Why are you always pushing your sex lives in our faces?! Deviants! The lot of you!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Of course I don't. I think that siblings and others who have non-sexual reasons for wanting to live with another person should be able to have the right in law to make sure that person is protected in the event of the other person's death, that's all. Why do you want rights (choice between two legally recognised forms of partnership) that we heterosexuals do not have?
> 
> Liz


I don't want a choice between two - I want civil marriage.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> What about the Army of God? Will you be pretending that they're not Christians too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)
> 
> Of course to you, Christian terrorists are held to such a different standard as Muslim ones.


Not at all. If you can find me an example of a practising Christian who hijacks a plane / puts on a bomb vest etc and sets out to kill innocent people, I will condemn that person as much as I condemn a Muslims committing the same act.

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> This isn't about their own children, it's about someone else's children.


No it's not. Unless you think that adoptive parents are less than.

You do understand that being gay doesn't make someone infertile. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed children?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Indeed - why should you religion have special protection under the law? Why should Christianity be protected under special laws which ignore all other religions?


It isn't.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

WriterC said:


> No it's not. Unless you think that adoptive parents are less than.


Less than what? MANY MANY people would love to be allowed to adopt but can't because they are too old / too fat / smokers / or simply because there are no young children available.



> You do understand that being gay doesn't make someone infertile. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed children?


If you have (give birth to) children of your own then of course under the law in this country you get to keep them. So what is the difficulty?

Liz


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Not at all. If you can find me an example of a practising Christian who hijacks a plane / puts on a bomb vest etc and sets out to kill innocent people, I will condemn that person as much as I condemn a Muslims committing the same act.
> 
> Liz


Terrorists don't just hijack planes. I'm pretty sure the IRA were terrorists and 'good Christians' too.

I've just given you an example in the Army of God. Or do they not count as terrorists because they're killing doctors and blowing up medical clinics that you don't think should exist?

Eric Robert Rudolf is one member serving life in prison for the bombings of two abortion clinics and a gay bar. Two people died, many were injured - one nurse seriously so. He's a practicing Christian and carried out those murders in the name of God.

Don't forget that your bible is full of instructions to kill.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

WriterC said:


> They don't liken black people to them though. Not anymore. But they did before equality legislation. Which is apparently a bad thing to those who think they have the right to discriminate.


Two totally different things ...one is based purely on the colour of ones skin the other on what they believe to be right or wrong ..,,not comparable


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> Less than what? MANY MANY people would love to be allowed to adopt but can't because they are too old / too fat / smokers / or simply because there are no young children available.


If someone refuses to lose weight, or give up smoking so they can adopt, then you have to wonder how serious they are about adopting? These are behaviours that can be changed that can be (certainly in the case of smoking) harmful to children. It's absolutely right that the authorities place children with healthy parents who are likely to live long enough to raise them.

Sexual orientation isn't a factor in how someone raises a child. You'd like it to be, but every single peer-reviewed study has come to the same conclusion - that children raised by two same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by two opposite sex parents.



lizward said:


> If you have (give birth to) children of your own then of course under the law in this country you get to keep them. So what is the difficulty?


There's no difficulty - we'll be using a surrogate for our children.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Ok, surely this is now the point at which we say "let's agree to disagree" because this is getting so pointless now.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

lizward said:


> It isn't.
> 
> Liz


Yes it is. Or did you forget about Blasphemy laws.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

My feeling is this topic has now run its course and if anything is now bordering on racism etc all of which is not allowed on here. Read the FAQ if in doubt


----------

