Gay Marriage

whoops misread that

On a slightly more serious note, it’s nicely re-assuring to read all the comments above. 🙂

It’s all down to hand wringing from the incoherent right who think somehow society will explode but when pressed to explain this they can’t (at least the muppet on radio 4 this morning used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing). We should sort this out and sort two problems at the same time. Civil Partnerships should be open to all and be a legally binding contract. This should be the end of state involvement. Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight. Seperate the two job done, let the bigots and / or religous types do their thing and everyone else just get on with life. If you want a legally binding marriage get your civil partnership to become binding from the time of the wedding.

DO the French not seperate the two?

Now this is a point that I’m unclear on. What exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding? I’m not trying to offend anyone, I am just curious.

From my point of view, the main opposition from the religious groups seems to be that the actual word ‘marriage’ is some how connected to religion… I don’t understand this so not really sure I can answer your question. The present civil partnership does not have the legal recognition of a civil marriage.

However if ‘marriage’ does have any religious connotations then I would rather just have a ‘partnership’.

EDIT: Am liking Stumpyjons post ^^

On a slightly more serious note, it’s nicely re-assuring to read all the comments above.

–
This was the real purpose in starting the thread, so much something in nothing, it’s just frustrating that my taxes are paying for whole heap of pointless debate.

Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight.

God and religion played absolutely no part in my hetero-wedding – but I get to call myself “married”.

So I don’t see why a same-sex couple shouldn’t be allowed the same opportunity.

Graham, sort of my point, although not well made. Make the official bit, i.e. the legally binding bit the civil partnership and then whatever else you want to do to celebrate your union / whatever you want to call it is your business and should not be dictated by the state.

Cheers

Danny B

Danny B +1,why do Tory MPs feel threatened by that?

Even I’m bored by this TBH and I’d love a little church wedding….middle of summer, countryside…[ Sigh ]

You can watch the debate here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive

Load of hot air being spouted by people who absolutely no idea how the other half live.

The problem is even if it is made law, who is going to enforce properley and get rid of the bigotry, hatred ,fear violence and lothing that some have for gay people.

The Police try to do a good job, but getting people to report assaults and aggression is another matter.

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation.

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation

The economy is boosted, and Gay Marriage actually helps end the recession. Oh the irony…

Isn’t the reason so much parliamentary time has been spent on this, because the bigots have fought against it, and now they are using the time spent on it as an excuse. Well FFS if they shut up and pass the law no more time will need to be spent debating it.

unklehomered – Member

Finally should be a nice litle money earner for the wedding planners and large hotels. So a win win situation

The economy is boosted, and Gay Marriage actually helps end the recession. Oh the irony…

Ever met a poor gay person, pink pound and all that, no kids usually, both in good jobs, like i said pink pound fighting the reccession

As usual, Clint sets them straight.

(bets that everyone over the age of 25 read that in a Dirty Harry / Man With No Name voice)

stumpyjon – Member

Civil Partnerships should be open to all and be a legally binding contract. This should be the end of state involvement. Marriage or whatever other term people want to use for a religously sanctionned union should be completely seperate and carry no legal weight. Seperate the two job done, let the bigots and / or religous types do their thing and everyone else just get on with life. If you want a legally binding marriage get your civil partnership to become binding from the time of the wedding.

I like the idea but I expect it might be hard to do, given that church and state are not separate in the UK. So let’s disestablish the CoE and see how many swivel-eyed loons’ heads explode. 🙂

I thought that it was just “marriage”…

Sure, that’s the goal. But if you say “the marriage debate” then people won’t know what you’re talking about.

What exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil wedding?

From previous discussions on here it appears to boil down to a difference in the words you’re allowed to use at the ceremony, oh and that there’s an additional reason available for annulling a marriage (one which wouldn’t actually appear to apply to same-sex marriages).

GrahamS – Member
(bets that everyone over the age of 25 read that in a Dirty Harry / Man With No Name voice)

POSTED 12 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Oh, I though no one was listening 😳

Well personally I don’t mind who get’s married, it doesn’t affect me or any one else, so good luck to them.

