ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
In being really really REALLY pissed off at those trying to stop same-sex marriage bill going through?(268 Posts)
My eldest DS is gay, I genuinely have NO concept or understanding of how anyone thinks he (or the other pretty significant % of our population who also happen to have been born gay?) should in any way be denied the same right as his two brothers have to be able to get married.
AIBU? Or is there something I am simply missing?
I think the religious thing is a bit of bollocks too.
I know plenty of weddings conducted in a church where neither the bride or groom were religious. Are we saying its ok for straight people to do that but not gay people?
People who don't believe in same sex marriage are perfectly entitled not to marry someone of the same sex, they just shouldn't have the right to stop someone else having a same sex marriage if that's what they want. I think some people are being rather precious if they truly believe that allowing same sex couples to marry will in any way devalue their own marriage.
As you may be aware, English Catholics have been encouraged by our Parish Priests to write to our MPs stating our views on equal marriage. This is an extract from one such letter which, point by point, states the objections. (it's not my letter - I stole it from a Catholic blogger and have highlighted the objections)
"Vincent Nichols, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, has urged the Catholics of England and Wales to write to our Members of Parliament on the subject of gay marriage, and the governments proposed legislation. As a committed Catholic, active in two parishes (one in *** in your constituency, the other in********, in the heart of Archbishop Nichols diocese), and as a father and grandfather, I am delighted to comply. I strongly urge you to disregard the objections of Archbishop Nichols and the other bishops, and instead to support the proposals of your colleagues in government, to introduce equal marriage, as soon as reasonably feasible. Many of the claims made in opposition to government proposals, are simply false, or misleading.
It is claimed that as these plans were not included in party manifestos, the government has no mandate. This is a half truth at best: if not included in the formal manifestos, the subject was widely discussed and supported by several leading politicians. Mr Cameron himself specifically promised to look into the subject. Since then, every opinion poll that has specifically asked about equal marriage and the law has shown strong public support. The most recent of these furthermore showed a dramatic increase in support since the public consultation began. The opposition has made their case and decisively lost the argument, in the court of public opinion.
It is not the government that lacks a mandate, but the Catholic bishops themselves, who are not elected by British Catholics, but appointed from Rome. They may lead the Catholic Church, but do not in any sense represent it. This is particularly true in matters of sex and marriage. As priests who have chosen voluntary celibacy for themselves, their pronouncements on the subject have no basis whatsoever in any real life experience. Catholic doctrine includes numerous prohibitions on a wide range of sexual matters which are routinely ignored by most Catholics, from contraception to cohabitation before marriage. In the USA, where public opinion polls are frequent, these have routinely shown that Catholics in general support marriage equality, to a greater degree than the public at large. There is no reason to suppose that British Catholics are any different in this respect.
It is claimed that government has no right to redefine marriage. This ignores the historical facts that the Christian church for over half its history had no interest in marriage, leaving its regulation entirely to secular authority, and that the Churchs own understanding of marriage has been constantly redefined. It also ignores the fact that from historical and cross-cultural perspectives, there is not and never has been any single definition of marriage which is universally applicable.
It is claimed that the purpose of marriage is the procreation of children, and so should be reserved to opposite sex couples. But this is contradicted by the facts: in the UK today, the majority of marriages are contracted after conception of the first child but before the birth. The value of marriage is not in making children, but in protecting them and providing for them after birth. The hundreds of thousands of British children currently being raised by same sex couples also deserve the protections that marriage brings to families.
It is claimed that same sex couples do not need marriage, because the civil partnership laws already provide all the legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is much more than a simple matter of a legal contract. Words matter, and separate is not equal.
It is claimed that same sex marriage is contrary to Catholic and Christian belief. This is contradicted by some Catholic theologians and groups, individual Church of England bishops, and entire religious denominations that argue that there exists a strong religious case in support of equal marriage, required by the Gospel insistence on equality and inclusion for all.
It is claimed that introducing equal marriage will somehow interfere with religious freedom. This is nonsense, and has been adequately covered by your colleague, Minister Maria Miller, with her quadruple lock to protect such freedom. The interests of religious freedom require that equal marriage should be possible for those denominations that see it as a religious obligation and for those outside the faith communities, who do not wish to be constrained by the religious beliefs of particular groups.
It is claimed, on the basis of a single Comres poll, that 70% of voters believe that marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between one man and one woman. But this proposition concerns an ideal about marriage, not its treatment in law. The same finding could equally be used to argue for and end to legal divorce, or to the criminalization of adultery. If it is not appropriate to apply it to divorce or adultery, it is also inappropriate to apply it to equal marriage."
Marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman. Why change that? Why not call it something else if you want to bring in a new institution or practice. Society for a long time have deemed that a marriage between a man and a woman is the basis for a family unit and the best environment to bring up a child. It is there to protect children and to strengthen and give them the best start to life. A mother and a Father bring different qualities and attributes to the table. Whether you believe in God or Nature it is the way it has been designed. Why do gay people want to be part of an institution that is fundamentally hetrosexual and which has been for eons and which was established to protect the children of the offspring and to give a solid basis to society. Why dont they call it something else?
Why will it change man/woman marriage? and I cannot understand why it would upset them and belittle their vows. As I understand Marriage is about love and committment is nt it, so why cant gay people have the same?
