Gay Marriage Bill

[Saint-Armstrong]

Should it be passed...?

 

I think it should, but there should obviously be no pressure applied to religions or their building to carry out ceremonies.

 

However, I do understand the argument that marriage is religious, but as far as I am concerned as an atheist - it doesn't really make much sense.

 

Fire away...

[Saint-Armstrong]

My personal favourite argument is "this is a stepping stone for aggressive homosexuals!"

 

What on earth...?

[Sheaf Saint]

Should it be passed...?

 

I think it should, but there should obviously be no pressure applied to religions or their building to carry out ceremonies.

 

However, I do understand the argument that marriage is religious, but as far as I am concerned as an atheist - it doesn't really make much sense.

 

Fire away...

 

It's not though. Christianity (or Islam or Judaism come to that matter) does not own the institution of marriage - it existed long before the bible was written.

 

This is why the argument that "marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's what it says in the bible" doesn't wash.

[Sheaf Saint]

[aintforever]

I don't get the argument against it, if you don't agree with it, don't go to the wedding. All this "institution of marrage stuff is nonsense", I don't see how a gay couple getting married effects my, or any other, marriage in any way.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Bexy that billboard sums it up perfectly.

[Viking Warrior]

Society has changed through legislation and common sense and that has to be a good . My only concern is it will not belong before some groups start to challenge the legality of churches rights to decide who can or cannot marry in a church . The lawyers will start to challenge the protection churches will be given and claim discrimination on behalf of their clients . Either against the equality act or one of the articles of the HRA. Not straightaway but challenges will be made . This I fear will challenge the very nature of our religious structures and beliefs

[egg]

I don't get the argument against it, if you don't agree with it, don't go to the wedding. All this "institution of marrage stuff is nonsense", I don't see how a gay couple getting married effects my, or any other, marriage in any way.

 

Agreed.

[Verbal]

The Tory Right and Ukippers are responding to - and only to - their own 'grass roots'. In the Tory Party, these are the same grass roots that Cameron is desperate to modernise (or rather, marginalise) because they are increasingly a vote-losing, mean-spirited, tiny-minded embarrassment who are one step away from the political grave/UKIP.

 

As for the claim that 'British people' are against gay marriage being on the statute book, that is clearly nonsense. When the idea was first proposed in 2005, opinion polls showed a majority in support of it. Ever since then, British public opinion has grown steadily more favourable. Two polls this month alone have shown that the majority in favour remains - with 58% of people saying they'd be more likely to vote for a Party supporting gay marriage.

[SuperMikey]

Like others have said, why should I care who's allowed to get married? It's stupid to say that only certain people can get married, I have a fair few gay/lesbian friends and the thought of them not having the same rights as anyone else to get married because of their sexual preference is just ridiculous.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Like others have said, why should I care who's allowed to get married? It's stupid to say that only certain people can get married, I have a fair few gay/lesbian friends and the thought of them not having the same rights as anyone else to get married because of their sexual preference is just ridiculous.

 

Do you think stright people should have the right to a civil partnership?

[Barry Sanchez]

Of course it should be passed but it should be up to the person/vicar/priest who they marry and straight people should be allowed to have a civil partnership.

[Foxy]

I find it completely bizarre that this is even a subject for discussion. If two people want to be together surely they have the right to have that recognised. For a touching and hilarious take on the subject check this speech in the NZ parliament on the subject:

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Do you think stright people should have the right to a civil partnership?

 

Of course they should, if they wanted to, but why would they? Heterosexual people already have the special privilege of being allowed to have a proper marriage, so why on Earth would they choose to have a civil partnership instead?

 

When they were introduced the mindset was "Well we will let you have some recognition, but we're still not allowing you to have the same rights as normal people".

[Batman]

Of course they should, if they wanted to, but why would they? Heterosexual people already have the special privilege of being allowed to have a proper marriage, so why on Earth would they choose to have a civil partnership instead?

 

When they were introduced the mindset was "Well we will let you have some recognition, but we're still not allowing you to have the same rights as normal people".

because they might want to?

