AIBU to be increasingly infuriated by the issue of same sex marriage with BOTH sides?

(401 Posts)
dopishe Wed 10-Oct-12 08:45:12

The whole thing is getting on my nerves now. And I mean both sides of the debate, too. The against who are saying it will wreck society-how exactly? Those who say that it will strengthen relationships of gay people=pull the other one!
As far as I am concerned, civil partnerships and marriage provide equality of financial and legal rights and, whichever a person has, it is up to THEM to make it (relationship) work and cp's and marriage are just titles. So just leave things as they are.

I am absolutely infuriated by The tory party using this issue as pure gesture politics when they do not give a stuff about people's lives and the REALLY important issues like the economy and jobs and things that really matter.

Not saying labour wouldn't be any different, but people, does it matter enough to alter the status quo?

seeker Wed 10-Oct-12 09:36:40

More to the point- why should churches be able to dictate what people who never go near a church do? Bizarre!

I've never seen anyone argue gay marriage with strengthen the relationships of gay people. I think that's quite insulting and whoever said it to you is not really representative of that 'side' of the argument IMO.

I would support having civil partnerships for everyone, and marriage for everyone, and churches allowed to do what they choose - so each religious group should be able to decide whether or not they support gay marriage, and those that do should be allowed to perform the ceremonies.

OddBoots Wed 10-Oct-12 09:42:00

I think all the legal arrangements should be civil partnerships, if people additionally want to have a religious ceremony to be married then that's between them and the people of the same faith, whatever that faith may be. I don't see the problem in doing them at the same time but they should be distinct things.

As part of this it would remove the role of CofE ministers in reading banns and the legal gubbins and have all legalities going through the registrars.

WearingGreen Wed 10-Oct-12 09:50:35

YABU. Approximately equal is not equal. People in civil partnerships cannot call themselves married whereas people who have had civil marriages can.

I've never heard anyone say that marriage equality will strengthen gay relationships, only that by having marriage equality one more element that is used to 'other' and marginalise gay people will be removed.

You can't have some people being more equal than others. We either have equality for everyone or we don't have it at all.

Personally I think all marriages should have to be civil to have a legal status. Its interesting that the argument is for existing civil partnerships to be 'upgraded' to the status of marriage rather than all civil marriages to be 'downgraded' to civil partnerships. Its a small point but I think it demonstrates that civil partnerships are regarded as 'marriage light' and the tory party are well aware of the reaction of the party faithful if it is suggested that the £50K wedding in a castle that their dd or ds had now makes them civilly partnered rather than married.

ScaryBOOAlot Wed 10-Oct-12 09:52:35

YABVU.

EmpressOfTheSevenScreams Wed 10-Oct-12 09:55:25

As someone who's in a civil partnership...

Everyone knows that "equal but different" is bollocks. Look how often they justified institutional racism with that line.

DW (and yes, we call each other wife) and I have been together 10 years. We are legally in a partnership. We have a DD, we share finances, we run a house together, we share the same bed. The only difference between us and a straight couple is gender. It's different names for the same relationship and that's just daft.

As someone said, let's copy France. Civil marriages for everyone and have the religious bit if you want but let individual churches choose. I can't see any couple wanting to be blessed by an anti-gay minister anyway.

dopishe Wed 10-Oct-12 09:56:15

I don't think that people have to be treated in exactly the same way to have equality. I think that is naive. It would be impossible to treat homosexual people in exactly the same way as heterosexuals in a marriage, anyway.

Let's look at adultery: which is quite specifically defined as being sexual realtions with a member of the opposite sex- this rule could not be applied to gay people.

LRD I believe the tory party has claimed that marriage strengthens relationships for gay people. And, yes, it is infuriating, I agree.

EmpressOfTheSevenScreams Wed 10-Oct-12 10:02:44

Apart from the adultery question, dopishe - which I can't see being that difficult to resolve - why can't we be treated the same way as you?

DW and I have the same concerns (ok apart from contraception), the same joys, the same stresses as most straight couples who work FT and run a family. The only obvious difference I can see is that we're both female. So again, why?

Well, if marriage was changed then the law on adultery (which is something which only applies to marriage) would also change to match, surely!

And I think it is entirely possible to treat people in a same-sex marriage exactly the same as heterosexuals in a marriage. Why would it not be?

Mrskbpw Wed 10-Oct-12 10:05:02

I'm generally a very calm person and I don't get angry very often but the arguments against gay marriage make me furious. They are just nonsensical.

I am married. I got married in a hotel. If two gay men or two gay women also want to get married in that that hotel it will make no difference to me whatsoever. None. I'm guessing it would make quite a lot of difference to them though.

Churches and other religious organisations can do what they like - they do anyway. They can refuse to marry a couple if they want, if they're divorced, or they're not church-goers or whatever. So surely it would just be up to the vicar/priest/rabbi/whatever?

Marriage wasn't religious historically anyway - the church just hijacked it.

Are there any gay people who are against gay marriage? I'd listen to their opinion.

Gay40 Wed 10-Oct-12 10:06:07

Here's an an example: one of the police that was murdered recently in Manchester was reported as having a civil partnership planned. That phrase of reporting demonstrates to me exactly why we need need equal marriage. Her sexuality should not have been brought to our attention because we have one set of arrangements for heterosexual people and one set for gay people.
As a country allegedly supporting true equality, we should have been able to report that she was planning her wedding.

