Gay marriages now legal in the UK

[Grandpa]

Quoting the Empress from 19:23, 5th Dec 2005


He could wax.

ok, I'll re-iterate...

anything in it's most natural state with more hair than legs, in a dress, is (in my opinion) so very wrong.

so there.

but if you all wanna dress up, just don't invite me.

thanks

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Arashi]

Now I tend to avoid these sorts of arguments, simply because of how horribly, bitterly angry I become. I am a gay woman. I fully intend to, one day, have a long-term relationship. And I want children. I want my children to be safe in the event of my untimely death, and go into the care of my grieving partner. Something that cannot be done without the rights that usually accompany a "marriage" or whathaveyou. I honestly don't care what it's called, I honestly don't care about the religious aspect. I DO care about the well-being and quality of life for both my long-term partner and children.

Is that honestly so much to ask for?

[exnihilo]

No. It's not too much to ask. And any arrangement which allows "some" rights to gay couples but not the full set available to heterosexual couples is, and must be seen as, discriminatory which is why there should be one legal form and one only and that legal form of union should be open to any couple regardless of gender, faith, colour, whatever.

What anyone wants to do in their own place of worship is their business but it should have no bearing whatever on the law and no bearing on the form of the law.

I've said it before on other threads and I'll say it here again, I'm not interested in gay rights, I want human rights. The full set, not some doctored set especially for me, not some concessions, not partial equality - all of the rights. And that's what every other minority group should be accorded (and should fight for) too - anything else is fundamentally unjust.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)

[The chap]

I can just picture it, you at the altar in your wheelchair and colostomy bag,with kindly "where the fucks he" Bean standing behind you attentively, nodding sagely at your incoherent ramblings and patting you on the head from time to time in an affection manner.

Awwwww.

[The chap]

I can just picture it, you at the altar in your wheelchair and colostomy bag,with kindly "where the fucks he" Bean standing behind you attentively, nodding sagely at your incoherent ramblings and patting you on the head from time to time in an affection manner.

Awwwww.

[Arashi]

Quoting exnihilo from 20:02, 5th Dec 2005

I've said it before on other threads and I'll say it here again, I'm not interested in gay rights, I want human rights. The full set, not some doctored set especially for me, not some concessions, not partial equality - all of the rights. And that's what every other minority group should be accorded (and should fight for) too - anything else is fundamentally unjust.

Exactly. I'll fight for the injustices I face, but what worries me most of all is the ones that haven't come up yet. The hot topic of this decade seems to be sexual orientation. Previously it had been race, religion, etc. What happens when the furor dies down, the gay rights fight is settled? What will be the next fight? Who will be discriminated next? I fear that prosecution of this sort will be a never-ending battle for civil liberties, and some minority will always be forced to the front pages.

We're all humans, more similar that dissimilar, and it's about time we realised it.

[Bonnie]

St Andrews has a reputation for quite a high number of alums marrying (1/3 is the most common statistic bounded about).

St Andrews also has a reputation for having a statistically signigicantly larger proportion of lesbian, gay, or bisexual members.

Now same-sex civil unions are possible.
.
.
.
We're never going to live down the annual Lang schpeal of "Look to your left and right. Chances are, you'll be married to one of them someday!" We even had the high proportion of marriages BEFORE large numbers of our graduates were eligible to be counted in the statistic.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[macgamer]

Quoting Arashi from 19:55, 5th Dec 2005
Now I tend to avoid these sorts of arguments, simply because of how horribly, bitterly angry I become. I am a gay woman. I fully intend to, one day, have a long-term relationship. And I want children. I want my children to be safe in the event of my untimely death, and go into the care of my grieving partner. Something that cannot be done without the rights that usually accompany a "marriage" or whathaveyou. I honestly don't care what it's called, I honestly don't care about the religious aspect. I DO care about the well-being and quality of life for both my long-term partner and children.

Is that honestly so much to ask for?

To put it harshly yes, although it is very understandable that you want to be happy and have children, is it really fair on them? A family with a single gendered household is not balanced, children need role models; to use the cliché, from both sexes. It is evident to see what havoc broken and single parent homes (not to say that all single parent families are doomed far from it) can reap on childrens' delicate psychological wellbeing. It makes no sense to create another instance where there is a chance for this to happen. Children deserve the best chance they can have, in terms of family that is the traditional mother and father.

