to not understand why anyone would want a civil partnership?

(390 Posts)

I've been wondering this because of all the media coverage of the equal marriage bill. Civil partnerships were brought in as a sop to gay people who wanted to get married - hopefully soon they will be able to marry just as straight couples can. And I agree that everyone should be treated equally so if civil partnerships remain for gay couples then straight couples should be allowed to have them as well.

But wouldn't it make more sense to do away with civil partnerships altogether? I don't understand why someone would choose a CP over marriage - as I understand it it's the same commitment but with fewer legal rights. Can someone explain this please?

seeker Mon 20-May-13 09:24:54

Because marriage is an outdated ceremony which has deep roots in misogyny?

CloudsAndTrees Mon 20-May-13 10:02:37

I have a friend who has been with her partner for 12 years, but they don't want to get married. It's come more from him than from her because his parents had a very messy divorce after an unhappy marriage, so he doesn't see marriage as a positive thing. She isn't bothered about marriage, but she does quite fancy the party! Neither of them are religious, nor do they want dc.

They may well consider civil partnership, for the legal benefits should anything happen to one of them, and because it's a way of them celebrating their relationship, which they are both happy to do, but without being married.

livinginwonderland Mon 20-May-13 10:09:19

for the legal benefits.

But that's what I don't understand Clouds. Apart from having fewer legal rights (which seems a disadvantage to me) CPs are just marriage by a different name. Call it what you like, it's the same thing. So why bother?

The same goes for seeker's point about tradition and misogyny. I understand that, but again a CP is pretty much the same thing as marriage. Surely if you object to marriage on the grounds that it's based on misogyny then you'd feel the same about CPs?

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 10:26:13

Because I don't want to be a wife. Because I don't want a husband. But I want my partnership (opposite-sex) legally recognised.

Bunbaker Mon 20-May-13 10:28:22

"CPs are just marriage by a different name."

That is how I understand it as well. I don't see marriage as outdated or misogynistic. I think marriage is what you make of it.

Because I want the legal benefits of being married, without the religious connotations. If civil partnerships were the same thing as marriage, then gay people wouldn't be fighting for gay marriage, would they? hmm

OctopusWrangler Mon 20-May-13 10:32:06

I think marriage should be done away with, and civil partnership be the norm. Those with a penchant for frocks and hypocrisy, and those with genuine religious feeling can then seek blessing within their church.

Craps CPs grant fewer legal rights than marriage as I pointed out earlier, that's why gay people want the right to marry. But once that is granted I don't see the point in CPs. As for religious connotations I'm married and as an atheist it has bugger all to do with religion. It may have started out that way but that's not what it is now.

As Bunbaker said, I think marriage is what you make of it. I don't see that giving it a different name makes any difference.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 10:33:32

Marriage is what you make of it.

The idea of someone calling me their wife makes me shudder. You can't tell me that I should want to be married, when I simply don't, nor have I ever. All I want is legal recognition. Thank goodness, when Scotland gains its independence next year, I have no doubt that enlightened policies such as CPs for all will quickly follow. Not long for us to wait now! grin

That’s an interesting idea Octopus.

Fuckwittery Mon 20-May-13 10:34:52

Civil partnerships give exactly the same legal rights as marriage.

The only difference that I know of as a lawyer is that a civil partners can't divorce on the grounds of adultery, as adultery is still defined as between a man and a woman, and of course, that you can't enter into a CP in a church.

Knowing that, I'm not sure why such a big fuss over gay marriage. If a church wants to allow a CP in their church then they should be allowed to do so and call it a marriage. If a church doesn't recognise it they are not proposed to be forced to entertain gay marriages in their church in any event.

FJL203 Mon 20-May-13 10:35:20

Why not get rid of marriage altogether?

As seeker says, it has deep roots in misogyny. It also has deep roots in religion and superstition. Why would you want to hang on to that and not make a clean start based on equality and secularism?

What FJL said, pretty much.

ChunkyPickle Mon 20-May-13 10:37:27

I'm with Octopus - keep the legal stuff legal, and the religious/party stuff purely optional.

I would leap at the chance to just go and register my relationship with DP, and not have to go through the whole marriage shenanigans, which I have no interest in at all.

loopydoo Mon 20-May-13 10:38:07

I agree octopus.

Dahlen Mon 20-May-13 10:38:40

I agree that regardless of whether it's marriage or a CP, it should be the same across the board for heterosexual and same-sex couples. Otherwise it's a form of discrimination, surely?

I quite like the idea of CPs for all, because of the problematic history of marriage. However, from a purely practical POV, it doesn't really matter, does it. If you have a CP with a misogynistic tosser, you're going to be a more unhappy woman than the one who got married to a man who respects women.

That's not true at all Fuckwittery Seven ways civil partnership isn't the same as marriage

I'd like for civil partnerships to have the same rights as marriage and people to be given the choice to get married of have a CP. Gay or straight.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 20-May-13 10:38:56

Getting rid of marriage altogether is a bit extreme! My marriage has nothing to do with religion or misogyny, some of us are happy with our marriages being what they are, whether civil or religious.

A civil partnership would just be another option open to people to do with what they want.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 10:39:14

If you want to get married, you should be allowed to, whether gay or straight. smile

If you want a CP, you should be allowed to, whether gay or straight. smile

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 10:40:26

Oops, Craps, CP (as in crossed posts, not civil partnership! wink)

FJL203 Mon 20-May-13 10:42:27

"Getting rid of marriage altogether is a bit extreme!"

Extreme, yes, but interesting food for thought, Clouds, no? Besides, I can be wicked, throw it into the mix and go to work, leaving the resulting argument behind! wink grin

CloudsAndTrees Mon 20-May-13 10:48:23


motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 10:51:16

Agree totally with all the posters who feel marriage is just irrevocably sodden with repulsive baggage, whereas a straightforward contract (possibly not a permanent one) could be feasibly entertained by those of us who really shudder and retch at the idea of being referred to as a 'wife'.

Peevish Mon 20-May-13 10:57:50

What seeker, scarlet and motherinferior said. I am actually married - rather reluctant lunchtime quickie just before i gave birth to sort out legalities - but would have chosen a CP like a shot if available.

Fuckwittery Mon 20-May-13 11:03:46

crap Read those 7 issues carefully. Civil partners do have the virtually same rights on as those who are married, particularly on separation, the differences listed are not issues which are going to automatically change by turning CPs into marriage or they ar\e fundamental to the CP vs marriage, so not really relevant to the argument that marriage in itself will increase legal rights. I believe in marriage for all, but just pointing out that there are a huge raft of legal rights introduced in 2004 which are virtually identical for those in marriages - those issues that remain are part of the "difference" if you like. e.g. cultural perception and other countries recognising same sex couples for immigration purposes, and that straight people can't enter into CPs. read the first para |"is there a legal difference between the two|"

Bunbaker Mon 20-May-13 11:09:21

"Because I want the legal benefits of being married, without the religious connotations"

Not all weddings are religious. Most married people I know are atheists. I don't have a problem with being a "wife".

Like Clouds my marriage is nothing to do with religion or mysogyny. We are married because civil partnerships didn't exist when we got married.

This will get me flamed but I think too many people overthink the history and the baggage behind marriage. I got married in the 20th century with 20th century attitudes. I didn't "obey" my husband. I only wear a wedding ring because he does. If he had refused to wear one I would have done as well.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 20-May-13 11:15:53

Much as I agree with most of your post Bunbaker, don't you see the massive contradiction you have just made? grin

MrsSchadenfreude Mon 20-May-13 11:29:19

I think they should be available to all, as they are in France. (In France you can have a CP - be "paxed" - and then go on to get married if you so wish.) I got married relatively young, and had the big white wedding, bridesmaids, the whole shebang. If I were to do it now, I would much prefer something low key, and not be "given away" by my father. There is something quite wrong with the concept, I think now, which clearly wasn't obvious to me when I was in my 20s.

Dawndonna Mon 20-May-13 11:36:56

I've been with dh 20 years. Had we a choice we would have gone for partnership rather than marriage. Don't like all the religious or ownership connotations that go along with marriage, including the civil marriage ceremony.

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 11:50:01

why not just have marriage for all who want to get married. I don't see the point of having two systems that are the same

Solari Mon 20-May-13 11:52:42

I'm curious about how marriage has misogynistic roots? Not in a confrontational way, I'd genuinely like to know.

I've been trying to think of how, but all that's coming to mind is the "Love, honour, obey" line, which I do think is awful.

motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 11:53:27

Er...handing over a woman from the ownership of one man to another?

StuntGirl Mon 20-May-13 11:55:00

What seeker said. And scarlet, and mother inferior.

I didn't actually realise until the gay marriage furore that marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman. I thought marriage was that ceremony two people did when they were in love, and the fact gay people couldn't get married was a nasty throwback to a more bigoted era.

The fact we are legally and cultrually enshrining one set of people's rights while stomping on anothers makes me sad. If I were to enter into a legally recognised partnership, I wouldn't want it to be one with a history of misogyny, hatred and discrimination.

motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 11:57:55

Also, I don't want my relationship registered. I can see the usefulness of sorting out some legal and contractual stuff, but marriage is all associated with Love and Togetherness and Being Together For Ever and similar slightly nausea-inducing things.

Decoy Mon 20-May-13 11:58:04

> handing over a woman from the ownership of one man to another?

That was the case at one point, but go back even further and it wasn't like that at all, it was the simple joining together of two people.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 11:59:57

Flanbase, because not everyone wants to get married. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be afforded legal protection.

I've been in a relationship with DP for 15 years.
If he were critically ill in hospital, I would have no say in his treatment. His mother could choose to switch off his life support machine when I opposed it.

And he would have no say in the hospital treatment of our children.
I could unilaterally choose to turn off the life support machine of one of our DC when he opposed it.

We shouldn't have to get married to address these injustices!

Solari Mon 20-May-13 11:59:58

I don't see how the woman is handed into ownership (unless there really is something I'm missing, perfectly prepared to be told so).

Providing she agrees to marriage of her own accord (or instigates it), there is an exchanging of vows and rings, and a promise made between both parties. I would see it different if just the woman was made to wear a ring, make vows etc. But it seems like a joint endeavour?

