Who voted for these idiots? c'mon own up.

druidh – Member
derekrides – Member
Would it be fairer for all if the civil union be called just that and it matters not what the union is between, same sex or opposite sexes, why at the moment is there a necessity for the term marriage with all its traditional connotations of Religious ceremony, brides, bridesmaids, brides mothers, flouncy hats, groups of often fighting relatives, drunken dad dancing et al. All that enough in itself to start a new culture surrounding the making permanent of a union I would have thought.

I do feel you’re trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) not to appear unfair. You can accept that we could have something called a “civil union” for everyone. How about if we called that “marriage” instead, and all the trappings/frippery were left to the individual?

Well tbh I already thought we had that in all but name.. So Rachel, Emz, Alan or whoever can design whatever ceremony they please, most folk do these days, long gone is the phrase “Marriage is the union of one man and a woman for satiation of mans lust” or whatever it used to be.. These things change according to folk requirements, jump the broom ffs if you must, but it’s what differs legally I’m trying to get to the bottom of and what these tories are so het up about, I bet they’re as confused as I.

The legality of spouse as next of kin was that not precisely why the civil partnership thing occurred?

And whose name to you choose? Mrs & Mrs what? Or do you keep your own names (that could be cool that way the jolly old family name could carry on if daughter no 3 can be persuaded to give up wasting her pathetic attempts at girly boys and go for the real thing.

So, derekrides, I would just like to clarify this. What you’re basically saying is: gay people can have absolutely everything that marriage is, but they can’t call it “marriage”?

The legality of spouse as next of kin was that not precisely why the civil partnership thing occurred?

Why even have that difference?
Why not allow marriage for everyone? There is no logical reason not to.

so she likes sensitive men so she must be gay is that your poinr Derek?
Not rufty tufty MTb er types and all a bit wet…you know children rebel from their parents dont you?
perhaps she wants someone who is not like you ..say sensitive ??

they cannot design whatever ceremony they want as it cannot have any religious overtones, music or symbols or take place in any religious place..unlike heterosexuals

Religion is involved – therefore logic cannot be…

Even if DC gets his way and Derek rides is invited to Emsz,s wedding, who is going to tell an old single man living in Rome, who wears a dress a for work, and a hat like a penis, THE UK SAYS ITS NOW LEGAL FOR SAME SEX COUPLES TO GET MARRIED.

I nominate Derek to be sent.

Hey, it’s not me that’s saying it’s not allowed and so far no one has come up with a reason you can’t go, organise a ceremony, have the registra on hand say you’re getting married if it makes you feel happy and say wtf you like in the ceremony.

Fundamentally what is different?

Oh and i tell you what, she doesn’t go out with sad ohs that spend their lives on forums 😉

Religion is involved – therefore logic cannot be…

Ah well, you’ve got no chance when battling against people who have both answers and excuses for everything while believing in, whatever it is they belive in…
If it is a religious question, shouldn’t the church be more concerned about taking money from non-believers who choose to get married in churches?

Fundamentally what is different?

Well, nothing. It’s pretty much just a matter of semantics. So what’s the problem? Let’s just rename civil union or civil partnerships or whatever it is that we currently so generously allow gay people to have “marriage” and be done with it. If it’s functionally the same, what’s the big deal? (There must be one or you’d not have been battering on for eight pages and counting.)

Fundamentally what is different?

We cannot just keep answering this as i doubt anyone will better emsz answers even if you do keep asking?

mintimperial – Member
If it’s functionally the same, what’s the big deal? (There must be one or you’d not have been battering on for eight pages and counting.)

I thought it was all about the church, but I’ve been told that’s not the case.

The way I understood it was that if it was the same for every couple, then the church would not be able to refuse to perform the ceremony for gays. Quite why someone would want to have a ceremony in an organisation which disagreed with their human rights is beyond me, but I’m sure someone would try it – if only for the publicity.

a civil partnership is not a marriage – you don’t get a marriage certificate

for some weird reason this matters to some folk.

And you are different sorry to have to break that news to you but like it or not it’s true.

Everyone is different. The question is, does someone having a different sexuality mean inconsistant legal rights. I.e is being gay significant enough a difference, like being a child for example. We are moving towards sexual preferences being insignificant legally, just as it should be.

