MP Robin Walker supports gay marriage - Worcester News readers don't

SUPPORT: Robin Walker MP

SUPPORT: Robin Walker MP

First published in News

WORCESTER MP Robin Walker has supported gay marriage – despite admitting it might lose him votes at the next general election.

He revealed the debate over it is dominating his inbox at the moment, with the response from people in the city overwhelmingly negative.

But he told your Worcester News that he was prepared to “vote with my conscience” and back a Bill, unless it actually forced hostile churches to host gay marriages.

Meanwhile, in a ballot held on this website yesterday, 59 per cent of around 400 voters were against the idea. The ballot is still open, below.

More than 40 Conservative MPs have so far spoken out against gay marriage, despite Prime Minister David Cameron aiming to legislate for it before 2015.

Mr Walker will be defending a majority of 2,982 at the next general election, making his seat one of the party’s most marginal.

He said: “I’ve had tens of letters about this from constituents in the last two weeks and almost all of them are against it – it’s the biggest single issue at the moment.

“But I think allowing civil marriage is the right thing to do, as long as churches are not forced to host weddings they don’t want. Marriage is a good thing, it’s a positive thing for society and as we allow civil partnerships, the logical thing would be to extend it to marriages too. I don’t see it as a massive change.”

The stance has put him on a collision course with the Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Dr John Inge, who said he was not in favour of “imposing a new meaning” on marriage.

West Worcestershire MP Harriett Baldwin said she wanted to reflect the views of her constituents when the matter came before parliament.

Mid-Worcestershire MP Peter Luff , while admitting he was unsure how he would vote, said: “I am not yet convinced forcing gay marriage throughout parliament in the face of such sincere and deeply held concerns would bring sufficient gains to homosexual people to justify the unacceptability of such a change to so many.”

So far, 234 MPs across all parties have come out in favour of legalising gay marriage, which includes Mr Walker.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:12pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Maggie Would says...

How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever.
How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever. Maggie Would
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Wed 8 Aug 12

molecat says...

Maggie Would wrote:
How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever.
I'll just have to take this ring back to Ratners then. Sometimes you can be so cruel.
[quote][p][bold]Maggie Would[/bold] wrote: How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever.[/p][/quote]I'll just have to take this ring back to Ratners then. Sometimes you can be so cruel. molecat
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ted Elgar says...

Why do people have a problem with gay marriage? Unless they are gay and considering marriage I don't see how it's any of their business. Typical "small c" conservative thinking that what goes on in people's private lives is a political matter. Excellent news that our MP has been grown up on this issue.
Why do people have a problem with gay marriage? Unless they are gay and considering marriage I don't see how it's any of their business. Typical "small c" conservative thinking that what goes on in people's private lives is a political matter. Excellent news that our MP has been grown up on this issue. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Wed 8 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?
I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me? ushmush83
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Maggie Would says...

molecat wrote:
Maggie Would wrote:
How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever.
I'll just have to take this ring back to Ratners then. Sometimes you can be so cruel.
Back of the queue, Big Boy
[quote][p][bold]molecat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maggie Would[/bold] wrote: How about a third option: don't support any marriage? I've never been able to see any point in it, no matter whether you're straight, gay or whatever.[/p][/quote]I'll just have to take this ring back to Ratners then. Sometimes you can be so cruel.[/p][/quote]Back of the queue, Big Boy Maggie Would
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Robot 3021 says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
Why do people have a problem with gay marriage? Unless they are gay and considering marriage I don't see how it's any of their business. Typical "small c" conservative thinking that what goes on in people's private lives is a political matter. Excellent news that our MP has been grown up on this issue.
Well said, sums it up nicely really.

There is no valid argument against it, other than one fuelled by ignorance and bile.

Though it should be remembered that 100% of divorces begin with marriage, so think on children, think on.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: Why do people have a problem with gay marriage? Unless they are gay and considering marriage I don't see how it's any of their business. Typical "small c" conservative thinking that what goes on in people's private lives is a political matter. Excellent news that our MP has been grown up on this issue.[/p][/quote]Well said, sums it up nicely really. There is no valid argument against it, other than one fuelled by ignorance and bile. Though it should be remembered that 100% of divorces begin with marriage, so think on children, think on. Robot 3021
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Hawlev says...

I am really surprised by the figures I can't understand why so many people would have an issue regarding gay marriage. Maybe one of the 56% would like to enlighten me but then again I don't think they would be able to come up with a valid reason as to why gay marriage should not be allowed.
I am really surprised by the figures I can't understand why so many people would have an issue regarding gay marriage. Maybe one of the 56% would like to enlighten me but then again I don't think they would be able to come up with a valid reason as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. Hawlev
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ballymoss says...

ushmush83 wrote:
I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?
Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me!
[quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?[/p][/quote]Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me! Ballymoss
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 8 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Hawlev wrote:
I am really surprised by the figures I can't understand why so many people would have an issue regarding gay marriage. Maybe one of the 56% would like to enlighten me but then again I don't think they would be able to come up with a valid reason as to why gay marriage should not be allowed.
Think of your own thing to say! ;p
[quote][p][bold]Hawlev[/bold] wrote: I am really surprised by the figures I can't understand why so many people would have an issue regarding gay marriage. Maybe one of the 56% would like to enlighten me but then again I don't think they would be able to come up with a valid reason as to why gay marriage should not be allowed.[/p][/quote]Think of your own thing to say! ;p ushmush83
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 8 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Ballymoss wrote:
ushmush83 wrote:
I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?
Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me!
Ok, let's start with the fact we are all equals. What gives a hetrosexual anymore right to anything, in this instance marriage, than a homosexual?
[quote][p][bold]Ballymoss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?[/p][/quote]Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me![/p][/quote]Ok, let's start with the fact we are all equals. What gives a hetrosexual anymore right to anything, in this instance marriage, than a homosexual? ushmush83
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 8 Aug 12

jovialcommonsense says...

Ballymoss wrote:
ushmush83 wrote:
I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?
Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me!
How about you tell us about your private life and then we can tell you where you are wrong!
[quote][p][bold]Ballymoss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: I'd love to hear a valid argument against gay marriage. I'm yet to hear one. Could one of you 59% please enlighten me?[/p][/quote]Let's hear your argument for it then and enlighten me![/p][/quote]How about you tell us about your private life and then we can tell you where you are wrong! jovialcommonsense
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ted Elgar says...

As Mr.Walker won his marginal seat due to a swing from Labour to Liberal splitting the "centrist" vote, rather than a decisive swing to the Conservatives; then this plant of a story is surely not about Mr.Walker repositioning himself for middle-voters planning to abandon the Liberals in any pending election, following the break up of the Coalition?
As Mr.Walker won his marginal seat due to a swing from Labour to Liberal splitting the "centrist" vote, rather than a decisive swing to the Conservatives; then this plant of a story is surely not about Mr.Walker repositioning himself for middle-voters planning to abandon the Liberals in any pending election, following the break up of the Coalition? Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 8 Aug 12

worcswolf says...

Given his track record campaigned for a fair fuel duty nothing happened, I imagine the church of England is glad he's supporting the motion.
Civil ceremonies I totally support but you should not force beliefs and ways on institutions so totally against it. Maybe Elton John should set up his own church and then everyone's a winner.
Given his track record campaigned for a fair fuel duty nothing happened, I imagine the church of England is glad he's supporting the motion. Civil ceremonies I totally support but you should not force beliefs and ways on institutions so totally against it. Maybe Elton John should set up his own church and then everyone's a winner. worcswolf
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 8 Aug 12

DarrenM says...

Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships?
Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that.
Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships? Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that. DarrenM
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Wed 8 Aug 12

one94 says...

I don't believe the government should be able to dictate religious policies and labelling religious groups who support this view as "..hostile churches.." is out of order. Maybe they are out of step with current thinking, maybe not, but they shouldn't be forced by law to compromise on matters of faith
I don't believe the government should be able to dictate religious policies and labelling religious groups who support this view as "..hostile churches.." is out of order. Maybe they are out of step with current thinking, maybe not, but they shouldn't be forced by law to compromise on matters of faith one94
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Reluctant Voice says...

It is interesting to note that all of the main world religions recognise that marriage between man and woman is of significant importance and at the heart of society. In the western world, the Christian denominations believe that marriage is a gift created by God to bring man and woman together. It is a sacrament, ie there is the presence of God. When you understand that you can start understanding why this is a fundamentally important issue.

There is in the secular world a mechanism for marriage and in recent times homosexual couples have sought to achieve equity with married couples in respect of their civil rights in such areas as inheritance rights and settlements at separation. This has been achieved.
Consequently there is no inherent benefit from creating a homosexual "marriage".

However there are practical issues to consider. For example, this issue has happened in Spain and on birth certificates there is the requirement to enter details of co-genitor 1 & co-genitor 2, because of course you cannot assume that parents are father and mother...

This change will require there to be changes to education and schools will be required to teach the established position on marriage. Whilst government has said that churches will not be required to marry homosexual couples it has not said that they will not be prosecuted if their schools fail to teach the new legislative position.

Of course it is inevitable that the churches will be challenged and inevitably EU law will lead to them being threatened in the future. I can foresee a generation of clerics being charged for following their faith.

And finally, let's not forget that marriage is not seen as legal unless it is between man and woman (with various caveats) and it is consumated. Forgive me, but it is relatively straightforward to determine the act of consumation in a heterosexual relationship, but what about a female homosexual relationship. What would happen if a female "married" couple were to split, one being a high earner, the other looked after the home and the former claimed that the marriage was null and void because it was not consumated. I would hate to be the judge who had to determine that one.
It is interesting to note that all of the main world religions recognise that marriage between man and woman is of significant importance and at the heart of society. In the western world, the Christian denominations believe that marriage is a gift created by God to bring man and woman together. It is a sacrament, ie there is the presence of God. When you understand that you can start understanding why this is a fundamentally important issue. There is in the secular world a mechanism for marriage and in recent times homosexual couples have sought to achieve equity with married couples in respect of their civil rights in such areas as inheritance rights and settlements at separation. This has been achieved. Consequently there is no inherent benefit from creating a homosexual "marriage". However there are practical issues to consider. For example, this issue has happened in Spain and on birth certificates there is the requirement to enter details of co-genitor 1 & co-genitor 2, because of course you cannot assume that parents are father and mother... This change will require there to be changes to education and schools will be required to teach the established position on marriage. Whilst government has said that churches will not be required to marry homosexual couples it has not said that they will not be prosecuted if their schools fail to teach the new legislative position. Of course it is inevitable that the churches will be challenged and inevitably EU law will lead to them being threatened in the future. I can foresee a generation of clerics being charged for following their faith. And finally, let's not forget that marriage is not seen as legal unless it is between man and woman (with various caveats) and it is consumated. Forgive me, but it is relatively straightforward to determine the act of consumation in a heterosexual relationship, but what about a female homosexual relationship. What would happen if a female "married" couple were to split, one being a high earner, the other looked after the home and the former claimed that the marriage was null and void because it was not consumated. I would hate to be the judge who had to determine that one. Reluctant Voice
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Wed 8 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

It looks like I'm one of the few who wrote to Walker asking for his support, and I very much pleased with the response he sent.

I'm in the throes of organising my own wedding (civil partnership) to my girlfriend and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to marry her. Is the love I hold for her less equal? Would our marriage lessen your own? What exactly are those of you against this so scared of? I and those who want this aren't asking for religious marriage, but for civil marriage which has no baring on your religion.

Marriage was not created by the church and has taken many forms throughout the years. It should have no ownership over the word.

And as for kids learning about homosexual couples, it is just another possible combination of a family unit. Some families have one mum or one dad or have neither, but grandparents taking on the responsibility instead. Why should my family, my partner, future children and I be ignored?

The world is changing and it's time to open your eyes!
It looks like I'm one of the few who wrote to Walker asking for his support, and I very much pleased with the response he sent. I'm in the throes of organising my own wedding (civil partnership) to my girlfriend and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to marry her. Is the love I hold for her less equal? Would our marriage lessen your own? What exactly are those of you against this so scared of? I and those who want this aren't asking for religious marriage, but for civil marriage which has no baring on your religion. Marriage was not created by the church and has taken many forms throughout the years. It should have no ownership over the word. And as for kids learning about homosexual couples, it is just another possible combination of a family unit. Some families have one mum or one dad or have neither, but grandparents taking on the responsibility instead. Why should my family, my partner, future children and I be ignored? The world is changing and it's time to open your eyes! WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Wed 8 Aug 12

JTC says...

I just want to point out that the headline is incorrect at the time of issue 41% did support gay marriage and it looks though after much debate on here that it is now 49%.

Lets analyse some of the reasons against:

Straight marriage will be undermined by gay marriage unlike Britney Spears drive through 24 hour marriag.

The purpose of marriage is to procreate so should infertile couples and elderly couples be prevented from marrying?

The spanish birth certificate argument is void as it relates to gay parents (remember it takes two starights to make a gay) and not marriage many gay couples will marriage but will not have kids.

No religious official will be forced to marry gays.

Faith is an interesting concept and frankly everone chooses to interpret their own faith and anyone believing that everyone feels the same is foolish. The man you know from church could be gay or believe gays are entitled to marry; you share the same faith and interpret it differently.
I just want to point out that the headline is incorrect at the time of issue 41% did support gay marriage and it looks though after much debate on here that it is now 49%. Lets analyse some of the reasons against: Straight marriage will be undermined by gay marriage unlike Britney Spears drive through 24 hour marriag. The purpose of marriage is to procreate so should infertile couples and elderly couples be prevented from marrying? The spanish birth certificate argument is void as it relates to gay parents (remember it takes two starights to make a gay) and not marriage many gay couples will marriage but will not have kids. No religious official will be forced to marry gays. Faith is an interesting concept and frankly everone chooses to interpret their own faith and anyone believing that everyone feels the same is foolish. The man you know from church could be gay or believe gays are entitled to marry; you share the same faith and interpret it differently. JTC
  • Score: 0

12:30am Thu 9 Aug 12

mijas4@live.com says...

Who cares,it is a completely irrelevant issue. It is just another attempt for gay people to say they are normal (I know this will be an inflammatory word) which they obviously are not . If being gay was normal then we would soon be extinct. Live your lives however you want but dont keep trying to convince everyone that your way of life is normal. I am fed up with this PC bs and even more dismayed at the state of the Conservative party if it feels it has to pander to these type of issues. (And before I am attacked I should say I am far from being anti gay but fed up with these type of irrelevant debates)
Who cares,it is a completely irrelevant issue. It is just another attempt for gay people to say they are normal (I know this will be an inflammatory word) which they obviously are not . If being gay was normal then we would soon be extinct. Live your lives however you want but dont keep trying to convince everyone that your way of life is normal. I am fed up with this PC bs and even more dismayed at the state of the Conservative party if it feels it has to pander to these type of issues. (And before I am attacked I should say I am far from being anti gay but fed up with these type of irrelevant debates) mijas4@live.com
  • Score: 0

7:11am Thu 9 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

Wow... I'm not normal?

