Gay marriage

[AdamW]

With all the coverage in the news recently about gay marriage being passed as a national law in Canada (although it was legal in certain provinces before), I thought it could be an interesting discussion topic.

So, what do you think about it all? And do you think it should be brought into the UK legislatory machine, or even that of Europe?

Personally (you didn't think I would start this without giving my opinion!), I am in favour of same-sex couples being given the same rights as different-sex couples (although adoption would be a case-by-case issue). However I'm not in favour of it being called "marriage", although I would be in favour of making it is difficult and lengthy procedure to end as divorce. Perhaps "Life-union" could be the name for it?

I can't wait to marry a lebsian...

 

[2scoops0406]

I'm all in favour of it, if we hetero's have to suffer, why shouldn't they

 

[pipme]

I'm all in favour of it, if we hetero's have to suffer, why shouldn't they

Second that .. Edwhina

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

Marriage, straight or gay, is just an expensive way of getting your laundry done!

 

[petewood]

I am in favour of same-sex couples being given the same rights as different-sex couples (although adoption would be a case-by-case issue). However I'm not in favour of it being called "marriage", although I would be in favour of making it is difficult and lengthy procedure to end as divorce. Perhaps "Life-union" could be the name for it?

:

Why have it the same in all but name?

 

[Richardp]

I'm all in favour of it and I feel good that I was born in a time when we can discuss it, I was talking to a old gay bloke in the pub a few years ago and somehow it came out that I sympathise with qeuers and he then told me he was one and that it was really good to be able to come out with it without fear of persecution, he told me how he had had to hide his sexuality all his life and the difficulties he'd encountered in the army etc I just felt so sorry for him, let the bgugers get married. funny about the church tho isn't it their faith is all about love and understanding and forgiveness and yet they have a real problem with it. oh! I just heard on the news, Spain is accepting gay marriage, coincidence or is that what started this thread?

 

[AdamW]

Well, it's all over the news: Spain, Canada, New Zealand all in favour and letting it happen, the RC church saying it's wrong, yada yada yada. That's what made me start this thread.

Pete, I know it is possibly a strange attitude to have, but I have my reasons... I think that it is a basic human right that two consenting adults should be able to make a lasting, legal bond between themselves as a sign of their love, trust and devotion to each other. However, I also see that marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman.

So, I'm in favour of people having the right to same-sex legal union, but I'm not in favour of using the same name as the heterosexual ceremony. We need to come up with a new name.

I'm sure that there are homosexuals who would agree with me when I say "why is there a need to ape everything that heterosexual people do?". Surely the term "gay marriage" is discriminatory in itself, as it insinuates that marriage is the norm, and gay marriage is somehow different.

Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are both colas. They offer the same benefits, the same pleasures and the same problems. But, they are not exactly the same thing. Same-sex "marriage" and heterosexual marriage offer the same benefits, the same etc... But, one of them has one person of each gender, the other doesn't. They are not the same thing. So, why does it need to have the same name? It's not discriminatory, it's fact

 

[ninebob]

Sorry I'm late, I was at the church!

Seriously though, yes of course I think its right (it's a right) that we should have the same opportunity as anybody else.

Personally however, the idea of getting married myself isn't something that interests me at all. When two people love and trust each other that much I think the need to have a legal bit of paper to confirm it only serves to show a slight doubt in that trust. Really it only serves as a bit of financial security which could equally be achieved by writing suitable wills.

 

[felix]

While it seems obvious that we are a pair bonding species the origins of marriage are not so clear, at least not to somebody who didn't spend his student days doing sociology. As with Ninebob, my first question would always be "If we naturally form pairs why do we need a legal contract?"

The best explanation I've found so far is that it's a business transaction. Go back to a time when some dominant male was still trying to claim all the females for himself but he was also greedy and we had invented the idea of trade. It might go something like this:

"Look chum, these are all mine OK but --- I'll swap one for a that axe thingy of yours." The going rate would naturally be a matter of supply and demand but the principle is sound enough. The marriage license began life as a receipt! In support of this theory I would point out that in many parts of the world women are still bought and sold either as wives or prostitutes. Sale or rent? It's hardly the stuff of fairytale weddings is it!

Somewhere along the line religion came into it. Don't ask me how or when because I didn't study theology either! Perhaps there was a genuine attempt to improve the status of women - but let's not make them too equal. God help us, they'll be wanting to join the priesthood next.

