Gay marriage

[Gibbon]

The only thing I would question, is in wanting to do it in front of a priest/imam/A.N.Other in the eyes of your god, especially if that religion explicitly forbidden it; I don't really understand why you'd be beholden to a religion, that hated your existence.

Because there is a militant part of the Gay Rights movement that want everyone to be forced to accept their practices. There was a debate on Gay marriage on one of the late night shows a year or so ago. Those two celebrity gay fathers were on and clearly said that once gay marriage was approved that they would then be pushing for The Church to be forced to marry them.

[VectraMan]

A good point there - most of those against say that "marriage" is a religious concept, so "they" should have domain over who/how it should be used, not governments.

I suppose it comes down to the meaning of the word, as much as anything. Surely the point of civil partnerships was to give all the same rights as marriage to homosexual couples, so nobody is being discriminated against. It's just a question of whether or not you use the "M" word - which clearly means a lot to those affected.

I don't see it as a big deal. It's the kind of thing that'll keep hitting the headlines, but once it's legalised, as seems inevitable, will quickly be forgotten about and in 5 years time people will be scratching their heads wondering why it was ever an issue.

[Old Greg]

I suppose it comes down to the meaning of the word, as much as anything. Surely the point of civil partnerships was to give all the same rights as marriage to homosexual couples, so nobody is being discriminated against. It's just a question of whether or not you use the "M" word - which clearly means a lot to those affected.

I don't see it as a big deal. It's the kind of thing that'll keep hitting the headlines, but once it's legalised, as seems inevitable, will quickly be forgotten about and in 5 years time people will be scratching their heads wondering why it was ever an issue.

It wouldn't seem quite as ok if inter-racial couples were allowed civil partnerships with all the rights of marriages but without the name.

[SimonMac]

Can some explain to me the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

[Old Hack]

It wouldn't seem quite as ok if inter-racial couples were allowed civil partnerships with all the rights of marriages but without the name.

Nail on the head here.

[Old Hack]

Can some explain to me the difference between marriage and civil partnership?

Currently the former means someone holds you by the balls, the latter someone likes being held by the balls...

HTH

[proggy]

If you are against it in any way, then you are no better than someone who was against interracial marriages years ago, when most enlightened people could clearly see it was racist. The religious, as usual, are the ones holding society back.

[TheFaQQer]

The main argument I hear is from religious bigots who claim the Bible ...blah.

The Bible has more against women priests than against homosexuality, yet the General Synod voted a long time back to allow women priests.

[cailin maith]

If you are against it in any way, then you are no better than someone who was against interracial marriages years ago, when most enlightened people could clearly see it was racist. The religious, as usual, are the ones holding society back.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I bet there are plently of religious people out there who don't have an issue with it & I'm sure plenty of priests/vicars etc who also wouldn't have an issue with performing same sex marriage.

To tar the entire religious or faith community with the same brush is a bit short sighted.

[sasguru]

Bored with this whole gay marriage thing.
Are my natural party, the Tories, really so stupid as a whole that they'll break up the party for this "principle" that marriage should be between men and women only?
WGAS what people want to do in the bedroom or what pieces of paper or certificates they want.
FFS, what is wrong with people.