Chris_B_1983 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I have been married 19 years, and the sex has ALWAYS been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Correct. Now go away and write 500 times: It is perfectly legal for same-sex couples to enter into a legally registered partnership in the UK and the 'church' has no problem with that. Your the last of the romantics! Imagine the scene, one partner looks into the other's eyes and nervously popped the not so age old question - shall we enter into a legally registered partnership? Let them get married, it harms no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I'm sure there are other things too. Things related to bringing up children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The thing that gets me is that they are now claiming that marriage is for the purpose of pro-creation and some states in the US want to ban infertile and older people from getting married as well as same sex couples. And we think the UK is barmy! Has the UK yet recognized same sex marriage as legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Has the UK yet recognised same sex marriage as legal? It passed a vote in the house of commons, but it takes a while for these things to become law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 If the word 'married' is a problem, why not encourage them to get 'barried' or 'carried' or even 'garried'? Do you know any gay people who are in 'a serious relationship' who are genuinely concerned about verbiage? - I don't. I have a number of gay friends. None of them gives a twopenny damn about verbiage, but most of them do care about the (usually lack of) rights they enjoy compared to heteros in similar relationships. I do wonder whether we're fighting over 'equal treatment for all' (Something I would fight for) or 'Let's screw the hetero's because we think we can get away with it.' ? Do queers (old English word) need to be married or could they be - provided all the laws [including tax and inheritance laws] were non-gender specific - garried? If 'garried' is an unacceptable word, that's SOOOOO gay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Why would a gay couple want to marry under the banner of a faith which disapproves of homosexuality? Do vegetarians eat in steak houses? I suppose like so many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual), a church provides an attractive backdrop for the all important photographs, the hats, the confetti and all the other froth which has replaced faith, belief and conscience as the main criterion for choosing a wedding venue:hihi: ---------- Post added 02-04-2013 at 05:33 ---------- Because marriage gives an automatic entitlement to an awful lot of things that just aren't so if you're in a civil partnership or are just living together. Entitlement to being the presumed next of kin and therefore having to be consulted in medical decisions in the event that the other spouse is too ill to decide things for themselves, entitlement to inherit pensions etc. I'm sure there are other things too. Yes, these things can be got in other ways by signing and having witnessed a power of attorney document (in the case of the decisions) but why should people have to do that when everybody who is married gets it without any sort of special piece of paper? And on top of that, if you have a power of attorney you can demand to be heard, but nobody HAS to notify and consult you unless you ask to be, whereas if you were the married spouse it would be automatic. It's so much more complicated than having just sex. An awful lot of people feel the need to make a strong partnership with a declaration of intention in front of everybody who matters to them too. civil partnerships give same sex couples the same legal and civil rights as marriage.http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/ what they don't have now, is religious blessing of the union. they are as married as a heterosexual couple marrying in a registry office - ie in the eyes of the state they are married. some religious organisations will be willing to conduct gay wedding ceremonies, but most will not.the problems will start when a gay couple try to force a religious organisation to marry them, under equality or human rights legislation. the government knows it can't do this, but a significant number of people don't understand why freedom of belief is protected, and don't respect all human rights equally, when in reality they are all interconnected, and if you mess with one, you mess with them all. there are some among us who relish the conflict between equality and religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 It passed a vote in the house of commons, but it takes a while for these things to become law. Then some States in the US are ahead of you. I think 6 have already legalized gay marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 ...what they don't have now, is religious blessing of the union. And nobody can force any church to grant that. It's not (as far as I can see) about what the churches say, it's about what the queers want. There is nothing wrong with the word queer. it is not the same as the word which derives from [or was related to] gentlemen of the dark-skinned persuasion, a labrador owned by Guy Gibson (even though,as the most junior officer on the Squadron I was responsible for Nig g er's grave)(Until young Mr West took the job from me.) It's just historical fact ... and the sooner people re-insert the word 'historical' the sooner we'll get away from 'hysterical'. They are as married as a heterosexual couple marrying in a registry office - ie in the eyes of the state they are married. some religious organisations will be willing to conduct gay wedding ceremonies, but most will not. The problems will start when a gay couple try to force a religious organisation to marry them, under equality or human rights legislation. the government knows it can't do this, but a significant number of people don't understand why freedom of belief is protected, and don't respect all human rights equally, when in reality they are all interconnected, and if you mess with one, you mess with them all. I've got friends who are queer. They don't need a bunch of plonkers to tell them how they should think or behave. Please bear that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 there are some among us who relish the conflict between equality and religion This is true..never the less that is becoming rarer by the day. Centuries ago Religion took precedence over equality...you either bend or you burn. As you say though, there are those still within the church who hold beliefs that reminisce of 16th century mentality..yeah they fluff about with contemporary thinking as camouflage but that's nothing new. Does allowing same sex marriage rock your belief?..that's of course if you have a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.