Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[esme]

They are the same and can even be conducted in a church and based on religion, there is no difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership except that the former is intended only for heterosexual couples and the latter for homosexual couples.

Which brings me back to my original question.

 

If, as you assert, they are the same thing, why do we need to call them by a different name.

[buck]

To be fair, he was saying something wasn't he - perhaps not in a way that was agreeable to you.

 

Perhaps I could put it a little more delicately?

 

Does the notion of two women making love revolt you in a physical sense as with gay men, or do you find it arousing - as many men do?

Not particularly, women kiss each other all the time without being lesbians. I don't get my jollies out of it. There's one woman I kiss that arouses me, but I've been married to her for 31 years.

[maxmaximus]

Which brings me back to my original question.

 

If, as you assert, they are the same thing, why do we need to call them by a different name.

 

Because some religious people don't like the idea of calling them the same, maybe this is based on their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

[janie48]

 

How did your MP vote on this issue ?

 

Did you make them aware of your feelings before the vote ?

I didn't know about the bill until the day before to be honest.

Not that i would have wanted to contact my MP if i had known,they're are far more other issues relating to politics that concern me.

I leave issues to do with religion to church people who are better informed then i am,but i am well aware that with the gay marriage issues (as well as other matters) they are as divided as the nation,which is not entirely a bad thing.

[quisquose]

Because some religious people don't like the idea of calling them the same, maybe this is based on their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Then, as I have stated, it is up to them to come up with their own word and use it.

 

There are so many different religions, and different interpretations on what their 'proper' marriages are, then it is incumbent on them to define it and name it accordingly, not the other way around.

 

In it's simplest form, marriage just means an intimate or close union. To start excluding groups of people from the definition in language, when we don't even exclude businesses or things, is a nonsense confusion. For the state to do it in law is an unfair discrimination.

[buck]

Because some religious people don't like the idea of calling them the same, maybe this is based on their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Perhaps some of us believe in the natural flow of marriage without being religious. A man and a woman creating and raising children. She with the skills of motherhood, and he with the skills of providing for them. It's an old fashioned concept I know, but stood the test of time. Let the homosexuals have a ceremony that gives them all the rights of marriage but don't call it that, cos it isn't. Check your OED.

[maxmaximus]

Perhaps some of us believe in the natural flow of marriage without being religious. A man and a woman creating and raising children. She with the skills of motherhood, and he with the skills of providing for them. It's an old fashioned concept I know, but stood the test of time. Let the homosexuals have a ceremony that gives them all the rights of marriage but don't call it that, cos it isn't. Check your OED.

 

That’s a good point.

[esme]

Because some religious people don't like the idea of calling them the same, maybe this is based on their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Then they don't have to conduct, approve or even attend such a marriage, it still doesn't mean it should be two names for the same thing.

 

And I must apologise, I misworded the question, I should have said

 

If, as you assert, they are the same thing, why do you need to call them by a different name ?

 

I've underlined the bit I changed

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 14:33 ----------

 

Perhaps some of us believe in the natural flow of marriage without being religious. A man and a woman creating and raising children. She with the skills of motherhood, and he with the skills of providing for them. It's an old fashioned concept I know, but stood the test of time. Let the homosexuals have a ceremony that gives them all the rights of marriage but don't call it that, cos it isn't. Check your OED.

And we're back to Rosa Parks being told she can sit at the back of the bus again.

[maxmaximus]

Then, as I have stated, it is up to them to come up with their own word and use it.

 

There are so many different religions, and different interpretations on what their 'proper' marriages are, then it is incumbent on them to define it and name it accordingly, not the other way around.

 

In it's simplest form, marriage just means an intimate or close union. To start excluding groups of people from the definition in language, when we don't even exclude businesses or things, is a nonsense confusion. For the state to do it in law is an unfair discrimination.

 

Not sure you can expect the millions of people to change there views on marriage just to suit a few people that can unite in the same way as a married couple but with a different name attached to it. Gay marriage is a new concept which doesn’t need to be called marriage to be equal to marriage.

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 14:43 ----------

 

If, as you assert, they are the same thing, why do you need to call them by a different name ?

 

 

I don't need to, when two people are committed enough to share their life together what difference does it make what word is attached to that commitment.

 

Why do you need to call them by the same name ?

[lil-minx92]

[/color]And we're back to Rosa Parks being told she can sit at the back of the bus again.

 

Im sure you dont mean the two groups of people's plights were/are the same.