The legal differences between a Gay civil union and a Gay marriage

Are there any? Or is it just about people of religious faith who are gay wanting acceptance by their churches and a legal grounding for it?

Not sure, but would those who oppose gay marriage also oppose marriage between a black and a white person for example?

Not sure, but would those who oppose gay marriage also oppose marriage between a black and a white person for example?

Now, this is something for me. I have no objection in gay civil unions and parity in terms of legal rights and privileges. The very definition of a marriage to me though is purely a union between people of opposing genders.

So, is there a legal benefit in having gay unions upgraded to 'marriage' level status?

Now, this is something for me. I have no objection in gay civil unions and parity in terms of legal rights and privileges. The very definition of a marriage to me though is purely a union between people of opposing genders.

 

So, is there a legal benefit in having gay unions upgraded to 'marriage' level status?

I am married, straight and not religious.

I got married in a church cos the Mrs IS religious.

To me, the Bible is a little out of date and shouldn't be taken as gospel (sorry).

I couldn't tell you the exact quotes, but I'm sure there are lots of saying that isn't relevant in the modern day world...such as marriage being solely between a man and a woman.

IMO, of course.

I am married, straight and not religious.

 

I got married in a church cos the Mrs IS religious.

 

To me, the Bible is a little out of date and shouldn't be taken as gospel (sorry).

 

I couldn't tell you the exact quotes, but I'm sure there are lots of saying that isn't relevant in the modern day world...such as marriage being solely between a man and a woman.

 

IMO, of course.

Don't apologise... I appreciate I may be a little out of date in my preconceptions.

But I am trying to see if this is an argument over human rights, or semantics over the definition of one word.

Don't apologise... I appreciate I may be a little out of date in my preconceptions.

 

But I am trying to see if this is an argument over human rights, or semantics over the definition of one word.

To me, semantics and (I know this sounds very hard) being brain washed by the Church.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

The above is an example of out of date Bible laws.

Again, this is coming from an atheist so very one sided, I appreciate.

To me, the fact that people who believe in talking snakes think it shouldn't happens means that it certainly should.

To me, semantics and (I know this sounds very hard) being brain washed by the Church.

 

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

 

The above is an example of out of date Bible laws.

 

Again, this is coming from an atheist so very one sided, I appreciate.

I understand the point you are making, marriage as a concept is based on religious tradition, but it risks things going off-track into a critique of religion rather then the gay marriage debate. Besides, nearly all cultures have a variation/take on 'marriage' as a concept, not just Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

So, again.... is there a legal or human rights reason or just a desire to shatter the paradigm of the word marriage purely meaning a union between opposing genders?

@adamhillscomedy If gays can't marry, then straight folk shouldn't be allowed to divorce. Can't pick & choose which biblical 'law' to follow

Now, this is something for me. I have no objection in gay civil unions and parity in terms of legal rights and privileges. The very definition of a marriage to me though is purely a union between people of opposing genders.

 

So, is there a legal benefit in having gay unions upgraded to 'marriage' level status?

Can hermaphrodites get married under biblical law.?

@adamhillscomedy If gays can't marry, then straight folk shouldn't be allowed to divorce. Can't pick & choose which biblical 'law' to follow

Brilliant point.

For me, personally, "marriage" should be about two people that love each other committing themselves to each other.

I have an issue about religious principles defining laws, and marriage is a legal matter.

That said, I do feel religions should be allowed to practice as they see fit, so therefore would be opposed to any attempts force any religion to conduct gay marriages.

As an atheist myself, but also something of a libertarian, I believe in the right of freedom of expression, and self determination. If gay people want to get married, by all means let them. If churches do not want to marry gay couples, then don't force them.

There is no reason a gay couple cannot have a non-religious wedding ceremony.

I've also heard some MPs use the argument that they will not support the bill due to worries that gay couples may challenge churches etc in the courts, which frankly is a bulls hit argument. You don't make laws based on what may happen as a result.

For example, we don't stop all benefits just because a minority cheat the system, we don't rescind people's liberty just because some people kill etc.

I'm a firm believer that all people are equal, and whether young, old, gay, straight, white, black etc everyone should have the same rights and entitlements.

Just for the record I am straight and unmarried.

Fantastic stuff. Finally - equal marriage.

Good for this country. A very positive result.

