Petition: Campaign for Equal Marriage

[SS4]

I'd rather everyone (homosexual and heterosexual) got the option of civil partnerships with those wishing to get a Church sanctioned marriage being allowed to subject to the church's position.

It's a sad fact of life that religious homosexuals will always be lesser citizens than heterosexuals in the eyes of their religious leaders and dare I say many of the lay community (not so much in this country but definitely in parts of the US) and if it took centuries for the Catholic Church to apologise for Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system I don't hold out much hope of this attitude changing
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ideally of course I'd like to kick religion right out of government or at least tax it if it wants to meddle in State affairs but that too is a long way off

 

[district]

Th OP agrees with gay marriage. His reasons are virtually all to do with his beliefs.

Firstly, Jungle James, it's EQUAL marriage. Secondly, I believe it because that is the right thing to do.

 

[Davidj1178]

"Ohhhhh no, you can't have a gay marriage in here, not at all, yuck"

"Now, where are those choirboys......"

:roll:hock:

 

[Nick W]

I would be quite content if the State was to remain silent on the gender issues we've been discussing here.

However, the State does have some roles to play in the matter of Marriage, some of these are quite powerful and important to many people. I wonder if any of these are beng challenged here (or is it just the gender issue?).

These include Prohibitions: Restriction by age. Prohibition on multiple spouses. Prohibition where one partner has not the Capacity to Consent. Prohibition without Consent (i.e. control of forced marriages).

Very good points. Apparently my views that marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman, and for life, is outdated. So maybe we should give people the choice as to when the correct age is and how many partners they want.

Regulation: Proper advertisement; Consideration of relevant Objectors (can include children); Maintaining the Public Record.

Application: Provision of a trail of Kin; Distribution of Estate after intestate Death (assets pass to children and spouse and not to the State); Consent to medical intervention (includes some care and Mental Health arrangements); Regulation of some welfare and tax differentials (incl pensions); Regulation of privately managed benefit differentials (life insurances, mortgages etc).

Are we all quite happy for the State to remain the Regulator of Marriage for all of these reasons?

Presumably these issues don't just apply to married couples, but to long-term cohabiting relationships?

But that would stop atheists, agnostics, or people who just simply aren't religiously affiliated, from getting married. Marriage predates religion and certainly predates Christianity. Given the seriousness of marriage, as a contract, and everything it entails, I think the state needs to have involvement. I don't think religious institutions should get to define marriage.

I didn't say that people couldn't make up their own versions of marriage.

I don't think religious institutions should get to define marriage either - God has already done so in the bible and so his churches should submit to that.

It's a sad fact of life that religious homosexuals will always be lesser citizens than heterosexuals in the eyes of their religious leaders.

Complete rubbish over-generalisation - yes there are some dodgy churches that view those with homosexual attraction as lesser citizens but that's not what the bible teachers and therefore what a good church will proclaim.

 

[Badger]

Very good points. Apparently my views that marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman, and for life, is outdated. So maybe we should give people the choice as to when the correct age is and how many partners they want.

It's not outdated, it just only applies to your religion; marriage predates your religion and isn't unique to it.

Presumably these issues don't just apply to married couples, but to long-term cohabiting relationships?

Only if they've actually made a contract (such as that which marriage implies).

I don't think religious institutions should get to define marriage either - God has already done so in the bible and so his churches should submit to that.

Ah, we've hit upon a problem (not saying your opinion is wrong or anything).. see, it all depends on whether you view the bible as the true word of God, or whether you see the bible as part of just another religious institution... (sorry if that's insulting.) You're entitled to that opinion, of course, and perhaps then it's true then, that churches which subscribe to said bible should follow it word for word (but then there are very few churches that actually do follow every word of the bible letter for letter).

But there are other places than churches to get married, and indeed other religions.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Presumably these issues don't just apply to married couples, but to long-term cohabiting relationships?

Only if they've actually made a contract (such as that which marriage implies).

Its my understanding that long-term co-habitees do NOT have some of those benefits, although I must say I'm not an expert.
I understand that co-habitees do not enjoy the right to authorise or prevent medical intervention and will not receive a deceased partner's property who dies intestate. I understand that a Married partner has those rights and benefits.
I believe that some of the other rights and/or restrictions I mentioned are also confined to Married persons and a Contract cannot import those rights and/or restrictions (though there are specific arrangements such as a Power of Attorney which people may grant to another).

 

[LE Greys]

Its my understanding that long-term co-habitees do NOT have some of those benefits, although I'm not an expert. I understand that co-habitees do not enjoy the right to authorise or prevent medical intervention and will not receive a deceased partner's property who dies intestate. I understand that a Married partner has those rights and benefits.