I'm not entirely sure how you think my way of life is all that different? Apart from my partner being female, we are like any other typical couple.

And as for the human race becoming extinct... Well I fully intend on popping out a couple of children once we are married or possibly even adopting as well.

Normal is what you make it, like I said before the world is changing and for the better. Embrace it before it leaves you behind.
Wow... I'm not normal? I'm not entirely sure how you think my way of life is all that different? Apart from my partner being female, we are like any other typical couple. And as for the human race becoming extinct... Well I fully intend on popping out a couple of children once we are married or possibly even adopting as well. Normal is what you make it, like I said before the world is changing and for the better. Embrace it before it leaves you behind. WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

9:05am Thu 9 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

I still haven't heard one argument against gay marriage. Apart from the whole forcing religions to carry out the ceremonies, which noone is asking for!

WhatGracieDid, ignore him, he's a total fool - look at what he wrote about muslims on the other thread, it appears he hates anyone that isn't exactly like him.
I still haven't heard one argument against gay marriage. Apart from the whole forcing religions to carry out the ceremonies, which noone is asking for! WhatGracieDid, ignore him, he's a total fool - look at what he wrote about muslims on the other thread, it appears he hates anyone that isn't exactly like him. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

9:40am Thu 9 Aug 12

mijas4@live.com says...

For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone.

Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are.

I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring.

Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK.

WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit.

But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ?

I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife.
For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone. Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are. I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring. Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK. WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit. But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ? I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife. mijas4@live.com
  • Score: 0

9:48am Thu 9 Aug 12

Robot 3021 says...

WhatGracieDid wrote:
It looks like I'm one of the few who wrote to Walker asking for his support, and I very much pleased with the response he sent. I'm in the throes of organising my own wedding (civil partnership) to my girlfriend and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to marry her. Is the love I hold for her less equal? Would our marriage lessen your own? What exactly are those of you against this so scared of? I and those who want this aren't asking for religious marriage, but for civil marriage which has no baring on your religion. Marriage was not created by the church and has taken many forms throughout the years. It should have no ownership over the word. And as for kids learning about homosexual couples, it is just another possible combination of a family unit. Some families have one mum or one dad or have neither, but grandparents taking on the responsibility instead. Why should my family, my partner, future children and I be ignored? The world is changing and it's time to open your eyes!
A fantastic response, and one that should end all arguments about this.

Marriage should be simply about the love and bond between two people - trying to attach anything else to it is just bluster and obfuscation.

Bravo to you, I wish you every happiness in the future. I've just passed eight years of marriage and although it's just a bit of paper and two rings when you look at it, that outward sign of your bond gives you such strength together in so many little ways, and I would hope that anyone who wants to feel that would be able to.
[quote][p][bold]WhatGracieDid[/bold] wrote: It looks like I'm one of the few who wrote to Walker asking for his support, and I very much pleased with the response he sent. I'm in the throes of organising my own wedding (civil partnership) to my girlfriend and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to marry her. Is the love I hold for her less equal? Would our marriage lessen your own? What exactly are those of you against this so scared of? I and those who want this aren't asking for religious marriage, but for civil marriage which has no baring on your religion. Marriage was not created by the church and has taken many forms throughout the years. It should have no ownership over the word. And as for kids learning about homosexual couples, it is just another possible combination of a family unit. Some families have one mum or one dad or have neither, but grandparents taking on the responsibility instead. Why should my family, my partner, future children and I be ignored? The world is changing and it's time to open your eyes![/p][/quote]A fantastic response, and one that should end all arguments about this. Marriage should be simply about the love and bond between two people - trying to attach anything else to it is just bluster and obfuscation. Bravo to you, I wish you every happiness in the future. I've just passed eight years of marriage and although it's just a bit of paper and two rings when you look at it, that outward sign of your bond gives you such strength together in so many little ways, and I would hope that anyone who wants to feel that would be able to. Robot 3021
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 9 Aug 12

Robot 3021 says...

What nature intended? Good grief! Surely the "by default" position you decry IS what nature intended, since it's here, and nature produced it?

What nonsense. Very few other animals have family units, are they against "what nature intended" too?

And trying to use murder as an appropriate analogy to being gay? Nice. And a straw man that can be seen from space.

Embarrassing really.
What nature intended? Good grief! Surely the "by default" position you decry IS what nature intended, since it's here, and nature produced it? What nonsense. Very few other animals have family units, are they against "what nature intended" too? And trying to use murder as an appropriate analogy to being gay? Nice. And a straw man that can be seen from space. Embarrassing really. Robot 3021
  • Score: 0

10:07am Thu 9 Aug 12

Ted Elgar says...

@Reluctantvoice: "Of course it is inevitable that the churches will be challenged and inevitably EU law will lead to them being threatened in the future."

It isn't inevitable - this point has been fairly well discussed by legal experts who say that the rights of the minister to NOT carry out the minister outweigh the rights of the individual to be married by them. Therefore there will be churches who will perform gay ceremonies, registry offices that will always perform them, and some churches which won't. (See Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights)

Interesting to note that, as it stands, Article 12 of the same Convention (the right to marry and establish a family) only applies to straight people.. which is discriminatory.
@Reluctantvoice: "Of course it is inevitable that the churches will be challenged and inevitably EU law will lead to them being threatened in the future." It isn't inevitable - this point has been fairly well discussed by legal experts who say that the rights of the minister to NOT carry out the minister outweigh the rights of the individual to be married by them. Therefore there will be churches who will perform gay ceremonies, registry offices that will always perform them, and some churches which won't. (See Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights) Interesting to note that, as it stands, Article 12 of the same Convention (the right to marry and establish a family) only applies to straight people.. which is discriminatory. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

10:07am Thu 9 Aug 12

JTC says...

Excuse my terrible spelling in the post above; I had been having normal beer in a normal pub with my normal friends talking about normal rugby. I got in a normal taxi and went to my normal house.

Then I went back to my unnatural partner and unnatural relationship.

All this taken on board and not wishing to resort to 'naive PC comments' on such 'fringe issues', there is one thing that really matters;

I have so many genuine friends, not facebook or twitter friends, but real friends in the real world, friends who I have been friends with for between 14 & 30 years. Only two couples are gay couples, all of them accept my partner and I for who we are and we all enrich each others lives. This group of friends includes, rugby players, bikers, a millionaire (not me), business people, property developers, teachers, and a couple of soldiers.

I am in a loving relationship and we will get married our friends and family all want this and cannot wait to the big day.