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 12:04:06

"Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

StuntGirl Mon 20-May-13 12:05:06

Because historically thats what marriage was. We've simply changed what we say some things mean now, but the roots are in misogyny, we just call it by another name.

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:05:18

scarlet - is this said in a registery office?

2rebecca Mon 20-May-13 12:08:23

I don't see the point of both, if gay couples can marry there is then no need for civil partnership, if you don't want the religious bit just have a civil wedding, it only takes 15 minutes.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:09:30


That's true, I totally forgot about that line too (had custom speech/vows at my non-church wedding).

But I'm not sure the actual practice of marriage could be seen as misogynistic? Certainly those lines are (but not compulsory in all weddings, and thankfully falling out of favour).

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:11:53

Also, I'm not sure how on marriage stemming through eras of time that were undoubtedly misogynistic makes marriage itself misogynistic... more like it took on the flavours of the time?

But surely those things can be scraped away (inappropriate lines, handing over from father etc.), and the core meaning retained? Ie. the joining of two partners, both willingly and with common goals/vows in mind.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 12:14:09

Flan - I don't know, sorry.

Look, I just think that every option should be available to those who want them, as we all have wildly differing views on our lifelong (or not) partnerships:

If you're into traditional marriage, want to be handed over from your dad to your husband and take his name then fine, that's up to you.

If you want to redefine marriage on your own terms and be a "modern" wife, have no trouble with the historical baggage/associations and are doing marriage your own way, then fine.

If, like me, you struggle with the idea of being a wife, definitely don't want marriage at all, but would like legal recognition, then bloody fine!

Why the hell not? grin

meddie Mon 20-May-13 12:14:18

Maybe not so much in the current day and age Solari. But historically a woman was consider the property of her father and he gave her away into the ownership of her husband, she had few rights.
She was often not married for love ( thats a fairly modern thing) but was married off to protect wealth, for social advantage and benefit to her family. She had very little choice and 'making a good advantageous match' was paramount as she often had little wealth of her own unless there were no males heirs.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 12:15:54

x-posts Solari, sorry.

I totally see where you're coming from with your last post, but still think there should be an option for simply: partner and partner.

Not husband and wife if you don't want to be!

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:17:21

check out a registry office wedding Scarlet - doesn't seem to involve any ownership words on the woman.

Damnautocorrect Mon 20-May-13 12:17:49

I have absolutely no interest in getting or being married, but obviously there's certain legalities that need to be in place and a civil partnership would easily resolve that for us.

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:18:03

I'm happy to be a wife - I'm female and married and that is the word used.

thing1andthing2 Mon 20-May-13 12:18:49

I like the way it is in France. Any two people can go and get PACSed. This stands for pact civile de solidarite (or something like that). It can be for gay or straight couples, or even for two elderly sisters who live together in a house and don't want to pay death duties on the house after the death of one of them. It allows a range of legal, tax and inheritance benefits. It is dissolvable by going down to the Mairie and signing some forms.
They have just passed a law allowing gay marriage now, so finally everyone can have both options.
I'd like to see civil partnerships open to any two people whatever their relationships.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:20:14

I'd like to clarify that I am totally in favour of legal provision for those who don't want marriage.

I got married myself, but admittedly didn't think much beyond the pair-bonding/legal aspects of it.

I'm actually quite disturbed by the idea that there is something more insidious behind it (because I am just starting to grow my own feminist roots).

Historically, especially considering the lines used, I can completely agree that it was seen as an ownership deal. I'd like to think that modern marriage can be divorced from that. Otherwise, I'd be feeling pretty crap about backing an institution that was intrinsically misogynistic.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 12:22:03

check out a registry office wedding Scarlet - doesn't seem to involve any ownership words on the woman.

OK, flanbase, but that's not really the point I'm making. That still doesn't make me want to get married, y'know?

unlucky83 Mon 20-May-13 12:24:31

I won't get married cos of the connotations that go with it as detailed above...
But I would like to sign a legal agreement with DP (of 18ish years) - if I could have a civil partnership I would...things like pension rights and inheritance tax....etc
To give you the same rights as some people think you have as a 'common law wife' etc...
As it is we have carefully worded wills...and each own a percentage of the two houses we own...just makes everything a bit more complicated! Will need to think about getting married in future I think - for pension in future as a SAHM...(or if they brought back a married couple tax allowance)
I think we should be pushing for Civil partnerships to be available for all - that heterosexual couple can't have one is discriminatory ...
I can't understand the fuss about equal marriage ...though maybe cos wouldn't want a marriage in the first place...

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 12:25:42

Ignoring thousands of years of history doesn't make it clean, it's even enshrined on the certificates (felt like a kick in the gut at the time that my father's name had to be on there, he should have nowt to do with the day and certainly not more than my mother).

CrystalQueen Mon 20-May-13 12:27:45

We got married in a civil ceremony. I don't feel that I entered into a terrible misogynistic religious institution.

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:28:15

Did you have your fathers surname?

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:29:10

Did you take your husbands name?

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:29:49

I don't think modifying marriage would be ignoring the history though... more like acknowledging it and correcting current behaviour.

I guess for me its a question over whether the core practice itself is misogynistic (which I am realising can't be the case, as people essentially want to retain this under a different name), or whether the trappings of it were misogynistic as a product of the time, and can be removed.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:30:34

I had my father's surname, didn't take my DHs.

ivykaty44 Mon 20-May-13 12:32:09
RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 12:32:51

flan - My partner and I created our own (I got rid of my father's when I turned 18).

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:33:42

Solaris - I see you stand by what you are saying.

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:34:39

Reality - what a great idea.

mrsravelstein Mon 20-May-13 12:34:40

i got married in a registry office. (twice, actually). nothing about obeying. nothing about ownership. nothing about 'giving away'. no words about anything other than the legal process. no requirement to take my husband's name, although i did because i like it more than my own. no requirement to swap rings.

I had a civil wedding. There was no "Who gives this woman" bollocks, there was no religion, no readings, no hymns, it was DH and I choosing to publicly and legally commit ourselves to each other. Just the same as a CP.

I'm happy to call myself his wife and he's happy to call himself my husband. If we weren't we'd use different words. The relationship is the same whether you're a wife, a partner or a oojamaflip. The word is irrelevant, just as with the word marriage.

As for the misogyny accusation yes, that's historically been part of marriage. It's also been part of government (women not being able to vote or be MPs etc) but I don't see anyone refusing to vote because of it.

I don't mind whether we get rid of marriage or get rid of CPs but it seems stupid to have 2 things that are basically the same institution but with different words.

I do like the sound of the PACS in France though, with its provision for siblings etc. That might be worth considering.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:40:50

flanbase I think we do agree, unless you believe that the actual core practice of marriage as a joining of two people is misogynistic? (in which case wouldn't the same act under a different name be just as bad?)

I totally agree with you that over the years it has had misogynistic trappings, and has been used as a tool in a misogynistic way. I also completely believe that no one should be denied the legal benefits of marriage if they want to be joined without marriage (and regardless of sex).

I guess I'm thinking of marriage the way I grew up thinking of it, which is as a mutual bonding and promise-making. To me, that is what it essentially is, and all the other practices decorating it (father handing over, lines etc), stem from a misogynistic era and should be done away with.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 12:42:52

I don't think there's anything wrong per se with choosing a common surname as a result of a marriage or partnership. It shouldn't necessarily be a bad, anti-feminist thing to relinquish your own; it would just be nice if it got to the stage where half the time, the man took the woman's name, rather than the current default.

Again, it should all be about choice, please! grin

flanbase Mon 20-May-13 12:47:30

solaris - I think that now we have the chance to have our say and also remember the past. I got married with none of the obeying & giving away idea and have an equal marriage with my dh. In the past it was very different for women. I took his name as I wanted to do this and to have that choice meant that I could decide on what to do. It should be equal rights for everyone

Solari Mon 20-May-13 12:55:50

I totally agree with this. Just in case there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

StuntGirl Mon 20-May-13 12:58:13

I was always quite into the idea of my future partner and I making up a new surname entirely should we ever marry as a solution to all the name/identity issues.

However, my partner is known by his surname. It's become more than his name, it's his identity. And I have no more right to demand he changes his name and loses part of that identity than he does to demand I drop my surname. So, I feel even more conflicted than ever on that. Good job we're not getting married/CP'd grin

Mandy2003 Mon 20-May-13 13:01:05

I would. I have been married once and am now totally marriage-phobic. The legal protection that would come with a CP would be invaluable IMO.

Mandy to you, what's the difference between a CP and marriage apart from the name?

OctopusWrangler Mon 20-May-13 13:03:56

The French have many things right. Separation of church and state, PACS and opt-out organ donation register. And croissants with coffee the consistency of cement in a morning.

idlevice Mon 20-May-13 13:08:30

I am against marriage because of its historic misogynistic & religious connotations in traditional British culture but mainly also because these connotations are still very valid in other countries/belief systems. Personally I do not want to be associated with that in anyway & would much prefer a CP.

I believe the word marriage itself derives from Latin meaning effectively "become a mother". Everyone knows what partnership means & it does not bias towards one partner or the other/s, there is room for debate on marriage locally (as in religious/not religious, wording of ceremony etc) & globally.

Mandy2003 Mon 20-May-13 13:11:13

Joyful - I suppose it's not wanting to commit to an institution that is so laden with expectations and traditions, no matter how different you try to make it in terms of words, venues, celebrants etc?

Scorpette Mon 20-May-13 13:16:11

I am finding this discussion heartening, particularly as I get accused of being some sort of extremist loony when I try, quite calmly to explain why I choose not to get married due to various Feminist reasons (because you know how some people take your personal beliefs as an automatic attack on their beliefs and choices, even when you have zero issue with them whatsoever, siiiiiiigh).

For me, if something has a repulsive and immoral history to it, I can't ignore it, and I can't be part of it, because it feels like some sort of tacit complicity, even if just retrospectively. Certain things should not be glossed over, and centuries of women being treated like chattel is not trivial, IMHO. I wouldn't even go to the balls at my uni, because I found it offensive that in the past, as a woman and one not from a well-off background, there was no way I would have been able to go to university just a few generations ago, and I found it distasteful to participate in the rituals that once supported that inequality.

