I've always liked the idea of gay marriage and this why….

That’s not an option for us because of our sexuality.

Really? Not wishing to get personal, but why? Or are you not in the UK?

The only valuable thing is the loving bond between two as many people as want it, free to move on without impediment when one or more of them gets to be too much of a dick.

Surely the most valuable aspect of a marriage is the loving bond between two people, who shouldn’t really give a to$$ whhat the state, or anyone else thinks?

I agree with that to some degree and for sure there are people for whom that is 100% true but I find it quite an insular perspective; we’re not hermits after all, we are part of something.

I think it’s hard for humans to achieve that degree of self confidence. Most peoples’ natural inclination is to be accepted by their peers and society in general.

IHN – civil partnerships are only available for gay folk.

Let’s not get into semantics again. Civil marriage and civil union, in my view they’re the same thing that differ by virtue of one word and absolutely no material difference to the outcome.

Disagree 100%

I wouldn’t have pegged you as an ‘absolutist’ TJ; I thought you would have allowed 1% because nothing is 100% certain. I am almost sure of this.

Good on her.

Would have been a better if her daughter wasn’t a lesbian and she wanted to have a wedding for her as some people will see that as a vested interest and use it to pick it apart but her argument is completely valid to me.

Yeah, but as Maggie so succinctly put it, there is a difference between society and the state.

I fully understand the desire to stand up in front of all one’s peers and say “I love this person (or indeed these people I suppose) and I’m going to love him/her/them for the rest of my life”. I’ve done it. I also recognise the desire for that relationship to be recognised by your peers and wider society as particularly ‘special’.

However, it should not confer and particular rights, or indeed restrictions, in law, and one should be able to do it with whomever they like.

It’s just not the state’s business.

I am an idiot for having a different view to you?

The TJ standard response rears its head again.

You’re not an idiot for having a different view. Just an idiot.

Surely if people were to base laws on emotional basis then ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits would be allowed to have proper weddings, not just civil partnerships. And quite right too.

Aaaawwwwwwwww bless 😀

Really? Not wishing to get personal, but why? Or are you not in the UK?

In UK. Straight couple. Want nothing to do with religion, seeing marriage as a sacrament within religion, and a registry office version as just a sad shadow of that. It’s a bit hypocritical, I know, to then say that we’d opt for civil partnership, and also a bit of a slap to those who see CP exactly as a marriage. I believe if marriage exists, anyone should be free to give it a go. It would purely be a pragmatic decision for us, saving on wills, registration of parental authority, IHT issues and others. The document/day out(can you do it online?) wouldn’t mean anything to me, neither would marriage if we chose that route. As it is, we just deal with the paperwork.

If I get married in a registry office, you know, not in the eyes of god, allah, vishnu, jebus etc… isn’t that basically a civil partnership?

Ah, gotcha. You’re right, the fact that hetero couples can only get married and homo couples can only have CP’s is ridiculous.

It comes back to my point that none of it should have any basis, rights or restrictions in law.

Agreed, the two tier/exclusivity of names for what is basically the same thing is discriminatory.

isn’t that basically a civil partnership?

Well I would think so; they’re unbelievably strict about keeping any reference to any kind of religion out of registry offices.

I know a lot of people still think that because the word marriage is involved therefore it something religious associated with it. I don’t know where that comes from though, perhaps just the use of the word?

However, it should not confer and particular rights, or indeed restrictions, in law, and one should be able to do it with whomever they like.

INH I’m not sure why that causes you a problem and I don’t think I’ve understood what your argument is or what you’re unhappy about?

They are your rights that you subscribe to voluntarily no one forcibly confers them on anyone. If you want them they are there for you, if you don’t then you don’t have to get married. But you can’t confer the right of kin without there being a means to back it up, hence marriage is a legally binding contract.

Agreed, the two tier/exclusivity of names for what is basically the same thing is discriminatory what allows us to get around the thorny issue of forcing the church to undertake something its not comfortable with, even if we don’t agree with the church and think its anachronistic, nevertheless, there are people who hold views different to ours and we shouldn’t prejudice against them just because we don’t agree with them.

FIFY

That vidoe wasn’t that sentimental. She supports gay marriage and thought it was cruel to deny it. Pretty straightforward to me.

