gay civil rights ceremoney

ladywood

margaretclare wrote:

Can I just stick a perspective in from an older generation.

What is being talked about here is 'registering a civil partnership', something which is only open to same-sex couples to do. It's not open to different-sex couples - they are given the choice either to marry (whether a civil or religious ceremony) or not to marry, and in the latter case they don't have the advantages of either a marriage or a registered civil partnership. English law has no such thing as 'marriage by habit and repute' or 'common-law'.

You are missing the point. The Civil Partnership is effectively equivalent to a Civil Marriage for straight people - that is the reason it is only open to same-sex couples - straight couples have had this option forever! It is different from a civil marriage in name only - all the other rights/responsibilities are equivalent!

As for the name - I talk about being "civilly partnered" - which is what myself and my partner will be doing this summer. It is the media - and funnily enough our straight friends who are going on about weddings and marriage. We see it as an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment and to gain legal protection.

As for those of you who don't think my partner should have pension rights. Excuse me?? I have paid exactly the same contributions as my straight colleagues - why the hell shouldn't my partner benefit? And do you really think it is just that someone who may have spent a lifetime committed to a person can be excluded from their hospital bed - or even their funeral - just because of their sexuality? Because that was the reality for same sex couples before this legislation.

I'm really sorry to have discovered such an undercurrent of prejudice on this forum. I am new here and have been really enjoying it. Somehow I suddenly don't feel very welcome any more ...

And for those of you who talk about gay this and gay that as if there is some homoeogenous "lump" which represents everyone with a particular sexuality yet claim you are not prejudiced ask yourself this - would it be prejudiced if you replace the word "gay" with "black" or "disabled"?

freebie_junkie

intel wrote:

Im afraid I have but I tend not to sink to thier level.. :beer: :beer:


P.S Should I be saying There or Thier or is That Thier spelt wrong.

dont ask a dyspraxic.....

ladywood

trademark wrote:

at least i can be honest and not attend a ceremony that i am not in agreement with , i hope all the do gooders are happy when this society finally fails , and as mentioned before is it fair that a man and a women can not have this same civil ceremony .
...

Clearly you weren't honest in your original post when you said you had "nothing against gays and lesbians"! Now they are responsible for the failure of society!
Please!

And a man and a woman can have this civil ceremony - it is called a civil marriage. They have had that privilege forever.

Quackers

ladywood wrote:

I'm really sorry to have discovered such an undercurrent of prejudice on this forum. I am new here and have been really enjoying it. Somehow I suddenly don't feel very welcome any more ...

Noooooooooooooooooo, dont go. You are new and its nice here - there's a whole lot more nice people than nasty. Please stay.

You've got a nice name Thats got to be a good enough reason to stay?

And you've yet to start a thread on how to get civilly partnered on the cheap.

Then, when you've saved a fortune you can invite us and we'll bring cheese and pineapples on sticks so it a really posh do

freebie_junkie

ladywood wrote:

You are missing the point. The Civil Partnership is effectively equivalent to a Civil Marriage for straight people - that is the reason it is only open to same-sex couples - straight couples have had this option forever! It is different from a civil marriage in name only - all the other rights/responsibilities are equivalent!

As for the name - I talk about being "civilly partnered" - which is what myself and my partner will be doing this summer. It is the media - and funnily enough our straight friends who are going on about weddings and marriage. We see it as an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment and to gain legal protection.

As for those of you who don't think my partner should have pension rights. Excuse me?? I have paid exactly the same contributions as my straight colleagues - why the hell shouldn't my partner benefit? And do you really think it is just that someone who may have spent a lifetime committed to a person can be excluded from their hospital bed - or even their funeral - just because of their sexuality? Because that was the reality for same sex couples before this legislation.

I'm really sorry to have discovered such an undercurrent of prejudice on this forum. I am new here and have been really enjoying it. Somehow I suddenly don't feel very welcome any more ...

And for those of you who talk about gay this and gay that as if there is some homoeogenous "lump" which represents everyone with a particular sexuality yet claim you are not prejudiced ask yourself this - would it be prejudiced if you replace the word "gay" with "black" or "disabled"?

try replacing it with some of teh most hated people in teh country "Gypsy"

i dont understand EXACTLY how you feel as im not gay but i understand prejudice and i know taht i wouldnt want anyone to suffer from it

freebie_junkie

im sorry if in sticking up for civil partnerships i gave you teh idea that i thought all gay and lesian people ar ethe same, i dont, i was just trying to get my point across that i personally hate prejudice in any form

Quackers

freebie_junkie wrote:

try replacing it with some of teh most hated people in teh country "Gypsy"

i dont understand EXACTLY how you feel as im not gay but i understand prejudice and i know taht i wouldnt want anyone to suffer from it

I think that anyone who has suffered some form of predujice would think like that. Its not nice and definately not necessary.

freebie_junkie

Quackers wrote:

I think that anyone who has suffered some form of predujice would think like that. Its not nice and definately not necessary.

deginately!

its very hard when you are fiercely proud about some part of yourself (in my case being a Romany) but it is not obvious (i.e. i have white skin so i dont look like im another ethnic group) so you have to choose to actually tell people

and all teh time people are saying things that degare that proud part of yourself i.e. "ive been gypped" or "!!!!!!"

and ive also heard peopel say "thats gay" i.e. thyre trying to say it bad or broken or unfair (very badly!)

it makes me so sad to hear things like that

Quackers

freebie_junkie wrote:

"

and ive also heard peopel say "thats gay" i.e. thyre trying to say it bad or broken or unfair (very badly!)

Aaarrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhh. This is the new 'hip' word at school. My 11yr old said this all the time. The thing is that I know she means no harm by it. She does understand how it can be offensive but says 'its just a word' when we talk about it. I asked her to remember how she felt when she got called a paki (she's half pakistani) and she said she was upset by it because the person using the word meant to be mean and nasty but if they use the word with no offense meant as she is then it isnt bad. ok, fair point! I asked her to imagine how someone her age who was thinking they might be gay might feel hearing that word all the time at school whilst they were confused and frightened of their feelings and she stopped!! (but still insisted its just a word - 'cos she does like the last word! :rolleyes: )

freebie_junkie

my little sister argued the point with my dad about "gyped" (our dads teh Romany) she lost of course!