Having this amount of love and genuine friendship in my life makes me very happy indeed and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Excuse my terrible spelling in the post above; I had been having normal beer in a normal pub with my normal friends talking about normal rugby. I got in a normal taxi and went to my normal house. Then I went back to my unnatural partner and unnatural relationship. All this taken on board and not wishing to resort to 'naive PC comments' on such 'fringe issues', there is one thing that really matters; I have so many genuine friends, not facebook or twitter friends, but real friends in the real world, friends who I have been friends with for between 14 & 30 years. Only two couples are gay couples, all of them accept my partner and I for who we are and we all enrich each others lives. This group of friends includes, rugby players, bikers, a millionaire (not me), business people, property developers, teachers, and a couple of soldiers. I am in a loving relationship and we will get married our friends and family all want this and cannot wait to the big day. Having this amount of love and genuine friendship in my life makes me very happy indeed and I wouldn't have it any other way. JTC
  • Score: 0

10:17am Thu 9 Aug 12

Ted Elgar says...

Too many ministers in my post above.. obviously should read "the rights of the minister not to carry out the service".

And, @people of Worcester, listen to JTC above; you need to try to get out of this reactionary little cul-de-sac you've been stuck in for the last 400 years; it's time to move on.
Too many ministers in my post above.. obviously should read "the rights of the minister not to carry out the service". And, @people of Worcester, listen to JTC above; you need to try to get out of this reactionary little cul-de-sac you've been stuck in for the last 400 years; it's time to move on. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

10:21am Thu 9 Aug 12

wumpus says...

mijas4@live.com wrote:
For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone.

Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are.

I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring.

Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK.

WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit.

But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ?

I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife.
I think it does great harm to teach kids that the only valid family is one with a husband and wife in their home. There are many, many kids with different families: single parents, divorced parents, grandparents looking after them and yes, gay parents.

How does it feel to be one of those kids, having the school or other authorities educating them, saying that their family is abhorrent, wrong or not "normal". Are these really the values we want for our kids? ...or are those kids second class citizens too, as well as their gay parents?
[quote][p][bold]mijas4@live.com[/bold] wrote: For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone. Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are. I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring. Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK. WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit. But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ? I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife.[/p][/quote]I think it does great harm to teach kids that the only valid family is one with a husband and wife in their home. There are many, many kids with different families: single parents, divorced parents, grandparents looking after them and yes, gay parents. How does it feel to be one of those kids, having the school or other authorities educating them, saying that their family is abhorrent, wrong or not "normal". Are these really the values we want for our kids? ...or are those kids second class citizens too, as well as their gay parents? wumpus
  • Score: 0

10:25am Thu 9 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Well said JTC.

I don't think anything more needs to be said.
Well said JTC. I don't think anything more needs to be said. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 9 Aug 12

Marant says...

Honest question here, because I don't understand: can anyone explain the practical difference between a marriage and a civil partnership to me?

Is this debate about terminology or is there something more that a marriage would provide over and above a civil partnership?

I recently got married (male/female in case that's relevant) in a civil ceremony. I consider this to be a marriage and refer to my partner as my wife. If someone turned round and said that what we had was actually a civil partnership, I don't believe it would change anything as it's just a title, and I would still behave in the same way, referring to us as 'married'.

I don't beleive that any of the religions should be forced to marry any couples of any mixture if it is against their creed (I'm not religious btw), but then I feel that if gay couples are willing to make the same commitments to each other and get married, then they ought to have the same rights (and duties, and responsibilities, and 'oh frick, that divorce was expensive'-s).

So please, someone in the know, can you enlighten me - are there any benefits you get with a marriage that you don't with a civil partnership? Is all this wrangling over the ownership of a word, or is there something more to it?
Honest question here, because I don't understand: can anyone explain the practical difference between a marriage and a civil partnership to me? Is this debate about terminology or is there something more that a marriage would provide over and above a civil partnership? I recently got married (male/female in case that's relevant) in a civil ceremony. I consider this to be a marriage and refer to my partner as my wife. If someone turned round and said that what we had was actually a civil partnership, I don't believe it would change anything as it's just a title, and I would still behave in the same way, referring to us as 'married'. I don't beleive that any of the religions should be forced to marry any couples of any mixture if it is against their creed (I'm not religious btw), but then I feel that if gay couples are willing to make the same commitments to each other and get married, then they ought to have the same rights (and duties, and responsibilities, and 'oh frick, that divorce was expensive'-s). So please, someone in the know, can you enlighten me - are there any benefits you get with a marriage that you don't with a civil partnership? Is all this wrangling over the ownership of a word, or is there something more to it? Marant
  • Score: 0

10:40am Thu 9 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

wumpus wrote:
mijas4@live.com wrote: For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone. Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are. I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring. Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK. WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit. But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ? I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife.
I think it does great harm to teach kids that the only valid family is one with a husband and wife in their home. There are many, many kids with different families: single parents, divorced parents, grandparents looking after them and yes, gay parents. How does it feel to be one of those kids, having the school or other authorities educating them, saying that their family is abhorrent, wrong or not "normal". Are these really the values we want for our kids? ...or are those kids second class citizens too, as well as their gay parents?
Well said Wumpus!

Funnily enough I went with my partner the other day to a Fostering Information Evening and when the kids that were there were asked about the top 3 things that they felt they needed in a family and a foster carer they responded with support, good food and care. Not one was bothered about being in an "unnatural", or "abhorrent" household.

In fact studies have been undertaken on children which have grown up in gay households, and have found them to be completely well-adjusted, and in some cases more so than those which were brought up in a "normal" household.

It all boils down to what are the common things that a family needs? What makes a good family unit?
[quote][p][bold]wumpus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mijas4@live.com[/bold] wrote: For the record I dont think I have said that I hate anyone. Only reflecting the views of a lot of people and proving that if you dont have a view that is PC you get comments like this that simply show how naive and blinkered the champions of these fringe issues are. I really wouldn't want a world that is full of people exactly like me, it would be boring. Normal can't be "what you make of it" unless you have a sample of one. Thats like saying I am a murderer but its not a problem because in my little world where I define the rules its OK. WhatGracieDid - good luck, I hope you are successful and you can live your life as you see fit. But should we consider the impacts ofcheating what nature intended. By default we have family units that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but has it lead to a better society ? I am not so sure and whilst it might offend gays or single mothers (or fathers) I think we have a duty to educate kids on what nature intended which is that family units consist of a husband and wife.[/p][/quote]I think it does great harm to teach kids that the only valid family is one with a husband and wife in their home. There are many, many kids with different families: single parents, divorced parents, grandparents looking after them and yes, gay parents. How does it feel to be one of those kids, having the school or other authorities educating them, saying that their family is abhorrent, wrong or not "normal". Are these really the values we want for our kids? ...or are those kids second class citizens too, as well as their gay parents?[/p][/quote]Well said Wumpus! Funnily enough I went with my partner the other day to a Fostering Information Evening and when the kids that were there were asked about the top 3 things that they felt they needed in a family and a foster carer they responded with support, good food and care. Not one was bothered about being in an "unnatural", or "abhorrent" household. In fact studies have been undertaken on children which have grown up in gay households, and have found them to be completely well-adjusted, and in some cases more so than those which were brought up in a "normal" household. It all boils down to what are the common things that a family needs? What makes a good family unit? WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

10:48am Thu 9 Aug 12

mijas4@live.com says...

Wumpus - Perhaps schools shouldn't even get into these areas of discussion then there wouldn't be a problem.

You can't build a system that tries to accommodate the needs of every minority and I am sorry but some people on the fringes should accept this and stop claiming they are hard done by.