[SuperMikey]

Do you think stright people should have the right to a civil partnership?

 

I don't see why not. Civil partnerships were only created as a right-wing friendly alternative to gay marriage though, so I don't see what the point would be in a heterosexual couple getting one when they could get married instead.

 

If all people are born equal then each person should have the same rights - whether that be for state education, a pension or the right to marry someone they love.

[trousers]

Of course they should, if they wanted to, but why would they? Heterosexual people already have the special privilege of being allowed to have a proper marriage, so why on Earth would they choose to have a civil partnership instead?

 

Indeed. The logical extension of this would be to do away with the "civil partnership" relationship tier altogether once "marriage" is available to all. I don't see the point of having two tiers of formal relationship once there's one equal all encompassing tier. I assume that's what'll happen eventually?

[Saintandy666]

Of course they should, if they wanted to, but why would they? Heterosexual people already have the special privilege of being allowed to have a proper marriage, so why on Earth would they choose to have a civil partnership instead?

 

When they were introduced the mindset was "Well we will let you have some recognition, but we're still not allowing you to have the same rights as normal people".

 

If civil partnerships remain post equal marriage, then heterosexuals should be allowed to have one. I have met people before who are heterosexual, but would like a civil partnership just because of what they perceive the institution of marriage to stand for.

[Clapham Saint]

"Civil partnerships" were only ever brought in as a "marriage lite" option to appease those who are going bonkers about gay marriage now.

 

There should be;

 

i) civil marriage - open to anyone and

ii) religious marriage - open to whomever that particular church choses.

iii) therefore no need for a "civil partnership" as it will effectively be covered by (i)

 

No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

If churches then choose to ban gay marriages they only serve to make themselves more and more irrelevant to modern society.

[bridge too far]

I'd go further with this and suggest that ALL marriages should be conducted as civil ceremonies and then, if people want it, they could have their marriages blessed in a religious establishment of their choice.

 

Currently, all religious ceremonies, with the exception of those carried out in the Church of England, have to have a Registrar present in the same way as civil ceremonies do. The Church of England is excepted because it is the established church (I guess the same applies to the Church of Scotland, but I don't know that to be a fact).

 

FWIW I think marriage should ALWAYS be a civil ceremony first followed by whatever is wanted. It is, after all, a contract first and foremost.

[Sheaf Saint]

"Civil partnerships" were only ever brought in as a "marriage lite" option to appease those who are going bonkers about gay marriage now.

 

There should be;

 

i) civil marriage - open to anyone and

ii) religious marriage - open to whomever that particular church choses.

iii) therefore no need for a "civil partnership" as it will effectively be covered by (i)

 

No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

If churches then choose to ban gay marriages they only serve to make themselves more and more irrelevant to modern society.

 

Indeed. this is the crux of it for me. Church leaders are making so much noise about it because they are terrified of the idea that their opinion is no longer valid when it comes to policy-making.

[trousers]

"Civil partnerships" were only ever brought in as a "marriage lite" option to appease those who are going bonkers about gay marriage now.

 

There should be;

 

i) civil marriage - open to anyone and

ii) religious marriage - open to whomever that particular church choses.

iii) therefore no need for a "civil partnership" as it will effectively be covered by (i)

 

No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

If churches then choose to ban gay marriages they only serve to make themselves more and more irrelevant to modern society.

 

Sums up my view too. Pretty much common sense at the end of the day.

[Viking Warrior]

Clapham wrote, No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

Clapham, I agree totally with what you have posted however I do see a Problem on the horizon. I remember when The HRA was about to be introduced. I had to attend a number of seminars on its introduction . There were those including myself who question the impact on a number of statues , I was particularly interested in employment law. The lecturers at the time stated there would be no impact on related laws . Despite questions raised they were convinced it would have no impact. The sands of time have proved they were wrong. and I believe in the fullness of time it will be discriminatory for churches to chose who they can and cannot manage.

