Forum Topic

Gay Marriage v. Civil Partnership

Civil partnerships have been allowed for some time now. Should we also allow gay marriages to be performed? I'm confused. Somebody please sort me out by explaining the implications of each. Does it really matter?

Gerry Tan ● 4810d22 Comments

The "fuss" is that objecting to this is a way for those in society who still don't approve of "alternative" lifestyles making their feelings known in a way that *seems* PC (it no longer being permissible to suggest that you don't like "gays").Personally, I am all for 100% equality in everything.

Tony Colliver ● 4808d

Exactly.I really don't give a passing care about someone's sexuality. It is a matter for them. I do however object to a vocal minority who want to promote 'their' sexual prefernce as somehow superior to that of others. Respect is mutual and as such activities which seek to belittle the choices of others lead to resentment.

Nigel Brooks ● 4808d

Re  I really don't understand the fuss.               xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx it has now been passed in the House with almost 150 Tories voting against. I can't see what all the fuss is about , as I understand it, no dissenting religious  " building "  will be forced to conduct such ceremonies and for those who argue it will affect the status of marriage as hitherto, will any persons of opposite genders  who  wish to get married either be prevented or be put off by the new legislation. I feel not, so what are they crowing about. Get on with your life and stop interfering with that of others. Does that not seem a reasonable stance?

Tony Price ● 4808d

It was quite recent, I think, Tony, as he didn't stand trial till after he left office. Italy has no laws against homophobia and no homosexual rights at the moment.

Susan Kelly ● 4809d

Re  that at least he wasn't gay.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxx    depending how long ago Susan, it could cost him votes in the forthcoming elections, if he has the gall to stand. After all, he is a convicted  fraudster, and on a large scale. Hardly one to throw stones I would have thought, and today if he said that in this over emphasised PC world he could be prosecuted?. Not too long ago in this country the head of the M C B when he said  homosexuality was wrong, he was nearly prosecuted. Berlesconi is saying the same but in a different fashion?.

Tony Price ● 4809d

Still a lot of resistance to gay rights in Italy. Berlusconi once said, excusing his romps with under-age prostitutes, that at least he wasn't gay.

Susan Kelly ● 4809d

Re  Many countries are  considering            vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv    according to News Night, France has passed this and apparently Holland did 10 years ago and Spain 7 years past, and where there have been no problems with the religious authorities, who in any event here will be able to refuse such ceremmonies, so why all the opposition from them. Seems just  concern re losing their control over people. I didn't realise the UK is so backward on this matter compared to other supposedly deeply religious countries. I wonder what the situation is in Italy? ( btw, where I think the rate of abortion is among the highest in Europe ? )

Tony Price ● 4809d

Re  Will the legislation apply to Mosques          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  The M C B have issued this:-                                                            Same-sex marriage bill- act now!4th February 2013Assalamu alaikum, (Peace be upon you)    Tomorrow is the critical Second Reading of the government's bill with a possible vote at 7 pm to legally change the definition of marriage as understood, believed and practised throughout history and across cultures and the all the major faith traditions. Despite serious concerns expressed by ourselves, as well as the senior faith leaders of the country such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Catholic Bishops in England and Wales, the coalition government is pressing ahead with an early vote.It is imperative that in these last few hours we do what we can.  Since it is a free vote, we must phone or email our MP's, both as organisations and individual constituents, to ask them to vote against what we believe to be an ill-conceived and unnecessary piece of legislation which is being rushed through. This bill was not in any of the parties' manifesto. The MCB stands opposed to discrimination in all its forms, including homophobia. Although the government base this bill on grounds of ‘equality’, it does not require us to define different things by the same term. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and is something that does not need to be redefined. Please arrange for your members to phone or email your MP now and ask him/her to oppose the marriage bill at its Second Reading.

Tony Price ● 4809d

Yes, that's all that will happen, I really don't understand the fuss.

Nigel Brooks ● 4809d

I like this:http://i.imgur.com/WBcr4.jpg

Susan Kelly ● 4809d

I would love to see them try :-)

Nigel Brooks ● 4810d

Will the legislation apply to mosques as well I wonder?

Keith Iddon ● 4810d

Our current marriage laws are a bit untidy, largely because we have an established church. It would make more sense if all marriages were civil ones, as in France.The church in France is far more 'established' than in the UK. All church buildings, as example, over 100 years old are fully maintained by the State, no fiund-raising or jumble sales for them. In Germany and many Scandanavian countries church membership is achieved by a local tax, a fraction of a %age. No contribution = no access to the church. This gives you the 'right' to be Christened, married and buried in your local parish church. In addition, at least in Germany, the church takes on many of the social services roles performed by local councils in the UK via StadtMissions. Failing churches are few and far between as they are embedded into their local communities.