JTC good on you you have been able to integrate into the normal world instead of expecting it to change for you. I also have family and friends who are gay and in happy relationships and I accept them as individuals and their sexuality doesn't worry me at all. But it doesn't mean I have to think that as a society we should simply throw away the idea of a normal life and we shouldn't be concerned about being called abnormal or different.
Wumpus - Perhaps schools shouldn't even get into these areas of discussion then there wouldn't be a problem. You can't build a system that tries to accommodate the needs of every minority and I am sorry but some people on the fringes should accept this and stop claiming they are hard done by. JTC good on you you have been able to integrate into the normal world instead of expecting it to change for you. I also have family and friends who are gay and in happy relationships and I accept them as individuals and their sexuality doesn't worry me at all. But it doesn't mean I have to think that as a society we should simply throw away the idea of a normal life and we shouldn't be concerned about being called abnormal or different. mijas4@live.com
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Thu 9 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Marant, your civil ceremony was marriage. You are married. A gay person can have a civil partnership, they can't get married. That's the issue here.
Marant, your civil ceremony was marriage. You are married. A gay person can have a civil partnership, they can't get married. That's the issue here. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 9 Aug 12

wumpus says...

@mijas4 I don't understand your point about educating kids... I'm going to assume you will teach your kids at home that gay people are second class citizens and not normal?

I prefer to tell my kids to respect all people equally and there are no relationships better than others, but we're all different.

On Civil partnerships, I'm all for straight couples viewing this the same in lieu of civil weddings. All we need to do is tell all those straight couples not married in church that they are no longer married and are instead in a civil partnership... but they might not like it! I think they may view it as a second class marriage?
@mijas4 I don't understand your point about educating kids... I'm going to assume you will teach your kids at home that gay people are second class citizens and not normal? I prefer to tell my kids to respect all people equally and there are no relationships better than others, but we're all different. On Civil partnerships, I'm all for straight couples viewing this the same in lieu of civil weddings. All we need to do is tell all those straight couples not married in church that they are no longer married and are instead in a civil partnership... but they might not like it! I think they may view it as a second class marriage? wumpus
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Marant says...

ushmush83 wrote:
Marant, your civil ceremony was marriage. You are married. A gay person can have a civil partnership, they can't get married. That's the issue here.
So is it just the term 'marriage'? Is there any practical difference between the two? Does being in a civil partnership mean you have less access to your partner's estate or pension when they die, for example?

I really would like to understand whether there are any practical differences between a civil partnership and a marriage/civil ceremony.

If there are none, and it's just semantics over the name, I don't think that would bother me, even if, as wumpus said, someone turned round and said that all civil ceremonies are now civil partnerships. To me, the only thing that matters is how I feel about my wife - someone else can put whatever title they like on it, but to me she'll always be my wife (and I'd still call myself married).

Though, as I say, that's my view point and I can understand how someone could feel differently. How someone might feel aggrieved that giving all the same rights etc. through civil partnership but insisting that a distinction remains drawn between that and 'marriage' (and the bun-fight between those who claim that word) sullies the deal somewhat. A bit like saying "alright, you can get on the bus, we go to all the same stops, but you can only sit on the left hand side to show that you're different". Actually - that might not be a bad analogy, because it would only be whilst you were doing something official (or 'on the bus') that anyone would notice anything different. When 'walking down the street' doing day to day no-one could tell anything - like no one would be able to tell if I got married in a church or by a registrar without seeing the certificate.

If someone's in that last position, (that there is no practical difference between civil partnership and marriage bar that distinction in the names), and feels aggrieved by that, and wants to campaign to have it changed, then I say all power to their elbow. I have no strong feelings either way, and I can also see why people of a religious persuasion would want to keep the status quo. However, I do agree strongly with the right of all people to campaign for what they believe in.

But seriously - I do want to know - is there any practical difference between civil partnership and marriage?
[quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: Marant, your civil ceremony was marriage. You are married. A gay person can have a civil partnership, they can't get married. That's the issue here.[/p][/quote]So is it just the term 'marriage'? Is there any practical difference between the two? Does being in a civil partnership mean you have less access to your partner's estate or pension when they die, for example? I really would like to understand whether there are any practical differences between a civil partnership and a marriage/civil ceremony. If there are none, and it's just semantics over the name, I don't think that would bother me, even if, as wumpus said, someone turned round and said that all civil ceremonies are now civil partnerships. To me, the only thing that matters is how I feel about my wife - someone else can put whatever title they like on it, but to me she'll always be my wife (and I'd still call myself married). Though, as I say, that's my view point and I can understand how someone could feel differently. How someone might feel aggrieved that giving all the same rights etc. through civil partnership but insisting that a distinction remains drawn between that and 'marriage' (and the bun-fight between those who claim that word) sullies the deal somewhat. A bit like saying "alright, you can get on the bus, we go to all the same stops, but you can only sit on the left hand side to show that you're different". Actually - that might not be a bad analogy, because it would only be whilst you were doing something official (or 'on the bus') that anyone would notice anything different. When 'walking down the street' doing day to day no-one could tell anything - like no one would be able to tell if I got married in a church or by a registrar without seeing the certificate. If someone's in that last position, (that there is no practical difference between civil partnership and marriage bar that distinction in the names), and feels aggrieved by that, and wants to campaign to have it changed, then I say all power to their elbow. I have no strong feelings either way, and I can also see why people of a religious persuasion would want to keep the status quo. However, I do agree strongly with the right of all people to campaign for what they believe in. But seriously - I do want to know - is there any practical difference between civil partnership and marriage? Marant
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

DarrenM wrote:
Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships?
Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that.
Forcing the last bastion of open prejudiced to treat people with compassion and equality eh.

I'd be up for a bit of that.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships? Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that.[/p][/quote]Forcing the last bastion of open prejudiced to treat people with compassion and equality eh. I'd be up for a bit of that. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Thu 9 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.
Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

DarrenM wrote:
Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships?
Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that.
Forcing the last bastion of open prejudiced to treat people with compassion and equality eh.

I'd be up for a bit of that.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Didn't we already do this by creating civil partnerships? Whats new here unless as he says its an attempt to force churches who don't agree with gay marriage to marry people in which case I would be against that.[/p][/quote]Forcing the last bastion of open prejudiced to treat people with compassion and equality eh. I'd be up for a bit of that. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Marant says...

ushmush83 wrote:
Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.
Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'.

Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from.
[quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.[/p][/quote]Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'. Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from. Marant
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Thu 9 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

Marant wrote:
ushmush83 wrote: Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.
Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'. Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from.
This is the thing Marant, no one is asking or attempting to force any religious organisations to do anything. All that is being asked for is the right to civil marriage, and for religious organisations that wish to perform same-sex marriages to be allowed to.

In fact the Scottish Parliment are now working to amend the Equalities Act to further protect the right of the individual to chose to not perform the ceremony if they wish not to.
[quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.[/p][/quote]Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'. Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from.[/p][/quote]This is the thing Marant, no one is asking or attempting to force any religious organisations to do anything. All that is being asked for is the right to civil marriage, and for religious organisations that wish to perform same-sex marriages to be allowed to. In fact the Scottish Parliment are now working to amend the Equalities Act to further protect the right of the individual to chose to not perform the ceremony if they wish not to. WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

Marant wrote:
ushmush83 wrote:
Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.
Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'.

Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from.
Why is it wrong to force churches to be nice to everyone? Surely bigotry in any institution should be sorted out. If they won't do it then why not us?
[quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: Marant, as i understand it there is very little difference legally to be honest. But the biggest difference is that there is a difference. As a straight person you cannot get a civil partnership, and as a gay person you cannot get married. I understand your point, and it is certainly a very valid point. However, why should we differentiate between the two and why would you deny someone their wish of being married? There is no reason not to put everyone on an even keel. Let marriage be marriage as it were.[/p][/quote]Ushmush, if as you say there is very little or no difference between the two, then my view would come down on calling it all marriage and not making a distinction, and personally I would still refer to my other half as wife/husband (delete as appropriate) rather than my 'civil partner'. Although as I say above, I can understand that other people, particularly those with religious views would hold an opposing view and have a desire to keep them seperate. It just seems rather petty to me to keep a distinction (but then I'm not religious). However, I would also be opposed to forcing churches etc. that don't agree (some I'm sure wouldn't have a problem) into performing gay marriages. Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be married by an organisation that disapproves of them anyway, other than sheer bloody-mindedness in forcing someone else to accept one's own point of view - which I believe is bad whichever side it's originating from.[/p][/quote]Why is it wrong to force churches to be nice to everyone? Surely bigotry in any institution should be sorted out. If they won't do it then why not us? Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Marant says...

Bodger

To my mind this boils down to two parties each saying that their point of view is the way they believe everyone should live. Provided that there is a route to a gay marriage that is every bit as valid and with all the same rights etc. as straight marriage, I do not believe that it is any more right to force those who don't agree with it for religious reasons to conduct gay marriage than it is for those with religious beliefs to prevent or attempt to prevent gay people from getting married. They're both attempts to force one's view point onto someone else.

It might feel distasteful or offensive that there are people who don't approve of one's particular lifestyle (particularly if they espouse the fact that they believe you will be horrendously punished for it as may be the case with those holding religious views), but you can't force them to change that view point. You can educate, cajole and reason to try to change their mind, but force won't work.
Bodger To my mind this boils down to two parties each saying that their point of view is the way they believe everyone should live. Provided that there is a route to a gay marriage that is every bit as valid and with all the same rights etc. as straight marriage, I do not believe that it is any more right to force those who don't agree with it for religious reasons to conduct gay marriage than it is for those with religious beliefs to prevent or attempt to prevent gay people from getting married. They're both attempts to force one's view point onto someone else. It might feel distasteful or offensive that there are people who don't approve of one's particular lifestyle (particularly if they espouse the fact that they believe you will be horrendously punished for it as may be the case with those holding religious views), but you can't force them to change that view point. You can educate, cajole and reason to try to change their mind, but force won't work. Marant
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Bob Norfolk says...

Marant wrote:
Bodger

To my mind this boils down to two parties each saying that their point of view is the way they believe everyone should live. Provided that there is a route to a gay marriage that is every bit as valid and with all the same rights etc. as straight marriage, I do not believe that it is any more right to force those who don't agree with it for religious reasons to conduct gay marriage than it is for those with religious beliefs to prevent or attempt to prevent gay people from getting married. They're both attempts to force one's view point onto someone else.

It might feel distasteful or offensive that there are people who don't approve of one's particular lifestyle (particularly if they espouse the fact that they believe you will be horrendously punished for it as may be the case with those holding religious views), but you can't force them to change that view point. You can educate, cajole and reason to try to change their mind, but force won't work.
A good point eloquently made.
[quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: Bodger To my mind this boils down to two parties each saying that their point of view is the way they believe everyone should live. Provided that there is a route to a gay marriage that is every bit as valid and with all the same rights etc. as straight marriage, I do not believe that it is any more right to force those who don't agree with it for religious reasons to conduct gay marriage than it is for those with religious beliefs to prevent or attempt to prevent gay people from getting married. They're both attempts to force one's view point onto someone else. It might feel distasteful or offensive that there are people who don't approve of one's particular lifestyle (particularly if they espouse the fact that they believe you will be horrendously punished for it as may be the case with those holding religious views), but you can't force them to change that view point. You can educate, cajole and reason to try to change their mind, but force won't work.[/p][/quote]A good point eloquently made. Bob Norfolk
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

Hi Marant,
sorry but your wrong.

In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country.

In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops.

37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions.

Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on.

God says you can do all these.

There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations.

Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.
Hi Marant, sorry but your wrong. In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country. In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops. 37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions. Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on. God says you can do all these. There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations. Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Thu 9 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

It's true Big Bodger that the bible says all these things, and as much as I personally would love to marry in a Church, I know where I'm not wanted. I'd rather not spend the day or the money in a place where they teach just how "unnatural" and "wrong" my partners and I's relationship is.
It's true Big Bodger that the bible says all these things, and as much as I personally would love to marry in a Church, I know where I'm not wanted. I'd rather not spend the day or the money in a place where they teach just how "unnatural" and "wrong" my partners and I's relationship is. WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

WhatGracieDid wrote:
It's true Big Bodger that the bible says all these things, and as much as I personally would love to marry in a Church, I know where I'm not wanted. I'd rather not spend the day or the money in a place where they teach just how "unnatural" and "wrong" my partners and I's relationship is.
Hi WhatGracieDid,

You should be allowed to marry where ever you want.

Personally i'd like to do it butt naked with flowers in my hair while dancing around some standing stones. May have to lose a few pounds first and getting the guests to join in could be a bit of a challenge.

Because we allow bigoted religious ideas to continue, many people decide not to marry in church.

Its just plain wrong.

Best of luck where ever you marry.
[quote][p][bold]WhatGracieDid[/bold] wrote: It's true Big Bodger that the bible says all these things, and as much as I personally would love to marry in a Church, I know where I'm not wanted. I'd rather not spend the day or the money in a place where they teach just how "unnatural" and "wrong" my partners and I's relationship is.[/p][/quote]Hi WhatGracieDid, You should be allowed to marry where ever you want. Personally i'd like to do it butt naked with flowers in my hair while dancing around some standing stones. May have to lose a few pounds first and getting the guests to join in could be a bit of a challenge. Because we allow bigoted religious ideas to continue, many people decide not to marry in church. Its just plain wrong. Best of luck where ever you marry. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Marant says...

Big Bodger wrote:
Hi Marant, sorry but your wrong. In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country. In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops. 37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions. Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on. God says you can do all these. There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations. Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.
Hi Bodger - a semantic point, but I can't be wrong for having a belief, as in, I don't believe that is right for anyone to force their beliefs onto anyone else.

As I mentioned above, if you were to campaign to get the law changed and force religious groups to perform gay marriage, that's your choice and your right. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but if it happened then obviously I would expect people to abide by the law of the land.

However, I couldn't help but feel that if there was a secular way for an equal gay marriage to occur and people still campaigned and forced religious groups to conduct gay marriages against their will, that there would be an element of vindictivness in this as the real battle would have already been won (in the form of an equal status gay marriage). Challenging bigotry is good, and discrimination is a terrible thing, don't get me wrong, but is it not just as bigotted for anyone group to say to another that you are wrong, and you must live and do things in the way that I dictate?

Religions evolve - I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone but a few fundamentalists who believe it's ok to keep slaves and stone children - you've picked all very Old Testament quotes compared to the 'turn the other cheek' of the New Testament (love thy neighbour, treat them as you would like to be treated?). It's always easy to cherry pick statements from the bible to support any argument.
I'll think you'll find that the bible was written by people, and people always have agendas.