Funny, after the last time we did this, I realised I’m baptised, and I’ll bet they’d be happy to bury me, shame about the one in the middle. 🙄

TandemJeremy – Member
Junkyard – you can be as sentimental as you like when getting married – however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

Surely a lot of laws are based on emotion, like caring for the undertrodden, being fair, allowing people human rights etc. Treating people with dignity and respect. It is allegedly our human emotion that seperates from other species, so lets use it wisely.

I suppose my main point is that state should not be able to say who can and cannot get married. It’s just not their business.

By extension, I think that it should not bring with it any particular rights because these too denote that the state somehow ‘approves’ of the union and, again, it’s none of their business.

My first thought on watching the video was that it is refreshing to see a politician, especially an American, talking honestly and presumably from the heart.

I find some of the macho posturing posts ie. laws should only be made on a rational basis, frankly ludicrous and quite possibly sexist. The speaker appeared to be rational AND emotional and I would rather have someone like that with strong principals and views than your typical vote catching politician.

Good on her, I used to be really intolerant………….but I’m not now.

making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

So you’ll be supporting us in the proposed repeal of the Hunting act then TJ? 😆

Hows about the pistol ban? can us “violent fantasists” get that one repealed as well? 😉

By extension, I think that it should not bring with it any particular rights because these too denote that the state somehow ‘approves’ of the union and, again, it’s none of their business.

OK I think I get it now.

I think that the state’s relationship with the contract of marriage is that it ‘approves it‘ rather than ‘it approves of it’ .

It’s a very subtle difference. Approving it, the state says we accept the commitment you’ve made to each other and we agree to stand by the legal commitment (and the rights to each party) that this agreement confers.

Whereas by ‘approving of it’ the state would be saying marriage is something that is better than something else/preferable to non-union etc.

I agree with you 100% that the state should not dictate who can and can’t marry, within reason (i.e. you have to be an adult, you have to able to consent to it voluntarily, you can’t do it with more than one person).

yeah americans are awesome oo-raa!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9073459/US-Marines-posed-with-banner-of-Nazi-SS.html

Kimbers?!?!? is that real??

isn’t that a nazi thing or something?

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the subtle differences 🙂

legal commitment (and the rights to each party) that this agreement confers.

It shouldn’t be a legal commitment and it should confer no rights, because this means that non-married people have less rights, and why should they? Marriage should be nothing to do with the state, as should not being married.

you can’t do it with more than one person

as long as all parties agree, why not?

however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

abortion?
only allow marriage to a man and a woman due to religious belief is somehow rational.
she had emotion in her speech but that was not all that was there- do yo have no passion or emotion for the NHS/. injustice ? human rights? Nuclear power? abortion? etc
you can never fully separate emotions from humans.
as for your 100% – you really do live in a black and white world with no shades of grey..that is hardly rational IMHO

I thought you would have allowed 1% because nothing is 100% certain. I am almost sure of this.

i saw what you did there 😀

Seems to me that for laws like this it’s the issue of personal freedom vs. whether the state approves (including influence by church and secular homophobia).

The difference to the individuals effected, which cannot not contain an emotional reaction to no longer being discriminated against, is wholly valid.

I can’t say I’ve researched/wiki’d/thought about it extensively tho.

Just wondering out loud, can you be a civil partner polygamist? If not why not? AFAIK it’s only certain religions that say 1man 1 woman.

What do other “marry who you want” people think of polygamy?

What do other “marry who you want” people think of polygamy?

To quote myself:

as long as all parties agree, why not?

Admittedly, many of, the current legal rights and recognitions that come with marriage only make sense on a 1-1 basis, but, as I’ve said, they shouldn’t be there anyway.

emsz – Member
Kimbers?!?!? is that real??

isn’t that a nazi thing or something?

The Nazis were a superstitious bunch and a lot of their symbology comes from ancient runes. The SS symbol is actually 2 ‘sig’ runes.

Black people took back a word that society used to shun them, why can’t the rest of the world take back ancient symbols that pre-date the massacres of the second world war by thousands of years.

swastika has and comntinues to be used in architecture all over the world.

The Hitler tache should be forgiven also.

cynic-al – Member
The Hitler tache should be forgiven also.

dunno about that… 😉

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

+1

On the same day as 3 muslims get prison sentances for handing out homophobic literature in Derby.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16985147

and the god fearing couple get told they have lost their case about not allowing 2 gay men to share a bed in their B and B.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223

Just what are hte benefits of being gay, you get lots of media attention and it seems as if the law is on your side, at last.