redrobbo Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Gay or straight, what are the actual benefits of getting married? Surely if the state kept out of the issue of marriage altogether there wouldn't be this problem. Gay people in the UK cannot bylaw get married, but they can have a civil partnership - as my partner and I have done. Should one of us now die, the other will automatically inherit and benefit from a private pension scheme. We've each paid into our schemes for nearly 40 years, but if we were not in a civil partnership - all accrued benefits would simply be lost upon death. If one of us should fall seriously ill and become incapacitated, the other must now be legally consulted by the medics regarding such aspects as treatment, resuscitation, life support and surgery. We'd each rather be making these decisions for the other - should the need arise - than it falling to anyone else in the family be default. If one of us should become seriously mentally ill, the other must be legally consulted about any proposed compulsory admission to hospital and treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Redrobbo, I am appalled that you could not have the readings of your choice, religious or not, at your wedding. I find that really irritating. 1) So long as the reading is not something like a hate-filled diatribe, or an incitement to hatred, or overtly vulgar/ sexual, why can't you have the poem or reading of choice? 2) What about the gay couple who have a religious faith? Why can't that be acknowledged within the ceremony? (I do know of gay people who are religious) In my wedding ceremony, (ok, it was in church) I had a reading of 1 Corinthians 13:13 about The "fruits of the spirit", which ends "...And these three things remain, Faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is Love!." I don't see why a reading of that could not be used. I mean, couldn't it be that the faith referred to for one couple may not mean "religious faith" but faith in each other, or fidelity toward each other, and the hope being the couple's aspirations in moving into their new future together? The love, of course speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 There are only about two states which recognise gay marriage. Two states out of 50. We dont want decadent European liberal ideas here. The people who pushed for gay marriage in California are a bunch of white elitists in San Francisico. They do not represent the ideals of the rest of the people in this state. ..which begs the question, what's it got to do with the rest of the people of that state? They won't be required to marry gay folks unless they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Why do gay people wish to get married? dont they know that a marriage is a religious ceremony and religion generaly frowns upon homosexuality? of course they know this, they're getting "married" to stir up trouble, egged on by "progressive" types to rub the rights nose in it and to perhaps bring down the church. I don't agree with the latter part, but the bold part I agree with. Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships. I don't disapprove of same sex couples making a life comittment like marriage, they should be free to do that just as opposite sex couples can and have it recognised in law, but to call it marriage is wrong imo because the word marriage means between man and woman, as defined by it's religious background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Why do gay people wish to get married? dont they know that a marriage is a religious ceremony and religion generaly frowns upon homosexuality? of course they know this, they're getting "married" to stir up trouble, egged on by "progressive" types to rub the rights nose in it and to perhaps bring down the church. What an amazingly blinkered, ill informed and, to be frank, plainly incorrect view. You've surpassed yourself there, GItD! It's already been pointed out for you that marriage is not necessarily a religioius ceremony. Some people I know very well are intending to get married in the near future. It will be a heterosexual marriage. They've both been married and, obviously, divorced previously and don't hold much store by the institution. They are going to go through with it purely for the financial reasons stated earlier ... particularly the pension and inheritance aspects. (Incidentally, I'm with epiphany on this one ... they shouldn't have to but, as things stand at present, they do). So, is this acceptable to you or are they, too, trying to bring down the church by having a "ceremony" in a hotel somewhere and, thereafter sharing their money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Ha, yeah ok, but from the church's point of view it is wrong to marry same sex couples and it shouldn't be forced to do so by politically correct, egalitarian legislation brought about by leftists who dont believe in marriage any way. That smells like cultural marxism to me. Careful, fella, the mask is slipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt89 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 If two people in a loving relationship want to make a commitment to each other, what business is it of anyone else? I don't see why people are protesting so much against same sex marriage, it's not like people are making them marry someone of the same sex. Same sex relationships aren't going to disappear just because a ban against same sex marriage is in place! I am in a gay relationship myself and although I have no intention of getting married just yet, one day I would like to be able to make that commitment so that my partner and I become each others next of kin, so should the worse happen the other person has 'control' of the situation and what happens in regards to others estate etc. It's people that spread this homophobic trash that make the world a really horrible place. They simply believe their opinion is right and are therefore pleased to see other people unhappy just so their 'ideals' are kept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 It's this quote from one of the homophobes which baffles me: "Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California," Why does what 2 people in love do have any effect on anyone else? Unless I'm missing something the judge isn't making same sex marriage compulsory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 In california, civil partnerships (or the equivalent) were still available even with prop 8 - what has been ruled on is that you cannot ban marriage "proper" The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California or same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008. A domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most but not all of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses. I have a civil partnership with my wife, we are also married, I care not what it is called as long as our union has equal standing to that of everybody else who wants to commit themselves to each other for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Gay people in the UK cannot bylaw get married, but they can have a civil partnership - as my partner and I have done. Should one of us now die, the other will automatically inherit and benefit from a private pension scheme. We've each paid into our schemes for nearly 40 years, but if we were not in a civil partnership - all accrued benefits would simply be lost upon death. If one of us should fall seriously ill and become incapacitated, the other must now be legally consulted by the medics regarding such aspects as treatment, resuscitation, life support and surgery. We'd each rather be making these decisions for the other - should the need arise - than it falling to anyone else in the family be default. If one of us should become seriously mentally ill, the other must be legally consulted about any proposed compulsory admission to hospital and treatment. Again, why does the state need to get involved? Why can't these arrangements be made privately? I am asking this about all forms of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.