Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Will These Proposed Measures Finally Take The 'heat' Out Of The Marriage Equality Debate?
http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/11/church-of-england-to-be-banned-from-
carrying-out-gay-marriages-3312009/
One of the major concerns expressed over civil same sex marriages is that religious organisations would have to perform ceremonies that are an affront to them.
It would seem that the government are taking sensible steps to ensure this doesn't happen, and tying it to article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (rights to religious freedom) looks like a bit of a master stroke (in that once written into law, the legislation would have primacy).
carrying-out-gay-marriages-3312009/
One of the major concerns expressed over civil same sex marriages is that religious organisations would have to perform ceremonies that are an affront to them.
It would seem that the government are taking sensible steps to ensure this doesn't happen, and tying it to article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (rights to religious freedom) looks like a bit of a master stroke (in that once written into law, the legislation would have primacy).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
Zeuhl
/// a registry office is still a wedding as you concede in your own post. In particular, it involves vows. ///
/// a CP does not. It is an officially witnessed contract signing. ///
A civil partnership can also contain vows if the couple so wish, it can include any trappings that a heterosexual marriage has, even down to a Best Man or Woman whichever the case may be.
http://
Scroll down to Nicola
I promise
I promise to give you the best of myself
And ask of you no more than you can give.
I promise to respect you as your own person
And to realise that your interests, desires and
Needs are no less important than my own.
I promise to share with you my time and my
attention
And to bring joy, strength and imagination to
Our relationship etc, etc.
And
Laura
I belong in your arms
Finally
I have found a place
Into which
I fit
Perfectly,
Safely,
And securely with no doubts,
No fears,
No sadness,
No tears.
This place is filled
With happiness and laughter,
Yet it is spacious enough
To allow me
The freedom to move around, etc, etc.
Yes no one is stopping them from calling a civil partnership, a 'Wedding' if they so wish, so what's the big deal?
/// a registry office is still a wedding as you concede in your own post. In particular, it involves vows. ///
/// a CP does not. It is an officially witnessed contract signing. ///
A civil partnership can also contain vows if the couple so wish, it can include any trappings that a heterosexual marriage has, even down to a Best Man or Woman whichever the case may be.
http://
Scroll down to Nicola
I promise
I promise to give you the best of myself
And ask of you no more than you can give.
I promise to respect you as your own person
And to realise that your interests, desires and
Needs are no less important than my own.
I promise to share with you my time and my
attention
And to bring joy, strength and imagination to
Our relationship etc, etc.
And
Laura
I belong in your arms
Finally
I have found a place
Into which
I fit
Perfectly,
Safely,
And securely with no doubts,
No fears,
No sadness,
No tears.
This place is filled
With happiness and laughter,
Yet it is spacious enough
To allow me
The freedom to move around, etc, etc.
Yes no one is stopping them from calling a civil partnership, a 'Wedding' if they so wish, so what's the big deal?
The big deal, aog, is that they will not be satisfied until they have complete equality. I suggested this when Civil Partnerships were introduced. My view then was that homosexuals would consider CPs to be an inferior animal and would not rest until they were able to take part in full "Marriage" ceremonies. Where I was quite wrong is that, as far as I can see, no great pressure is being brought to bear by the Gay lobby for such arrangements. The urgency seems to stem from this ridiculous apology for a government. Quite frankly they have more urgent matters with which they should be occupying their minds. Further I don't buy all the suggestions that "they should be capable of doing more than one task", that "the country will not fall apart if they devote time to this" etc. Constantly we hear that measures which might improve the lives of a vast majority of the population, or which could tackle a genuine problem, cannot be heard in Parliament because of lack of time. If there is a lack of time then measures such as this should be forced down the agenda.
"...the government are bending over backwards to accommodate these principles?"
I did not say they were not, sp. But if you read my post you will see that I consider that even if they bend themselves in half their efforts will be futile.
"...the government are bending over backwards to accommodate these principles?"
I did not say they were not, sp. But if you read my post you will see that I consider that even if they bend themselves in half their efforts will be futile.
