I Don't Understand..

[Iluvspikey]

Can somebody tell me, what is the differene between a civil partnership, and a gay marriage? I thought the original thinking behind a CP was to allow the transfer of property to another (eg council property tennancy if one on lease died), they can already adopt children, call yourself by any name as long as it isnt to defraud - so what's the big hoo-haarr over 'marrige'

[FredPuli43]

Yes, aog, I do read the links. Now, explain please what the advantages are in a civil partnership which a marriage does not have. None, in law; it's simply a question of what people want to call their union, for their own personal reasons.

So, do you object to homosexual male couples calling themselves married? If you don't , what's the objection to their legal union being called marriage, in law ?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// I think your argument is in danger of collapsing in on itself. ///

You wish!!!!!!!!!

Not quite sure about where you are coming from with this,

/// Are you now saying that marriage is actually more than just a word? Because it now appears to be 'an institution'. ///

Who has said that it is 'an institution'?

You seem further confusing with this.

/// So that means that there are unspoken trappings accorded to the state of marriage that are not available to those in civil partnerships. If there weren't, why would any straight couple want to enter a CP. ///

Do you mean there are unspoken trappings according to civil partnerships, that are not available to straight couples. If they weren't, why would any straight couple want to enter a CP?

In answer to that question I can only refer you to this,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

[sp1814]

AOG

I don't know what the views of passing spectators have to do with it. What is important is what the couple getting married are doing.

But again, if it all comes down to a word, why is there so much opposition to changing the definition?

[sp1814]

AOG

It's on your link.

Both Tom and Katherine explain that their primary reason for not getting married is that they do not want to be part of an institution from which gay and lesbian people are excluded."

[sp1814]

The point is - the couple in your link believe that there are societal trappings associated with heterosexual weddings which do not exist in civil partnerships.

They prove something which is difficult to define, but many people believe - CPs may be (mostly) equal to weddings, but they don't carry the same 'weight' as marriage.

This is where I believe your argument fails.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// It's sad that they immediately think of sex, rather than love. I know what when any friend of mine announces his engagement, I don't start picturing him having sex with his future wife. ///

Are not the two connected? (ah a fitting choice of words).

But of course you are not unique in the fact that if a friend announces his engagement, one doesn't start picturing him having sex with his future wife, that would not only be silly but also a little perverted.

But one cannot fail to see the general progress of the propagation of the human race, that being falling in love, extending one's commitment for each other by becoming 'engaged', then eventually making it a legal union by going through a legal ceremony, and then the natural outcome of producing off-springs.

Must admit not everyone these days stick rigidly to this path of events, and even if they miss one or two things out, or not doing them in the correct order, it generally ends in the same way thank goodness, or man is doomed to become extinct.

[jackthehat]

Gay people have functioning sexual reproductive organs and are quite capable of producing 'off-springs' (although it can be a little more problematic, granted)....and why do these discussions about gay marriages keep getting driven up the 'continuation of the species' cul-de-sac?

They really are two separate issues.

[FredPuli43]

Aog, since you say that marriage is only a name and that homosexual couples cannot be stopped from referring to themselves as married, are we to deduce that you are not against homosexual couples being legally married ? It seems clear from what you said, that you cannot be against it. That some heterosexuals would like civil partnership is no reason to deny homosexuals who want marriage.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// Gay people have functioning sexual reproductive organs and are quite capable of producing 'off-springs' (although it can be a little more problematic, granted)....and why do these discussions about gay marriages keep getting driven up the 'continuation of the species' cul-de-sac?

They really are two separate issues. ///

It's what one calls a general progression in debate, I was merely addressing sp's remarks regarding his friends engagement and his friend having sex with his future wife, with no mention of a homosexuality.

So no one was driving up the 'continuation of the species' cul-de-sac.

/// They really are two separate issues. ///

And the issues I raised where not two separate issues as you suggest, but the same issue to a heterosexual, and since I am one of those, I think I have every right to 'voice' them.

[jackthehat]

Propagation of the species is a very different issue from whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Alas, it seems that the two are consistently joined together and end up side-tracking threads from 'marriage' to 'children'.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Aog, since you say that marriage is only a name and that homosexual couples cannot be stopped from referring to themselves as married, are we to deduce that you are not against homosexual couples being legally
married ? ///

It is dependant on what you call 'legally married' if you mean in a Church then it is not for me to disagree with their principles or even with their laws those that have been in force for hundreds of years, so why should I set myself on one side or the other, I just think that the Church seems to have a stronger argument, than one that seems to be the 'in thing of the day' request.

No one has yet come up with a reason of what homosexuals actually want in this case, not just that they want to be able to get married the same as heterosexual couples.

Please explain 'Married' 'in a church' 'the words on a legal document' ??????? because it can't be any other discrimination, because they have equal rights legally, unless one means the pension differential as highlighted by sp1814, but as I have already suggested that could quite easily put right, at the same time that equality rights are put in for heterosexual couples who wish to be in a civil partnership.

So just like parliament, I think we have now spent far too much time over this one, so let's see if we can find something more to discuss.

[1ndex]

Marriage is a primitive pairing ritual between a man & woman. 2 men or 2 women pairing is a modern concept & only requires the blessing of the pairs belief (not an objecting faith).

Would they be Mr & Mrs under one surname - I think not.

[1ndex]

The difference is the legal inheritance act....its all about finance imo

[sp1814]

AOG

I believe the church question muddies the debate. I firmly believe that chruches should absolutely be exempt from state interference and should not be compelled to perform same sex unions.

But by the same token, the Church should not seek to impose it's view on civil unions.

[mushroom25]

// I firmly believe that chruches should absolutely be exempt from state interference and should not be compelled to perform same sex unions.//

the fact that the established church is legally bound up in the country's governance means that extensive legislation would be required to make the government secular and give the church its political freedom.

meantime, legally exempting the established church from this bill is effectively sanctioning discrimination by act of parliament, and is very likely to be seen as such - and ruled offside by - the ECHR.

[ummmm]

1ndex...that is utter nonsense.

[atalanta]

can anyone tell me whether the old-fashioned prohibited relationships still apply to Civil partnerships ? For instance, if a pair of brothers fancy each other, can they register a civil partnership ? If not, why not ? And if a pair of aged sisters have lived together for 60 years, why can't they "marry" each other to avoid inheritance tax on a shared property ? They surely don't have to fancy each other to register a "marriage". Plenty of elderly folk pair up together for the company and friendship, never mind the bed-stuff.
Not that I fancy my brother, but he is loaded . . . .

[sp1814]

atlanta

Family members are explicitly prohibited from forming civil partnerships.

You ask why - it's because CPs were not intended as a means to dodge taxes.

[FredPuli43]

Time-wasting or not, Cameron has got his result, down to registrars not being able to refuse on grounds of conscience, and neatly side-stepping the CP for heterosexuals question.

Why any party leader should ever fuss about the views of some, or many, of his grassroots when those run contrary to his own and, as a bonus, do not fit the opinions of the wider electorate, is a mystery. These grassroots will always comprise a large section of the party's more extreme elements, whichever party it is. Further, they comprise a vanishingly small section of his supporters; currently 150,000 Tories down from 1 million in Mrs Thatcher's days. And they are hardly representative of the population. When my , now-ex, stood for the Tories in a general election she discovered that the membership was predominantly female and the median age was well over 60.