 

Just back form a employment law seminar on new rules re surrogacy. eye opening to say the least

[Clapham Saint]

Clapham wrote, No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

Clapham, I agree totally with what you have posted however I do see a Problem on the horizon. I remember when The HRA was about to be introduced. I had to attend a number of seminars on its introduction . There were those including myself who question the impact on a number of statues , I was particularly interested in employment law. The lecturers at the time stated there would be no impact on related laws . Despite questions raised they were convinced it would have no impact. The sands of time have proved they were wrong. and I believe in the fullness of time it will be discriminatory for churches to chose who they can and cannot manage.

 

Just back form a employment law seminar on new rules re surrogacy. eye opening to say the least

 

I'd like to think that we could come up with some sort of protection, however if all else fails I'd be happy to go with BTF's suggestion.

 

I'm really digging this up from the ottom of my memory and so may be mistaken, however I once attended a wedding in Belgium which I think had exactly this format. The couple went to the registry office in the morning for the civil ceremony before having a short break and then back for the church ceremony early afternoon.

 

 

Then off for a massive p 1 ss up obviuosly.

[egg]

"Civil partnerships" were only ever brought in as a "marriage lite" option to appease those who are going bonkers about gay marriage now.

 

There should be;

 

i) civil marriage - open to anyone and

ii) religious marriage - open to whomever that particular church choses.

iii) therefore no need for a "civil partnership" as it will effectively be covered by (i)

 

No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

If churches then choose to ban gay marriages they only serve to make themselves more and more irrelevant to modern society.

 

That's a very sensible suggestion. I hadn't appreciated that this bill was expressly against c of e chrches to marry gay couples. To give the decision to the individual churches allows for gay couples to decide on a church wedding if they feel that sits comfortably with their faith, and allows the vicar a free decision.

[egg]

Clapham wrote, No church should be forced to perform/allow gay marriage is they are morally opposed to it, however I don't like the fact that the current bill (as I understand it) it makes it expressly illegal for the church of England to marry gay couples. I would make it legal for any church to marry whomever they choose but add some sort of protection against the clash between freedom of religion and equality legislation.

 

Clapham, I agree totally with what you have posted however I do see a Problem on the horizon. I remember when The HRA was about to be introduced. I had to attend a number of seminars on its introduction . There were those including myself who question the impact on a number of statues , I was particularly interested in employment law. The lecturers at the time stated there would be no impact on related laws . Despite questions raised they were convinced it would have no impact. The sands of time have proved they were wrong. and I believe in the fullness of time it will be discriminatory for churches to chose who they can and cannot manage.

Just back form a employment law seminar on new rules re surrogacy. eye opening to say the least

 

That'll be the problem. There will need to be explicit primary legislation making it clear that no chorch or other religious institution must be compelled to marry anyone. The HRA will also need amendment. It's doable, but i can't see it happening.

[ecuk268]

My personal favourite argument is "this is a stepping stone for aggressive homosexuals!"

 

What on earth...?

 

Already happening.......

 

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/05/20/straight-man-attacked-by-gang-of-vicious-homosexuals/

[Lord Duckhunter]

That's a very sensible suggestion. I hadn't appreciated that this bill was expressly against c of e chrches to marry gay couples. To give the decision to the individual churches allows for gay couples to decide on a church wedding if they feel that sits comfortably with their faith, and allows the vicar a free decision.

 

I heard a part of the debate a while back on the Daily Politics. The c of e part of the legislation is around the fact that the Church is established in this country, that's why C of E has to be treated differently under the law, don't ask me why.

 

My view is those opposed against on religious grounds both individually and as religious bodies are picking and choosing which parts of their religion they want to be "morally" opposed to. The church do marry divorcees , they marry adulterers, in fact isn't the queen Supreme Governor of the Church of England. So her adulterous son will inherit that role, how can they then maintain their stance on gay marriage with him as supreme governor.

 

The only flaw in the whole thing is that straight couples cant have a civil partnership and by leaving this flaw in the Government has allowed people opposed to take a stand. Yet again Cameron has taken a good worthwhile change and messed up the nuts and bolts of it.

 

At the end of the day we would be a very strange country if we allowed gays to have sex, but banned them from getting married.