OK all you need to know here, so it’s down to religion and that’s that.

So you want to legislate so the believers change their belief then?

Sorry you can’t do that, it would be wrong.

So the alternative is to just work around, I can see no reason why you can’t do that, ffs most hetero couples these days are shying away from churches and going for these marriage centres i went to recently anyway, and there’s nothing there that says you can’t, nor is there anything there saying you can’t call it a marriage, so it is what i thought it was all along, just political bollox having another bash at religion.

So that’s it my last word, I’m done here and I’ll vote Tory for a while yet.

no derek – a civil partnership is not a marriage and it would be perfectly possible for gay folk to have marriages without forcing churches to do a ceremony against their will

I think people are lynching ole Derek a little unfairly here. Isn’t marriage and civil partnership, for all intents and purposes, EXACTLY the same thing? I got ‘married’ in a registry office, it would be just as true today that I entered a civil partnership with my wife on that day. When my good friends Donna and Julie ‘entered into a civil partnership’ at the same registry office, everyone I know still refers to it as when Donna got married. To all intents and purposes the same thing, legally. I believe that the only real differences are that religion is not allowed to be involved at the ceremony (same rule for registry office weddings, mind you) and that if your partner gets a knighthood or something, you miss out on an honorary title. Boohoo.

Whilst I don’t understand why they didn’t just call it marriage and be done with it (actually I bet I do, probably the only way to get it past the stuffed shirt types in government and actually on the statutes). I DO understand that it should be called marriage, because it’s taking the piss not to call it such, and I would be angry too. However, it’s still pretty damn cool that we live in about the most accepting of people’s sexuality that there has ever been, and it’s only getting more so. We’re moving in the right direction, at least.

I’m married. I’m not religious and didn’t have a religious wedding.

Emsz et al can’t do the same.

That’s discrimination. That’s not fair, right, logical or defensible.

Simple.

TandemJeremy – Member
no derek – a civil partnership is not a marriage and it would be perfectly possible for gay folk to have marriages without forcing churches to do a ceremony against their will

You’re wrong troll, read the link, nothing stopping a marriage ceremony exactly like the one my niece just had which was way better than either of my weddings..

So you want to legislate so the believers change their belief then?

Sorry you can’t do that, it would be wrong.
yes your right their invisible sky fairy and ancient moral code should allow them to force their views on others via the law and it would be wrong of us to go WTF are you on about you crazy fools.

we did this earlier derek only religious groups are given the legal right to discriminate. Oddly they dont have get upset if we try and curtail their right to discriminate which the perversely argue is a freedom and right ..see gay adoption for other examples.

yes derek there is nothing stopping the marriage like your niece except they cannot get married I rwad your link

Although a civil partnership is essentially viewed as a “gay marriage”, between same sex partners, the reason it is not called a “gay marriage”, is that there are a few differences between a partnership and a marriage on a technical level.

no one is this stupid derek your trolling is weak its not a marriage no matter how many times you claim it is its why we call one a civil partnerships and the other a marriage.

I thought it was all about the church, but I’ve been told that’s not the case.

It’s not about religion. Or at least, it wasn’t: the original article is about Cameron wanting to legalise civil marriage for same-sex couples and some other Tories going “I say that’s not on!” Fundamentally the argument is about renaming what we have for gay couples now, which we call “civil partnership” or “civil union” to “marriage”. That’s all the argument appears to be about to me. Which is a bit of a silly argument, really.

a civil partnership is not a marriage – you don’t get a marriage certificate

No but you get all the same legal rights, etc. Functionally it’s a marriage by any other name. Why not let people use the other, much shorter name? It’ll save on ink if nothing else…

forcing churches to do a ceremony against their will

I don’t think anyone is trying to do this are they? Good luck with that if they are… 🙄

Junkyard – Member
only religious groups are given the legal right to discriminate.

Not so.
For example…
http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/stilettosonwheels-2012/

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=156369979

I’m married. I’m not religious and didn’t have a religious wedding.
Emsz et al can’t do the same.
That’s discrimination. That’s not fair, right, logical or defensible.
Simple.

Of course you are correct, and I agree, but, my friends Donna and Julie, they are married too, in the eyes of EVERYONE that cares about them, and that they care about. When all said and done, what else really matters?