Mrskbpw Wed 10-Oct-12 10:06:35

Sorry - x-posted with others.

Is adultery only with the opposite sex then? If I cheated on my husband with a woman it wouldn't count? Surely that can't be true?!

Gay40 Wed 10-Oct-12 10:07:25

But can I ask that we stop calling it gay marriage. It isn't gay marriage - it's equal marriage.

Viviennemary Wed 10-Oct-12 10:07:55

I quite agree with the fairest and most sensible way would be for all civil unions, partnerships, marriages call it what you will that take places in registry offices to be civil partnerships and the churches can fight it out among themselves who and who they won't join in whatever they want to call marriage, partnership, holy matrimony or whatever. I agree. It's getting a bit mad.

I'd love to see where you get your definitions from dopishe The Oxford English Dictionary defines adultery as:

^noun
[mass noun]
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse:
she was committing adultery with a much younger man^

I think you're grasping at straws here, to be honest.

I don't think that people have to be treated in exactly the same way to have equality

This isn't about treating people the same, it's about making sure they have the same rights. LGBT are being denied the rights heterosexual couples have because they are LGBT.

It would be impossible to treat homosexual people in exactly the same way as heterosexuals in a marriage, anyway.

Evidence? Proof?

EmpressOfTheSevenScreams Wed 10-Oct-12 10:09:37

Quite a few of the papers did report that she was planning her wedding, Gay40. Which was lovely.

Has anyone noticed that the proponents of 'equal but different' are always the privileged majority?

MaryZed Wed 10-Oct-12 10:09:38

Why don't they just stop arguing about semantics and call them "church marriages" and "civil marriages" and be done with it.

Then the church can do the church one and restrict them to one man and one woman if they want to (that's another argument altogether) but they should just shut up about the civil ones as they are nothing to do with the church.

The civil marriages could be between same sex or different sex couples, but all would have the same legal standing.

And the adultery thing is a red herring. Suppose a woman in a marriage had a sexual affair with another woman rather than a man, it might not legally be adultery, but does it matter? She is still being unfaithful. The same would apply to a same sex civil marriage, whether the person in the marriage had an affair with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex.

How many people cite adultery as a reason for divorce these days? Why not get rid of adultery as a legal entity altogether?

seeker Wed 10-Oct-12 10:11:44

What all the sensible people said. And Gay40- that really struck me about the police officer too.

Why does the Church even have a voice in this? It's bizarre.

Gay40 Wed 10-Oct-12 10:12:50

*Why don't they just stop arguing about semantics and call them "church marriages" and "civil marriages" and be done with it.

Then the church can do the church one and restrict them to one man and one woman if they want to (that's another argument altogether) but they should just shut up about the civil ones as they are nothing to do with the church.

The civil marriages could be between same sex or different sex couples, but all would have the same legal standing.*

This. Why can't they just make this the law.

Mary and Gay40

Would Christian LGBTs and churches okay with LGBT marriage be allowed to have church marriages though? That'd still be an issue.

Woozley Wed 10-Oct-12 10:15:08

I am hoping this is just the start of making religious institutions equal to other institutions. To eventually come to a situation where people are entitled to express/to practise their beliefs, except where they are breaking the law.

There are various exemptions/legal loopholes currently allowed to religious institutions, such as discrimination against women and homosexuals, particularly in terms of employment. I see this as the closing of one of those loopholes.

So do the church, who see this as a slippery slope. Personally I'd like to polish the slippery slope, give them a mat and a big push off the top.

Gay40 Wed 10-Oct-12 10:17:36

Let churches get on with it and make their own decisions. Bearing in mind Jesus said in the Bible "You must obey the law." Subscribing to a religion is a choice, so if you want to jog along with a religion that thinks you are a sub-species, then it's your choice.

Gay40 Wed 10-Oct-12 10:19:35

I get more offended by this nonsense that is spouted about "if you have gay marriage it will lead to incest, besiality and polygamy".
I've never really understood the link. I'd quite like to marry MrsG, but I've no interest in shagging family members, family pets or committing to any other folk.

MaryZed Wed 10-Oct-12 10:19:46

But that's an issue for the church. In my opinion they should, but it's a separate issue, nothing to do with the legalities of marriage.

I don't think you can force churches to do any sort of marriages - many churches don't marry divorced people for example. Just like you can't force a church to do funeral services or baptisms for people if the priest/bishop/whatever wants to refuse. Church sacraments are (and should be imo) entirely different from legal contracts.

In this it's important to separate church from state. But the civil marriages should be exactly the same regardless of gender.

aldiwhore Wed 10-Oct-12 10:21:58

I think they should allow Gay Marriage in a state ceremony, anyone should be allowed to enter a civil partnership (even if they're not romantically attached) but the Church should be able to opt out, as they are not the state. The Church (mostly) is against the idea for reasons that are fundamental to that religion and shouldn't be pressured to change... even if I don't agree, well I wouldn't, being agnostic, however if they WISH to allow marriage in church of gay people, divorced people, non believers, they should be free to decide to do that if they wish.

I don't like the term 'civil partnership' in reference to two people who wish to be married they should be allowed to 'marry' (as far as the state is concerned).

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now