That's true. Common Law marriage could cover this, but it was abolished a very long time ago (despite the term being used a lot).

 

[Nick W]

It's not outdated, it just only applies to your religion; marriage predates your religion and isn't unique to it.

I'll admit it was slightly tongue in cheek -- the point is if you're going to allow homosexual marriage, why can't you have three way relationships?

Only if they've actually made a contract (such as that which marriage implies).

But in the absence of a "contract", there is still issues to solve, such as where the deceased's assets go and custody of children.

Ah, we've hit upon a problem (not saying your opinion is wrong or anything).. see, it all depends on whether you view the bible as the true word of God, or whether you see the bible as part of just another religious institution... (sorry if that's insulting.) You're entitled to that opinion, of course, and perhaps then it's true then, that churches which subscribe to said bible should follow it word for word (but then there are very few churches that actually do follow every word of the bible letter for letter).

But there are other places than churches to get married, and indeed other religions.

I agree, though "letter by letter" doesn't take into account cultural differences: for example wearing plaited hair was the sign of a prostitute at the time and place that one of the new testament letters was written but it's perfectly fine for Christian women to have plaited hair today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its my understanding that long-term co-habitees do NOT have some of those benefits, although I must say I'm not an expert.

I understand that co-habitees do not enjoy the right to authorise or prevent medical intervention and will not receive a deceased partner's property who dies intestate. I understand that a Married partner has those rights and benefits.

Cheers for that. In which case perhaps there is a need to address the issue, and not just in the context of marriage - a single person could be living without a next of kin for many reasons.

 

[Mojo]

The Home Office has launched its consultation/survey today

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw

 

[table38]

Quite an interesting debate on The Moral Maze on Radio 4 last night, including a few points I hadn't previously considered.

Still on listen again at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11

 

[SS4]

The Home Office has launched its consultation/survey today

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw

Done.

 

[madannie77]

Also done

An interesting statement on the first page

"This consultation is about how we best remove the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, not on whether this should or should not happen"

Also good to see that the problems arising from transgendered people and the GRC have been addressed.

 

[martin2345uk]

Also done! Though if they're going to open up marriage to gays, don't see why they can't just open up civil partnerships to straights at the same time! Or just do away with them altogether...

 

[Badger]

Yeah I didn't understand that bit. Surely the whole point of this is equality so both should be changed at the same time.

 

[blanco]

Also done! Though if they're going to open up marriage to gays, don't see why they can't just open up civil partnerships to straights at the same time! Or just do away with them altogether...

there wouldn't seem to be any need to keep civil partnerships as an option.

 

[Nonsense]

But I wonder if those same people who think two guys doing 'that act' is a bit icky think its ok to do the same act to a female. I am straight, and I am married but I don't actually find homosexual activity icky as most gay men partaking in sodomy are loving and caring couples making love as part of their relationship. Obviously if two men were doing it in a public place I would be disgusted, but that would be the same disgust I would feel if a male and female were doing it in public as its not appropiate to have sex in public as opposed to who and whom were doing which sex act. (I think that makes sense)

Not speaking for all men, just me. The icky isn't the sodomy, or any of the other fun activities partaken, regardless of whether it is just for pure pleasure or as part of a healthy loving relationship. Its just that its men, and thats not homophobia speaking, it extends to all male/male physical contact like a rugby scrum or sharing a hot tub. I blame it on nurture, but I certainly don't see any of it as wrong, just not for me.

 

[Anon Mouse]

Not speaking for all men, just me. The icky isn't the sodomy, or any of the other fun activities partaken, regardless of whether it is just for pure pleasure or as part of a healthy loving relationship. Its just that its men, and thats not homophobia speaking, it extends to all male/male physical contact like a rugby scrum or sharing a hot tub. I blame it on nurture, but I certainly don't see any of it as wrong, just not for me.

yeah fair comment. I don't find any men attractive but I don't find anything two adults do in the privicy of their own homes particually icky. Thats not homophobia, thats just being happy with your sexuality and knowing what is and what isnt for you.

 

[LE Greys]

+ 1 to the various above

 

[bb21]

Err. The debate on Newsnight was such a disappointment.

 

[Nonsense]

Err. The debate on Newsnight was such a disappointment.

I didn't see. I do find the whole thing a farce in this age of ours. How anyone can justify being bothered by another's desire to equality regardless of gender or sex or whatever is beyond me.

Live and let live as the cliché goes.

 

[LE Greys]

I didn't see. I do find the whole thing a farce in this age of ours. How anyone can justify being bothered by another's desire to equality regardless of gender or sex or whatever is beyond me.

Live and let live as the cliché goes.

After some of the arguments I've had about youth emancipation, I can see it very well.