Marriage and changing one's name upon marriage, as a woman, both have highly offensive and misogynist histories and meanings to them, and the institution of marriage is also homophobic (or heteronormative, at best). I am also an Atheist, and find the religious aspects of marriage both ridiculous and offensive. Many men, my DP included, find the background to marriage as offensive as women do. I do not wish to opt into a system created by and for so many things that I find so disgusting and which would've made my life shit if I'd lived in the past. This just seems very obvious and basic to my way of thinking.

There needs to be a new way, for people of all sexualities and gender identities, of registering togetherness and commitment, that gives legal rights to both parties, that is free of dubious history and meanings and which is free of religious content or connotation (a religious ceremony could be added on for those who are religious). We don't need to get rid of marriage, but in this day and age, we need to get rid of the constrictive, one-size-fits-all notion of what constitutes a legal love partnership, and offer choices that reflect and embrace the rightful diversity of modern society, and which reflects the opinions and needs of a growing number of people (secular, humanist, rejecting of dubious old meanings and ceremonies, and so on and so forth).

Scorpette Mon 20-May-13 13:18:42

Well, that was fucking long, sorry!

Lottapianos Mon 20-May-13 13:19:05

Great thread. It's so encouraging and exciting to hear how many people on here would prefer a CP to a marriage. I completely agree and am extremely uncomfortable with marriage for all the reasons given by other posters.

Posters who are already married and are happy with it - good for you. No one is trying to take anything away from you. Other hetero couples being able to have a CP will impact on you not one single jot. I think that the terms of how a legal relationship between two people is really quite important and not everyone could be expected to be happy with the same terms.

I agree with other posters who say that CPs should include any two people, like siblings or friends or long term housemates or whatever. I don't see any reason why presumed sexual relationships should be privileged over other types of caring and committed relationships.

Lottapianos Mon 20-May-13 13:20:00

<joins Scorpette's 'extremist loony' club> grin

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 13:20:29

Of course the word is relevant - words have meaning, that's the point of them.

Scorpette smile very well written.

Thurlow Mon 20-May-13 13:21:43

scarletcrossbones sums it up best earlier. I don't want to be DP's wife. Marriage itself comes with so much history tied to it, so much seeming baggage.

DP and I don't want to go through any sort of ceremony where we 'pledge' our 'love' and our 'commitment' to each other. I understand other people want to do this, but it is not for us. I find the concept a little weird, tbh. Why does anyone need to say that they commit? Why can't the relationship itself be enough? Even a civil marriage with just the registrar to two random witnesses off the street is still, at heart, a pledging ceremony.

What we want to do is tie up legal/financial holes so that we are each other's chosen NOK and can easily and readily leave our assets and rights to each other when we die.

I would think about a CP if they were available for heterosexual couples but it would be stop gap. It might be the only way to make sure all the finances are covered.

StuntGirl Mon 20-May-13 13:23:56

<links arms with scorpette> Yes this!

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 13:24:12

Great post, Scorpette. I have joined similar threads on here in the past and been really shouted down for my "lunacy"wink . Hopefully the tide is turning.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 13:25:03

I've I've said this before - why not let every union be a civil union, not worry about calling it marriage at all (and so get away from the stupid "union of one man and one woman shite).

Anyone who wants to have a "proper" marriage in a church can have one, and call themselves married. But this can be a second, not-legally binding ceremony. And can be done with whatever rules the church wants to put into place for it.

There should be no crossover between civil, legal contracts and church "marriages" - that ends up a right mess with people getting anulments, for example in the Catholic church hmm whereas they are not allowed to get divorced. It's ridiculous.

I'm married by the way - I was married in a church because I wanted to have a religious element to it. And I have no problem with anyone being married who wants to be. But I do have a problem with homosexual and heterosexual couples being treated differently - and if everyone is so hung up on the "marriage" bit, then just get rid of it for everyone.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 13:26:52

By the way, the civil contract I suggest (for everyone) shouldn't have to be a sexual contract either. If two old friends, of either sex decide to formalise their union to give them rights of inheritance, right to be each others' next of kin etc, I don't see why they shouldn't.

5madthings Mon 20-May-13 13:28:05

Agrees with seeker and others and scorpette I won't get married, I always thought dp amdi might but have a non religious ceremony but the more I thought abut the more I realized I want no part in a ceremony that is steeped in sexism and outdated ideas on the roles and position of men and women.

I would enter into a civil partnership however and 'partnership' is a key word here.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 13:31:21

Maryz, what about non-religious couples who seriously want to be married, though?

I'm still for advocating choice for everyone smile and that would seem not to accommodate that category ...?

OxfordBags Mon 20-May-13 13:32:07

Have been reading this and nodding in excited agrreent with so much that is being said. Great points there, Lotta. Relationships are just not man-woman sex & romance deals nowadays (not that they ever just were, privately). I know two lesbian couples who are co-raising their children with the bio fathers, who are gay and in relationships. Their family set-up works brilliantly for them, and it is just wrong that they can't have some sort of legal framework to acknowledge their various commitments to each other and their children, and their devotion to parenting, that gives them all rights and status, etc.

I practice child-led parenting, with a strong Montessori flavour, and every member of this family being equal, all of pulling together and loving and supporting each other in ways that are appropriate and which reflect our abilities and strengths, is vitally important (ie my toddler puts his dirty washing in the basket, helps set the table, tidies his toys up, etc.). I'd love there to be a ceremony where we register our commitment to each other as a family, not just me and my mister being a man and woman who get hitched, who happen to have a child, or will have a child, IYSWIM. I think a family partnership would be a great thing for society, for women's rights within the home and as a mother, and might hopefully make people work harder at problems in relationships (not talking about abuse or anything like that, of course) that are to do with family matters, ie distribution of childcare and so on.

You also get siblings or friends who live together for their whole lives, and neither marry or have children. That sort of non-sexual and non-romantic relationship should be acknowledged and afforded legal rights too, if the people involved wish.

mcmooncup Mon 20-May-13 13:33:21

I am in total agreement with getting rid of marriage altogether. I too find it's history and the connotations behind it rather offensive.

I got even worse when I read Wife Work. angry

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 13:33:48

YY, Oxford. I may have to move to France ... grin

I had a religion free wedding. Well, two, actually - register office for legal bit and humanist ceremony as part of offical 'wedding do'. No giving away type bollocks.

We would both have chosen a CP instead if it had been available to us. It was a declaration to family and friends that we have chosen each other, and for legal protection - eg makes PR, pensions, NOK issues, inheriting more straightfoward.

But the wedding is just a day, the relationship is what a marriage or partnership is actually about. I find it hard to believe that same sex couples still cannot choose marriage in the same way that hetero couples can.

motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 13:34:31

VG point about handing next of kin to your friends, Maryz. I had a friend who kind of managed to do this but suspect it was because she was very bad-tempered strong-minded. (She had a terminal condition and committed suicide. I still miss her.)

Re surnames: yes, I have my father's surname. I do not like my father. However, it's been my name for life, and it's what I am known by and also it is part of my rather complex multi-ethnic heritage. I don't really see that this is an equivalent to adopting a new surname (and thus Mr Inferior's multi-ethnic heritage).

(The Inferioriettes, poor sods, are saddled with two unspellable surnames, non hyphenated, on account of their parents' pig-headedness.)

Blistory Mon 20-May-13 13:35:48

I don't ever want to get married. For me, marriage is about a lifetime commitment. It's about becoming a wife. I don't want that.

I don't want to explain to my father that I don't want him to give me away. I don't want to justify not wearing a nice white dress to symbolise my purity. I don't want to justify not taking my husband's name. I don't want to justify not wearing a ring. I don't want to take part in a ceremony that other feel obliged to attend. I don't want to go to church or a registry office. I don't want to take part in a process that has traditionally treated women as possessions.

I do want to enter into a legal agreement with a man that I have chosen to share this part of my life with so that we are both protected. I don't want a big fuss. I want an arrangement that suits the way we live at any given time and that can be adapted accordingly. I don't want to ever be divorced and feel like I've failed at something.

I want to pop into my solicitor's office and sign an agreement like I do with every other major aspect of my life, property acquisition, partnership agreements, wills etc.

So just having marriage as the only option isn't one that suits me.

infamouspoo Mon 20-May-13 13:35:53

we did the registry office thing. No religion, no giving away, quick 10 mins to give us some legal rights.
I consider it a partnership although I'm aware its a marriage.

Thurlow Mon 20-May-13 13:37:57

Applauds Scorpette, who said it so much better than I could.

I really struggle to understand why it is currently impossible in the UK to nominate someone - partner, sibling, close friend - and say "this is my NOK, this person gets to make decisions and manage my assets if I die". That's all I want, without having to make some kind of statement about my relationship with that nominated person at the same time.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 13:39:18

scarlet, I think that the same should be available for everyone. So marriage (civil marriage) shouldn't be available to heterosexual couples if it isn't available to homosexual couples.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 13:40:01

I am absolutely in agreement and support of those who wish to enjoy the legal benefits of wedding without actually having a marriage.

However, I do come from a background (probably outing myself again) where my heavily-religious family completely shunned Christmas, Easter, etc on the basis that they had entirely non-Christian roots and were Pagan in origin and original meaning.

Now, in my mind I knew that to be true, however I never understood the logic that then extended to that still necessarily being the case. Now, I celebrate all of them with great enjoyment, under the belief that whatever their origins, they have been transformed into something else (I'm actually not Christian any more anyway, but there was an overlap when I was).

I do think that pretty much everything from previous eras was misogynistic (and still is to a large degree), but just personally, I do think things such as marriage can grow with the times, be modified or transformed, and need not necessarily be consigned to the rubbish heap.