Nigel Brooks ● 4810d

"... little demand for it from the gay community." Then what's all the fuss about?  I think our frightened and cautious Prime Minister wants a clear majority at the next election, so wants to show his party as a "modern forward looking" bunch, in the hope that his party wins with that clear majority.

Gerry Tan ● 4810d

Our current marriage laws are a bit untidy, largely because we have an established church. It would make more sense if all marriages were civil ones, as in France.So each couple (hetero or same-sex) would have their wedding at a Register Office, then be free to adjourn to the church/synagogue/mosque/Quaker meeting house/temple/clearing in the woods/pub for any further ceremonial that they feel the need for and which their religion permits.That said, I'm not sure why Cameron is choosing to fight this battle now. It is surely unprecedented for a government bill to be passed with the support of the Opposition while half the government's own MPs vote against it. It gives no extra rights that couples in civil partnerships do not already have and there was little demand for it from the gay community.

Susan Kelly ● 4810d

Re  Why now?            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwhy now indeed. There is something going on and on a much wider basis because this question is by no means confined to G B. Many countries are  considering this  matter, several already have, Australia, New Zealand and Canada I think, America is in the throes, France is currently, other European countries, especially the Scandinavian ones have or are, probably  Holland and presumably many others around the world. So the question in my mind is who or what is behind this almost w/wide consideration, and why. There must be some over-arching hand in all this, so who does it belong to?.        On the question itself, I do not like the situation whereby some  can tell others what to do as long as it is consensual and not against the public interest. Religions basically are all about controlling people's lives ( and thoughts ) and as the leaders thereof are not elected by the populace, I don't think they should continue to have the power they have wielded up to now, so  out they go and leave matters to the elected government to decide, such as happened with capital punishment. I would say the vast majority of those objecting, if not 100%,  would themselves not be involved, so what right have they to  dictate to others what they can or cannot do. Historical reasons maybe, but what logic or common decency are they based on. Bearing in mind half the population live and copulate in sin I don't think they can present themselves as qualifying role models and probably do more harmful activities than 2 persons who want to  enjoin their lives in love and marriage. And half the world allow 4 wives and which is allowed in this country for those already thus hitched, and the State actually funds all participants in such relationships. so is it a question of live and let live?. Turn the clock back  50 years  or so and realise what changes have already been made in same sex relationships, enshrined in law and now taken for granted. There may be some " perverts " who would want to turn things back to as they were, and which if  enacted, would be a perversion of common decency, decency in this context  being how humans treat each other. To prejudice and persecute  some is not decent.       

Tony Price ● 4810d

Re    Cameron may be electable for a second term.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  if only because the alternatives would be 10X worse. Imagine another bout of unfettered government borrowing, assuming of course we ever manage to shake off the legacy of the last lot, and that ain't guaranteed.

Tony Price ● 4810d

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue. Perhaps the Q & A piece on the BBC news web page may goes some way to clarify the situation.

Rosa Popham ● 4810d

I think our leaders have lost the plot! Surely there are more pressing matters to deal with? Why now?If they really want to be fair then surely a tax break for married couples now not some distant promise.

Jean F Fernandez ● 4810d

I think you're correct in principle, but I think our politicians should make our laws etc and lead us on points of state, 'cos we don't know all the "ins and outs" of most subjects. But there's no urgent need to make law in this particular matter - no pressing imperative - so why force a debate on it now?  I'm still confused.

Gerry Tan ● 4810d

Church and state should be divorced.The 16,000 Church of England parishes are a loose amalgamation bound solely by an overarching liturgy and many clergy are well capable of, and do, make their own decisions to suit the pastoral needs of the communities that they serve.The idea therefore that a government can enforce or, equally, give dispensation to conduct (or not) same sex marriages is therefore ridiculous.This government would better serve the populace if it focused on real issues rather than trying to pander to the chattering classes. Deal with uncontrolled immigration, the economy, the lost generation of 16-24 year old NEETS and crime (from unmanipulated statistics) and Cameron may be electable for a second term.

Nigel Brooks ● 4810d

Should we allow a politician to tell any religion what they can and can't believe?The Queen is the head of the Church of England, she is the boss, just as the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church.  They should make the decision, not a politician trying to get support for the next election.

Bernadette Clover ● 4810d