I've said it before on other threads and I'll say it here again, I'm not interested in gay rights, I want human rights. The full set, not some doctored set especially for me, not some concessions, not partial equality - all of the rights. And that's what every other minority group should be accorded (and should fight for) too - anything else is fundamentally unjust.

The right for same sex couples to have children is not withheld by some irrational moral decree, but by nature itself. Even using IVF, the resultant child is only related to one of the two.

[Guest]

Demeans the sactity of marriage? Bollocks it does! Here was me thinking God was all love/infinate compassion etc, and here there are people telling me that God has something against a certain group of people can't celebrate their love in the same way as another group of people? Well I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't believe a word of it. And if God or anyone else doesn't like it, then they can just fuck the fuck off!

[Guest]

"Cohabitating couples should also be prevented from adopting, for what a child needs is a stable environment, which according to the statistics is an family made up of a married man and woman"

What utter rubbish.

1. What statistics? HAve you seen the statistics for child abuse amongst married families?

2.How can you possibly know what every child needs? HOw arrogant of you, What do they need it for? To grow up as a "normal" person? Define normal please.

3. I know plenty of people who were raised outside of your frightenly backward ideal and have turned out to be the nicest, well-rounded, kind, considerate people. Conversly, I know people from straight married families who have been ruined by their parents.

4. What does it mean to be a "man" and a "woman" and why would these two qualities form the perfect child? Masculinity and Feminity are human concepts of gender which have been created by those in power over knowledge over time.(Foucalt) Man and Woman are biological facts, that is all.

Please educate yourself.

[Marco Biagi]

Until what the state does in registry offices stops being called "marriage", I'm happy to throw the word around in relation to these same-sex unions.

I'd be happy with exnihilo's system (do we agree...??? Gasp!). I even agree with Dubya, a marriage could be defined as between a man and a woman... in a church. If some hate-filled, biblically literalist, don't-believe-in-fire churches (like say, every major Christian denomination from the Church of Scotland to the Church of Rome) want to refuse marriage to gay couples, then that's their bigotry. I mean business.

The state however has got its own brand of marriages on the go, and it has no right to be selective on the basis of such Victorian era prejudice. I imagine when civil marriages were instituted the same 'undermining marriage' arguments were trotted out.

I doubt there's much opposition from those who were married in registry offices to extending that right of civil marriage to gay couples. I imagine the opposition comes from those of the more religious ceremony persuasion. Why do they set their sights on gay civil marriage? Well I suppose the times have moved on, people accept atheist civil marriage, and homosexuals are an easier target. And it's not like reason was ever the religious lobby's motivation in this.

[Saki]

Marriage has been a civil institution long before Christianity. I see no reason why the word should be reserved soley for the use of religious unions. Let it remain (as it has been since classical Greece) a civil concept and let the churches find their own word.

[exnihilo]

Macgamer, you're talking utter rubbish. All you're doing is making outdated assertions with absolutely no backing.

And, Marco, you know full well we agree on a lot of things, just not always on how to go about getting them.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)

[Arashi]

Quoting macgamer from 20:44, 5th Dec 2005

Quoting Arashi from 19:55, 5th Dec 2005

Is that honestly so much to ask for?

To put it harsly yes, although it is very understandable that you want to be happy and have children, is it really fair on them? A family with a single gendered household is not balanced, children need role models; to use the cliché, from both sexes. It is evident to see what havoc broken and single parent homes (not to say that all single parent families are doomed far from it) can reap on childrens' delicate psychological wellbeing. It makes no sense to create another instance where there is a chance for this to happen. Children deserve the best chance they can have, in terms of family that is the traditional mother and father.

Is it fair on children that 1/3 marriages end in divorce? Is it fair that in marriages that don't end, there can be abuse, or neglect? I'm not the expert on what children "need" in terms of role models, but surely two loving parents fit the bill, regardless of gender. Traditional nuclear families are hard to find anymore, but does that mean that no one is fit to raise a child in this society?

I know that I'll be a good mother, and I know that I'll do everything I can to raise my children in a happy, loving enviornment. Don't you dare to tell me that purely on the basis of my orientation, and the gender of my partner, that I'll be putting them at a disadvantage. You show me the research that kids need two parents of the opposite sex, and then I'll take you seriously.

[flarewearer]

Quoting macgamer from 20:44, 5th Dec 2005
The right for same sex couples to have children is not withheld by some irrational moral decree, but by nature itself. Even using IVF, the resultant child is only related to one of the two.

It is also "witheld by nature itself" from couples where one or the other member is infertile for whatever reason, be it due to illness, fate or plain bad luck or whatever. There is absolutely no reason why a stable same-sex couple that love and nurture their children and provide for them should not raise perfectly healthy and well adjusted children. IFAIC, the biggest threat to children's wellbeing during growing up is from abusive, absent or irresponsible parenting, from poverty and plain lack of opportunity or encouragement. You'd do well to put your outdated, Victorian and just plain wrong opinions back up your ass, where you so evidently pulled them from.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Simon Atkins]

Quoting Marco Biagi from 18:55, 5th Dec 2005
I even agree with Dubya, a marriage could be defined as between a man and a woman... in a church. If some hate-filled, biblically literalist, don't-believe-in-fire churches (like say, every major Christian denomination from the Church of Scotland to the Church of Rome) want to refuse marriage to gay couples, then that's their bigotry. I mean business.

OK, Marco I agree with most of your post but not the Dubya bit. This is the state regulating religion and what a religion can call it's ceremonies. The State should stick to defining it's own institutions. Drop the word marriage from the law and let religions do their own thing, much safer that way.

[Insight]

As far as I can see - and agree whole heartedly with Marco Biagi & Exnihilo - this ruling has NOTHING to do with religion. This is plain civil equality.

To think that less than 40 years ago (male) homosexuality was legally/morally on a par with paedophilia and/or insanity beggars belief.

This is the biggest step forward in decades for true equality for homosexuals - and I hope more will come. I'd prefer if one's sexuality was never a factor in such legal matters - like one's eye colour means bugger all to the general public - I can but hope.



[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Genders

[Senethro]

Personally, I would have the governement withdraw from marriage and civil partnerships altogether and leave it to people to decide what they want to do and call it.

However, this might make parenting more expensive and it is easily conceivable that a new child benefit to replace the various benefits gained by marriage at this time. Investing in the future and all that.

[ezra]

sorry, but this is some of the worst shite which i've come across in a long while. so, in order:

although it is very understandable that you want to be happy and have children, is it really fair on them? . . . It is evident to see what havoc broken and single parent homes (not to say that all single parent families are doomed far from it) can reap on childrens' delicate psychological wellbeing. It makes no sense to create another instance where there is a chance for this to happen

i. yes, it's fair on them.
ii. so are you equating single-parent / divorced households with single-sex, married households? i'm puzzled. you admit that single-parent families can work: so if the equation goes through, where's the problem?
iii. the worst bit is the 'it makes no sense to create another instance . . '. Bollocks. Are you suggesting that parents who are likely to cause problems for their 'childrens' delicate psychological wellbeing' should be prevented from having children? There are plenty of unprepared, untalented, irresponsible people out there, but you seem to have no problem with letting them marry and have kids. Inconsistent, no? Or perhaps you think that gay people make bad parents. Hmmm. Feel like arguing for that one?

The right for same sex couples to have children is not withheld by some irrational moral decree, but by nature itself

i. Analogously: 'the right for people who have cancer to live is not withheld by some irrational moral decree, but with nature itself'. Do you think that makes sense?

Two further points:
a. we are part of nature; the stuff that we decide to do is 'by nature'.
b. even if think there's a decent natural/unnatural distinction to be had, it carries no moral weight. Do you think aeroplanes are bad because they are man-made?

Flarewearer's post is well put.

Macgamer, you're a nasty little man. If you want to make these kind of assertions, maybe you had better attempt to justify them.

[maenad]

Quoting macgamer from 17:52, 5th Dec 2005
Cohabitating couples should also be prevented from adopting, for what a child needs is a stable environment, which according to the statistics is an family made up of a married man and woman.

Hmm. Because most children from single-parent families are whackjobs. And the very legal history of homosexual unions in this country has provided an extensive base for research into the effects of homosexual parents on children. Do I take it you're also inferring homosexuals are inherently unstable?

Nature has been turned on its head when it comes to reproduction through things like IVF and surrogacy. And if you tell me a child is better off in Britain's "care" system or some Chinese orphanage than with a homosexual couple who've made the effort to go through the adoption process, I will plain not believe you.

Just as a pointless echo, I'd love there to be a complete separation of church and state. I'm an atheist and may someday want some kind of civil partnership, but the Christians can keep their marriage. I don't want a covenant with god, I want my legal rights as a citizen (and I'm not even gay). I must admit to not having read enough of the legal side of things to see if this partnership offers true equality, but I definitely think it's a step in the right direction.