Again, I'm coming at it from my own background and associations with marriage (mostly positive), and so to me this seems feasible. I do understand why others may wish to reject it for themselves.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 13:41:22

Just realised that might make it sound like I think same-sex partners should be forced into CP, which I don't. I think anyone should have the option to opt out of 'marriage' for whatever reason they wish, and still have legal recognition.

amothersplaceisinthewrong Mon 20-May-13 13:41:48

I heard today on the radio that Civil Partnerships are not open to Opposiste sex couples - is this not some form of discrimination.,,,

Scorpette Mon 20-May-13 13:43:16

Ooh, if only Gary Glitter wasn't such a scumbag, I'd be singing "D'ya wanna be in my gang, my gang?!" grin

I love the idea of a family commitment ceremony. Or just a civil ceremony that gives the same rights as marriage. Y'know, I've been accused of being heartless or not very humane, or immoral, or whatever, for my views on marriage, but when you think about what many of us here are proposing, it's clear that we are actually the ones who want to find ways in which anyone who wants to, could acknowledge and register a deep, loyal commitment to another, or others. IMHO, it's people who want to keep what constitutes a 'marriage' very narrowly-defined and restrictive that are blocking and destabilising togetherness, not the other way round.

I realise that many people don't like alternatives to marriage because of religion, but they need to realise that we live in a society where the majority of people do not identify with a specific religion or are actively non-believing, that they cannot impose their beliefs on others, and that, more importantly, other types of ceremonies existing do not stop them getting married in trad ways, or invalidate the sincerity and meaning they would derive from that. And if they feel that it does, then the onus is on them to investigate and deal with why their faith is so wobbly and immature that they are threatened by others not being like them, not on everyone else to pander to them.

One angle not covered so far is that this amendment is a cynical diversion aimed at delaying the passage of the equal marriage bill. As we all get swept up in debate about the amendment the vocal and homophobic "swivel eyed loons" are out to scupper the bill.

Lets get equal rights for everybody by getting the marriage thing sorted first THEN sorting out equal access to CPs.

If they filibuster this out then it won't go through in this parliament

BeCool Mon 20-May-13 13:45:34

Scorpette covers the feminist points really well.

Essentially it doesn't matter how unoppressive or oppressive, or fantastic, or disastrous marriage has been for an individual or indeed the wider collective. It's all a red herring.

The only point that matters is EQUALITY for all. Yes people should be able to choose to get married, yes people should be able to be civilly partnered. To claim one route for one group and one for another is stupid & unequal. We must ALL be free to choose our preferred version of legal entanglement regardless of who we wish to share our lives with.

Tommy Mon 20-May-13 13:45:58

I had a full Catholic nuptial mass and there was no mention of who gives this woman, obey, take your husband's name, father signing the register etc.
I don't know where you lot get your ideas about marriage from hmm
I would also consider my marriage to be a partnership - and would think most people would wouldn't they?

Ilovemyself Mon 20-May-13 13:47:12

Surely having one called a Civil Partnership and one called a Marriage is not helping because if they are the same thing they should be called the same thing

Scorpette Mon 20-May-13 13:47:51

Good point, isindebusagain. Get the rights finally in place for same-sex partners and then campaign about the finer details and other issues. Us heteros on here have the luxury of choosing a marriage, however distasteful we find it, and therefore the luxury of moaning about not being able to choose CP or something else instead.

I do think, however, that new, more secular types of partnership recognition for all will become big issues in society in the next decade. Well, I hope so, at least.

OxfordBags Mon 20-May-13 13:49:53

The more I read, the more I think "These are my people", y'know... <ironic (but secretly not) group hug>

This is really interesting. I agree with Maryz and with Solari's comparison to the pagan origins of religious festivals. To me the history of it is irrelevant, it's what it means to me and DH that was important. If CP had been an option when we got married we'd have done that, as it wasn't we got married.

However I think that Isindebusagain has made the most important point. We need to get equal marriage legalised, the CP discussion can be had later.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 13:54:10

Ilovemyself, some people want to be called husbands and wives, some simply want to be partners. Both should be possible.

I worded that badly, I meant that if CP had been the only option then we'd have chosen that.

Lottapianos Mon 20-May-13 13:58:33

<hugs OxfordBags back>

Ilovemyself, they are not the same thing. That's why some of us are making such a fuss! They are similar in terms of granting legal rights but there are huge differences in ceremony, no need for 'consummation' in CPs, no presumption of fidelity in CPs. Also, CPs are not presumed to be a life-long commitment - they may well be of course, but that's not presumed at the outset. Loads of other differences are described upthread.

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 14:05:56

Tommy - it isn't father's signing it, it's their names upon it. The certificate has the father's name and occupation on it. There is no place for mother's name and occupation. As an adult, my partnership should have nothing to do with either of them, but having the father there is part and enshrinement of the misogynistic past that is a massive problem for many.

As as a non-hetero, I find the equal marriage argument a red herring for dealing with many areas of oppression LGBT* face that are often ignored in favor of actions that make LGBT* people fit in cishetero norms. It's a bit disingenious to bring up civil partnerships, then say we should discuss them later after equal marriage - after we have LGBT* people be able to be more like hetero people rather than examine what is wrong with the current cisheteropatriachal systems, take apart, examine the histories and words for what they are rather than brush them under 'that's not what they mean to me' BS and reconstruct into a system that gives real equality and options - not options for those of us outside to look more like those on the inside when really we'll never get there with the current attitude of those norms being priority.

Can I ask why the idea of someone calling you their wife makes you shudder? It doesn't bother me in the slightest & I just wonder what connotation I'm missing?

Ilovemyself Mon 20-May-13 14:12:04

Being in a marriage doesn't stop you calling your partner a partner, wife of husband surely, or am I missing something?

Thurlow Mon 20-May-13 14:14:26

For most people that's going to be a deeply personal response, HelsBels. For me it's to do with the concept, as I mentioned before, of pledging to be something that is so defined by cultural history. I don't want to be something so specific to my partner, and he doesn't want to be something so specific to me. We're happy enough to just be together and raise our DC.

The problem at the moment is that you can't legally nominate someone as your NOK etc without defining the relationship exactly.

amothersplaceisinthewrong Mon 20-May-13 14:23:59

I had forgotten about the fathers' names and occupations being on the marriage cert - just had a quick peek at mine. Why on earth are they there? I had never thought about it before, but it seems completely irrelevant that my father was a schoolmaster and my fil an engineer!!!

In my full nuptial mass however, I did not have to obey nor was it asked who was giving me away. We and our witnesses signed the register. We did of course have to get a registrar to come to the church so that we could sign the register.

I was quoting someone who posted up thread. I'm not meaning to cause offence, I've just never really thought about it, or considered there were negative connotations to being a 'wife'.

motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 14:32:26

Wife also makes me feel cluttered down by a history of ownership as well as specificity.

seeker Mon 20-May-13 14:38:15

I agree, motherinferior.

Marriage has so much cultural and historical baggage that it is, in my opinion, unreclaimable.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 14:40:24

The label just doesn't sit comfortably with me, Hels. Like others have said, the term remains tainted by history for me. Some people can get past that; some can't. And there was a very good point made upthread about marriage in many (the majority?) of countries now, still most definitely, where women are automatically considered subservient, inferior beings. I just don't want to be associated with that.

Can I just say what a generally lovely atmosphere has been running through this thread, though? As I said before, I've been on others where not only was my opinion on this subject shouted down, but it was also done in a rather nasty personal way. This thread has been informative and measured. Go MN! smile

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 14:41:11

Gah, I had a very long not-v-grammatical sentence in that post - please excuse!

Solari Mon 20-May-13 14:42:56

In my opinion, I would like to see it reclaimed, and inappropriate parts of it modified (ie. father's name on certificate).

However, I would utterly support your right to have a legally viable alternative without the name association.

I guess I can't quite tell whether you simply want those rights for yourself (which I would wholeheartedly support for anyone), or whether you want no-one to have the option of marriage.

Thurlow Mon 20-May-13 14:44:05

It's refreshing, isn't it scarlet? I don't think I've ever managed to put in to words what I've been saying on this thread. All my friends are married or planning weddings, they would not take any of my opinions well, no matter how nicely I put it.

It's also refreshing to see so many anti-marriage posters - can't think of another way to put it - as I always find threads about 'should I get married?' and they are 100% pro-marriage. They generally call anyone who can't get over any issues with marriage an absolute fool and tell them that their IL's will walk all over them if there are any medical emergencies, and run off with all the money hmm

Thurlow Mon 20-May-13 14:45:36

Also, I just wanted to thank all the far wiser and more eloquent posters than me that have put together all the issues with marriage that I couldn't quite explain and made them understandable!

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 15:08:37

I think the reasons that are wheeled out in anti-gay-marriage arguments are actually anti-any-marriage these days. Because the arguments quoted are always "one man, one woman, intention of consummation and procreation, lasts forever, blessed by God hmm"

But these days civil marriage is in fact a partnership, there is no absolute presumption that it will be for life, there is no necessity to be open the idea of it being "consummated" or to be for procreation purposes. Many older people get married - who may be past the age of having children, or may not even want to have a sexual relationship at all.

Many people get "married" for the second, third, fourth time - that's absolutely fine, but it does beg the question of whether marriage is really expected to be for life any more.

I feel that all these assumptions could be overcome by getting rid of marriage as the default civil contract between two people - there should be a contract covering the legal issues of inheritance etc, and this could be a binding contract until it is broken, preferably by agreement between the two parties.

There should be no requirement for consummation or a sexual relationship at all - that's irrelevant hmm

And it should be between any two people - straight or gay couples, friends, whatever, it doesn't matter. Everyone should have the right to choose who is the closest person to them, who should make decisions for them in old age, who should inherit etc.

And if people aren't happy with that civil and legal relationship let them go and get "married" in a church or a mosque or a synagogue or their back garden - that is an entirely separate issue whatsoever. They can make whatever promises they like in front of whatever person or officiator they want.

Solari Mon 20-May-13 15:19:43

I'm starting to see that marriage does have more baggage than had initially occurred to me, even as the thread has developed (particularly the religious 'requirements', which are mostly ignored as pointed out!).

I agree that a new 'default' should probably move into place, with totally revamped 'rules and rights' for everyone.

Marriage could perhaps become very much an extra or alternative choice, for those who do have religious/personal sentiment attached to it.

BoffinMum Mon 20-May-13 15:35:58

Abolish inheritance and we can go back to a putative matriarchy like in pre-history. Sorted. Send blokes out for a bit of mammoth from time to time between impregnation sessions, and we can do the rest between Mnetting sessions. Then nobody needs marriage or civil partnerships or anything at all.

