Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
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
Why is it whenever someone mentions same sex marriage, someone else then brings in the argument that this will open the door to relations of the same sex abusing the system. Surely all you heterosexuals have better plans of avoiding inheritance tax? Nonsense argument.
The cost is PRECISELY the same for civil partnerships and marriages. You pay for the cost of the room and the registrars, if having it at the council offices. Mine was a bargain.
We should all be treated the same, because (shock horror) we are all the same. Except Tories. Or UKIP. There're not the same. There're thick.
Historically, I think the principle of marriage goes beyond joining together of two people, it's more the joining together of 2 families... so couldn't really be applied to same sex siblings.
will people in civil partnerships then want to get married?
or will existing civil partnerships be recognised as a marriage?
@Kaffeeg, I understand your response but please check out my earlier post which makes clear I'm completely in favour of gay marriage. Indeed I gain great pleasure from upsetting bigots about it on the internet.
My question is a genuine one - without any attempt to use it to prevent the right to gay marriage becoming law.
Now, if we accept that the reason to prevent hetero marriage between blood relations is because of the risk of genetic defects in the offspring, is there a genuine reason to prevent gay marriage between siblings (again, "yuck", or "it's unlikely" are not valid arguments)?
True - I guess you can have Bridezillas whether gay or straight - and thats just he blokes
The straight wedding industry is huge though, its only a matter of time before they get their claws into civil partnerships. It depends how strong you are at resisting it, and parental pressure and expectation has a big part to play. I think as soon as you mention Church, everyone expects the full mega bucks deal.
Mine was a registry office but with a relatively lavish "do" at a golf club after, and with a cracking full-on white dress my wife chose. So it was still expensive! We're talking £ 3-4k ish rather than the so-called average traditional £20k. I just don't believe that number means what we think it means.
Interesting article in The Guardian with stats:
Under 40s back gay marriage by more than three-to-one; voters over 60 oppose it by more than two-to-one.
Cameron's efforts to make his party look less bigoted aren't working though:
Cameron is in the worst possible place, being thought to fight a battle that few people think matters that much, for reasons that few people respect, and reinforcing his party's reputation for division.
Tigerspaw - have you ever seen a civil partnership ceremony?
They are indistinguishable from civil marriage ceremonies, there are cakes, parties, posh frocks, flowers the lot (if that's what the couple wants).
The "straight wedding industry" if that's what you want to call it, is already catering for a gay clientele.
I'm in my 60's (just!) and don't have any issues with gay marriage at all. if anyone of any sex, religion, persuasion, cult, whatever want to get married, then let them get on with it is my view.
but then I've been a Guardian reader for over 40 years which may say something about the liberal views I hold.
i truely think that marriage and civil partnerships should be available for all.......make your choices.
The one arguement i have heard about marriage for sinfle sex couples is around the issue of consumation of a marriage,,,,,,,,,,you can still get a divorce on the basis of non consumation of a marriage.....and the officials can not seem to find a definiteion of consumation for same sex....
but i'm sure if they asked enough people then they could find a suitable answer...couldn't they......
Screamapillar - I'm going to one on Thursday - so I guess I will find out
. But as my pals are skint, I guess they won't be going for the cakes, dresses etc 
. In fact we will be lucky if we get a can of Tennants lager and a Scotch egg for the after ceremony party 
.
But I don't think many people ever really do. It's pretty easy to get a divorce for lots of other things anyway. It's all a bit archaic really this concept of your not being properly married 'til chappies shot his bolt.
nicky.a number do........especially if they are of the catholic religion as this is the only acceptable grounds for divorce I believe.....
Nicky, you can't enter a civil partnership with a close blood relative, and I doubt that the proposed new marriage law would introduce a right to marry your sibling/parent.
I understand that's the case xine267, my question is, why not? There is a prohibition on heterosexual marriage between close blood relatives, based on the now outdated and rejected idea that marriage is purely for the purposes of procreation.
Given that the link between marriage and procreation is outdated and given that procreation is not possible in a homosexual marriage, why should the same prohibition apply?
And again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am completely in favour of gay marriage and I am having this discussion as a philosophical exercise and to get other people thinking too. I formulated questions like the above but can't think of a really solid answer (other than "yuck" or that it would be open to coercion/domestic abuse situations, but unfortunately neither of these quite do it).
In summary - I have no agenda - answers on a postcard!
Also, there are all kinds of restrictions about marrying step-relations or in-laws so there must be another reason (apart from the potential for children with webbed toes) for prohibiting certain marriages / partnerships.
I think the government would probably translate the "yuck" factor as "upholding public decency".
Although I have to say that while I understand why they prohibit step-relations marrying (if they lived together while one party was under the age of 18) because there could be questions of undue influence on the younger person, particularly with step-children/grandchildren.
But I don't really understand the restrictions meaning that ex in-laws can't get married (unless the other relations creating the in-law relationship are dead)
I guess that will be the last taboo. Can you marry your relative. Marry your sibling? marry your child? Sounds fucked up doesn't it but how far do you go with freedom to do what you want?
Agree on the stepchildren thing - coercion/grooming is clearly a risk. But that's less likely to be the case (I'd have thought) between similarly aged siblings.
And yes, the ex in-laws thing is odd. "Former spouses must be deceased" seems a bit harsh, they might have had plans!
the debate in the HoP isn't exactly drawing the crowds in judging by this photo on the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954
Way back on page one or two, somebody made a statement about the fear or civil partnerships distracting from the significance of marriage. I don't think there is any fear on that front. Divorce has done more to undermine marriage than civil partnerships ever will
I do not understand what the fuss is about. I have no problems with same sex marriage.
It just looks like the old fuddy duddy's in the Conservative party are trying to destroy themselves from the inside.
I think they are losing the plot, there is loads more important stuff to think about.
This is a bit of a twist on the bill that doesn't seem to have got a lot of publicity as yet.
No problem with gay marriage - but not in Europe. Not sure about gay priests they might take ages to get ready on a Sunday. Pink is a good contrast though.
www.d2ride.co.uk
Steve Bell cartoon from today's Guardian: