lil-minx92 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I can think of reasons why somebody might reasonably want to know if somebody is a signalman or a gunner. In light of esme's excellent post just above, what possible reason can you think of why you might need to know if somebody is married or in a civil partnership? Is that like passive and active? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 May 18th, 2012 The first UK civil partnership between homosexual persons was officially registered in a Unitarian Church in Liverpool between a self-described Catholic, and a self- described Anglican. The self-described Catholic is a member of Quest, a group dissenting from the Church’s teaching on sexuality. According to The Tablet, ‘The event included an interesting ‘liturgical innovation’, with a trained owl flying the length of the Grade-1 listed building to deliver the rings to the best man. ‘The Gospel was read by a religious sister of the Bethlehem Community in Liverpool’, which is part of the self-described LGBT ‘Ecumenical Catholic Church’. I saw the article earlier in the thread, I hope that the newspaper got all the details correct and that the couple did have the ceremony their way, but it doesn't change current legislation "Civil ceremonies can include readings, songs or music, but must not include anything that’s religious - eg hymns or readings from the Bible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I can understand the problem with that. Although of course, as it stands the hetrosexual is also declaring their sexuality in ticking the married box. The answer therefore is to do away with all the boxes.Because of course heterosexuals are noted for being discriminated against in job applications. And it still leaves two names for the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Oh I intended the comparison. Discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual orientation is no different from discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin, or their gender or their ability or even their religion. "You people, you go and have this ceremony which we aren't going to allow you to call a marriage over there somewhere subject to this list of restrictions" You reckon this isn't discriminatory ? There are levels of seriousness of discrimination. If we're putting them all on the same level then the fact I get in free to a nightclub because im a girl is also of equal importance to sexual orientation and race discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Good point and one way to solve that dilemma would be to allow heterosexuals to have a civil partnership.Works for me as long as same sex couples are allowed to get married as well. Otherwise same sex couples only have one ceremony and mixed sex couples have two which is discrimination again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I saw the article earlier in the thread, I hope that the newspaper got all the details correct and that the couple did have the ceremony their way, but it doesn't change current legislation "Civil ceremonies can include readings, songs or music, but must not include anything that’s religious - eg hymns or readings from the Bible." I think you misunderstand that; you can’t have hymns or readings from the Bible in a register office but you can if you have a religious ceremony in a church which applies equally to both gay and straight couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That’s like men and women, equal but different and we wouldn’t want to call all humans men would we. We call all humans, human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Because of course heterosexuals are noted for being discriminated against in job applications. And it still leaves two names for the same thing. Everyone is open to discrimination on job aps. too old, too young, too ethnic sounding, too white heterosexual british male, too posh, too common...the list is endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Works for me as long as same sex couples are allowed to get married as well. Otherwise same sex couples only have one ceremony and mixed sex couples have two which is discrimination again. There will always be some discrimination because some religious groups think homosexuality is a sin, and there is no way round that unless we ban religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There are levels of seriousness of discrimination. If we're putting them all on the same level then the fact I get in free to a nightclub because im a girl is also of equal importance to sexual orientation and race discrimination.Discriminating against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, ability religion or skin colour are described as hate crimes and are regarded as equivalent. Nightclubs believe there are a lot of men who will regularly pay to get in a room containing women, oddly enough they don't seem to believe there are a lot of women who will regularly pay to get in the same room as a lot of men, I don't know if anyone has done the experiment to find out though. If you think that's discriminatory, feel free to take a nightclub to court for letting you in for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.