Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Gay marriage
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/5fe116a811d6ee673327c9e32892a015_100.png)
[Deleted User]
✭✭✭
in Clubhouse
Should it be one rule for all or is it correct that civil partnerships are limited to only gay couples ?
Seems more a money saver on behalf of the goverment and whilst not a member of the Conservative fringe have to agree with them on this one it should be the same rules for all !
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Not sure why the CoE is so heavily involved. Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one, and is an issue for government, not the church.
It can't be easy for the CoE to be so bigoted and discriminatory in the 21st century, so kudos to them.
I think civil marriages and civil partnerships should both be available to both straight and gay couples.
Intermanaut - totally agree; marriage is a civil contract and 'matrimony' is a religious one, and just because they happen to coincide doesn't mean they're the same thing. That's why there's always the boring bit in weddings where the couple have to go off and sign the marriage register as well as the vicar pronouncing them married. If they had to do them in separate ceremonies like in France people might make the distinction.
I agree it should be equality for all.
The church (or religion generally), IMO, should have no say or influence in how a country is governed, else at the extreme end, you get the Taliban, and at the more 'softer' end you get some of the bigoted views we see expressed in this country.
The problem is the use of the term 'marriage' - whether historically correct or not, it has taken on this church formulae, white wedding dresses, vows in front of God, blah de blah, it gives the church power over peoples lives. How many of us know people who have had church weddings because they want the setting and the ceremony 'the photos look nice' etc - lots of my friends who never set foot in church, all had 'traditional' weddings and hocked themselves into debt for years in order to keep their wider familys happy.
This is why I think it is fair for 'Civil Partnership' to be open to all - then you don't even have to deal with the word 'marriage' and the churches appropriation of it - it is a legal contract pure and simple.
Of course, one could argue that gay people have the same rights as straight people when it comes to marriage: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Send in the cat!
I think gay couples should also have the right to go through painful and expensive divorces, just like heteros do.
Average cost of traditional marriage £20K
!
Actual cost of civil partnership documents and basic ceremony £125
.
(Not that I'm tight, but really, what are people paying all that money for?....
)
@Tigerspaw - you're not comparing like-for-like there. It'd be easy to do a traditional marriage for less than £300, and equally easy to do a civil partnership for £50,000.
Other countries seem to be legalisng gay marriage on a weekly basis at the moment.
It's only a matter of time - fighting it is useless, The sooner the "swivel-eyed lunatics" realise it the better.
Ironic that the Tory chairman shares a name with the original swivel eyed loon...
I don't really see what all the fuss is about marriage. The important thing is being together as a couple. Signing a bit of paper can't really make any difference. But as to the original question, yes, I think one rule for all, aren't we supposed to be striving for equality?
It is, isn't it?
What I don't get is the arguement that legalising gay marriage somehow devalues existing marriages. Marriage is surely what it means to the two people involved, and that varies hugely from couple to couple. It's a personal thing regardless of what the law says about who can call themselves married.
I'm not bothered about civil partnerships either way to be honest though. Strikes me that there are more important things for the government to be concerned with right now.
I tend to think that there are other problems the politicians of all sides should be addressing rather than whether gay couples can be married - the problem is a lot of vicars and peadophiles - sorry I mean priests aren't prepared to marry gay couples in church -
They're just trying to divert our attention from the main issues so we don't moan so much..
The OP seems to be coming from a slightly different angle I think - Not so much the inequality that marriage is not available for gay couples, but that 'civil partnerships' are not available to straight couples.
I've heard this debated before, but don't quite understand the gripe that straight couples have with this... Surely, a 'civil marriage' is the equivalent option for straight couples?
juliie
no gripe just dont understand why it cant be equality for all after all not all straight couples want to get married and would be happy to have a civil partnership instead
So what is the difference apart from cost between a civil partnership and a marriage? I genuinely don't know. Agree with Peter that it's all a fuss about nothing and also agree that once the church hands over marriage to the country, then it becomes a lawful ceremony that should be available to all and the approval of any religion has nothing to do with it.
But, for straight couples, what would be the difference between a civil amrriage and a civil partnership? A civil marriage covers the legal aspect, without any religious aspect... it just seems a case of petty semantics to me.
Civil partnerships give spouses the same legal benefits as married couple ie pensions, wills, parental rights. The main practical difference (other than not burning in hell for all eternity when you die, obviously) is that a civil ceremony cannot take place in a religous venue and cannot include any religious word songs etc. Perhaps less important for most is that civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.
Extending the right to marriage to gay couples gives them the right to have a religous ceremony - that is all. The proposal to extend the right to a civil partnership to straight couples is inteded solely to waste parlimentary time so the bill never gets passed. Surely though, to my mind, if everyone has the right to get married, then there is no need for civil partnerships at all and that legislation can be expunged.
I think it's a bit like the argument that people who don't train really hard for / walk in / take 6 or 7 hours to complete a marathon are devaluing the experience for proper runners...
Civil Partnership Act 2004 if anyone fancies a read.
Yes, that's exactly as I understand it too.
Legalise gay marriage.
Abolish new civil partnerships.
Job done.
Now, off on a tangent, and bearing in mind my unequivocal support for gay marriage (so I'm not trying to bring up arguments against or whatever), what reason is there to disallow two brothers from marrying each other? There is a reason to prohibit closely related heterosexual partners from marriage (due to the likelihood of genetic defects in any offspring). What reasoning justifies such a prohibition in relation to gay marriage (yuck! is not an argument)?
On a serious note - is this an age thing? The only people I know who are geniuinely opposed are older citizens. Different generations have a different context because the situation has changed.
Generally speaking we are genetically programmed not to fancy our blood relatives.
Siblings that do fall for each other tend to be those that didn't grow up together and I've never heard of same-sex siblings falling for each other.
I think the likelihood of it happening is so tiny as to be inconsequential.
And Barkles, yes, I think it is a generational thing. I think older people have learned tolerance but not acceptance. If you've grown up with legal homosexuality, "Queer Eye..." and gay pride marches I think you are less likely to think there's anything wrong with the idea.
Possibly Barkles. My parents just intrinsically feel against it. They're in their 60s and can't quite approve, though they're not anti gay per se and they have shifted towards more of an understanding over time, they still aren't quite there. I think it might be 10 years too early for then and some other folks.
But frankly, and as much as I love them, they're just wrong on this one. They'll get over it.
Unless you happen to live in certain southern states of America.
@screamapillar.
But it'd be a great idea for the likes of two old brothers living together in a massive house to get married to each other before either died. No death duty when you pass ownership to a spouse.
Why shouldn't they? And what is marriage for?
That would be using marriage for the wrong reasons, obviously.
Marriage implies an emotional contract that goes beyond something which is merely a "legal" one.
It would mean anyone could marry anyone as a means of tax avoidance - very much against the spirit of the thing if nothing else.
Marriage might imply, but I don't think it necessitates, an emotional side. This is from a historical more than current perspective with arranged marriages, alliances secured by marriage etc.
The tax treatment flows from the decision to join together the affairs of two people who would otherwise be treated as individuals - you could argue the state saves money by them organising their affairs together.
And why should these potential benefits be denied to people just because they are related?