<<bows head and weeps at the sheer success of this wrecking amendment>>

<wanders off to listen to the sounds of fiddling and watch the flames rising over the prospect of equal marriage>

Viviennemary Mon 20-May-13 16:18:45

I think people should be allowed to have a civil partnership if they want one. Because if they can't how can that be treating people equally. And I think the churches should be allowed to stick to the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as it always has been. If David Cameron and his cronies decide that it doesn't mean that after all who are we to disagree. Let them get on with it. But leave the churches alone.

AmberSocks Mon 20-May-13 16:19:37

if marriage was abolished what would happen to the people that are already married?

I am married,i am a wife,he is my husband,neither of us see it as misogynistic or religious,and neither of us are.I dont think i would of chose a civil partnership over getting married had they been available.

I think the best option would to be to keep both and make both available to all couples,i dont think the choice to do it the old fashioned way should be taken away.

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 16:21:16

Okay, this keeps bugging me...

OP, and many others, seem to have a problem with having two basically same things having different names. I can get that.

But why keep marriage and not civil partnerships? Why is that your default? Why should the old cishetero option that has been used for centuries upon centuries to dictate behaviour and ideals (and still does whether you want to admit it or not, especially as you've put it as an ideal over civil partnerships) and here and around the world is based on power and privilege, marking the shoulds and should nots, why should that stay, why not see that the world has changed, that it needs to change more, and change our default partnering situation?

Also, one of the main reasons LGBT* people are pushing for this isn't as much wanting what cisheteros have, it's because the current system is caught up in the gender binary - as it stands now, if a partnered/married trans* person feels the need to transition and becomes able to legally change their legal gender, their partnership (whether civil parternship or marriage) becomes legally void, they have to legally dissolve/divorce and repartner/marry. Changing to a more equal system will prevent this issue. It's not a fight for wanting 'marriage', to become part of that system specfically, it's just what many see as the easiest way to get to a more gender neutral partnering system is to open up what is already there - repeating history, those in the position of privilege are more willing to make those that are willing to make themselves fit be part of what they already have rather than rebuild the system to take that away and give everyone equality without their well built power base of default.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 16:21:46

You wouldn't abolish existing marriages.

Just call new ones civil partnerships or civil unions instead of civil marriages.

Just like when they changed the requirement to just have a priest involved to having it in a legal place with a legally authorised officiant.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 16:23:40

But wouldn't it be simply easier to ban civil marriage completely reality?

If you want to call it a marriage, have it in a church (not legally binding) with the legal form elsewhere.

That gets around all this bollocks about marriage being a sacrament, and a christian union and all that.

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 16:28:41

No one wants to take away your marriage and old fashioned church definitions, we want the legal change, in the eyes of the court and law, to be equal for everyone without one being default/ideal that is not set in gender binary or needing to be outed to everyone (Cause I don't need to tell people my sexuality when I fill in a form which is what happens now when asked if married/civil partnership).

It already happens in many countries - you get a legal civil partnership, then get married in a place of your choice, typically a church. They still call themselves husband/wife. But that marriage has nothing to do with the law, though it tends to have a lot of social power as an ideal. The law however is the same for all which is meant to the goal.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 16:30:34

Yes, I agree with that.

But I think if we all call it marriage there will always be people who will quote the "official definition" and thereby imply that some people aren't properly married.

Whereas if we used a different term altogether for everyone that argument couldn't be used, if you see what I mean.

sarahtigh Mon 20-May-13 16:59:33

just as some people do not want to be married and called a wife some people most definitely do want to be married and called a wife surely they have just as much right to be married as those you want a civil partnership and to be nor married etc
while we give people the right to a non religious marriage or civil partnership we should not be taking away a right to a religious marriage if that is what people want

in scotland being given away by father is not part of even a religious ceremony and the vows are much more flexible about what is included

I think that CP should be the only legal partnership arrangement for all and marriages should be whatever you want but have no legal relevance.

e.g. you want to be married and have legal rights then you would have your wedding and apply for a CP.

you want to be married and not care about legal rights (not sure who would want this) then just have a wedding

you just want legal rights then just apply for a CP.

Then anyone could get married or celebrate however they choose because it isn't a legal contract and so the state doesn't need to be involved.

RubyGates Mon 20-May-13 17:14:42

I think CPs are actually a very useful legal tool. They should be available for any pair of people who want that legal protection it may be as a part of traditional loving relationship, but it could also be used to provide the same inheritance rights for a pair of siblings for example or two long-term house mates with no romantic feelings for each other but who wish the property to go to the other half of the pair without the wrangling from other family members that often occurs.

I think that it would be good if all pair partnerships romantic or not were CPs and then a religious or other blessing could be added if that's the kind of thing you want or care about.

Viviennemary Mon 20-May-13 17:34:49

I agree that much the simplest way forward is all unions in churches can be marriage, and all civil unions can be partnerships. Then that would save all the rows about what marriage is and isn't. But some people might want to be married but not in any kind of religious ceremony. Maybe they could have a civil marriage. Because obviously the state and churches are not in agreement about what marriage is.

eccentrica Mon 20-May-13 17:48:32

scorpette, I'm with you too smile

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 18:07:35

Don't people get married for religious reasons? I know me and my dh did. Perhaps if people aren't religious they should have a cp. I would like to see fewer people being married in church just because they want a long white dress and a church setting.
I don't think just because some people aren't religious we should do away with marriage in a church. Surely with this equality for all couples it should be possible for free choice.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 18:31:15

Exactly vivienne.

That's what I meant sarahtigh - people can get married in churches if they want and call themselves married.

But stop having "civil marriages" and "religious marriages" - have civil partnerships and religious marriage for those who want it, but completely separate legally.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 18:34:13

Perhaps if people aren't religious they should have a cp

potatoprints, I know I'm continuing to defend one of the options I'm not even interested in here, grin, but I know plenty of people - possibly the majority of my friends, perhaps - who are not religious, even atheist, but still want weddings, and still want to be called someone's wife/husband. This is fine by me - not hurting anyone! There would be an enormous outcry if marriages for atheists were outlawed! However, of course you shouldn't get married in a church if you don't believe in god and have no intention of ever returning on a Sunday in the future. That's simply hypocritical.

I think people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their partner, whether permanent or temporary. It simply shouldn't matter to anyone else whether I want a civil union, a religious blessed marriage, to be a partner, a wife, whatever - noone has the right to dictate whether or not any of us are allowed to do any of these things!

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 18:41:25

But scarlet, if the church's reasons for same sex marriage not being "proper" marriage, then they also must (by definition) think that many non-church marriages aren't marriages either. Using Church definitions:

Second marriages aren't marriages.
Marriages where one person has in the past been unfaithful aren't marriages.
Marriages where there is no intention (or ability) to have children aren't marriages

So why aren't they all out there lobbying for not using the word marriage when applied to all these civil "marriages". Why is it only same-sex unions that can't use the word marriage (according to the bigots).

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 18:43:18

But I don't care what the Church considers to be a marriage or not! confused What church are we talking about here anyway?

Why would an atheist be bothered if a church didn't recognise their marriage?

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 18:44:48

But that's the argument being used for not letting gay people marry.

That's the whole point.

AmberSocks Mon 20-May-13 18:47:02

Marys it depends what kind of church,COE allow second marriages dont they?

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 18:47:48

Sorry, I'm not being very clear.

If (as people are arguing), marriage has to be between a man and a woman because it has to be consummated with the possibility of having children for example, then surely it can't be between a man and an older woman who can't have children. And if the difference between marriage and civil partnership is that one is intended to be for life, then it can't be for someone who has been married before.

I'm just pointing out how ridiculous the arguments against gay marriage are, and saying that those arguments could be used against lots of marriages - but they aren't. And imo the reason they are only used in the case of same-sex marriage is that they aren't really arguments at all, they are opinions based on bigotry.

If that makes sense.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 18:49:27


I was trying to make the hypocritical point, but not very eloquently. Of course people should get married wherever they want to, there are some fabulous venues now and some people I have heard of marry in very unusual places grin. I just don't agree with those suggesting that marriage should be abolished in favour of CP, I think they can coexist and people should have free choice.

HollyBerryBush Mon 20-May-13 18:49:28

I don't understand the difference between a registry office do and a civil partnership


To me marriage is a church wedding, anything else is just a legal formality, bit like buying a house, you sign the paper and it's yours.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 18:55:09

Don't be silly Holly shock

It's the name isn't it. If it's a man and a woman it's a marriage and perfectly historically accurate, but if it's two people of the same sex it can't possibly be called a marriage, so lets make up a new name, just so they can see that everyone disapproves of their relationship.

Or something like that [baffled]angry

HollyBerryBush Mon 20-May-13 18:57:11

I have no issue with gay marriage or CP - I simply dont understand the difference between a CP and a registry office do.

None of it affects me directly, therefore I choose to give it little thought.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 18:57:33

I think its each to their own. However, I would have found it unfair If I hadn't had the choice to marry in my old family church. I don't attend the church now as we live many miles away, but we do attend our local church, quite often too.
I love being married and like being a wife and dh likes being a husband. It doesn't define who we are apart from our legal partnership, which you can get from other legal partnerships.
We have been married for nearly 21 years and our wedding day was the best day of our lives, we both strongly agree on this.
Let them that want a religious or none religious marriage have it, and everyone else free to choose their preference.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 18:58:27

I see what you're saying, Maryz grin

Yep, potato - although I'll never marry, I absolutely think that marriage should be available for anyone - gay, straight, religious, atheist and all shades in between. As should CPs smile.

I believe we're a wee bit spoiled up here in Scotland as many many more diverse venues have been approved for civil marriage than in England/Wales - is that right? Tops of mountains, things like that?

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 19:01:38

Holly, again: many many of us straight people just don't want to be married. smile For many valid reasons.

