So, I guess my next question would be, if I was a gay civil-partnered chap, why would I care? I’ve made the public commitment to my partner, as they have to me, we have the legal rights that it brings, and if anyone asks, I’d say I was married and he was my husband. I suppose there might be some official forms where I’d have to tick the ‘Civil Partnership’ box rather than the ‘Married’ box, but is that such a big deal?

To take it to an extreme, if public transport was segregated into gay/straight, with identical standards of seating, etc would that still be ok?

In a sense you’re right in that it makes no direct, measurable difference whether gay people can get married because they can have civil partnerships but it’s still different and therefore unequal/discriminatory. To me, that’s wrong. Simple.

hasn’t the idea of marriage always been a religious thing?

Nope. As I and several others have said, it is very common to get married in a civil ceremony without any religious bits at all.

So, I guess my next question would be, if I was a gay civil-partnered chap, why would I care?

They have spoken and said they do care. (Not exactly surprising I would too!)

…and “heaven” is, what, exactly? …and where, exactly?

It’s a place on Earth! I heard it from a reputable source…

well my wife and i got married in a zoo, was nothing to do with some imaginary god fellah

and all about me and my missus letting each other and our friends and family know that we plan on spending the rest of our lives together and perhaps more importantly organising a big pissup for said friends and family

Top quote from Ben Summerskill of Stonewall:

“Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is not to get married to someone of the same sex.”

(copied from a mates facebook page)

tonyd – Nobody treats us any differently because we haven’t got a piece of paper telling us how we feel about each other.

Your friends and family may not – but all sorts of government institutions do.

Ignore what “gay people” think for a second. If we accept (as this country has done) that 2 people should be allowed to join in a union which confers the same legal rights and wrongs as marraige without the need for a formal ceremony (just signing a document) – [those rights might include certain tax powers, state benefits, inheretance rights, property rights on the death of a partner, stuff to do with kids etc. — and generally are all agreed to be “good” things to have between two people who intend to spend the rest of their lives together] – then why can you and your partner not benefit from it? there is a slightly different form of “marriage” which you could sort out with no fuss and no expense (it costs less than £100). You are being discriminated against for being hetrosexual.

Now the same logic applies the otherway round, some (possibly a lot of) gay people aren’t happy that their marriage is not on the same footing as everyone elses, has a different title (just to get the bill through parliament in 2004) and somehow says “not quite as good”.

As much as I disagree with his views, I respect the right of leaders of the Catholic Church (and any other church) to voice an orthodox interpretation of their faith.

Aye but if he was not in the frock and hat and being backed up by the book we would just call him a bigoted old fogey out of touch with reality and the modern world..oh hold on I have just had an idea 😀

Certainly and possibly – but much better ways of challenging these views IMHO.

I have a cunning plan and it may just work as No one expects an Inquisition

The enormous flaw in all this “the bible says X about marriage” nonsense is that I had a marriage ceremony, and I am married, in a marriage, whatever, but the church, religion and “heavenly bonding” was never involved in any way. And I suspect there are many thousands like me in the UK.

So if I’m allowed to do that then why on earth should a same-sex couple be forbidden from it?

^ This. I’m an atheist, Mr Toast is an atheist, but we got married because we love each other and wanted the legal protection that marriage brings. We don’t want kids, and he didn’t ask any male relative for my hand in marriage, because that’s quite frankly bizarre.

Couple of chaps at work got civilly unionised, but everyone just referred to the ceremony as ‘a wedding’, and then referred to their relationship as ‘married’, and refers to their roles as ‘husband’ and ‘husband’. Its stupid that the legal terminology doesn’t reflect the reality of their relationship.

To be fair, living in sin, whilst technically accurate, does automatically think that people are wallowing in gluttony, envy, etc every night, rather than just not getting a piece of paper signed.

Some of the longest relationships I have known, and the most loving, have been people that have either not been bothered enough to get married, or have not seen the point in it, and that covers the whole spectrum of sexual orientation, not just same sex couples.

