I already did and corrected my post accordingly. How about the state pension based upon spousal contributions issue? If that is also covered by civil partnership, then I am puzzled. Why can't we just call a same-sex civil partnership a civil marriage and have it performed, conducted and treated in the same way as traditional civil marriage? There is no material difference.
I agree. the main difference is that some of those with oppressive views are pushing for it in a church and thats where the main trouble is. and what causes revulsion by some as its not christian I have no idea about anything else. the legislation is massive on the .gov.uk site
Thanks for the link. This debate seems largely about what we call a "marriage", with some procedural and effective differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. Of course, to be entirely non-discriminatory, you need to remove those differences entirely. I've been on slightly the wrong foot, as I have been following a similar thread elsewhere that discusses the issue of same-sex marriage in the USA. The difference in approach between the USA and the UK authorities (and the participants in the discussions) has been markedly different to here - I confess I hadn't realised how much further along the UK is than the US with dealing with this aspect of discrimination. So, no one's rights are particularly grossly infringed by the current law of not permitting same-sex marriage, but there are differences that are discriminatory. Hmm. Not something I can get particularly riled over, so I will mention a vague desire to see the differences between civil partnership and civil marriage eliminated and watch from the sidelines. Thanks for the info, Phill. I don't agree with you (did you notice that?) but no one says we have to agree. Edit: Once again, I don't see why churches should be forced into changing their rules. It is an infringement of the rights to practice their religion in the way they wish to do. There again, I see churches as clubs I don't want to have anything to do with, because of their weird rules and ideas, so why would anyone want to get involved with them?
indeed. it does come down to that and my point is that it is between opposite sex for my reasons I said earlier..... but I do ponder if the government would have the stomach and will to enforce indigenous british muslim mosques to conduct ceremonies with indigenous muslim gays in this country under our laws, equal rights and discrimination enactments. I think not...
This is what gay actor Rupert Everett has to say on the subject. A bit ironic really. The openly gay British actor, best known for “My Best Friend’s Wedding,” landed in hot water last month by saying, “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.” He explained to the Guardian on Friday: “For me, personally, the last thing I would like in the entire world would be to go through [that process] with my boyfriend and finding some grim couple in Ohio who are gluten-free and who you pay $75,000 to have your baby. . . But that’s me, just me.” On gay marriage: “It’s just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster.” my girl friend argues that if organisations don't want to change voluntarily, then you have to force them. Otherwise, without creating equality in all spheres of life you are implying some people or types of relationships are inferior.
The issue of having a same-sex marriage in a church, of any religion, is not up for debate in the current legislation. If the legislation is passed by Parliament, the CofE (and other religious bodies) will be under no legal obligation to marry same-sex couples in their churches. The whole point, as Loz describes, is simply giving the same legal meaning of a civil partnership to that of a traditional marriage; nothing else. The gays simply want to say "we're married" instead of "we're in a civil partnership". If you think about it, people who get married in a registry office do not have a "religious" wedding, yet they are still allowed to say, legally, that they are "married". But those with a civil partnership cannot. Think of "gay marriage" as being a registry office wedding, rather than a church wedding. So surely this means that allowing "gay marriage" no more undermines the traditional sense of marriage than registry office weddings?
Have you seen Lord Tebbit's thoughtful contribution to the debate? [FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]Lord Tebbit Weighs Into Gay Marriage Row[/FONT] You'd think it was a spoof from Private Eye - only it's too absurd... What a joker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Westminster-chapel-to-host-gay-weddings.html and the human rights experts http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1202707.ece which begs the question I posed earlier regarding other faiths. it would be discriminatory to target one religion and under EU law surely it must apply to all. can you see other faiths complying..
The Telegraph article that you quote makes it quite clear that: "Under the gay marriage legislation currently passing through Parliament, the chapel will not be able to offer such ceremonies, because the Church of England is to be exempt from the new law." It is down to Parliament change the useage of the room in question from CofE to "multifaith" which would then allow same-sex marriages to be conducted there. Should a religion be exempt? I don't think it should, as it should be down to the individual to decide whether or not they want to marry a same-sex couple. But realistically that would not be practical so the law is being written to compensate. The second article you link to is now 5 months out of date and written before the full extent of the Government's proposals on the change were known. Although it makes quite sensationalist reading (for those that can see the full article or know how to circumvent the pay-wall!) it is nothing more than a sensationalist piece based on assumptions.
I have no ipinion regarding the articles other than they came to light on a radio 4 jezza vine phone in. obviously the may be sensationalist or not - that is the press for you today in general and not the point the point is they hi light that there are politicians who are a minority trying to impose on the majority to suit an unpopular move...hence thats why its not happened so far obviously. ....becausse the MAJORITY dont want it (in church). its called democracy but there are many who are ill informed such as LOZ (post 223 / 225) who come on and chime in will ill informed dross based on poor research from america (lol my ass off)and form an opinion based on that poor research
So its not OK for the CoE to proclaim it doesn't support same sex ceremonies on its premises, but it is for a lone vicar? How long before said vicar is hounded as a bigot and ends up in court? I still don't get whats wrong with a civil ceremony, just equal the law outcomes (make them need a divorce and only have one at a time etc) and you're done, aren't you? Or is this vanity of using nice old churches for photos? Seems nonsense for nonsense sake. More akin to a child saying they want their brothers toys than deciding whats right for themselves and how current rules are fit, or could be made fitter, for purpose.
It was thanks to my poor research and then chiming in that I am now better informed on the subject (as it stands in the UK). Up until then, the debate seemed to me to short on facts and long on bigotry. Not only that, I have a clearer understanding of where I stand with Phill, too. Bonus! LOL
I am actually shocked about some of the views expressed on this forum from people who reside in a so called liberal country. Some of the comments would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany and I would hope that some people who have posted on this thread would re-consider what they have written. I live in the Middle East and I actually find people here more open minded and accommodating than in the UK. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, it does not give you the right to insult someone who is either gay, lesbian, transgender or bi-sexual. Whilst I am a happily married straight bloke, I fully respect the rights of those who choose to engage in sexual acts with others of the same sex, particularly if they are in a long term stable relationship. Whilst isn't something I would do, why should I criticise someone else for doing it ? It doesn't affect me in any way and as long as it is between two consenting adults, why should it bother you ? Although I am now an airline pilot, I worked in the music industry previously and some of my best friends are gay. They are some of the most pleasant, polite, witty, charming and down to earth and caring people I know. Other than who they choose to have sexual relations with, they are no different to you and I. Shouldn't we be celebrating diversity or would you rather we all wore grey suits, had number two haircuts, 2.3 children and drive a VW Golf ? What shocks me most is that motorcyclists are still considered as some kind of inferior beings in the minds of some. I would have thought with the bigotry surrounding bikers as a group we would be more accommodating to others in the same situation.
My God, a left over from the Maggie Thatcher era. Whilst he's entitled to his views and I respect them, I'm also entitled to mine and I think he's lost the plot.
I often see the sort of attitude where people say that they are OK with gay people being gay, just as long as they don't ... blah blah blah whatever. It's as if they are saying, "I respect your right to be gay, but that doesn't mean you are as good/righteous/well-adjusted/decent a human being as I am". It's this close-minded, un-self-aware prejudice that is hard to bring to light and to address. People just don't see it.
Then why all the fuss? Why change the term to marraige if it drives such emotion and has knock on impacts outside the intended cause? Leave the religious lot to do there thing, the homophobes to do theirs and crack on! So seems the last 10 pages are entirely a waste of air then...oh the surprise Or is it more for some of you about insulting and winding others up....go ride yer bikes ffs