But that shouldn't mean we should have to languish along for years/for ever in a committed relationship where we've been denied the legal protection that marriage affords. Especially if kids are involved.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 19:04:49


The zoo, sky diving (don't know how they managed this), underwater/diving (ditto how?)
Its such a commitment to each other that it should be just how you want it. Of course it doesn't always go to plan, ours didn't. However, I remember it like it was yesterday, very simple, not too many guests, no fuss but everything we both wanted. We've had ups and downs, but still madly in love and don't take each other for granted. grin

Catmint Mon 20-May-13 19:04:52

Another one here who wants the legal rights conferred by a CP without having to be married.

scottishmummy Mon 20-May-13 19:05:06

cp is a alternative to marriage for those couples not wishing to marry
one can legitimately not desire marriage but wish to be in cp
as hard as some marrieds seem to find it,not everyone wants to get married

sunshine401 Mon 20-May-13 19:05:40

I have been to a wedding in a church where two of my dearest friends got MARRIED. They wanted a wedding. Their choice.
Legally they are in a "Civil partnership" (due to them both being female) but not once during their wedding did the priest use the term "Civil partnership" it was a wedding, a marriage and of course quite rightly they refer to themselves now as married.
I would like to add that they both are christian and attend the same church every week.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 19:11:09


Do you think your friends would object to people getting married in church same sex or straight ?
I ask as your friends were Christians and wonder if this would really bother them.

It does bother me, from the religious p.o.v. There are lots of places beside a church to be married and I think church is obviously for those wanting to commit in front of God as well as family and friends.

Bunbaker Mon 20-May-13 19:12:24

I understand that some people don't want to get married, but to me, and to a lot of posters on here a civil partnership is a marriage in all but name anyway.

Catmint Mon 20-May-13 19:14:02

Can I just say that I absolutely do want the legal rights conferred by a CP without having to be married (it just isn't for us but I worry about the next of kin dilemma). However I absolutely don't want the bill to be wrecked, to feel that any equality sought by me is at the expense of others.

I heard on the radio that a Tory/ labour deal has been done to get the bill through.

Bunbaker Mon 20-May-13 19:15:48

If you feel committed enough for a civil partnership, what is so terrible about being married then?

sunshine401 Mon 20-May-13 19:19:17

Do you think your friends would object to people getting married in church same sex or straight

I am sorry , I don't understand what you mean??
Do you mean non-religious couples??

seeker Mon 20-May-13 19:19:43

It is perfectly possible to have nearly all the same rights as a married couple by careful writing of wills and so on.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 19:20:11

If you feel committed enough for a civil partnership, what is so terrible about being married then?

AAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHH! grin. In the nicest possible way. grin

I'm just going to keep on repeating politely, as I have done roughly ninety-six times already on this thread:

Many people do not want to get married for many, varied, valid reasons.

However, we don't see why that preference should preclude us getting the legal protection equivalent to those who do choose to get married.

scottishmummy Mon 20-May-13 19:20:45

it's as it's incomprehensible to some,^not all folks want to be married^.simple as that
it's not complicated at all.not everyone wants to be married but cp offers legal rights
I completely see why one wouldn't want to marry but would want cp

scottishmummy Mon 20-May-13 19:27:19

this is like the well jel engagement thread if you said you didn't want to get engaged/married
that was met with incredulity and you is well jel from the bridezillas who couldnt grasp it
much like this,all the but you could get....^married^ why have cp

seeker Mon 20-May-13 19:29:42

"If you feel committed enough for a civil partnership, what is so terrible about being married then?"

Oh, god, I hate it when people say things like this, but I'm going to have to. Here goes. I feel too committed to need either.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 19:32:44

I know, scottishmummy. Marriage is regarded as automatically being The Most Desirable Option, that obviously everyone must want! That attitude needs a shake-up.

Seeker, that's lovely, honestly. You're doing what is obviously right for you. I just wish we were all entitled to do the same.

scottishmummy Mon 20-May-13 19:36:46

it's like smug marrieds can't conceptualise others aren't desperate to be married
cp is prudent in that it offers legal rights,that is part of appeal
not all people want together married but do want to protect financial,familial rights

Blistory Mon 20-May-13 19:41:25

Agree with seeker. I don't need to get married. My relationships are still equally valid but I don't need any sort of ceremony or vows or public declaration. Other do. Each to their own

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 19:41:53

If you feel committed enough for a marriage, what is so terrible about a civil partnership?

Why is marriage being framed as the ideal? The problems repeatedly listed in the history and expectations around the concept of marriage, framed in its representation and continuous position as an ideal. It's framed in such a way that we are suppose to want this ideal and want to fit in to this ideal that is set into cisheterosexual as default. Why not break the history, the expectation, that ideal, into something else based and built for purpose? It may seem like a name change, but words have meaning - that is their point - changing the meaning is beginning of changing the mindset and institutions.

seeker Mon 20-May-13 19:46:40

"Seeker, that's lovely, honestly. You're doing what is obviously right for you. I just wish we were all entitled to do the same."

Don't understand?

motherinferior Mon 20-May-13 19:48:02

I'm sure marriage is a lovely institution - I just don't want to live in an institution.

Jux Mon 20-May-13 19:48:24

I think both should be available to everyone. That's the only way that equality can be achieved.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 19:53:48

I mean not getting married, nor CP-ed, nor aspiring to either, but simply being happy exactly the way you are. That's fab, and what I understood by what you said ... sorry if I picked you up wrongly?!

sarahtigh Mon 20-May-13 20:04:07

but maryz many people do not want a CP and call themselves married or husband/wife permissively they want to be actually married according to tradition maybe, religious reasons maybe or whatever reason

they do not want CP to be the only legal option with a church blessing etc as an add on extra; that is just as valid an opinion as someone who does not want marriage etc but would rather CP

so I think both should be abailable to everyone ( though I suspect the real reason they do not want hetrosexual CP is that government would miss out on chunks of inheritance tax

AmberSocks Mon 20-May-13 20:09:14

so what s when you want to leave a civil [partnership?is it a similar procedure to divorce?

seeker Mon 20-May-13 20:11:21

"I mean not getting married, nor CP-ed, nor aspiring to either, but simply being happy exactly the way you are. That's fab, and what I understood by what you said ... sorry if I picked you up wrongly?!"

But everyone is entitled to do the same- I thought you were implying that some people weren't?

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 20:12:13

See, I wanted the party grin. And the presents. Though I'm gutted I got married in the years before poems demanding money and vouchers. I ended up with three (yes three) china coffee sets. And two deep fat fryers.

Maybe the marriage part should just be the party. And a church bit if you are actually a member of a church. No legality attached to it at all.

And then the couple (male, female, both) could sign a partnership agreement like you sign joint wills. Sort out the legal stuff, the house, the next of kin arrangements, the children etc etc. Take all that away from the party element completely.

RealityQuake Mon 20-May-13 20:12:57

sarahtigh, no one is trying to take away marriage or take away the terms husband/wife. The most "radical" option, which is what happens in many other countries, is civil partnership as recognized by law followed by a wedding/marriage ceremony for those who want it recognized by that faith or group, which already happens here for several smaller faith groups (the reason most of those countries have it this way though is separation of state and faith, but people in those countries still have a lot of church weddings and many in them still call each other husband/wife regardless). No one is trying to take that away, we're challenging the marriage as a default/ideal and how the government interacts and encourages certain relationships.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 20:17:15

But everyone is entitled to do the same- I thought you were implying that some people weren't?

When I said I wish everyone was entitled to "do the same", I meant, do what is right for them. Which we're not, yet. A CP is right for DP and I, but we're not entitled to do it, yet.

Sorry for the confusion! wine

Maryz, I want a party, when I am eventually allowed to get a CP! Can't wait to throw one for my friends in return for all the lovely wedding parties of theirs I've been to over the years.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 20:20:27

Have you written your begging lovely poem yet?


HollyBerryBush Mon 20-May-13 20:21:03

I really am having a Thick McThicky moment here.

What is the difference in a CP and a registry office do? If it affords the same legal protection? There must be a difference, otherwise there would be a sweeping change of terminology - everything would be called one thing or the other IYSWIM.

I define marriage as being in the Eyes of God - which clearly isn't the case with a registry do. A registry do is the same thing without the God bit (I think) so how does it differ from a CP ceremony?

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 20:26:25

Sorry, Holly, my reply earlier was tongue in cheek.

Here is my serious answer.

The only difference in reality between a civil marriage and a civil partnership is that one is for opposite sex couples, the other is for same sex couples.

They (I think) have the same effect from the point of view of next of kin/inheritance/tax/shared home etc. And I think they are the same from the point of view of adoption, but I could be wrong on that - I'm not sure whether a cp-ed couple can adopt together confused

Your definition of marriage being in the eyes of God is what I have been struggling with from the start. So many marriages aren't "in the eyes of God" so why are gay marriages even less "in the eyes of God" that they are not able to be called marriages? It doesn't make sense - which is why probably, you feel thick. I do too.

In my opinion, the easiest resolution would be to call all registry office do's civil partnerships. And those who have a partnership/blessing/whatever in a religious establishment could call themselves married.

Lottapianos Mon 20-May-13 20:41:32

Folks who are still confused about the differences between CP and marriage - it's all explained in quite a bit of detail in the first couple of pages of the thread

I really, desperately hope this goes through. Not just because I will be beyond excited if DP and I can start planning a future as each others' legal partners, and a lovely day of celebration! But also because the issue of equal marriage and some of the downright shocking things that people have said by way of defending their anti- equal marriage stance, shows just how bloody far we still have to go to become a truly inclusive, decent, compassionate society. Equal marriage will force some of the dinosaurs to confront the reality that gay people's relationships are just as important and valid as anyone else's.

scarletcrossbones Mon 20-May-13 20:42:33

I see where you're coming from, Maryz. I just don't think it would go down well at all, not to allow something called a wedding to take place in a registry office, which would lead to a marriage. This is exactly what thousands and thousands of couples want. They would not want their union to be termed a civil partnership.

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 21:08:19

I think everyone, gay or straight, should have a civil partnership, simple official signing of a legal contract.
Then, if you also want to go to a church, hire a castle, immerse yourselves in water and say vows which appear as bubbles travelling to the surface, you go do that. If you don't want any of the above, then don't.

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 21:10:44

There is a difference in Ireland, Maryz. Gay couples here can't legally, as a couple, have children. They can have biological children, like anyone else can, but only one parent will be a legal one, and they can't adopt. It's just wrong.