Your friends and family may not – but all sorts of government institutions do

My friends and family are the only ones I really care about. Most other legal and financial requirements that I’m aware of are covered with a will, we don’t qualify for state benefits (other than child benefit of course), and neither of us want to get married just to qualify for some tax break or other – that’s not exactly doing it for the right reasons is it?!

I don’t feel like I’m being discriminated against for being hetero-sexual, nor do I really care if I am. I’m living my life to the best of my abilities with the people that I love. If I wanted to I’m sure I could find dozens of ways to feel discriminated against, I just choose to get on with life. If I were gay I can’t imagine I’d think any differently so I can’t really understand all the fuss.

living in sin, whilst technically accurate

How is the phrase “living in sin” even in the slightest bit “technically accurate” 😯

Is “Going to Hell” something for which a ticket can be purchased at National Rail Enquiries??

The mind truly boggles at how some of this religious terminology persists

To be fair, living in sin, whilst technically accurate, does automatically think that people are wallowing in gluttony, envy, etc every night,

Hmmm.. am I allowed to be married but still living in sin? 😉

“living in sin” persists because it sounds fun nowadays rather than the slur that it was when used by the old farts and nasty types when it was initially coined.

If by sinning you mean spending too long assembling/cleaning/riding bikes then yes, it’s encouraged! The shinier the better!

My point is how can this phrase be “technically accurate”?

What is “sin” – are these couples living outside of the laws of the land? = No

So “sin” is therefore “outside of normal morality”??, again, No, not based on the way the public sense of morality has developed over the last 10-20 years.

If by sinning you mean spending too long assembling/cleaning/riding bikes then yes, it’s encouraged! The shinier the better!

Well I was mainly thinking the sin of onanism, but yeah, that too I guess.

What I find most amusing is the cardinal’s “logic” that same-sex marriage “deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.”

By that argument, opposite-sex marriage deprives a child of having two dads, or two mums.

Or perhaps he means that if same-sex marriage is unavailable then gay folk will most likely “cure” themselves so they can marry the opposite sex?

pretty sure that is also a type of shining something Graham

Actually the origin is interesting as well seeing we are discussing bible and mariiage – anyone done this recently – provide your dead brothers wife with children bit not anything else

Biblical account

After Onan’s brother Er died, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. Centuries later, in the days of Moses, this practice was formulated into a law of a Levirate marriage, where the brother of the deceased would provide offspring to the childless widow[2] to preserve the family line.[1]

However, when Onan had sex with Tamar, he disregarded this principle when he withdrew before climax[3] and “spilled his seed (or semen) on the ground”, since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.[4] This he did several times,[5] disregarding the principle of a Levirate union, and was accordingly sentenced to death by Yahweh for this wickedness. (Genesis 38:8-10)

graham he also argued against slavery in his speech so I am not sure logic or biblical scholar were his prime skill set …reactionary loudmouth, ill informed , out of touvh, neve rbacks down so he is a Big Hitter if nothing else 😉

My friends and family are the only ones I really care about. Most other legal and financial requirements that I’m aware of are covered with a will, we don’t qualify for state benefits (other than child benefit of course), and neither of us want to get married just to qualify for some tax break or other – that’s not exactly doing it for the right reasons is it?!

Are there not also other issues? As I understand it, if you’re partner’s seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

Rather that than Coffee-shop catholicism or coffee-shop freedom expression where people merely pick and choose what they want to hear/allow.

A bit of reflection perhaps – mocking religious figure is no better than mocking others. Take the moral high ground and respect their views (RC Church) even when they appear intolerant.

As we’ve discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen – an equally pernicious problem in modern society?

Are there not also other issues? As I understand it, if you’re partner’s seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

Yeah, if you’re not married (or civilly unionised)then you’re not classed as next of kin, which means you can’t be given medical information about your partner, or have a say in treatment, if I understand it correctly. Probably less of an issue if you’re on good terms with their family, and also probably depends on the doctor/hospital, but still something to think about.