NJ
Where I was quite wrong is that, as far as I can see, no great pressure is being brought to bear by the Gay lobby for such arrangements.
I'm afraid you're not correct about this.
I personally know of several couples who have postponed their CPs in order to wait for marriage equality legislation to be enacted.
Furthermore, there is wide support for the legislation across many gay media outlets. I wouldn't expect you to know what these magazines/websites are - but don't believe anything you read in the national press about their being a lack of support for the proposals amongst gays.
That's not true.
Where I was quite wrong is that, as far as I can see, no great pressure is being brought to bear by the Gay lobby for such arrangements.
I'm afraid you're not correct about this.
I personally know of several couples who have postponed their CPs in order to wait for marriage equality legislation to be enacted.
Furthermore, there is wide support for the legislation across many gay media outlets. I wouldn't expect you to know what these magazines/websites are - but don't believe anything you read in the national press about their being a lack of support for the proposals amongst gays.
That's not true.
NJ
Another point you raised:
Constantly we hear that measures which might improve the lives of a vast majority of the population, or which could tackle a genuine problem, cannot be heard in Parliament because of lack of time. If there is a lack of time then measures such as this should be forced down the agenda.
Thing is - this has taken up very little parliamentary time. It was announced and then there was a consultation period and now it will be drafted into law. The reason it seems that it's a major governmental priority is because certain media outlets have been writing articles and quoting stats on it for the past year.
It's the media who are expending energy on this, rather than the Government. Also, the Coalition don't actually NEED to expend energy on the proposals - because they will sail through with the support of the Labour and Liberals.
Finally, I would ask you whether the government should dump any legislative proposals unless they directly affect the vast majority of the country?
Most of us aren't blind. Should the government shelve any proposed laws which directly and only impact the blind?
Another point you raised:
Constantly we hear that measures which might improve the lives of a vast majority of the population, or which could tackle a genuine problem, cannot be heard in Parliament because of lack of time. If there is a lack of time then measures such as this should be forced down the agenda.
Thing is - this has taken up very little parliamentary time. It was announced and then there was a consultation period and now it will be drafted into law. The reason it seems that it's a major governmental priority is because certain media outlets have been writing articles and quoting stats on it for the past year.
It's the media who are expending energy on this, rather than the Government. Also, the Coalition don't actually NEED to expend energy on the proposals - because they will sail through with the support of the Labour and Liberals.
Finally, I would ask you whether the government should dump any legislative proposals unless they directly affect the vast majority of the country?
Most of us aren't blind. Should the government shelve any proposed laws which directly and only impact the blind?
sp1814
/// I personally know of several couples who have postponed their CPs in order to wait for marriage equality legislation to be enacted. ///
Several couples who you know eh? That does make a complete difference to the argument. And if they are so much in love and care about each other, why not be like most other gays and go through a civil partnership ceremony? if it is good enough for the likes of Elton John!!!!!!!
/// Furthermore, there is wide support for the legislation across many gay media outlets. I wouldn't expect you to know what these magazines/websites are - but don't believe anything you read in the national press about their being a lack of support for the proposals amongst gays. ///
So we are expected to believe some bias gay magazines and web sites, of which you attach no links, and yet disbelieve the National Press?
Are we to also disbelieve the gay MP Ben Bradshaw, who says "We don't need to get married"?
http://
/// I personally know of several couples who have postponed their CPs in order to wait for marriage equality legislation to be enacted. ///
Several couples who you know eh? That does make a complete difference to the argument. And if they are so much in love and care about each other, why not be like most other gays and go through a civil partnership ceremony? if it is good enough for the likes of Elton John!!!!!!!
/// Furthermore, there is wide support for the legislation across many gay media outlets. I wouldn't expect you to know what these magazines/websites are - but don't believe anything you read in the national press about their being a lack of support for the proposals amongst gays. ///
So we are expected to believe some bias gay magazines and web sites, of which you attach no links, and yet disbelieve the National Press?
Are we to also disbelieve the gay MP Ben Bradshaw, who says "We don't need to get married"?
http://
AOG
Homosexuals have full use of the word 'GAY' and Heterosexuals have no wish to insist on sharing that
A terrible semantic example.
