Gay marriage?!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 5:33 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    trm_dallas said
    ART_DECO said
    trm_dallas said
    I can see, however, gay men who support civil unions as it does not accompany religious sentiment like marriage does, at least by title.

    In the US ALL marriages are legally civil marriages at their heart. No church has the autonomous authority to marry anyone. Don't buy into this misleading church propaganda that makes it seem like marriage is their sole prerogative.

    After all, judges and other civil authorities legally marry people all the time. And it's called marriage, not civil union. Whereas ministers, rabbis and other religious leaders can't legally marry a couple without a duly issued marriage license from state authorities. In a church wedding the minister is performing the ceremony under civil authority granted from the state, acting as the state's agent. He/she may include whatever religious elements they choose, but the underlining legal authority comes from the State, not from God.

    Because without that official marriage license the ceremony has no validity in the eyes of the law, no matter how many prayers, blessings and other religious rituals take place.

    I think you are reading into my statement. I only meant that when I think of marriage I think of religion and the church, aside from the state. I wasn't saying that the institution of marriage is religious by nature. Hence the, "at least by title."

    Yes, my comments were addressed more to others reading this thread, than to you specifically, who merely opened the door to additional discussion & clarification. I should have made it clear that I wasn't implying fault with your post. icon_biggrin.gif




    I like your post, it brings up a good discussion because the difference between state and religion is an interesting one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 6:23 PM GMT
    bish123 saidAwkward i live in the UK
    The United States has no civil unions/partnerships comparable to marriage. Perhaps that's where your confusion lies? A marriage license provides 1500 Federal and State benefits in the United States. A civil union does not, and is also illegal in many states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    I agree with u.s.a needing to get a grip and come.into the 21st centry about gay marriage but uk its a different name for the same thing so move on to more important things!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 05, 2013 6:40 PM GMT
    bish123 saidAwkward i live in the UK


    Haha, don't feel bad. All of the gay marriage threads incite heated debates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 1:47 AM GMT
    you're 20 years old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 2:27 AM GMT
    you don't have to agree on marriage (gay or straight)
    you may never want to or care to get married.
    but we should be able to get married to the person we love and be protected legally if we desire to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 2:42 AM GMT
    bish123 saidcivil partnership is the same thing as marriage so why kick up such a fuss about it, people can get married if they want i just think there are bigger more important things going on than wasting time on the marriage issue when civil partnership is the same thing is pointless?!


    Listen Bish,
    Just to clarify civil unions are not the same, and semantics can cause all kind of problems when it comes to CU versus Marriage. Also, don't let yourself adopt an attitude of "it's not a big deal." Deep down it seems like it is a deal to you, your just not making it out to be a "big deal" ... Not stirring a fuss about things means we would never see important changes happen.
    Peace,
    -James

    PS: I really only responded to this thread because I wanted to write, "Listen Bish" icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 3:47 AM GMT
    I think that "gay marriage" is unnecessary in the UK, on account of there being Civil Partnerships. icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 5:05 AM GMT
    Fortis saidI am one half of a civil partnership, and I think that "gay marriage" is unnecessary in the UK. icon_neutral.gif


    Observations ( please advise if I'm incorrect here icon_wink.gif )

    Travellers to your country that are gay and married are no longer married when they enter your country.

    Civil partners do not get a peer title.

    An eerie sort of apartheid. If it's so exactly equal why can't heterosexuals in your country get civil partnerships?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 6:40 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Fortis saidI am one half of a civil partnership, and I think that "gay marriage" is unnecessary in the UK. icon_neutral.gif


    Observations ( please advise if I'm incorrect here icon_wink.gif )

    Travellers to your country that are gay and married are no longer married when they enter your country.

    Civil partners do not get a peer title.

    An eerie sort of apartheid. If it's so exactly equal why can't heterosexuals in your country get civil partnerships?


    I am not sure. My father says that heterosexuals ought to be able to form civil partnerships.

    There is some sort of quirk in law here which makes same-sex marriage difficult to pass through legislature. I will ask him about it and post again. It has been quite the topic here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 6:52 AM GMT
    I've been researching it, Fortis. Apparently civil unions are rather a 'class' act.

    Should you civil it up with a lord for example, there is no conferred title like the straights have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 7:23 AM GMT
    The main points against same-sex marriage is that it redefines marriage away from being between a man and a woman, thus destroying the specificity of the term, and, assuming that a same-sex married partner would only be unfaithful with someone of the same sex, this would not be grounds for divorce, as it is not adultery, according to the law's definition of adultery, and that would be unfair for sex-same married couples.

    I prefer the civil partnership, and I would hope that it would, in time, be called something other than marriage in general discourse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 8:33 AM GMT


    "assuming that a same-sex married partner would only be unfaithful with someone of the same sex, this would not be grounds for divorce, as it is not adultery"

    That is probably the oddest definition of adultery I've heard in my 57 years on this planet. O.o
    Cheatin' is cheatin'. I can assure you that in this country, if a man cheats on his wife with another man, she has ample grounds for divorce.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 9:05 AM GMT
    Hmmmmm. I agree to an extent. The only thing I don't like about gay marriage is that the government is still having a role in marriage. I'm more of a supporter of privatising matrimony, which means that the government will have no role in marriage, the government will once and for all leave our bedrooms, etc.