Where the idea of a civil marriage came from I have no idea but I would guess that it was either (a) a political sop to keep religious leaders happy or (b) reinforcing a religious rule that happened to suit our political leaders at the time. (My money's on b.)

Once you have the idea of a civil contract all sorts of possibilities arise. Unlike ancient religious texts the law is man-made and can be rewritten many times. The rights and obligations of the parties to any legal contract are open to debate, eg:

1) Does this have to be a lifelong contract? (Not anymore.)

2) What about an automatic cancellation clause if one party doesn't fulfill their end of the deal? (Look carefully; there already is one.)

3) Why should it be limited to heterosexuals only?

4) Does this contract serve any useful purpose whatsoever?

I can see exactly why churches don't want anybody messing about with civil marriages. If they were honest about it their argument would probably go something like this:

"Look pal, we invented marriage (er, no you didn't) and we need you to help us enforce it. You owe us that much after all the help you've had off us. It's hard enough getting people into church at all these days never mind getting them to obey the rules. We don't care what arrangements you cook up for homosexual perverts - we don't want their sort in here anyway - but if you start offering alternative contracts to normal people we won't have a leg to stand on."

Here's a good example of religious doublethink. The catholic church won't marry divorcees because, they claim, they're still married. Fair enough I suppose but what if the original marriage was a civil one, never blessed by them in the first place? Sorry mate, you're still married already. They recognize a civil contract when it suits them but not when it doesn't.

My view on this is quite simple. Those who subscribe to any religion must obey its rules. That's their choice. For the rest of us I can see just one purpose for any kind of civil union but it's about responsibility for resulting offspring rather than who has the rights to who else's reproductive bits.

I suppose there's one other reason why two people might want a wedding. They have a natural desire to announce their love to the world - and his dog too if it's listening. No problem. Skip the wedding and head straight for the reception! If that sounds like a typically pagan thing to do it probably is - and I bet the early Christians nicked it!

 

[Richardp]

I agree with the "just bit of paper" thing but remember, a parrot gave up his home for that . I ,ve got the piece of paper , had it for 27yrs but cant remember why we did it, I think it was to psis off the outlaws, most people say that the "bit of paper" represents some sort of commitment, I think years ago folk got married to have children because of the "Bastrad" thing and after all, its a great excuse for a psis-up.

 

[jasy]

Marriage, straight or gay, is just an expensive way of getting your laundry done!

The easiest thing to do is to buy a house and give it to a woman you hate!

 

[AdamW]

Sorry I'm late, I was at the church!

Ah, "singing in the choir" no doubt (any idea where that expression comes from? I'm stumped!)

I think that the "it's a bit of paper" view expressed by some is very unromantic... a car is "just a mode of transport", but you pine for a better one. A house is "just a way of keeping the rain off", but you strive for a bigger one. A marriage is something that is meant to transcend all of that. In sickness and in health and so forth, she'll stay with you whether you move up to a bigger house or down to a smaller one. If she doesn't, she's not worth it (I expect we'll here some horror stories now )

If marriage is just a piece of paper, then why do you see grown men blubbing in church as their son, friend, brother promises to do his utmost for one woman for the rest of her life? I'm pretty sure it isn't just because they're losing a drinking buddy! No, it's a beautiful thing with a wonderful sentiment.

As for pagan marriage, there is little knowledge of the pagan culture of pre-Christian Britain (the burning times made sure of that ), however a practice that certainly some pro-marriage pagan paths follows nowadays is a two-step practice. First a "bethrothment", where you have a small ceremony involving drinking wine from the same glass. 1 year later, if you feel the same way, you have a proper wedding. If you don't, you break the glass as a symbol, and that's that. The idea being, without love marriage is a farce, so why have a marriage without love?

 

[2scoops0406]

I'm all in favour of it, if we hetero's have to suffer, why shouldn't they

Second that .. Edwhina

Easy, I'm in Brissel next week

 

[securespark]

Yes, I agree with nine: it is ridiculous that same sex couples don't have the same rights as hetero - married or not. I think the law should be clear that if you are a committed couple you have the same rights as marrieds do. I can see there are many problems here: people who do not want to be financially linked to their partner regardless of how long they've been together etc...

C'est un grand boite des vers, malheureusement.....

 

[pipme]

I'm all in favour of it, if we hetero's have to suffer, why shouldn't they

Second that .. Edwhina

Easy, I'm in Brissel next week

Phew !! 12 miles West of me then ... Give a toot as you queue past Junc 18 ... M4 = Gatsoline alley.