You're suggesting that only gay people use the word gay? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that straight people don't use the word 'gay'?
Bad example, wouldn't you agree?
Homosexuals have full use of the word 'GAY' and Heterosexuals have no wish to insist on sharing that
A terrible semantic example.
You're suggesting that only gay people use the word gay? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that straight people don't use the word 'gay'?
Bad example, wouldn't you agree?
AOG
I don't think you get what I was saying.
I personally know people who want this, and I can see the groundswell of support on gay websites. These sites posts stories and readers can comment. Overwhelmingly these are positively in favour of marriage equality.
What other indications would I need in order to assess how gay people actually feel?
1. Personal insight from friends
2. General insight from comments made and letter written to magazines and gay news sites.
That covers it pretty comprehensively.
For someone to say, "Gay people don't want to get married" is nonsense. I would challenge that statement. I would even point that a poll conducted by Catholic Voice revealed that " for more than 6 out of 10 gay people in the UK, ‘true equality’ in marriage means being able to marry in places of worship".
And seeing as the majority of Britons now support marriage equality, I would suggest that the government should forge ahead...you know...because of democracy and all that...
I don't think you get what I was saying.
I personally know people who want this, and I can see the groundswell of support on gay websites. These sites posts stories and readers can comment. Overwhelmingly these are positively in favour of marriage equality.
What other indications would I need in order to assess how gay people actually feel?
1. Personal insight from friends
2. General insight from comments made and letter written to magazines and gay news sites.
That covers it pretty comprehensively.
For someone to say, "Gay people don't want to get married" is nonsense. I would challenge that statement. I would even point that a poll conducted by Catholic Voice revealed that " for more than 6 out of 10 gay people in the UK, ‘true equality’ in marriage means being able to marry in places of worship".
And seeing as the majority of Britons now support marriage equality, I would suggest that the government should forge ahead...you know...because of democracy and all that...
You may well be right about the pressure from the Gay community, sp. I must say I've only taken a passing interest in this matter (because unlike the government I do have more important or interesting things to do). I believe I read that Peter Tatchell said there was no urgent need for legislation, but I might be wrong.
You may also be right about the amount of parliamentary time this has consumed. However it must have consumed some and I still contend that however little that may be it is time wasted as the proposed measures do not provide any tangible benefit for anybody. Least of all for the Gay community whose most outspoken representative castigated the idea of same sex partnerships or weddings less than ten years ago. Among other things, Mr Tatchell said "We want to change society, not conform to it. Our radical, idealistic vision involves creating a new sexual democracy, without homophobia and misogyny. Erotic shame and guilt would be banished, together with compulsory monogamy, gender roles and the nuclear family. There would be sexual freedom and human rights for everyone – gay and straight. Our message is 'innovate, don’t assimilate'”.
How times change!
However all that is by the way and my main point still stands and that is that this legislation, despite all its "safeguards" will very quickly be challenged as I have described. I can't imagine that challenge being directed at an inner city mosque for various reasons (not the least of which being that, having publicly declared their intentions, a pair of Gay Muslims may well meet with an accident before the matter comes to court). It is more likely to be aimed at an idyllic village church where the vicar has acceded to the wishes of his flock (or perhaps the direction from his Bishop) by refusing to undertake a same-sex marriage which will be demanded by a couple of newcomers. We will have to wait and see.
You may also be right about the amount of parliamentary time this has consumed. However it must have consumed some and I still contend that however little that may be it is time wasted as the proposed measures do not provide any tangible benefit for anybody. Least of all for the Gay community whose most outspoken representative castigated the idea of same sex partnerships or weddings less than ten years ago. Among other things, Mr Tatchell said "We want to change society, not conform to it. Our radical, idealistic vision involves creating a new sexual democracy, without homophobia and misogyny. Erotic shame and guilt would be banished, together with compulsory monogamy, gender roles and the nuclear family. There would be sexual freedom and human rights for everyone – gay and straight. Our message is 'innovate, don’t assimilate'”.
How times change!