Ultimately, provided that there is an equal right to an an equal gay marriage, why would you care what another group of people think about that?
[quote][p][bold]Big Bodger[/bold] wrote: Hi Marant, sorry but your wrong. In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country. In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops. 37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions. Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on. God says you can do all these. There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations. Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.[/p][/quote]Hi Bodger - a semantic point, but I can't be wrong for having a belief, as in, I don't believe that is right for anyone to force their beliefs onto anyone else. As I mentioned above, if you were to campaign to get the law changed and force religious groups to perform gay marriage, that's your choice and your right. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but if it happened then obviously I would expect people to abide by the law of the land. However, I couldn't help but feel that if there was a secular way for an equal gay marriage to occur and people still campaigned and forced religious groups to conduct gay marriages against their will, that there would be an element of vindictivness in this as the real battle would have already been won (in the form of an equal status gay marriage). Challenging bigotry is good, and discrimination is a terrible thing, don't get me wrong, but is it not just as bigotted for anyone group to say to another that you are wrong, and you must live and do things in the way that I dictate? Religions evolve - I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone but a few fundamentalists who believe it's ok to keep slaves and stone children - you've picked all very Old Testament quotes compared to the 'turn the other cheek' of the New Testament (love thy neighbour, treat them as you would like to be treated?). It's always easy to cherry pick statements from the bible to support any argument. I'll think you'll find that the bible was written by people, and people always have agendas. Ultimately, provided that there is an equal right to an an equal gay marriage, why would you care what another group of people think about that? Marant
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Thu 9 Aug 12

DarrenM says...

Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know
Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know DarrenM
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

Hi Marant,

Sorry about the semantic's.

I know what your saying about secular discussions, It is the way forward.

The problem is that religious groups don't really have secular discussions. They keep dragging up the rules and regulations from the Old Testament on how we should perceive gay people. (I think Paul in the New Testament has something to say about it as well). No disrespect but I hear all the time by religious people"Oh that's just the Old Testament, we go by the New". They forget that the Ten Commandments, Original Sin and indirectly, the reason why some don't want gay people to marry in church are all in the Old Testament.

A religious organization has the choice to marry people or not. I think if they choose to marry then they should have to do it equally.
Hi Marant, Sorry about the semantic's. I know what your saying about secular discussions, It is the way forward. The problem is that religious groups don't really have secular discussions. They keep dragging up the rules and regulations from the Old Testament on how we should perceive gay people. (I think Paul in the New Testament has something to say about it as well). No disrespect but I hear all the time by religious people"Oh that's just the Old Testament, we go by the New". They forget that the Ten Commandments, Original Sin and indirectly, the reason why some don't want gay people to marry in church are all in the Old Testament. A religious organization has the choice to marry people or not. I think if they choose to marry then they should have to do it equally. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

DarrenM wrote:
Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know
Hi DarrenM,

I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples.

Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know[/p][/quote]Hi DarrenM, I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples. Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Bob Norfolk says...

Big Bodger wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know
Hi DarrenM,

I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples.

Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though.
Legally? very little. There are some tax advantages to being married, transferring nil-band inheritance tax allowances and so-on, the UKBA also take marriage into account whilst considering visa applications.

Current legislation requires a trans person to divorce their spouse before their newly acquired gender can be recognised, whether the marriage is really over or not. We are, therefore, faced with the ridiculous scenario where a trans person is divorced in the morning and gains their eagerly anticipated Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and then joins in civil partnership with the person they've just divorced in the afternoon.

If people of faith find no problem with civil partnerships, why object to a civil marriage?
[quote][p][bold]Big Bodger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know[/p][/quote]Hi DarrenM, I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples. Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though.[/p][/quote]Legally? very little. There are some tax advantages to being married, transferring nil-band inheritance tax allowances and so-on, the UKBA also take marriage into account whilst considering visa applications. Current legislation requires a trans person to divorce their spouse before their newly acquired gender can be recognised, whether the marriage is really over or not. We are, therefore, faced with the ridiculous scenario where a trans person is divorced in the morning and gains their eagerly anticipated Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and then joins in civil partnership with the person they've just divorced in the afternoon. If people of faith find no problem with civil partnerships, why object to a civil marriage? Bob Norfolk
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Bob Norfolk says...

I meant to add that the proposed legislation would remove a burden from a couple who love each other during what must be a very stressful time for both people involved.
I meant to add that the proposed legislation would remove a burden from a couple who love each other during what must be a very stressful time for both people involved. Bob Norfolk
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Thu 9 Aug 12

Big Bodger says...

Bob Norfolk wrote:
Big Bodger wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know
Hi DarrenM,

I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples.

Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though.
Legally? very little. There are some tax advantages to being married, transferring nil-band inheritance tax allowances and so-on, the UKBA also take marriage into account whilst considering visa applications.

Current legislation requires a trans person to divorce their spouse before their newly acquired gender can be recognised, whether the marriage is really over or not. We are, therefore, faced with the ridiculous scenario where a trans person is divorced in the morning and gains their eagerly anticipated Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and then joins in civil partnership with the person they've just divorced in the afternoon.

If people of faith find no problem with civil partnerships, why object to a civil marriage?
Hi Bob,

Interesting, never realized that.

The Old Testament seems to confuse some peoples rationality.

I've met many people who say "Oh that's just Old Testament stuff" when I've asked them about religious laws, "We concentrate on the New Testament".

Oddly the same people often don't agree with same sex marriages.

You couldn't make it up.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Norfolk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bodger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Everyone still seems to be dancing around the maypole but as another com mentor and myself have asked - "What is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?" I can't form an opinion either way until I know[/p][/quote]Hi DarrenM, I'm not 100% sure but I think civil partnerships were created in 2004 so same sex couples could make the same commitments and have the same rights as married couples. Why a new category of marriage was created (because that's what it is) is more interesting though.[/p][/quote]Legally? very little. There are some tax advantages to being married, transferring nil-band inheritance tax allowances and so-on, the UKBA also take marriage into account whilst considering visa applications. Current legislation requires a trans person to divorce their spouse before their newly acquired gender can be recognised, whether the marriage is really over or not. We are, therefore, faced with the ridiculous scenario where a trans person is divorced in the morning and gains their eagerly anticipated Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and then joins in civil partnership with the person they've just divorced in the afternoon. If people of faith find no problem with civil partnerships, why object to a civil marriage?[/p][/quote]Hi Bob, Interesting, never realized that. The Old Testament seems to confuse some peoples rationality. I've met many people who say "Oh that's just Old Testament stuff" when I've asked them about religious laws, "We concentrate on the New Testament". Oddly the same people often don't agree with same sex marriages. You couldn't make it up. Big Bodger
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Thu 9 Aug 12

anarchist says...

I am not religious but I believe that those faith communities who don't wish to recognise same sex marriages are right to be worried that they will inevitably be forced to do so.

When civil partnerships were introduced there were copious assurances that their introduction would not impact in any way on traditional marriage. But, as we can now see, these assurances have proved to be completely worthless.

And, likewise, the equally copious assurances we now have that faith communities will not be forced to recognise same sex marriages will prove to be just as vacuous.

Once civil partnerships were established, it was inevitable that marriage would come under attack.

