Should gay marrige be allowed?

Esqui

vyle wrote: »

It's essentially the same thing. Everyone I know refers to my civil ceremony as a wedding, and my partner and I are each other's husband.

Even when I refer to it as a civil partnership, 90% of the time the reply is, "Oh I didn't realise you were married."

The only real difference is we had no mention of god in the ceremony, but seeing as you can have non-religious weddings, which aren't really marriage either (it IS holy matrimony after all) then there is no real difference.

Absolutely. It does amuse me when people try to ignore the main point by getting hung up over how things are worded.

fluffnutter

Christ, I didn't realise there were such insecure people around who still got bothered by homosexuality! It's so last century! Whining about gay marriage is about as culturally relevant these days as moaning that women have the vote. It's the 21st century now! We've moved on from such silly little concerns.

Plus there are help groups available where you can chat about your own feelings of inadequacy (tiny penis, etc.) and why you find other people's sexuality a threat. They're really good, youropinioncounts! Give them a try

bosseyed

fluffnutter wrote: »

Whining about gay marriage is about as culturally relevant these days as moaning that women have the vote.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there. WHOA THERE! Wimmin can vote?

Its a bloody disgrace, what next, wimmin that can drive an automacar? Not in my neighbourhood thank you!

fluffnutter

bosseyed wrote: »

wimmin that can drive an automacar?

To paraphrase my dear old grandmother... "you may drive a car, whether you can or not is a different matter". :rotfl:

bosseyed

fluffnutter wrote: »

To paraphrase my dear old grandmother... "you may drive a car, whether you can or not is a different matter". :rotfl:

Granny wins on technical pedantry! The best kind of pedantry

As long as she never went within 10 yds of a polling station and never attempted to pilot a vehicle without a suitably moustachioed gentleman present to help, we'd get along fine :rotfl:

esuhl

pmduk wrote: »

Many gay people themselves are opposed to gay marriage as it's essentially a heterosexual arrangement to legitimise children and satisfy religions. A civil partnership is different to marriage.

I've never heard that before, but to me there should be equality. If a gay couple want to get married, why shouldn't they be able to? If they choose not to and to have a civil partnership instead, that too should be their right.

And anyway, if marriage is a way to legitimise children (what does that mean?! surely such a concept has no place in modern society) and satisfy religion, then I would prefer a civil ceremony to marriage! Why should I be denied that right?

Esqui wrote: »

Absolutely. It does amuse me when people try to ignore the main point by getting hung up over how things are worded.

But "marriage" and "civil partnerships" are not the same thing - by name if nothing else. I'd be offended if homosexuals were not permitted to have passports but instead required the functionally identical "gayports" in just the same way that I'm offended that homosexuals can only have a "civil ceremony" and only heterosexuals can be "married". It's almost like the way that Jews were singled out in Nazi Germany by having to display yellow stars.

Perhaps there's no point getting hung up on how things are worded, but the fact that they are worded differently for different situations idealogically defines and segregates two groups: heterosexuals and homosexuals.

When a couple want their relationship to be legally recognised, why should the name of their ceremony and legal arrangement depend upon the type of genitalia they possess?

I can't think of any other situation where "what combination of genitals do you possess" could be a legitimate question asked by an official in the course of issuing formal documents.

starrystarry

Valli wrote: »

What did gay men do in the past? They lived lies. They married, and had families and in some cases made their wives, and children suffer while they lived a lie. And they felt forced into this because society wouldn't accept them. They were marginalised, brutalised and commited suicide.

Perfect example...Alan Turing.

Arguably, this forum wouldn't exist if it wasn't for him.

youropinioncounts

hollydays wrote: »

The question I asked was "What is your opinion?"

You are effectively anonymous,as this is "in theory" ,your first post.

Have the confidence of your convictions and state your OWN opinions.The fact you keep quoting burnley mick suggests you are a troll.


I am truly suspecting your post is a cowardly attempt to raise a poll around your homophobic ideas.

NO, I do not agree gay marrige should be made legal as it is in my view and other an act between a man and women.

youropinioncounts

FATBALLZ wrote: »

WHat is the difference between marriage and civil partnership? Presumably gay marriages aren't recognised by any religion so the only 'official' bit is the legal side anyway, which is what civil partnership gives you.

I don't really agree with allowing gay marriage for reasons mentioned by another poster, in that I see marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, civil partnership seems reasonable as it allows all the same legal benefits as marriage, but what else the activists want apart from legal recognition I'm not quite sure - it just looks to me like they want to force their way of life into an institution that has nothing to do with it just because they can.

Having said all that as a straight man I'm not really big on marriage anyway, I have a child and live with my long term partner and am not married, I don't see what else it would bring to my life to be honest. If you are genuinely happy with your partner I don't see the point of marriage, it's almost as if you are forcing yourself to be legally commited to somebody as if you wouldn't stay with them otherwise.

:T Very well said.

youropinioncounts

Valli wrote: »

Oh right - we all descended from a couple in a garden who took an apple off a snake, did we?

Next you'll be objecting to divorce.

GO AWAY you intolerant person.

no see nothing wrong with divorce.

Where do you think we decended from?