FuturePerfect Mon 20-May-13 21:17:51

I feel I have been waiting forever for the world outside to catch up with the way I think and the way I live my life. Twenty years together and four children with DP and I still get friends asking 'but WHY don't you want to get married?' I am literally the last (wo)man standing amongst my friends and family and although I am happy to dig my heels in on this one, I do often feel like a lone voice. Not so now, Scorpette et al -I have found my gang! I am SO glad I held off on the marriage front, and if CP for heterosexual couples becomes law, I will finally be able to protect our rights in law without compromising my beliefs.

Viviennemary Mon 20-May-13 21:20:06

Does the problem not arise if people in a civil partnership as it is now want to separate. There is the question of rules of property split and son on. And then how long do people have to wait before they are separated and then can move on and have a partnership with somebody else. Frankly, I think the whole thing is a total minefield. So if this new law goes through will same sex couples need to get divorced in the same way as other couples.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 21:38:23

I presume so.

Are there different rules for "divorce" and for "dissolution of a cp"? And if so, why?

Yes, chipmonkey, the adoption thing is strange especially in Ireland - though they are at least fair about it; an unmarried heterosexual couple can't adopt together either.

Fuckwittery Mon 20-May-13 21:43:37

The rules for divorce and dissolution of a civil partnership, and the rights available on divorce/dissolution are identical, except with different labels for the CP steps (e.g. conditional order not decree nisi)
And you can't dissolve a CP on the grounds of adultery (still defined as between a man and a woman)
You can use unreasonable behaviour and quote an inappropriate sexual relationship though as an example.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 21:47:06

So, essentially they are the same, apart from the name, aren't they?

Which is really stupid.

Fuckwittery Mon 20-May-13 21:53:44

Yep, and that they are exclusive to same sex couples and that not available with any religious element.
Not recognised in some other countries, but I strongly suspect even with a label of marriage, same sex couples will still not be recognised in many other countries.

pmTea Mon 20-May-13 21:59:08

MrsSchadenfreude I see your point - but not everyone wants to be or is 'given away'. At any age.
I had a registry office wedding. No one gave me away. My husband and I walked up to the registrar together. We made our own vows and there was no hint of any ownership in any line. That would have made me shudder.
Being a wife to my husband, on the other hand, doesn't.

OddBoots Mon 20-May-13 22:03:55

It's been a long day so if my thinking is wonky please do correct me but not too harshly...

I was wondering, what does the law say for differing-sex couples who have had a civil partnership in another country and who then live here? Is there the scope for holiday companies to offer an overseas civil partnership package to couples?

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:15:15

Am a lesbian in a CP (arranged quickly when they came in as was pg) because I wanted the legal protection for DP and my DC. Am hugely annoyed she had to adopt our kids and now their BC registration dates are all messed up and they have adoption certificates. Is a right pain when registering for schools.

I just want to register the family and inheritance/NOK and all that really. I would never call her my wife even if we were married, but fine for those who do, and I'd have struggled to marry more than do the CP but I would have done whatever was practical to cover the most legal bases.

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:16:13

CPs aren't necessarily recognised in other countries, marriages generally are, although some would still not recognise same-sex marriage.

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 22:18:21

but Maryz, I don't think it is fair. I think one couple who have made a commitment should be the same as another couple who made a commitment. I suppose the commitment itself shows that the couple do intend to stay together ( whatever happens later!) therefore hopefully maximising the prospect of stability for the child. I think if you give gay couples the right to a civil partnership, then to forbid them from adopting, for no reason other than that they are gay, is just discriminatory.

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:19:26

And I'm annoyed she isn't on their BCs, as she would be if we had them now. She is their other parent, and has been from the start, and that's all BCs have ever been about. My DC are going to have to explain their life story even when using a short form certificate because the registration date is so much later that their DOB.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 22:22:23

Yes, Hothead, the adoption thing is just silly hmm. I really sympathise there. Two of ours are adopted, so we would have had to get married. I didn't mind at the time, but now looking back, we shouldn't have to. There should be an alternative legal route to enshrine the rights to inheritance and next of kin etc without having to do the marriage bit if you don't want to.

I must investigate the law in Ireland - I bet we are years behind even the UK hmm

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 22:25:35

lMary, we are somewhere around the Battle of Hastings.wink

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 22:27:24

HotHead, that is infuriating. Because in a hetero marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father, even if the bio father is the milkman.

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:29:58

Absolutely, and they did change it after 2009 but too late for us. At least both DC are the same, and it really is minor in the grand scheme of things but it just doesn't look right. And we've done the DC out of inheriting from their paternal side which I'm sure they'll be thrilled about in due course wink. There will be an interesting test case with that in years to come.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 22:32:47

Oh, well. Isn't that our job as parents - to fuck up our children wink. To give them something to rebel against.


ds2 who is 15 has just watched the news and announced that he has the solution - make all religions illegal grin

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:35:13

I thought the original long form BC would be amended on adoption but it doesn't look like it is. And I keep ordering the same bloody form by mistake over and over again at £10 a pop.

Look, look at the cost of all this inequality.

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 22:37:42

So, a bit like communist Russia, then Mary!grin

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 22:41:24

Mine just use their short form certs for everything except for passports and driving licences Paisan. And the say "Birth Cert" at the top.

Though I suppose mine are adopted by both of us so it's not a problem, really.

To be honest, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I rather like the fact that when a child is adopted by a same-sex partner or by a step-parent both parents have to "adopt" him or her. I can understand why the birth parent is pissed off at having to adopt their own biological child, but if you think about it the fact that both "adopt" the child means that they are equal parents in law - rather than one being the birth parent and one "only^ being the adoptive parent.

It is tough on the birth parent, but I think it is rather nice that they are both equal after the event - does that make sense? I don't mean to offend anyone, but it does sort of level the playing field a bit.

AmberSocks Mon 20-May-13 22:42:01

If you dont want to get married then isnt another legal route just writing a will?

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:45:04

Yeah, but even better now you both just go on the BC from the off:

Same-sex female couples and the mother’s partner’s name

If a child’s mother and her female partner are civil partners, the mother conceived the child by donor insemination or fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009, and the mother’s civil partner is the child’s legal parent, both the mother and her partner’s names must be included on the birth certificate.

However if the child’s mother and her female partner are not civil partners and the female partner’s name was not originally entered on the register but the mother conceived the child by donor insemination or fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009, and the mother’s partner is the child’s legal parent, the mother and her female partner can re-register the birth to include the female partner’s name. This will mean that the partner gains parental responsibilities and rights towards the child.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 22:47:28

Yes, Amber, but that doesn't get over the tax implications.

Which is why I suggested that you should be able to go to a solicitors and sign a "legal partnership" embracing wills, tax details, implications and arrangements for children etc.

And then have a party. Call it a wedding if you want to smile

AmberSocks Mon 20-May-13 22:48:47

what tax implications are there?

BoffinMum Mon 20-May-13 22:51:22

Can I make DH tax deductible?

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:52:38

Also, I still have their original BCs which I presume no longer exist in the register. If I use them by mistake I just know it is going to scupper their international espionage career or marrying in royalty. It's such a worry.

Decoy Mon 20-May-13 22:52:41

Not all churches are anti gay marriage.

The Church of Scotland is moving towards allowing actively gay people to become ministers here This will include those in civil partnerships.

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 22:57:36

And what happens if they apply for their longform? What has happened to that? It just shows me and a blank (oh the irony). I did research all this really well at the time, honest.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 23:01:49

Well I'm in Ireland where there are huge tax implications. I suppose in the UK it's more tax on inheritance where the problem lies?

Paisan, I wonder what would happen if they applied for passports/driving licences/identity cards/whatever with both certs. Would they get double?

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 23:06:02

I think the original BC entries are removed from the register, just not sure about the long form, maybe they don't have one, their ID is the short form and the adoption certificate.

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 23:09:01

Yes, but would they check if you applied for passports with both?

Mine don't have their originals (being proper adopted), but when I got their PRSI numbers (the Irish equivalent of tax numbers) dd was down as her original birth name, not her adoptive name, which might really fuck things up if she finds out.

I dunno, it's like walking on eggshells.

Civil partnership/marriage - who cares. Just call it whatever you like, but make it the same for everyone [sigh]

Lilka Mon 20-May-13 23:13:16

Maryz - In the UK, a gay couple can adopt jointly whether they are in a CP, or 'unmarried'. Ditto heterosexual couples of course, they can adopt jointly whether married or unmarried. The only marriage restriction I know of is that if a couple are CP'd/married they must adopt jointly so if they seperate and then one wants to adopt, they'd have to get divorced.

As for certificates, when a child in the UK is adopted, they get a new short birth certificate and an adoption certificate and the AC is the new long birth certificate in itself, fulfilling the same legal function as a long BC. It looks totally different to a long BC but it's the replacement legal document. You need the adoption cert for passports etc because short birth certificates don't have parent details on them.

Original BC's (at least the long one) remains on the births register but is annotated with the word 'adopted' and access to it is legally restricted so that only the adoptee can order it, once they are of age (18/16 in Scotland)

EatenByZombies Mon 20-May-13 23:16:07

YANBU. Some people just have their (albeit non-understandable for some) reasons for not wanting to be specifically married smile

Lilka Mon 20-May-13 23:16:10

Oh and on the topic of the OP - I want what straight couples have - that's equality. Marriage is the thing that all couples except gay couples have the right to do, and so that's what I would have if I were to meet a partner.

I have to say though, I think CP is in many ways a better idea. I support the ide of totally seperating religion and legal union - so civil union is a legal must for everyone then you can have a religious blessing if you so choose on top of that.

chipmonkey Mon 20-May-13 23:16:13

Hothead, that marrying royalty really should be considered. Aren't your boys about the right age to marry the expected heir to the throne? One really must given them every opportunity........

Maryz Mon 20-May-13 23:16:31

Ah, in Ireland they can't.

You have to be married, or adopt as a single person (and I don't actually know anyone who has managed to adopt as a single person, so I suspect it isn't possible). I must look up the law in Ireland.

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 23:24:57

Alas chip, they could only get CPed...

HotheadPaisan Mon 20-May-13 23:26:25

Thanks Lilka, thought I was going mad sifting through the paperwork, that's what I'd started to realise.