I understand the point you are making, marriage as a concept is based on religious tradition, but it risks things going off-track into a critique of religion rather then the gay marriage debate. Besides, nearly all cultures have a variation/take on 'marriage' as a concept, not just Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

 

So, again.... is there a legal or human rights reason or just a desire to shatter the paradigm of the word marriage purely meaning a union between opposing genders?

I think the issue is more complex purely because of the perception about marriage and other civil unions - At this time people still do not see civil partnership in the same way as marriage, irrespective of any religious association to it - which is why gay folk want this parity. I guess a simpler solution would have been to say that anyone not 'married' in a religious ceremony is not a married couple, but in a civil union.... that way you bring equality to all, but allow those who believe in talking snakes to do their thing.

The second issue is then what do religious gay people do, who want to get married in church/place of worship... well goes without saying too much that if the church you follow has outdated views based on 'teachings' that have been edited, rewritten etc throughout the last 2000 years especially in the middle ages you really have three choices - follow the teachings and dont be gay... or find a church that is more open minded - (which kind of shows how ridiculous it is - worship same God, but follow a different branch be it one of the hundreds of Christian movements, Jewish or Islamic teachings... same God, different interpretations of how to follow him and what is and what is not allowed.... ) ...or recognise the beauty of evolutionary science and become a humanist and not worry about what your union is called.

as VFTT says...these religious people believe in talking snakes and people walking on water

why on earth anyone wants to get married by these people is beyond me...even more so IF said loonies dont want to (and ont have to, right?) marry you

... Even though the Church of England is probbaly the most enlightened on this... whenever they do speak against it it always makes me laugh at the lack of self awareness and missing the irony... hat their very existance is down to the need of someone wanting a divorse against the rules and so breaking away form Rome and setting up on his on.... so in tehory they should have no problem with breaking some more rules?

... Even though the Church of England is probbaly the most enlightened on this... whenever they do speak against it it always makes me laugh at the lack of self awareness and missing the irony... hat their very existance is down to the need of someone wanting a divorse against the rules and so breaking away form Rome and setting up on his on.... so in tehory they should have no problem with breaking some more rules?

but they would then say....people are free to break away themselves...and they would be right...

the catholic church would not change...so they went on their own...

people are free to do that too

but they would then say....people are free to break away themselves...and they would be right...

the catholic church would not change...so they went on their own...

 

people are free to do that too

Thats the point though.... these are not Gods rules, but simply one of umpteen human interpretations of other human writings - otherwise all religions would have the same rules no? So it cant be bad in the eyes of God, just bad in the eyes of some misguided fools hell bent on following their selcted dogma...

Thats the point though.... these are not Gods rules' date=' but simply one of umpteen human interpretations of other human writings - otherwise all religions would have the same rules no? So it cant be bad in the eyes of God, just bad in the eyes of some misguided fools [i']hell[/i] bent on following their selcted dogma...

well....why cant gays make their own religion...if these are not gods rules...?

neither answer is right or wrong...and I believe no church will be forced to marry a gay...?

Two questions

- if a B&B owner cannot discrimate, in the long term how can a Church?

- nearing a triple dip recession, is this a key issue for Government?

So does this now mean that hetero couples can get a Civil Partnership ?

Fantastic stuff. Finally - equal marriage.

When did your bloke propose then Andy? Is he a One Direction look-a-like?

Congrats!

well....why cant gays make their own religion...if these are not gods rules...?

neither answer is right or wrong...and I believe no church will be forced to marry a gay...?

Gays can form their own religion, in fact just like that wierd Hubbard guy in the 50s, who became a billionnaire on the back of the gullable (had it not been a religion it would havee been called fraud... (some irony in there somewhere) ) I think I have hit on a sure fire money making scheme - we set up a new religion catering for christian, jewish and muslim gays - same God afterall and we draft new rules so they can get married... only catch is it costs £5000 a ceremony as we need funds to provide a sanctuary of worship and contemplation in the Bahamas for the founder, me...

And where's the promised tax break for married couples ? That WAS in the manifesto, unlike this new bit of legislation.

Two questions

 

- nearing a triple dip recession, is this a key issue for Government?

Nope, but its a good distraction

So does this now mean that hetero couples can get a Civil Partnership ?

probably not

And where's the promised tax break for married couples ? That WAS in the manifesto, unlike this new bit of legislation.

Badger ... seriously you still blieve in manaifestos..?

And where's the promised tax break for married couples ? That WAS in the manifesto, unlike this new bit of legislation.

surely you should welcome this fine piece of business by the government....equal rights and all that..which has to be worth more than a few quid

Badger ... seriously you still blieve in manaifestos..?