As we’ve discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen – an equally pervasive and pernicious problem in modern society?

Indeed. In fact, lots of Christians are able to overlook the very clear teaching from Jesus about remarriage after divorce yet are able to interpret some more obscure references to Teh Gays in a much more vocal way.

To take it to an extreme, if public transport was segregated into gay/straight, with identical standards of seating, etc would that still be ok?

I think you’re twisting the metaphor a bit. It’s more like a case where anyone’s allowed on a bus, but if a man and a woman sit next to each other it’s call ‘sitting together’ and if a man and another man, or woman and another woman, sit next to each other it’s officially called ‘bottom-based co-resting’, but everyone just refers to it as ‘sitting together’ anyway.

As I understand it, if you’re partner’s seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

I don’t confess to knowing all the legal and financial advantages/disadvantages of marriage, this is a pretty major one though and something that had not occurred to me so I’ll look into it some more. However, since civil partnerships have the same legal rights as marriage this shouldn’t be an issue for most?

‘bottom-based co-resting’

Brilliant. Got to love a tortuously over-extended metaphor. 😀

However, since civil partnerships have the same legal rights as marriage this shouldn’t be an issue for most?

Except currently, as a hetero couple, you can’t have a civil partnership. But you can get married in a civil ceremony, which would appear to ultimately be the same thing.

rkk01,

Fair point and one that I retract. I try not to use that sort of terminology on a daily basis (not believing in a god and all that) so this was pretty unforgivable (unless you are religious, in which case you could forgive me if your faith allows/mandates it).

Open question… How important is a nuclear family in a modern society? Would the raising of children in communal creches (think Brave New World) be a better option for a society trying (in most cases) to be more open and tolerant?

Whilst quoting the Old Testament is amusing it isn’t very useful if you are looking for the origin of the Christian message, you should really be quoting the New Testament. Even that is a reflection of the societies that wrote it and full of contradictions. You thought Christians were peace loving and turned the other cheek? Read Luke Chapter 19 Verses 24-27.

The Cardinal does have a point about children doing better with united heterosexual parents. Children with divorced parents, single mothers and same-sex parents do do less well than than children with both heterosexual parents present. This American report says children with same-sex parents are comparable to (no worse than) those with divorced parents.

grum – Member
As we’ve discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen – an equally pernicious problem in modern society?

Because “for better or worse” (pardon the pun), this is something that they perceive as being important to them. If that is what the Vatican believes and wished to promote, then the Cardinal should reflect that however odd that may seem to the rest of us?

I got married in a park next to the Pacific ocean in the NW USA. I’m legally married but there was no church involved. That suits me fine and I think that the majority of gay people will be happy with not being able to be married in church (unless they find a church that is okay with that).

So…

Can we get a sticky on this subject. Whenever it comes up Edukator will take his usual stance insisting homosexuals should find a new name to call being married (despite saying gay people should be equal; only less equal than straight people). Almost everyone else will say they don’t get what the problem is as the government isn’t forcing churches, synagogues, temples or mosques to perform gay marriages. We get this thread every couple of months when some dress-wearing **** courts the media to remind everyone how not-at-all relevant his particular institution is (honestly, you’d think that these were paid anti-church activists the way they damage the image of their churches).

The Cardinal does have a point about children doing better with united heterosexual parents.

But the report you quite says that “cohabiting families” fare less well than married couples. So perhaps if we were to allow homosexual couples to get married that might improve the odds? Or am I just reading parts of the report that reinforce my personal beliefs?

Of course it also notes that many children raised in homosexual households also fall afoul of the problems that kids from divorced households have (the implication being that many are born into “straight” families, then one realises/accepts they’re gay or can’t contain the thing they’ve known all along). So again, perhaps if we were to make homosexuals COMPLETELY EQUAL to heterosexuals, the stigma of coming out would go away and people wouldn’t have to live a lie?

Who knows?

Good point, we should get stickies put up covering every subject that’s discussed more frequently than once per year. That should put an end to anyone airing (new or recycled) thoughts and opinions!