    Of course marriage privatisation is hardly ever going to happen any time soon. Gay marriage is a good thing, and I won't judge people for choosing to have a "legal" marriage. I have a lot of problems with "legalisation" I guess. In history, the only reason the government took control of marriage was to forbid interracial couples (or was it to prevent black peoples from marrying I'm not sure) from marrying and now to this day the government is using marriage against the LGBT community. I also have a problem with it because the government is still continuing to define marriage when they should have no say. They should be able to have there own opinions, but they shouldn't force it upon us (cough Julia Gillard cough).

    I guess it annoys me when I hear gay people say "oh look at that I won't be able to get married because the government doesn't want me to!!!" mostly because you're relying on an institution to "recognise" the man or woman you are committed to when the only people it should matter to are yourselves. But these people who complain should realise that gay marriage isn't illegal. You can still marry and if you really want to get married don't wait just do it. No one's stopping you.

    In Australia, even if gay marriage were legalised, if I were to get married, I wouldn't want a "marriage license" anyway. Marriage to me is private and intimate and I think people shouldn't wait for it. Besides, I don't even want the "benefits" since you probably lose a lot of your rights with marriage.

    But since marriage privatisation would hardly happen I guess "legalising" gay marriage would put us in equal with straight couples, although I think privatising straight marriage is a much better solution.

    Sorry for the lengthy response. I just have a lot of opinions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 9:30 AM GMT
    I don't agree with marriage for anyone, but if Queens and Dykes want to, they shouldn't be discriminated against for wanting to fit in with the other fools partaking in an oddly old fashioned custom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 12:58 PM GMT
    It amazes me to hear gay guys being complicit in legal oppression.

    You can't just declare yourself married. The legal status DOES matter. Try filing a joint tax return, or visiting your "spouse" in the hospital, or taking your intestate share if he dies, among other things.
  • seafrontbloke

    Posts: 300

    Feb 06, 2013 1:10 PM GMT
    OK, here's my pennyworth:

    I'm in a Civil Partnership. I see it the same as a marriage as for as Steve and I are concerned, and all of my family are of the same mind.

    However, the State isn't. whether we like it or not, as long as we have CPs and the straights have marriage it will be easy to put us to one side and treat us differently.

    I don't think that Churches should be made to marry gay people if they don't want to, but by the same token, I don't think that they should be stopped if they do want to.

    I listened to the debate in parliament yesterday, and it seems to me that there are two arguments against it:

    1) marriage has always been one man and one woman - well maybe, but times change and gay couples can adopt, or have surrogate / sperm donor babies, so if it's about the children then marriage is a good thing.

    2) God doesn't like it - we don't know what God thinks, and anyway, we don't all believe in the same God, and it isn't for the state to decide which one is right. I also find that those who say something isn't allowed because it'sv a sin seem to forget that we have free will. I'm sure that God wouldn't be impressed by the argument "I'm good, I didn't get married" when actually, I couldn't.

    There is a third which is "I find gay sex icky and I don't want to talk about it" but that's not a very cogent argument as straight couples do it too.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 2:01 PM GMT
    showme saidIt amazes me to hear gay guys being complicit in legal oppression.

    You can't just declare yourself married. The legal status DOES matter. Try filing a joint tax return, or visiting your "spouse" in the hospital, or taking your intestate share if he dies, among other things.


    You're correct there are those issues, particularly hospital visitation rights (why do we have them anyway?) and other rights we need the government to give the "green light" on. But that's the thing though, we shouldn't have to get the government's permission on anything. Sadly there are limits to visiting a loved one in hospital and it doesn't matter if they mean anything to you all you need is the government's permission. Funny how the law works doesn't it?

    You are correct however. There still exists the legal oppression of gays and lesbians. But I do still stand by what I say about marriage privatisation, because it's intimate and should be between two people, not two people and the government.

    However I still do support gay marriage rights and feel it's important as a gesture to be included and accepted into society (remember in the 1920s interracial couples weren't allowed to marry). But personally, I probably wouldn't want a "legal" marriage. I understand the fight for it, but even though I find marriage a bit outdated, it's something I find intimate and private, and divorces are too messy with lawyers involved.

    I think this is a great article on marriage privatisation (http://hipsterlibertarian.com/post/6722406448/the-racist-history-of-government-regulated-marriage) although I just want to point out that private marriages can be just like they are now (you don't have to get married in a Church if you're not religious) just without the legal contract. But yes I still support marriage equality yet I feel it's more symbolic. Ya feel?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2013 3:13 PM GMT
    airano, If it's privatized anyone can refuse you marrying for any whimsical reason, and you may reach that unfortunate point where you cannot get married at all. Private is for profit. What happens when marrying costs become out of reach for many?

    Then there's those many legal rights and responsibilities. That private industry would control who does or does not get those rights is rather scary.
    The possibility of a sliding scale of fees for marriage with rights on tiered levels of pricing could end up with things like bronze marriage, silver marriage, gold marriage, etc.

    The unpleasant possibilities are endless. Then there's the spectre of religions once again having absolute control over marriages, which currently they do not.
    *shudders at the historical horrors of when that was the case*