Could someone put the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership in a nutshell for me?
Obviously I believe that no one should be denied any right afforded to anyone else due to their sexual orientation. I couldn't give a monkeys about anyone's sex life or marital status, and look forward to a world where this is not an issue <hopeful look>. But when in a recent discussion with friends (one of which is gay) , out of ignorance and interest on my part I asked the above question and whether the difference was terminology, legal rights or religion or something else I got shouted down and could not get a straight answer! Apparently it's sooo much more than just terminology and I how dare I question anyone's 'right' to be married (in so many words)...
Sooo, anyone? Thanks.
I try to respect religious belief, but I have not heard any kind of satisfactory explanation for why gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage.
Basically there is none - it simply boils down to "we think homosexuality is wrong"
Great Post IThinkofHappy
I see no reason why gay people should not have the same right to marriage as straight people.
"Why change that?"
Why not change it? And if I only have children through adoption, as a gay couple might or might not, does that mean my marriage doesn't or shouldn't count, if it's just about protecting children? Gay people can have children, you know, even biological ones.
Why should they call it something else? They aren't looking for special treatment. They are looking for equal treatment.
Why should they be denied that, Sariah?
two different people bring different qualities and attributes to the table, no matter what sex they are
to say it can only be one man and one woman that do that is inherently sexist
I'm having a civil union in New Zealand August 10th this year, our date was already booked before NZ bought in the marriage equality law. We then hope to get married before we fly back but may be pushed for time.
Thankfully all ny friends and family have been supportive. I just have not seen any coherent reason why marriage equality should not be passed.
I understand that some religious organizations don't want to he forced to marry same sex couples it is not the case in NZ.
As for it ruining the sacracy well I think its the short term marriages and the celebrity marriages that are for attention that harm the meaning of marriage more than two same sex people who love each other.
Not its not. Of course a woman brings different qualities. We are equal but different. Is it sexist to say a man can't get pregnant or carry a child? Ever read the book men are from mars women are from venus or ready any studies on the different make up of men and women.
I would like to see more people able to marry as I think uniting your relationship under god or to whomever and promising death do you part has deep meaning.
I care not a jot if your same or opposite sex. I think LOVE is more important. My personal god (who starts off c of e but shoots off in wildly different directions at points) would agree with me I'm sure.
I have a bad feeling many people's god wouldn't. I guess it's religion trumping law or people here.....? That makes me sad.
Be the same people that vetoed women as vicars etc recently, surely? Another travesty.
Tee2072 because marriage is what hetrosexual people do - thats what it is!!!!!
Having looked into it a bit I think, broadly, in terms of the rights you gain after the ceremony there are few legal differences, with the main important one being how pensions are calculated.
For the ceremony itself there can be no religious music or any reference, no matter how slight.
The main difference is the name. Some people feel that this shouldn't matter, but personally I feel that history has shown that "separate but equal" generally misses out the "equal" part.
"Men are from Mars" is a pile of sexist crap
I'm going to start out by saying I have no problem at all with gay marriage (I have been to several civil partnerships) - but like many others I'm horrified about the amount of time that is being spent on debating this issue when there are so many other more important things going on!
I don't think the religious thing is rubbish, marriage in the eyes of God is described as being between a man and a woman for the procreation of children - that is a fact.
I though it was awful when I first read about the law because I thought it was going to force churches to perform same sex marriages, not because I personally am against it but its against the churches beliefs and to me that was putting the rights of gay people above the rights of those in the church. I think a lot of people don't realise churches are specially exempt.
However it will still make it illegal for Christian registrars to refuse to marry gay people, and I am still uncomfortable with that as although I'm not especially religious we are not a secular country and we have a state religion, and surely that deserves rights too?
I think what I'd like to see is gay marriage allowed but if a person is against it for religious beliefs they should have the choice not to perform the marriage.
I cannot believe anyone is seriously trying to say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because the heterosexual marrieds would feel "cheated" in some way!?!?
Not really? Come on!
Sariah...what do you say to a married female/male partnership that are voluntarily childfree ?
The argument is so circular. Only a man and a woman can get married so marriage is only for a man and a woman I just don't get it!
The legal wording in the marriage ceremony made me distinctly uncomfortable. I didn't chime with my beliefs at all.
Sariah because we can't have equality until we all have equality. You don't have to understand why gay people might want to get married because it's not about individuals understanding. It's about extending the same rights and protections to the whole of society. Lots of people don't understand why anyone would want to be married but they aren't lobbying parliament to ban marriage in general, just the type of marriage that brings equality to a group that is already marginalised.
Can someone please explain to me exactly what "protection" a mother and father give a child that cannot also be given by two women or two women in a loving, committed relationship ?
Equal Rights certainly. Equal Status also. But you can do that and call it something else. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I dont understand why gay people want to be part of something that is hetrosexual. Leave marriage as it is and always has been. If gay people want to do their own thing then let them but dont call it marriage cause its not.
Marriage is a contract between two people, a man and a woman as defined by the state. If an employer wanted to change your employment contract you'd need to agree it. Changing the legal definition of marriage means that what all those couples agreed to no longer exists so some feel that this means "their" marriage is no longer valid. Their views are as valid as anyone elses. Do I think gays shouldn't be able to marry because of it? No but I do think it needs careful handling. Please note religion does not come into this view at all.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.