gay civil rights ceremoney

freebie_junkie

my fella had thsi (awful) friend when he was at uni and she was 21 and still said "gay" as a bad word it did my head in coz she really should have known better!

gentlepurr

trademark, i post as the wife of a man who is very single minded, if he doesn't want to do something, or go somewhere, he doesn't, regardless of my feelings. he does not visit my parents with me (they idolise him, and are hurt btw) he thinks religious people are weird, can't understand why everyone asn't got the same opinion as him, etc, etc, etc. my point is that by not supporting your wife, you are turning your back on your PARTNERSHIP and if you have no partnership, you have no marriage, bacause thats what marriage is all about, SUPPORTING EACH OTHER, even if you don't always want to. you are heading in the same direction as my husband - the divorce court.

ladywood

Quackers - thanks! :A

Just reread the whole thread (it had been a long day when I read it last night) and realised that Trademark is the only one making really objectionable comments - responsible for all the ills of society etc. - and I'm not going to worry about him. I do find the comments about not taking children to a ceremony very sad. What on earth do people think is going to happen to them by going? Seeing two women kiss?!? What sort of kiss are you expecting for goodness sake?! :rolleyes: And are they going to be forever prevented from visiting "aunties" X & Y or whoever? Children I think are often the most accepting people - they just take things in their stride - it is adults who pass on their prejudices. Imagine if one of those children turns out to be gay themselves? Remembering their parents' attitude is not going to help them feel accepted is it?

Children will not be damaged by seeing committed people entering into committed partnerships. They will be damaged by hate and prejudice and fear of difference.

Freebie_junkie - I didn't mean you were prejudiced - I imagine as a Romany you probably understand prejudice more than most...

As for civil partnerships on the cheap - we'll need it! Any ideas anyone?!

november

ladywood wrote:

Just reread the whole thread (it had been a long day when I read it last night) and realised that Trademark is the only one making really objectionable comments - responsible for all the ills of society etc. - and I'm not going to worry about him.

I'm not going to worry about his comments that my son (without father) is 'proven' to stand a greater chance of growing up a failure or criminal either. Especially as I have seen a better analysis of the statistics the tabloids used to print that rubbish and as he shows absolutely no signs to date of either tendancy.

I do find the comments about not taking children to a ceremony very sad. What on earth do people think is going to happen to them by going? Seeing two women kiss?!? What sort of kiss are you expecting for goodness sake?! :rolleyes:

That was my thought too - its sad for the children As for what type of kiss - if its anything like the 'You may kiss the bride' bit which apparently they always say at weddings and my OH is dreading it will be a very brief peck

Children I think are often the most accepting people - they just take things in their stride - it is adults who pass on their prejudices.

Absolutely. Children just accept what they are given as natural and its only when some 'helpful' person somewhere makes a comment that they are given doubt and prejudice.

Children will not be damaged by seeing committed people entering into committed partnerships. They will be damaged by hate and prejudice and fear of difference.

Well said. As also will society ultimately. If we can raise all children without prejudice society would stand a far better chance of being peaceful.

As for civil partnerships on the cheap - we'll need it! Any ideas anyone?!

You could try the weddings thread (ticked at top of this board). I've picked up a few tips there for my wedding.

All the best for your big day Hope it goes as well as I'm hoping mine does

p.s. Glad you haven't let one person put you off hanging around.

margaretclare

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"?

Thank you for the explanation. I certainly know about prejudice - growing up as an illegitimate child in the middle of the last century when things were very different....yes, I should say I know about prejudice.

Freebie_junkie objects to the words '!!!!!!' or 'I've been gypped'. What about the term 'to jew someone' as in 'I've been Jewed'? My husband tells me that he hears this kind of terminology every time he's in the supermarket or the town centre. I don't hear it because I'm not 'tuned in' to it as he is. What gets me going is the loose and casual use of the word '!!!!!!', which was thrown at me in the school playground throughout my most impressionable years.

Aunty Margaret

melancholly

Regardless of who is getting married, surely the best way to show your disapproval is to turn up (thereby getting the free meal and party) and give a crappy present!

I was once told that 'the moral high ground is priceless' and it's true - major family events always bring out the best and worst in people, and long running problems come to a head, just while everyone is really sensitive and stressed...... Go or don't go, but make sure your reasons are clear (and sound sensible when said out-loud) because you may find yourself having to justify your decision for quite a while!

ReportInvestor

I'm looking forward to attending one of these civil partnership ceremonies in April. The guys concerned have been together for well over a decade and are modest, caring, talented and responsible people.

I gather that the adoption procedure is well under way. They both relate very well to young people and there is a real chance IMHO that they will "make a difference" to a young person's life.

Sarahsaver

There is still the option to raise an objection, as the forthcoming marriages/civil partnerships are posted on the wall at the register office to give people chance to just that, though just disapproval is not enough. If it were my sister I would want her to be happy, so if you disapprove either just don't go and upset your whole family in one fell swoop, or otherwise get over it, be a grownup and for goodness sakes GO!

ladywood

Sarahsaver wrote:

There is still the option to raise an objection, as the forthcoming marriages/civil partnerships are posted on the wall at the register office to give people chance to just that, though just disapproval is not enough.

Umm no - disapproval definitely isn't enough (thank goodness!). I believe the only grounds for objection are that one or both parties are already married/civilly partnered to someone else, they are close relations (to each other), or one is underage - ie legal grounds. Unless the OP has more revelations up his sleeve don't think there was any suggestion they were legally unable to go ahead?

Sarahsaver

I understand but I was just saying they can object if they have due cause, but it doesnt sound like they do. I think the title 'gay civil rights ceremony' needs to be changed. I have visions of a mass march through town;)
It is a civil ceremony, not a 'civil rights' ceremony.