Gays don't need the word 'Marriage'.

http://www.telegraph....ried-says-gay-MP.html

There have been many arguments for and against the need for gays to get 'married', but according to this gay MP homosexual marriage is just "pure politics", and they don't need to get married.

/// homosexuals had already won equal rights with the introduction of civil partnerships and had "never needed the word
'marriage' ". ///
14:17 Fri 06th Apr 2012
 
Best Answer


No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

1 to 20 of 122

2 3 4 Next Last

I disagree with him. Marriage is evidently not important to Mr. Bradshaw, but it simply is for a lot of gay couples - and they are requesting the right to participate in a cultural institution which they see as very important. They reason they can't currently is because that institution is based on a definition which predates the time when homosexual relationships were seen as acceptable. Now that they are seen as acceptable, gay people simply wish to be allowed to participate in an aspect of the culture which they see as important. Most hetereosexuals, the evidence suggests, are either apathetic or supportive of this request.
And the question is?
As a heterosexual I am against this request...............
do any of us 'need' the word?

surely we just 'like' the institution or imitations of it?

cath x
"As a heterosexual I am against this request"

Why?
Perhaps it's time we all went for Civil Partnerships - to include brothers and sisters - or friends - that share their lives, homes, and finances. At least that way pension rights, etc, would be automatically transferred after the death of one to the survivor.
I'm agin it too! Think the word "marriage" has a specific meaning and cannot be applied to homosexuals.
Why? Do you think you love more, Maggie? Or is it just the church that sways you? Same question to Craft.
//Perhaps it's time we all went for Civil Partnerships.....//

I gather that's one of the planks of Peter Tatchell's argument - heteros are denied the opportunity of a civil partnership and contends that this is just as discriminatory as denying gays the chance of marriage.
Mushroom, I agree with him. I don't see why Civil Partnerships can't be entered into by any couple that wishes to do so - regardless of sexual orientation or circumstances. If you're heterosexual and in love with your partner, would you be any less 'joined' because other people have the same rights?
"hink the word "marriage" has a specific meaning and cannot be applied to homosexuals."

That's only because the meaning of marriage you're talking about predates a time when homosexual relationships had any legitimacy as forms of love. Or even a time when there was really anything like a concept of a 'homosexual' (i.e. someone who consistently loves or has sex with their own gender, as opposed to merely 'the act'). Marriage is intended as a cultural celebration of love, and in the time since it was defined, we've come to recognise more than simply heterosexual forms of love. So why not extend the definition?
How's about if the grumblies can keep their 'Holy Matrimony' and then the rest of us can just consider ourselves to be Married?

That way you can have your covenant with your God.....'excluding all others'.....''til death you do part'.....you know, the bits that often get forgotten. And I can enjoy a Civil Marriage.

Win/win...... :o)
All the laws in the land won't stop what is an indecent act. The bible is totally against it. Muslims are dead set aginst it! Let them fornicate as much as they want but don't try to make it normal.
"The bible is totally against it. Muslims are dead set aginst it! "

True. But why does that make it an indecent act? Why do either of those things prove it to be immoral?

Does the biblical injunction against eating shellfish make that an indecent act too? If not, why not?
Rov, //"The bible is totally against it. Muslims are dead set aginst it! "//

And you really think that fatuous argument should influence any decision? I presume then that you kill your disobedient children (as the bible commands) and marry your young daughters, regardless of age, to grown men (as the Koran condones). Or do you, like everyone who erroneously presents religion as a beacon of morality, just abide by the bits that suit you?
If marriage is a religious thing, let them keep it - why try and change or extend the meaning of it to suit non-religious purposes?

I think Naomi's got the right idea with her first point - rather than trying to hijack a religious concept, why don't we all just be grown up and have civil partnerships.
^Personally, I'm not convinced it's an exclusively religious concept. The concept of marriage certainly predates Christianity, for instance. Or if it is a religious concept, it's one that virtually all religions share. In an English context, it's part of our cultural heritage and how we celebrate romance and love. Personally? I don't particularly find it appealing. But many homosexuals see it as an important part of their culture.
rov1100

What on earth are you talking about?
AOG

Civil partnerships are not 100% equal to heterosexual marriage.

Telling someone "You are not allowed to get married - you can have this hotch potch made up institution that has the romance of a contract to supply machine tools" is not equality.
On another thread on the same subject recently, I made repeated requests for people who object to this to tell me why, and to tell me what effect this would have upon their own lives – but to no avail.

Rov has given his reasons - //The bible is totally against it. Muslims are dead set aginst it!// …

… but to the non-religious, that means absolutely nothing, so in their view, it isn’t a valid reason.

Any offers?

1 to 20 of 122

2 3 4 Next Last

Latest posts