[Hamilton Saint]

The irony of this situation: the UK is a highly secular society. Huge numbers of people engage in a religious marriage ceremony in a church, but have virtually no involvement with that church, or any strong belief in that religion's doctrines and traditions.

 

Gays who want to be married in a church, it seems to me, are demonstrating a real desire to have their union blessed by the religious institution they adhere to. Otherwise they would be quite happy to rely on the civil ceremony, and avoid all the heartache and prejudice they encounter with "religious" bigots.

 

Another example of people confusing love with sex.

[um pahars]

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/partnerships/straight-civil-partnerships-defeated

 

The only flaw in the whole thing is that straight couples cant have a civil partnership and by leaving this flaw in the Government has allowed people opposed to take a stand. Yet again Cameron has taken a good worthwhile change and messed up the nuts and bolts of it.

 

A sentiment that Peter Tatchell seems to agree with. Not normally his biggest fan, but he has called it right here with regards equality.

[CB Saint]

Quite why anyone should oppose a civil marriage for gays is beyond me.

[Turkish]

Don't understand why they want it personally.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Don't understand why they want it personally.

 

Are you married or imagine that you might get married one day?

[DuncanRG]

Some Tory backbenchers and older Labour MPs are trying to force an amendment to the bill which gives straight couples the right to civil partnerships...but they're doing it to try and wreck the bill and delay it going through. Some have even admitted that.

 

I haven't seen any demand for straight civil partnerships themselves. It is only fair that they be available but gay marriage, an issue which is crucial for the progression of Britain as a modern, tolerant society, has to be the priority above anything else. Introduce civil partnerships for straight couples, if need be, but not when it stalls or halts something far more important.

[CB Saint]

Don't understand why they want it personally.

 

Assuming that you are not on the troll, they want equality. They want exactly the same rights as a married couple that a civil partnership does not confer. There was a lawyer on the radio stating the differences. Apparently, a adultery is not grounds to dissolve a civil partnership because the is an omission in the legal definition of what constitutes adultery. I may have got that a bit mixed up but that was the general gist.

[Turkish]

Are you married or imagine that you might get married one day?

 

Yep married, your point is?

[egg]

. Apparently, a adultery is not grounds to dissolve a civil partnership because the is an omission in the legal definition of what constitutes adultery. I may have got that a bit mixed up but that was the general gist.

 

You're right. One of the differences between proper marriage and civil partnerships is that civil partners do not get '"married" to the exclusion of all others. Because of that adultery is not a ground to dissolve.

[hutch]

Who is Bill, and when is he getting married?

[CB Saint]

Who is Bill, and when is he getting married?

 

Ben's partner. Not anytime soon .

[pedg]

You're right. One of the differences between proper marriage and civil partnerships is that civil partners do not get '"married" to the exclusion of all others. Because of that adultery is not a ground to dissolve.

 

Would someone who would file for divorce on adultery agree to a civil partnership rather than marriage if that's the main difference? i.e. if they are the sort of person who would probably file for divorce to end their relationship if they found their partner had committed adultery then they would probably prefer marriage and if they were not then there is no difference between the two?

[Turkish]

Assuming that you are not on the troll, they want equality. They want exactly the same rights as a married couple that a civil partnership does not confer. There was a lawyer on the radio stating the differences. Apparently, a adultery is not grounds to dissolve a civil partnership because the is an omission in the legal definition of what constitutes adultery. I may have got that a bit mixed up but that was the general gist.

 

Funnily enough none of the gay people i know give a toss about it, they dont care, so i think it's more other people deciding for them what they want. If it's that big a deal about adultery why dont they simple ammend the the differences in what allows them to get divorced so it's the same as marriage? And what about hetrosexual peoples right to have a civil partnership is they want on?

 

Although of course if they want to get married in a church or a mosque then is begs the question as to why. The bible and quran condemns homosexuality so why would they want to get married in a religious building which doesn't approve of their way of life? The other key thing is if they were truely a member of that religion and followed it's teachings then they wouldn't act of their gay urges as they would know that as practiser of that faith then their actions are not approved of. If they chose to act on them then clearly they are not a true follower of that faith so with that wishy washy approach surely having the blessing of their religion would mean little to them.

