Gay Marriage

.

Wise choice deleting the crap.

Thread ends.

IMHO there should be -

Marriage - for two people who want to get married whether MF, FF or MM.

Civil Partnership - for two people who want to join together in a sexual relationship without having to get married, for wahtever reason, whether MF, FF or MM.

Partnership Arrangement (for want of a bettter expression) - for people who do not want a marriage or a civil partnership but who have a friend or relation who they want to commit to to get the legal and tax benefits (eg two spinster sisters who live together and want the IHT benefits, two friends who trust each other implicitly re: health care in event of debilitating illness and who are not wishing to to be married or in a civil partnership.)

Why can't all these be the same thing?

An alternative view.
I think the fact this was uploaded by christianorguk slightly detracts from the intended sincerity of David Starkey himself ,as if they're claiming his opinion belongs to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs

This is going on in the news thread btw

Ill repeat my "I agree with N3IL" statement from the other thread.

Always thought it made no sense for people to get married through the state. Marriage is either

a personal vow/commitment to be made with another person

a religious commitment/vow to be made with this other person, their family and God. The participants may wish to involve their church in this but I know for Christianity and Islam it is totally unecessary. These people should not feel that their religious establishment holds power over them and their relationship.

And in a cynical and unpleasant angle; some kind of legal contract you put together privately.

The last version of marriage requires some goverment involvement in terms of law, but it should stop at that and should be as minimal as possible. The idea of special perks for marriage and courts having to deal with peoples martial woes is silly. Its exactly like in other "more backward" parts of the world where people are punished by state for adultery.

So you only need goverment involvement if when sorting out inheritance stuff, because of this marriage linked next of kin. The courts should not have to deal with shit like distributing assets after divorce etc - that is lunacy.

And in this regard you should be able to label a same sex person as your partner/next of kin. But the details of that relationship are nowt to do with the government.

I think the "change the word gay for black/jewish/diasbled/any other minority" test works for the b&b situation. there are many types of discrimination and you shouldn't be able to pick and choose which ones you agree with. I wonder what they would have said if it was a gay christian couple?

Do you agree with that at all?

I just think it's important not call people, who don't agree with your/our personal opinion, something offensive. The fact we live in a demography does mean that the majority rules, but it seems dangerous to have an off the hanger morality.

I am far more worried about proper bank regulation, the shark monopoly of Electric/gas/water companys. Rogue landlords, legislation needed to lower rent rates. Does it really matter if 2 men or 2 women choose to tie the knot, it doesn"t effect anyone but bigots. I believe marriage is much older than religion anyway..

I hate straights.

I do realise that not everything has to be serious, but seriously, what was the point of that post?

Your mom.

Also it cracked me up lol!

Thanks for the rep!

the eyes have it, vote for Gay marriage has passed in House of Commons..

has anyone heard about the story of sodom & gomorrah?

Marriage - for two people who want to get married whether MF, FF or MM.

Why limit it to two? Why not any group of people who want to make a legal commitment to each other?

oh yes it is!

I'm with Kinky Friedman on this one.
Havent they as much right to be miserable as the rest of us?

...incidentally heterosexuals do a very good job of undermining the institution of marriage.

I had a straight version done almost 2 years ago, I wholeheartedly support expansion of the franchise.

I am interested in the equality aspect of it, and the limit of two is irrelevant to that.

But one could argue that there is still inequality towards those who choose to live in a relationship with more than 2 people, and would like the legal protection, and advantages a marriage provides.

I only bring it up, as one of the arguments given against gay marriage was that it would devalue marriage to such an extent, that the next step would be allow polyamarous marriage.

While that's a ridiculous point of view, I think it raises an interesting point.

I think the "change the word gay for black/jewish/diasbled/any other minority" test works for the b&b situation. there are many types of discrimination and you shouldn't be able to pick and choose which ones you agree with. I wonder what they would have said if it was a gay christian couple?

this a million times

I wonder what David Cameron's real motivation was in taking on the Church of England on this subject the cynic in me believes that if the Church of England can be shown as a group of backward thinking fuddy duddie s over this issue the it will be easy to discredit them on issues such as poverty and social injustice.

In the process discrediting his own party? Not that either the Tories nor the church of England need any help when it comes to discrediting themselves.