I don’t come on the forum that much so this is the first of these threads I’ve seen and I’ve quite enjoyed it (and learnt something).

i think, IIRC, marriage was made up by the religions because the religions were made up by the tribal leaders way back in the day to control the people, before marriage everyone was humping everyone else and there were bairns popping out left right and centre and not enough food and reqources to go round. when the leaders saw this they though “****, were gonna run out of resources if we carry on in this promiscuous lifestyle” though it probably sounded more like, “ugh , no food, ugh, too much shagging, ugh, stop it” so the religions were created to control the people and marriage was created to stop folk going and putting it about all over the shop, one partner, less bairns(at least thats the theory). over a few years (say a few thousand) it has evolved into the wierd and wonderful thing that everyone is stressing about now.
in the end, if you love someone, who cares? just stick it to ’em 😀 ( but only if its consensual).

I just skimmed that report, but the conclusion it draws seems to be that children raised by both natural parents who are married to each other will do much better in life than any others, unless they don’t, in which case children raised in some other situation might do better but they’re not really too sure which ones as there are really far too many variables to be able to realistically measure what influences the upbringing of children in any one part of society.

Of course it also notes that many children raised in homosexual households also fall afoul of the problems that kids from divorced households have (the implication being that many are born into “straight” families, then one realises/accepts they’re gay or can’t contain the thing they’ve known all along).

Or maybe the implication could be that wether raised by a single parent or a same sex couple a child might be missing an important role model, male or female.

Well exactly. My point was really that you can read the report in a variety of ways to reinforce any particular opinion you might have.

Don’t wanna have different names for being married. That’s it really. No special names, no different but really the same nudge nudge wink wink.

Just: The Same

Don’t care personally about religion, but they were happy to pour water on my head, and I’ll bet they’ll be happy to bury me..

Whilst quoting the Old Testament is amusing it isn’t very useful if you are looking for the origin of the Christian message,

ah right the ten commandments then , tells us nothing about the message 🙄
You are not that daft why did you say that?

This American report says children with same-sex parents are comparable to (no worse than) those with divorced parents.

Nope googlng finds nothing to refute this its a FACT.
This has been debated since Bowlby and primary care giver and it is still inconclusive.
it is also a corerelation and there is no causality. The poverty of one parent is the prime factor in the observed differences as i am sure you are well aware.

Ps couples who get married and then stay married may be more stable, open , educated, well balanced than those who divorce and divorce or non marriage may be yet another symptom of the “underlying condition” etc

This is poor science and we could hypotheiss all day about what this means and what the cuases are.

marriage was made up by the religions

Marriage predates recorded history FFS dont believe that lie

A clear commitment between same-sex partners may help with part of the difference:

Among the apparent explanations were that married parents are more
likely to pool their earnings, husbands work longer hours and earn more, and married families
receive more assistance from family, friends, and the community

However, when I had to do a bit of child psychology in relation to learning, a great deal of importance was given to the role models provided by parents – male and female. For example, in Indian immigrant families in Leicester the fathers are much older than the mothers. That combined with a high incidence of cardio-vascular disease leads to children losing the father figure relatively young. The oldest male child takes control at home, not good for the teachers, the mother or the siblings. If you want to accuse me of being racist and sexist after reading that then I’d rather you rant at my PGCE lecturer then me.

Each case needs to be taken on its merits but there is plenty of evidence that children raised by their united biological parents do best.

Each case needs to be taken on its merits but there is plenty of evidence that children of united biological parents do best.

Even if this were true, which I doubt, how does it have any bearing on whether people in a same-sex relationship can officially be called “married” rather than “in a civil partnership”??

You could equally argue that there is plenty of evidence that children of upper-income parents do best, so poor people should not be allowed to marry.

Don’t wanna have different names for being married. That’s it really. No special names, no different but really the same nudge nudge wink wink.

Just: The Same

I totally agree, it’s absurd that it has a different name.