[egg]

Would someone who would file for divorce on adultery agree to a civil partnership rather than marriage if that's the main difference? i.e. if they are the sort of person who would probably file for divorce to end their relationship if they found their partner had committed adultery then they would probably prefer marriage and if they were not then there is no difference between the two?

 

You miss the point. Adultery doesn't exist in civil partnerships. Under the existing law gay couples can only "marry" in a way that doesn't recognise that their union should be exclusive to each other.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Yep married, your point is?

 

really? you can't see where I'm going with this?

 

OK I'll connects the dots for you: So YOU see a point to marriage but you can't see why another section of society might also want to get married?

[Turkish]

really? you can't see where I'm going with this?

 

OK I'll connects the dots for you: So YOU see a point to marriage but you can't see why another section of society might also want to get married?

 

Do they? I dont know any gay people that care and see my point above about gays and religion. IN my case I wanted a civil partnership actually but i wasn't allowed one.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Funnily enough none of the gay people i know give a toss about it, they dont care, so i think it's more other people deciding for them what they want. If it's that big a deal about adultery why dont they simple ammend the the differences in what allows them to get divorced so it's the same as marriage? And what about hetrosexual peoples right to have a civil partnership is they want on?

 

Although of course if they want to get married in a church or a mosque then is begs the question as to why. The bible and quran condemns homosexuality so why would they want to get married in a religious building which doesn't approve of their way of life? The other key thing is if they were truely a member of that religion and followed it's teachings then they wouldn't act of their gay urges as they would know that as practiser of that faith then their actions are not approved of. If they chose to act on them then clearly they are not a true follower of that faith so with that wishy washy approach surely having the blessing of their religion would mean little to them.

 

Funny how you're always playing devil's advocate on threads like this. Forget all the whatabouttery: do you agree that gays should have the same rights, in the eyes of the STATE as non gays or not? Simple question YES or NO.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Do they? I dont know any gay people that care and see my point above about gays and religion. IN my case I wanted a civil partnership actually but i wasn't allowed one.

 

No you didn't, you're retrofitting to suit your stance. So because you personally don't know any gays that want that right then no gays want that right. Guess what? I know some gays that do want to get married. In any case if gays don't want to get married then they don't have to. easy enough.

[Turkish]

Funny how you're always playing devil's advocate on threads like this. Forget all the whatabouttery: do you agree that gays should have the same rights, in the eyes of the STATE as non gays or not? Simple question YES or NO.

 

I'm not playing devils advocate, im stating that if they were a true follower of the religion they wouldn't act on their gay urges and if they were acting on them then they would't want the blessing of a religion that condemns them. Some people whilst stamping their feet and banging the "it's my right" drum seem to ignore this.

[Turkish]

No you didn't, you're retrofitting to suit your stance. So because you personally don't know any gays that want that right then no gays want that right. Guess what? I know some gays that do want to get married. In any case if gays don't want to get married then they don't have to. easy enough.

 

how do you know? I might have wanted a civil partnership but due to DISCRIMINATION i wasnt' allowed one.

 

Have you asked your gay friends why they want the blessing of a religion that condemns them?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

do you agree that gays should have the same rights, in the eyes of the STATE as non gays or not? Simple question YES or NO.

 

Do you understand what is meant by "The State"? I'm not asking about religion I'm asking about Civil Marriage for gays. Agree or not?

[Turkish]

do you agree that gays should have the same rights, in the eyes of the STATE as non gays or not? Simple question YES or NO.

 

Do you understand what is meant by "The State"? I'm not asking about religion I'm asking about Civil Marriage for gays. Agree or not?

 

I have no problem with them being allowed to marry by law provided hetrosexual couples are allowed civil patnerships. Do you agree with this?

 

Presumably if this bill is passed a lot of them will want to marry in churches, so its the hypocrisy i have a problem with. Maybe you should ask your friends my question.