Gay marriages now legal in the UK

[Guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm]

Even though I'm not gay myself, I think this is good news.

What do you guys think?

[flarewearer]

Not one to be pedantic, but "Gay Marriages" are not legal in the UK, what is legal is same-sex civil partnerships with the same legal and financial benefits as a traditional heterosexual civil partnership. AFAIK, marriage is a religious thing in the eyes of God.

[hr]

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

[Duggeh]

i support the civil partnerships movement, but its mildly annoying to me that they are always innaccuratly described as marriages, good luck to elton and david though.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.macintyre42.plus.com/images/tb2-100.jpg
Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies
[s]http://www.thismanwillkillyou.com[/s]

[exnihilo]

I'm not convinced it's a positive step. It seems such a botch job halfway-house of a piece of legislation, a sop and little more - there's a shock!

I worry that it needn't be public or witnessed - unlike "real" marriages.

I worry that it only carries the "same sorts" of rights rather than the same rights.

I worry about the real legal weight of these contracts.

I worry about how they'll be terminated and if, in fact, they really mean anything.

I think what was needed was a review of the contractual basis of marriage and an extension of those contractual rights and responsibilities to any couple and, most importantly, a separating of that contract from any religious overtones of any denomination. Each faith or sect should have its own rules for its adherents which have no bearing whatever on the law.

[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)

[flarewearer]

According to working lunch today, you need the same 2-week "intent" period before the actual contract is signed, and the same up to 5 year dissolution process as a heterosexual partnership. I was reading in the paper though that this may be of use to platonic cohabiting older couples, i.e. your stereotypical 2 old women and their 400 cats, who for all intents and purposes live together like siblings, but that the Government would be looking at ways to try and prevent such a thing.

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

if my fears can be assuaged, then I'm happy. But people need to not call it marriage, I'd like to see that distinction kept clear for gays and for the non religious atheists.

I take my religion seriously, as some know, but I don't think it should take any role in the contractual element of marriage. Anything performed in a church/temple/whatever should be over and above the civil contract and if some religions don't want to allow homosexuals to marry in their churches (though why they would deny marriage to christian homosexuals and allow it to atheist heterosexuals is anyone's guess...), that's their right.

That makes less sense than I had intended.

[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)

[flarewearer]

Absolutely Exnihilo, God(s) and the Government are two completely different levels of authority

[hr]

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

[Grandpa]

Quoting exnihilo from 13:50, 5th Dec 2005
if my fears can be assuaged, then I'm happy. But people need to not call it marriage, I'd like to see that distinction kept clear for gays and for the non religious atheists.

I take my religion seriously, as some know, but I don't think it should take any role in the contractual element of marriage. Anything performed in a church/temple/whatever should be over and above the civil contract and if some religions don't want to allow homosexuals to marry in their churches (though why they would deny marriage to christian homosexuals and allow it to atheist heterosexuals is anyone's guess...), that's their right.

That makes less sense than I had intended.

[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)

here here. I am in total agreement - I may not be the world's best Christian, but I, for one, understand what you are saying.

It is a matter of belief and faith in what you/we/I have been taught by our respective religions, whichever one may adhere to.

Now, what I think Ex is trying to say is that in his eyes, the teachings of the bible are correct. However, being the good christian he is, he would not deprive any same sex couples the right to a civil partnership.

In my eyes a marriage is between two people of opposite sex, as the definition in the dictionary is, but it also says "The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex". Well, we could argue this point all day and all night and we would never come to an agreement because some people are traditionalists; others may call us bigots, and in a sense we may well be - however, that is our choice.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that I disagree with the title of this thread. If a gay marriage is now legal, the title would imply that, in reference to the definition I have given, that a long term relationship between two people of the same sex was not, before the present time, legal in the UK. However, this ius incorrect. A long term relationship was not recently 'illegal', but it was not recognised to the same degree as a non-religious heterosexual civil partnership, which it now is.

[hr]
I don't deny you your rights, I deny you an incorrect definition.

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

Erm, no, not what I'm saying.

I'm not a good Christian at all. I'm Jewish.

And I'm not saying that the Bible is true. I'm saying that there's a difference between the rights the state gives for marriage - which should apply to all regardless of any other considerations - and what any church considers the case. What the church or temple thinks is for them only and not relevant to the law or to the definition of marriage.

[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)

[Grandpa]

fair nuff

[hr]

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

[macgamer]

From the point of view of the definition of marriage it is indeed incorrect to call these "same-sex unions" marriages. It also demeans the sanctity of marriage.

I disagree with this change in the law by its very principle, particularly if such "couples" will have the same adoption rights as conventional unions.

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.

For this reason I think that the government needs to provide greater incentives for men and women to get married and stay married. The recent change is hardly helping.

I went off the point a little but I don't think I could have added anything productive to the argument by directly attacking this proposal.

[flarewearer]

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.

Why? Don't 1/3 or marriages end in a divorce? How is that any more or less stable than a loving co-habiting or civil-partnership couple? Marriage is a religious thing, a union in the eyes of God and many atheist couples quite rightly do not see that marriage is for them, however they can be just as suitable parents as a married couple and should also be acticley encouraged to adopt.

[hr]

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

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting macgamer from 17:52, 5th Dec 2005
From the point of view of the definition of marriage it is indeed incorrect to call these "same-sex unions" marriages. It also demeans the sanctity of marriage.

How's that?

I disagree with this change in the law by its very principle, particularly if such "couples" will have the same adoption rights as conventional unions.

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 statistics?

And by what principle (ignoring the particular of adoption) are you opposed to it?

What's wrong with cohabiting couples adopting?


[hr]

Grant me the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't and the incapacity to tell the difference.

[The chap]

I wonder if Grandpa and Mr.(Where has he) Bean will take their love to the next logical level now that it's legal?


Oh, can I be a groomsmaid?

[Grandpa]

Quoting The Chap from 19:07, 5th Dec 2005
I wonder if Grandpa and Mr.(Where has he) Bean will take their love to the next logical level now that it's legal?


Oh, can I be a groomsmaid?

I hope you will delete that last foul and incorect suggestion.

I sure as hell am not gay, and unless my eyes decieve me, neither is 'where has he'.

If I was, I should hope my choice would be rather more, developed, shall we say.

Groomsmaid? Euuuuch. Anything, with more hair than legs, in a dress, is WRONG!

[hr]

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

[Midget]

Quoting Grandpa from 19:17, 5th Dec 2005
Anything, with more hair than legs, in a dress, is WRONG!

[/s][/i]

You're in Scotland be careful. Oh and you're in St Andrews so be careful with the...

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg Too far.

[the Empress]

Groomsmaid? Euuuuch. Anything, with more hair than legs, in a dress, is WRONG!

[hr]

[s].[/s][/quote]

He could wax.

[hr]

Don't kill me for my sneakers, find some shoes of your own

[novium]

i've always felt that the government should get out of marriage and just do civil unions for everybody. That way, the secular and religious aspects of marriage would be separate, and the various religions could make up their own minds about things.

[hr]

quo vobis mentes, rectae quae stare solebant antehac, dementis sese flexere viai?

[Marco Biagi]

I just posted not too long ago saying much the same thing Novium. Admittedly it said it in a slightly more aggressive way vis-a-vis certain churches.

The post however has evaporated.

[exnihilo]

It seems to be something of a consensus around here, I said it too.

[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)