One difference between civil partnerships and ‘marriage’ is that gay/bi people who want to get hitched cannot have any religious stuff *anywhere*, including the music you listen to (I guess Mozart’s Requiem is right out…) in the ceremony.

I’m somewhat a gay version of Mr Woppit when it comes to religion but each to their own. If, say, the Quakers offered someone a marriage ceremony and the couple wanted it then I’m all for it and wish them luck.

Been in Norway for a week, no biking (boo!). Am loving this ‘swivel-eyed loon’ meme that’s happened! 😀

Been in Norway for a week, no biking (boo!). Am loving this ‘swivel-eyed loon’ meme that’s happened!

Likewise, I’m in Portugal and the only English paper I can get over here is the Torygraph – been a very enlightening week getting to grips with the mindset of their readership / Tory party member – I feel almost unclean reading it.

I am surprised that UKIP don’t want to put this to a referendum too….

I would like to hear one of the opposers concisely and clearly state their case without referring to what someone else told them to think or vague woolly stuff that essentially means “it’s wrong but I don’t know why, really”.

One difference between civil partnerships and ‘marriage’ is that gay/bi people who want to get hitched cannot have any religious stuff *anywhere*, including the music you listen to (I guess Mozart’s Requiem is right out…) in the ceremony.

It was the same rules for my hetero civil ceremony.

I got my dad to read Selkirk Grace before the food (mainly just to give him something to do) but I made a point of changing the last line to a secular “Sae let us aw be thankit”

PS I just looked (foolishly) at the comments under the story on the Telegraph website. Swivel eyed loons indeed. The views are just raving, raving mad mostly.

Apparently, if this bill goes through the age of consent will be lowered to 12. Oh yes, and it’s all to do with Europe of course. Just how on earth do you make that leap of madness?!! Is there a high security mental institution somewhere where the inmates provide comments for the DT stories as therapy?!

I can’t understand the fuss, if they want to marry, let them and let them have the same rights as strait couples get when they get married.

Surely it’s a matter for the church not MP’s though?

Not sure why its taken this long and this much debate to get th where they are today (MP’s)

Did I beat the lock?

I watched 15 minutes of the debate. Sometimes I really hate democracy… Rather than, “lets solve any legal problems this might throw and do the right thing.” its “Lets think of all the legal problems there are, and use them to not do the right thing.” Pointless petty worthless little **** shites some of these guys.

Equality and matters of principle are of great importance to governmwnts imo. Cant believe people think its a waste of time.

Surely it’s a matter for the church not MP’s though?

Other way around surely?

Same rights and legal recognition requires a change in law, ergo MPs debate. Nothing to do with church or religion.

Love and let love I say. It’s a matter of equality and I don’t see why the state should stop consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Fix it!

TS

I think the whole homophobia thing is on its way out anyway. Once the current crop of vocal bigots have died off, it’ll go the way of racism: frowned upon by the vast majority of society, at least publicly, and those that still harbour ill-feelings towards “the gays” will at least keep it to themselves.

Can’t happen soon enough.

5 years time it will seem insane that it was this difficult.

It’s a matter of equality and I don’t see why the state should stop consenting adults who love each other from VOTING TORY.Because few free thinking,socialists and northerners never would.

THERE FIXED IT FOR YOU

Gerald Howarth MP (Con…well, there’s a surprise eh?): “There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community that see this as but a stepping stone.”

Obviously a smashing bloke. 🙄

Has he come out as an aggressive homosexual then.

Shock horror.

A stepping stone to what?

Can anyone name one “aggressive homosexual” in the public eye? They don’t seem to be taking over the world, or have I not noticed?

There seem to be plenty of aggressive heterosexuals though.

what a tool? FWIW I’ve never once met an aggressive homosexual, heterosexuals – many many many, though there’s everychance they were heavily closeted and in denial.

EDIT: beaten, I had to stop half way through and let the dog in.