Well, I suppose a Government that nobody voted for doesn't have any promises to keep.

surely you should welcome this fine piece of business by the government....equal rights and all that..which has to be worth more than a few quid

Yes, but all these soon to be newly married couples surely deserve to benefit as well ?

Well, I suppose a Government that nobody voted for doesn't have any promises to keep.

this is what happens when the liberals have a sniff......

Well, I suppose a Government that nobody voted for doesn't have any promises to keep.

Correct

And where's the promised tax break for married couples ? That WAS in the manifesto, unlike this new bit of legislation.

Equal Marriage was in the Lib Dem manifesto though... and this is a coalition government. By that logic, the Lib Dem's should have absolutely nothing, and that is not how coalition works.

Anyways, it's all irrelevant now we have equality. Good stuff.

Well, I suppose a Government that nobody voted for doesn't have any promises to keep.

Incorrect, this government actually has a greater mandate in percentage vote than any government for a long long time. It has well over 50% of the vote. We don't vote for an executive. We vote for a legislature, and then it is up to them pretty much to form a government.

Incorrect, this government actually has a greater mandate in percentage vote than any government for a long long time. It has well over 50% of the vote. We don't vote for an executive. We vote for a legislature, and then it is up to them pretty much to form a government.

But don't the political parties present their manifestos to outline their legslative program, and expect us to decide based on the promises ( bribes ) they might be offering ? The fact is that this Act was not in any manifesto, and the tax break was.

Equal Marriage was in the Lib Dem manifesto though... and this is a coalition government. By that logic, the Lib Dem's should have absolutely nothing, and that is not how coalition works.

 

Anyways, it's all irrelevant now we have equality. Good stuff.

isnt it only if said groups want to allow it...?

Now, this is something for me. I have no objection in gay civil unions and parity in terms of legal rights and privileges. The very definition of a marriage to me though is purely a union between people of opposing genders.

 

So, is there a legal benefit in having gay unions upgraded to 'marriage' level status?

If that's your definition then great, you can stick to being a heterosexual you know.

I wouldn't marry a man. No tits or fanny.

Barmy.

It's the right thing to do in this day and age . But I can't help thinking that we will now see people queuing up to make

Anti discrimination claims against the church what ever religious persuasion because they will not marry gay folk in churches . So the law can well be changed thru ECHR etc to force churches mosques temples etc to undertake gay weddings .

I wonder what the House of Lords will do ?

If that's your definition then great, you can stick to being a heterosexual you know.

Well, yes. Thank you mate. But it does seem an incredibly expensive faff for essentially semantics! Especially when the religions can still veto doing the ceremonies.

Colin you make excellent points while religions at present can veto ceremonies . I suspect legal challenges will be made in the months ahead and the churches will be legally forced to undertake marriage ceremonies sometime in the future despite what Cameron and co say . It looks like religions will have these changes imposed on them .

So you can be religious, be a vicar and yet can not marry in a house of God if you happen to be gay? Strange and stoneage thinking.

It's the right thing to do in this day and age . But I can't help thinking that we will now see people queuing up to make

Anti discrimination claims against the church what ever religious persuasion because they will not marry gay folk in churches . So the law can well be changed thru ECHR etc to force churches mosques temples etc to undertake gay weddings .

The church should and has to allow it as its right and fair,the person also marrying them or should be also has the right not to marry them if it contradicts their beliefs, seems fair to me.

The church should and has to allow it as its right and fair the person also marrying has the right not to marry them is it contradicts their beliefs, seems fair to me.

Yet they still have the power of veto. So any breakthrough in 'enforcing' equality as the gay community would want it is utterly worthless if they find a vicar wanting to dig their heels in.

The whole thing is a waste of time for them!

Yet they still have the power of veto. So any breakthrough in 'enforcing' equality as the gay community would want it is utterly worthless if they find a vicar wanting to dig their heels in.

 

The whole thing is a waste of time for them!

Indeed but they are swimming against the tide so concede evolve and adapt.

Indeed but they are swimming against the tide so concede evolve and adapt.

It is a step.

As a thought, if their love is so strong, why seek approval from those who would always look down upon them? Surely the love they have for each other would be enough to justify itself on their own terms? Why use the terminology of those who would oppress them to define the boundaries of their relationships?

Fantastic stuff. Finally - equal marriage.

when are you marrying him Andy?

When are they going to annouce civil partnerships can now be allowed for straight people?