That said, I agree that it should be called marriage by everyone, but think that there are more important things to worry about than the convenient semantics of politics right now. Fiddling while Rome burns maybe?

no one is church’s are special they get to force other people to do things we dont get to force them to do what the majority want as hey remember be tolerant of religion folks even though they say you are going to hell for not agreeing with them;dont be mean back as thats wrong:roll:

in a sense you’re right but it’s still discrimination.

I’m married. I’m not religious and didn’t have a religious wedding.

Emsz et al can’t do the same.

That’s discrimination. That’s not fair, right, logical or defensible.

Simple.

^ This.

We got married in a castle, and the registrars told us in no uncertain terms that we could not have any religious content whatsoever in our wedding. They said that the one registrar was so strict about this he even stopped the one couple from having Robbie Williams’ ‘Angels’ as a piece of music during their ceremony. Civil weddings ( performed in registry offices and other licenced venues) have NOTHING to do with religion, and the end result is that you’re married. Civil partnerships (performed in registry offices and other licenced venues) have nothing to do with religion, and the end result is even though you and everyone you know regards you as being ‘married’, legally you’re not. Why the difference?

the Robbie Williams Angels thing is actually the norm..

nothing stopping a marriage ceremony exactly like the one my niece just had which was way better than either of my weddings

Except when your niece has to declare her marital status on a form for example. Or some meathead is still capable of saying “Well you’re not married really, it’s only a civil partnership” It’s all just so unnecessary.

Churches are allowed to refuse to marry divorcees, no? Would that fall into the same bracket as refusing gay couples or not?

RichPenny – Member
Except when your niece has to declare her marital status on a form for example.

I’ve yet to see a form which has CP as an option. Surely they ask Married/Single/Separated/Divorced?

, and the end result is even though you and everyone you know regards you as being ‘married’, legally you’re not. Why the difference?

I should imagine (I dont know) that it was a compromise reached in order to let it become possible at all. To keep the more ummm, conservative legislators happy. I imagine that had they called it marriage it would have met with a shed load more resistance and probably wouldn’t have made the books at all.

Not fair, but eminently sensible at the time. Hopefully it can be sorted out at some point.

We got married in a castle, and the registrars told us in no uncertain terms that we could not have any religious content whatsoever in our wedding.

We weren’t allowed to have God Only Knows by the Beach Boys played as an instrumental piece on a couple of violins…

Hopefully it can be sorted out at some point.

That’s precisely what they appear to be trying to do now.

I might have made that one up… I’ve a vague feeling of seeing it on the Tax Credits form as an option, but there’s no way I’m going back to that 80 page behemoth to check 😉

I would imagine that forms would have to have ‘married/civil partnership’ on them as an option in a similar fashion to ‘parent/guardian’.

That’s precisely what they appear to be trying to do now.

Well jolly good luck to them, they’ve got their work cut out. An awful lot of bigots around.

Churches are allowed to refuse to marry divorcees, no?

They can pretty much refuse to marry whoever they want to. They provide a service for their congregation, not for Joe Public to stroll in off the street and demand their services. You can’t go to a church informing them that you never go to church, don’t believe in God, and you’re only getting married because you want regular sex and a pack lunch, and then expect them to marry you.

You can’t go to a church informing them that you never go to church, don’t believe in God, and you’re only getting married because you want regular sex and a pack lunch, and then expect them to marry you.

To be fair, I did do pretty much that. But the priest knew my wife was pregnant so regular sex wasn’t mentioned. Packed lunches are good though 🙂

you’re only getting married because you want regular sex and a pack lunch.

I get this??? I demand my arrears!!! 😆

packed lunches or sex??

packed lunches or sex??

Can I offset one for the other?

ernie_lynch – Member
> Churches are allowed to refuse to marry divorcees, no?
They can pretty much refuse to marry whoever they want to. They provide a service for their congregation, not for Joe Public to stroll in off the street and demand their services. You can’t go to a church informing them that you never go to church, don’t believe in God, and you’re only getting married because you want regular sex and a pack lunch, and then expect them to marry you.

But what if you have two regular members of the congregation who decide they want to be married in that church but they just happen to be the same sex?

IIRC you tell then they are an abomination