And once same sex marriage has been achieved, it is just as inevitable that religious marriage will become the next target.
I am not religious but I believe that those faith communities who don't wish to recognise same sex marriages are right to be worried that they will inevitably be forced to do so. When civil partnerships were introduced there were copious assurances that their introduction would not impact in any way on traditional marriage. But, as we can now see, these assurances have proved to be completely worthless. And, likewise, the equally copious assurances we now have that faith communities will not be forced to recognise same sex marriages will prove to be just as vacuous. Once civil partnerships were established, it was inevitable that marriage would come under attack. And once same sex marriage has been achieved, it is just as inevitable that religious marriage will become the next target. anarchist
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Thu 9 Aug 12

WhatGracieDid says...

Anarchist, if that is the case then why is the Scottish Parliment making amendments to the UK Equalities act to protect the right of the individual regarding the performing of same sex marriages. This amendment will ensure that no one is forced into doing anything that their beliefs are against.

And personally, I wouldn't want to be married by a person who didn't want to or have any respect for my relationship. I dont think anyone would!
Anarchist, if that is the case then why is the Scottish Parliment making amendments to the UK Equalities act to protect the right of the individual regarding the performing of same sex marriages. This amendment will ensure that no one is forced into doing anything that their beliefs are against. And personally, I wouldn't want to be married by a person who didn't want to or have any respect for my relationship. I dont think anyone would! WhatGracieDid
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Thu 9 Aug 12

anarchist says...

WhatGraceDid, laws are no more difficult to repeal than they are to make in the first place.

Politicians continuously make vacuous promises since they know very well that they won't be around when the promise needs to be honoured.

I accept that you would not want to be married by someone who does not respect your relationship.

But you only have to read through the comments here to realise that there are zealots on both sides of this debate.

And the zealots pursuing same sex marriage won't stop simply because the next small step has been achieved. They didn't stop after achieving civil partnerships so why would they stop after their next victory?

Nothing but total victory will satisfy them, irrespective of any impact this has on others.
WhatGraceDid, laws are no more difficult to repeal than they are to make in the first place. Politicians continuously make vacuous promises since they know very well that they won't be around when the promise needs to be honoured. I accept that you would not want to be married by someone who does not respect your relationship. But you only have to read through the comments here to realise that there are zealots on both sides of this debate. And the zealots pursuing same sex marriage won't stop simply because the next small step has been achieved. They didn't stop after achieving civil partnerships so why would they stop after their next victory? Nothing but total victory will satisfy them, irrespective of any impact this has on others. anarchist
  • Score: 0

8:14am Fri 10 Aug 12

ushmush83 says...

Big Bodger wrote:
Hi Marant,
sorry but your wrong.

In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country.

In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops.

37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions.

Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on.

God says you can do all these.

There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations.

Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.
Oh how educated you are. Could you please educate me as to where God says each of the things listed above are ok within the bible? Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bodger[/bold] wrote: Hi Marant, sorry but your wrong. In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country. In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops. 37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions. Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on. God says you can do all these. There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations. Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.[/p][/quote]Oh how educated you are. Could you please educate me as to where God says each of the things listed above are ok within the bible? Thanks. ushmush83
  • Score: 0

10:32am Fri 10 Aug 12

Ted Elgar says...

Those asking what's the difference see the following:

"In 2006, Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family division, told an academic lesbian couple that they faced an "insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law. He said marriage was regarded as an "age-old institution" that was "by longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children."
Guardian
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/world/2011/feb
/17/gay-marriage-civ
il-partnerships
Those asking what's the difference see the following: "In 2006, Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family division, told an academic lesbian couple that they faced an "insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law. He said marriage was regarded as an "age-old institution" that was "by longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children." Guardian http://www.guardian. co.uk/world/2011/feb /17/gay-marriage-civ il-partnerships Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

8:54am Sat 11 Aug 12

Piccolo says...

Everything else aside, & it's an enormous topic, a big issue here is concern that - whatever assurances the UK government might seek to give now - introduction of this change will inevitably - sooner or later - lead to churches being required to carry out single-sex marriages whether or not it's against their consciences. If this comes about, the government had better start putting money aside as they're going to need a lot more prisons.
Everything else aside, & it's an enormous topic, a big issue here is concern that - whatever assurances the UK government might seek to give now - introduction of this change will inevitably - sooner or later - lead to churches being required to carry out single-sex marriages whether or not it's against their consciences. If this comes about, the government had better start putting money aside as they're going to need a lot more prisons. Piccolo
  • Score: 0

9:08am Sat 11 Aug 12

Bob Norfolk says...

ushmush83 wrote:
Big Bodger wrote:
Hi Marant,
sorry but your wrong.

In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country.

In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops.

37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions.

Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on.

God says you can do all these.

There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations.

Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.
Oh how educated you are. Could you please educate me as to where God says each of the things listed above are ok within the bible? Thanks.
If you consider that the contents of the bible are divinely inspired, then the fac the St. Paul doesn't condemn slavery, rather encourages slaves to "know their place".

A surface reading of Timothy would give the impression that women are to be treated as second class citizens.

As has already been pointed out, St. Paul writes in Romans that the death of Christ freed Christians from the yokes of Mosaic law. As far as I can recall Jesus also stated that we should not judge, lest we be judged ourselves.

Christian reservations about sme-sex relationships can be quite easily understood, but it would require a much better scholar than me to demonstrate why a literal interpretation just doesn't suffice.
[quote][p][bold]ushmush83[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bodger[/bold] wrote: Hi Marant, sorry but your wrong. In 1975 sexual discrimination was made illegal in this country. In 1975 the Church of England started talking about whether women could become bishops. 37 years later they still haven't made a decision. A paranoid man may think they were just going through the motions. Just because it is part of religious dogma doesn't mean we should stand for it. Remember just in the bible a loan you are aloud to keep slaves, stone children to death if they don't honor you, sell your daughters into slavery, treat women as second class citizens, keep your wife as your property (that's where the ring comes from), murder and rape your prisoners after you win a religious war, the list goes on. God says you can do all these. There are laws against all these things and they have often been forced upon religious organizations. Just because it offends somebody's belief doesn't mean we should put up with it.[/p][/quote]Oh how educated you are. Could you please educate me as to where God says each of the things listed above are ok within the bible? Thanks.[/p][/quote]If you consider that the contents of the bible are divinely inspired, then the fac the St. Paul doesn't condemn slavery, rather encourages slaves to "know their place". A surface reading of Timothy would give the impression that women are to be treated as second class citizens. As has already been pointed out, St. Paul writes in Romans that the death of Christ freed Christians from the yokes of Mosaic law. As far as I can recall Jesus also stated that we should not judge, lest we be judged ourselves. Christian reservations about sme-sex relationships can be quite easily understood, but it would require a much better scholar than me to demonstrate why a literal interpretation just doesn't suffice. Bob Norfolk
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Sat 11 Aug 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

I can't really get fired up about this, and I rather think the same applies to the majority of the electorate. We would rather politicians kept their respective eyes on the economic ball, rather than worrying about an issue that only applies to a minority (a very vocal one mind you!) Me, if gays want to get married - fine - but do not impose on the churches that disagree!
I can't really get fired up about this, and I rather think the same applies to the majority of the electorate. We would rather politicians kept their respective eyes on the economic ball, rather than worrying about an issue that only applies to a minority (a very vocal one mind you!) Me, if gays want to get married - fine - but do not impose on the churches that disagree! imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Sun 12 Aug 12

Cecil9995 says...

Live and let live in this case.
Live and let live in this case. Cecil9995
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree