Same Sex Marriage

[deaf andy]

not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but i have newsnight on in the background and just heard one of the panel state the 1949 marriage act does not specify that the people getting married must be of opposite gender - the 1971 act made same sex marriage illegal.

 

wouldn't it be easier to repeal the later amendment? or is that too simple a solution?

[RootsBooster]

who am i to tell anyone who to fall in love with, each to their own i say, good luck to anyone who finds true love, whoever it might be with, why cant people just do as they want, no one tells me who i can love or marry so why should they tell anyone else

Of course they do, the law tells you that you can't marry another woman

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2013 at 07:28 ----------

 

 

so your one of those people that thinks christians get married not to have sex?

What a crap attempt at a dodge.

Of course I don't think Christians get married NOT to have sex. I would think they get married to make a loving commitment to each other.

It's rather sad that you seem to think marriage and sex ARE the same thing.

[Jason Bourne]

As much as I don't like the idea of gayness, I'm very much in favour of gay marriage.

 

Oh yes, the gays have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us, so Bring It On.

 

I can't wait to hear the circumstances of the first gay divorce. Will it be:

 

"She used my razor and didn't wash the stubble off"

 

or

 

"He went out wearing my favourite pink shirt"

 

[Clown Shoes]

I hope they make it ok for gay marriage soon so i can start my campaign for it to be ok to marry my pet goat Billie.

[Jason Bourne]

I hope they make it ok for gay marriage soon so i can start my campaign for it to be ok to marry my pet goat Billie.

 

Depends if you're the same gender as Bille or not...

[Clown Shoes]

Depends if you're the same gender as Bille or not...

 

Well it was a boy goat called Billy but he decided to be trans gender so now he's a she goat called Billie.

 

Its a bit of a political minefield and an ethical pickle to be honest.

[Jace]

Having given this some thought, I think that as Marriage has not been used for it's intended purpose since ancient times, then no more Marriages should be performed, and couples who wish to commit should do so as a Civil Partnership.

 

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[El Cid]

i have newsnight on in the background and just heard one of the panel state the 1949 marriage act does not specify that the people getting married must be of opposite gender.

 

Did it specify if you could marry an alien species? No I think not, perhaps R2D2 will start a marriage agency for aliens?

Its their equal rights, we must not discriminate.

[Rupert_Baehr]

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.

 

And that - IMO - is the crux of the matter. People should be treated equally, irrespective of their sexual preference.

 

You seem to think that marriage is tied in exclusively with the Church, it's not.

 

Says who? A number of churches do not accept Civil Ceremonies (Registry Office deals) as 'Marriages' because - as far as they are concerned - Marriage is a sacrament celebrated between a Man and a Woman and sacraments are irrevocably linked with religion.

 

Do we (or anybody, for that matter) really need to get into a semantic argument about the meaning of words?

 

If - as seems to be the case in the US - the argument is about the use of a word, then come up with another word and stop being silly!

 

If 'Gays' using 'Marriage' as the word to describe their union is so offensive, what about 'Garriage'?

 

(I can be just as silly as anybody else.)

 

Of course, if you are going to use 'garriage' (or any other word) to describe non-sacramental marriage, then that word would have to apply to ALL non-religious (non-sacramental) unions, including those Registry Office ceremonies which have been around for many years.

 

I'm heterosexual and I have strong religious beliefs.

 

I'm not a sociopath and I do have a fairly well-developed sense of 'fair play'.

 

I can't see any reason why any society should treat any group of individuals (unless their behaviour is totally unacceptable to that society) any differently to any other group.

 

If I was to go and get hitched to a female in a Registry Office, (been there, done that ) then I would enjoy exactly the same secular rights and privileges (though not perhaps the rights and privileges afforded under Canon Law) as somebody who was married in a church.

 

If I was a male homosexual, then - as I understand it - if I entered into a 'civil partnership' with another man, I would not enjoy those secular (nothing to do with religion) rights.

 

My church can (and does) make its own rules, but the founder of that church said: "Give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and give unto God that which belongs to God."

 

AFAIK, he didn't say anything about 'These people don't conform. Let's screw them around.'

 

What's all the fuss about? - I'm aware that in the US, there are some outspoken bigoted homosexuals who are determined to deny religious people the 'right' to the word 'marriage'. I doubt that there are very many, and they do themselves no favours.

[El Cid]

 

I'm not a sociopath and I do have a fairly well-developed sense of 'fair play'.

 

 

You are obviously not a football or sports fan. Because a they dont allow "equality". You must be either male or female. They dont allow mixed teams. The opposite should be true with marriage.

 

Perhaps they should have equality in boxing? Saying it doesnt matter what biological sex you are is barking.