However all that is by the way and my main point still stands and that is that this legislation, despite all its "safeguards" will very quickly be challenged as I have described. I can't imagine that challenge being directed at an inner city mosque for various reasons (not the least of which being that, having publicly declared their intentions, a pair of Gay Muslims may well meet with an accident before the matter comes to court). It is more likely to be aimed at an idyllic village church where the vicar has acceded to the wishes of his flock (or perhaps the direction from his Bishop) by refusing to undertake a same-sex marriage which will be demanded by a couple of newcomers. We will have to wait and see.
/// Catholic Voice revealed that " for more than 6 out of 10 gay people in the UK, ‘true equality’ in marriage means being able to marry in places of worship". ///
I have heard of percentages classed as 'for more than', ie more than 10% etc. but never in figures.
For more than 6 out of 10????????
What is it then? Is it 6, 7, 8, 9 out of 10?
I have heard of percentages classed as 'for more than', ie more than 10% etc. but never in figures.
For more than 6 out of 10????????
What is it then? Is it 6, 7, 8, 9 out of 10?
NJ
I'm sure you'd agree that as important as Peter Tatchell has been in the advocacy of gay rights over the past 20-30 years, his is one voice amongst many, and that gay men and women are individuals who have no 'party line' to tow (or 'toe' - am not sure).
I suspect that very similar argument to keep the status quo were mooted against the women's sufferage movement at the turn of the last century, but essentially, the argument is the same. A long-standing form of inequality is being challenged.
Furthermore, with millions of people in favour of same-sex marriage (and by logical extension, this must include straight as well as gay voters), this cannot be considered some 'side issue'. In fact, with the vast amounts of time the CofE have spent arguing against the moves, I would suggest it's a very important piece of legislation (otherwise, why so much debate about it?)
Oh, and with regards to the question of gay weddings in a mosque - remember, the four point legal ban on CofE churches performing same-sex weddings doesn't extend to other demoninations.
Effectively, the government has given free reign for the established church to discriminate and deliberately not extended this to other denominations.
Finally - there will certainly be a challenge, but I suspect the challenge will be against a CofE establishment - because it's Christians who have shouted the most vociferously against the proposed legislation. I hope the challenge comes quickly, and I hope it's robustly defeated because same sex wedding should be entirely a civil matter.
I'm sure you'd agree that as important as Peter Tatchell has been in the advocacy of gay rights over the past 20-30 years, his is one voice amongst many, and that gay men and women are individuals who have no 'party line' to tow (or 'toe' - am not sure).
I suspect that very similar argument to keep the status quo were mooted against the women's sufferage movement at the turn of the last century, but essentially, the argument is the same. A long-standing form of inequality is being challenged.
Furthermore, with millions of people in favour of same-sex marriage (and by logical extension, this must include straight as well as gay voters), this cannot be considered some 'side issue'. In fact, with the vast amounts of time the CofE have spent arguing against the moves, I would suggest it's a very important piece of legislation (otherwise, why so much debate about it?)
Oh, and with regards to the question of gay weddings in a mosque - remember, the four point legal ban on CofE churches performing same-sex weddings doesn't extend to other demoninations.
Effectively, the government has given free reign for the established church to discriminate and deliberately not extended this to other denominations.
Finally - there will certainly be a challenge, but I suspect the challenge will be against a CofE establishment - because it's Christians who have shouted the most vociferously against the proposed legislation. I hope the challenge comes quickly, and I hope it's robustly defeated because same sex wedding should be entirely a civil matter.
AOG
My point is - poll results can vary depending on the way the questions are asked. And the results can be interpreted likewise.
Looking at your post from 16:19, one might correct infer both of these statements:
1. "Less than half those polled are in favour of same sex marriage"
2. "Same sex marriage wins the approval of more people than civil partnerships".
My point is - poll results can vary depending on the way the questions are asked. And the results can be interpreted likewise.
Looking at your post from 16:19, one might correct infer both of these statements:
1. "Less than half those polled are in favour of same sex marriage"
2. "Same sex marriage wins the approval of more people than civil partnerships".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.