skinz Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 How can you write so many words and say so little? Time, useless time. And lots of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Only one question, if a gay person, married already in a gay marriage, marries someone else, is it bigamy ?? Would it be punishable by law ?? One would assume that the same laws apply to all people, regardless of their sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Thankfully, that "piece of paper" is legislation that gives my friends in same-sex relationships the same rights over their partner, and the same rights to inherit etc as I and my husband had over each other when we were married. I can't see anything to be freaked out about, in giving them those rights. Imagine, my friends who weren't allowed to marry their same-sex partner, having no rights to pensions when their loved one dies... Imagine one of the partners being involved, God forbid, in an awful accident, and their partner of thirty years having no right to decide/ give permission for treatments such as to switch the life support machine off. Indeed I know of couples where an estranged-by-40-years family were permitted at the bedside of that dying friend, and making those decisions when their partner of twenty odd years was not even permitted into the ward... It's wicked that the partner has no rights, and isn't recognised, and that the partnership and commitment to each other is not acknowledged. I had left this thread but after reading your post found what you describe as dreadfull and heartbreaking. Is the situation the same now or did civil partnerships alter it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I had left this thread but after reading your post found what you describe as dreadfull and heartbreaking. Is the situation the same now or did civil partnerships alter it ? Imagine if homosexual people weren't allowed to travel on the bus. Now imagine if the rules changed so that they could travel on the bus, but they had to sit in designated seats. The new ruling would change the situation, and no doubt some people would now claim that they were now equal, different but equal. But they would not be equal and the 'situation' would still be wrong, even if marginally less wrong than before. Ditto for same-sex marriage. The movement to allow civil partnerships was a movement to a slightly less wrong 'situation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Thankfully, that "piece of paper" is legislation that gives my friends in same-sex relationships the same rights over their partner, and the same rights to inherit etc as I and my husband had over each other when we were married. I can't see anything to be freaked out about, in giving them those rights. Imagine, my friends who weren't allowed to marry their same-sex partner, having no rights to pensions when their loved one dies... Imagine one of the partners being involved, God forbid, in an awful accident, and their partner of thirty years having no right to decide/ give permission for treatments such as to switch the life support machine off. Indeed I know of couples where an estranged-by-40-years family were permitted at the bedside of that dying friend, and making those decisions when their partner of twenty odd years was not even permitted into the ward... It's wicked that the partner has no rights, and isn't recognised, and that the partnership and commitment to each other is not acknowledged. Yes, all very well but what about the rights of the bigots? They also have a need based on fairy stories rather than reality of everyday life. The Church is a big enough institution to accept everyone regardless of who and what they are..not "love thy neighbor"...on condition they fit neatly in a box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Imagine if homosexual people weren't allowed to travel on the bus. Now imagine if the rules changed so that they could travel on the bus, but they had to sit in designated seats. The new ruling would change the situation, and no doubt some people would now claim that they were now equal, different but equal. But they would not be equal and the 'situation' would still be wrong, even if marginally less wrong than before. Ditto for same-sex marriage. The movement to allow civil partnerships was a movement to a slightly less wrong 'situation'. I don't intend to get involved in this thread again but found the post I replied to was disturbing and worthy of comment. Did civil partneships change the situation ? I don't ask this so it can be used in an argument but am interested and concerned if these wrongs were not righted with the introduction of civil partnerships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingus Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Thankfully, that "piece of paper" is legislation that gives my friends in same-sex relationships the same rights over their partner, and the same rights to inherit etc as I and my husband had over each other when we were married. Which is exactly what they have with a civil partnership. I'm not sure that booking into a Riyahd hotel with a marriage certificate will be any advantage to doing the same with a civil partnership certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Which is exactly what they have with a civil partnership. I'm not sure that booking into a Riyahd hotel with a marriage certificate will be any advantage to doing the same with a civil partnership certificate. Do you have a reason to prevent gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I had left this thread but after reading your post found what you describe as dreadfull and heartbreaking. Is the situation the same now or did civil partnerships alter it ? Yes, married couples have no more rights than civil partners, they are recognised as equal in law, neither one better than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I don't intend to get involved in this thread again but found the post I replied to was disturbing and worthy of comment. Did civil partneships change the situation ? I don't ask this so it can be used in an argument but am interested and concerned if these wrongs were not righted with the introduction of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships certainly improved the situation, from how it was, but it still comes across as something of a "second rate" concession. I think many people see it as a "not-quite-a-marriage". I have friends who are civil partnershipped (CP) / are about to be CP'd. My own opinion is that, I refer to it as "getting married". On a personal level, I would be happier, on behalf of my friends, and for the sake of equality/ parity/status (*insert whatever term you feel*) if their love and commitment to each other could be legally regarded as marriage. Look, for example, at how the actor/ comedian Matt Lucas has been treated in the press, particularly after the death of his former CP (Husband?) Kevin McGee. They "married" in 2006, shortly after the inception of the CP law in 2005, but, sadly, the relationship broke down, and they "divorced"/ their CP was dissolved. The press, and not just the gutter press continued to insist on referring to Kevin McGee as Lucas' "boyfriend" and tended to persistently refer to the relationship in a derisory tone, which was unacceptable and demeaning. Yes, it is true that a CP now has the right to accede to their other-half's pension. In the situation I mentioned above, a CP now has the right to be declared the next-of-kin, and consulted on the continuation or withdrawal of treatment if their OH is on life support. They also have the right to inherit in the case of intestacy, (no legally valid will) which is certainly better than the previous situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.