Decoy Mon 20-May-13 23:40:08

What about people (whether gay or straight) who'd like a church wedding rather than just a "religious blessing"?

Mum2Luke Tue 21-May-13 00:30:56

I am a Christian and have been married for 23 years this year. I have a friend who is a lesbian and got married last year to her girlfriend - they are the happiest couple I know, probably more happy than most heterosexual couples with kids.

I admit I was a bit homophobic before I knew my friend but once I got to know her as a person she is very sincere. I just didn't understand why people could fancy someone who was the same gender and how the hell do they have sex? blush

I now have taught my 11 year old to be more tactful and aware of people's feelings, he is also a Christian and at first would remark (not out loud) that gays should be ignored and were somehow 'dirty'.

Many Christians are not out to be nasty and preach, my friend taught me about the way I think. I still believe God created man and woman and my friend respects this as I am a Christian and will never turn back on loving God who created all as equals.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 07:38:16

Main tax advantage of marriage in the UK is on transferring assets and property. No Capital Gains Tax or Inheritance tax between married couples. Because you signed the bit of paper the State is able to recognise your relationship.

All through my tax exams every law applied to your 'spouse or civil partner'. Can't see any point in having both marriage and civil partnerships. Just a waste of ink.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 07:50:46

Also, you are entitled to some benefits on bereavement if you have a spouse/civil partner, and, if you are old enough (born before 1935ish) and your income is below the threshold you are entitled to Married Couples Allowance.

Not sure the above are worth enough to actually encourage marriage/civil partnerships though.

Eliza22 Tue 21-May-13 08:28:38

Many heterosexual couples don't want marriage. Many do. Same for same sex partnerships, I imagine. For me, it was very important and my husband didn't really understand why a "piece of paper" was so vital to me. To have been told that I wasn't "allowed" to marry him, or to be told my son cannot marry the person of his choice in the manner he chooses (he's only 12 ATM!) would upset me terribly. It's an insult.

I'm really saddened this morning, to see how the vote went.

seeker Tue 21-May-13 08:38:50

mum2Luke- you are absolutely sure you want your son to be part of an organisation that produces 11 year olds with attitudes like that.........? sad

seatac Tue 21-May-13 09:07:01

We need to leave EVERYTHING as it is.

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Erm, ok then Seatac!

You do realise for thousands of years mankind lived in caves....should we have stuck with this accumulated wisdom or tried something new?

seatac Tue 21-May-13 09:16:48

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although i empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children.

In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Solari Tue 21-May-13 09:20:02

I'm not sure I can agree with 'accumulated wisdom' either. After all, has humanity ever tried anything else on a large scale over large periods of time?

Maybe we've been doing it wrong? I mean, history in general doesn't look that full of joy and peace.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 09:21:55

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.
Ahh, the 'Appeal to Nature fallacy.
Sorry, but you can't make the argument that because something is 'natural' it is therefore justified.
Time tested wisdom once held that the world was flat.
The using children argument holds no water whatsoever.
Kindly take your prejudices elsewhere.

seatac Tue 21-May-13 09:26:28

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

seatac Tue 21-May-13 09:30:40

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

Solari Tue 21-May-13 09:34:55

I'd be interested in seeing any links you have SeaTac.

Do the studies of children without 'a man/woman marriage setup', include those bereaved of a parent (its own trauma), or who have experienced divorce (not necessarily that this on its own leads to bad outcomes, but that it will encompass the groups divorcing due to violence in the home, alcoholism, etc.)?

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 09:35:53

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.
I'm a history lecturer. You're talking bollocks. There is no empirical evidence to suggest this. It is a bigotted and fundamentally flawed argument.
Marriage is not being redefined, it is being made inclusive.
Your arguments consist of one logical fallacy after another.
People's careers, people being excluded, etc. It's all complete and utter bunkum. Now, bugger off to a forum where your views are more welcome.

mcmooncup Tue 21-May-13 09:45:33

I really detest this "better for children" argument. There is NO evidence that marriage is good for children.

Just because children may do better if their parents are married, that does not mean marriage CAUSES better outcomes for children.

I can guarantee 100% my children will have better outcomes than if I had stayed married (shut up and put up) to my abusive twat of a husband.

seatac Tue 21-May-13 09:46:37

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.

Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 09:48:21

Seatac Repeating the same mantra over and over is not a fucking argument. You have no evidence in support of your fallacies

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 09:54:17

seatac, if you are going to convince any of us you need fact, preferably links to proper research evidence. Not flat made-up statements of "facts according to you" hmm

When I look at the number of children who are brought up by parents who are addicts/violent/neglectful/irresponsible it seems to me that a parent being only homosexual would surely be preferable to any of those, ffs.

I really don't understand how allowing same sex couples to marry will "redefine marriage for the rest of us". Would you elaborate please.

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 09:55:42


Am I completely thick, or does that make absolutely no sense whatsoever [baffled]

Solari Tue 21-May-13 09:56:04


Again, maybe we've been doing it wrong.

History has left a trail of blood, suffering, and human misery so long, I'm not keen to repeat its 'wisdom'.

mcmooncup Tue 21-May-13 10:00:55

Its horrible to see brainwashing be so effective.

Seatac...everyone is asking for evidence, not romanticised politically motivated cultural ideals. When you provide that you will no longer appear slightly bonkers.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 10:16:38

'I really detest this "better for children" argument. There is NO evidence that marriage is good for children'

Completely agree mcmooncup. My parents have been marrried for nearly 35 years - they detest each other, my dad has cheated in the past, they have a truly miserable life together. They're both good at keeping up appearances though so no-one outside the family has any idea what's really going on. They were (and still are) emotionally abusive to me and both my siblings, and of course to each other and used to literally go for months without speaking to each other when we all lived at home.

So from the outside, and on paper, my family would look like the ideal, but it was hell to live in. Children need parents and carers who have healthy relationships with each other, who can communicate and work well together and are committed to doing the right thing by the children. It doesn't matter a shiny fig whether those carers are male or female or what the nature of their relationship with each other is.

It feels like we're living in the Dark Ages sometimes hmm angry

Eliza22 Tue 21-May-13 10:22:40

Um, Fred & Rose West. Mick Phillpott and his wife Maired (and his live-in the-caravan "wife"), they were heterosexual parents of children who died at their parents' hands. And, whilst I know they are extreme examples, I could find many examples of heterosexuals with children between them, married or not, who make bloody awful parents.

As a child, I prayed for my parents to split up. The domestic violence me and my sister grew up with was utterly appalling. As an ex-community health professional, I've seen "regular" families who frankly were not fit to rear a cat, never mind a child. This "it's best for the children" argument just doesnt stack up so please, try a different tack with your prejudice.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 10:23:06

I was under the impression that in years gone by people who didn't have property often didn't bother with a formal marriage, and that when marriage did take place it was not uncommon for it to be between people who we would now consider children. I am absolutely sure that marriage wasn't just between a man and a woman, but could take place between a man and several woman, because it says so in the Bible. (I think concubines were quite popular too).

In some cultures and faiths marriage still takes place between children and includes several people.

Chill out Seatac. If you are relying on history to give you some guidance on marriage, really you have to come to the conclusion that anything goes.

slug Tue 21-May-13 11:25:22

from the telegraph

Whilst I know that Seatac and her ilk don't ever believe in letting facts get in the way of their arguments here is the original paper

Personally I think that if they had compared the lesbian couples with other heterosexual couples who had also really thought long and hard about parenting and made a conscious and informed choice to have children (as opposed to 'accidents' family or societal pressure or just assuming it was what everyone did ) then the differences would nbot have been so great.

The fact remains that lesbian couples are very well placed to provide safe, loving and developmental parenting and raise happy and well-adjusted kids...despite the Seatac's of this world.

iclaudius Tue 21-May-13 11:48:06

Dp and me are very excited !

niceguy2 Tue 21-May-13 11:56:00

I don't get it. Can someone explain to me.

What is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage?

Why should gay people not be allowed to get married? I don't get it. In a free society people should be free to do whatever they like unless it hurts someone else. I cannot see for a minute how two women or men getting married hurts me in any way shape or form. Therefore as far as I am concerned, go for it!

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 12:20:06

It seems the word "marriage" which for millennia has the important definition "hetrosexual man and women", no longer means this, it's been hijacked without any mandate or consultation.

As a hetrosexual I feel discriminated against, not just because a sacred institution has been hijacked by some ConMen (DC and Co), but the Gay couples will apparently have more rights than hetrosexual.

Is it time to use a new word to replace marraige for "hetrosexual man and women" and rewrite all our related history, laws and legal documents where "marraige" is used to denote "hetrosexual man and women"?

I'm all for Gay Couples having partnership rights, however there was no need to go past an equivalent "Civil Partnership", Government doing so, in my view is simply an attack on the majority who have "hetrosexual" values and is a key core UK value.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 12:25:20

'As a hetrosexual I feel discriminated against, not just because a sacred institution has been hijacked by some ConMen (DC and Co), but the Gay couples will apparently have more rights than hetrosexual.'

I agree with you that the situation that DC wants would be discriminatory, with a choice of marriage/CP for gay couples, but only marriage for heteros. This is why so many of us are jumping up and down on here about how important it is that CPs are offered to hetero couples too. Most MPs seem to be in favour of this too but had to resist the wrecking amendment that was put forward last night.

What are 'heterosexual values' by the way? I thought heterosexuality was in fact, a sexuality, not a value set. Does being heterosexual mean that you automatically consider gay people to be second class citizens?

slug Tue 21-May-13 12:25:31

^^ this has to be a pisstake surely?

HotheadPaisan Tue 21-May-13 12:28:05

Golombok has done plenty of studies in the area of lesbian-parent families. After 30 years she stopped looking into this because outcomes were comparable, there was nothing to find. Study after study finds this.

Thurlow Tue 21-May-13 12:35:01

"Heterosexual values"


What on earth are those?! As opposed, I imagine, to homosexual or bisexual values?

And how will they have more rights?

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 12:48:55

Re: Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 12:25:20

I guess you're not up on the history, meaning and practice of "marriage" which has clearly been based on hetrosexual values over the last two millennia. Some examples:

AD 110 - Bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote "It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."

AD 1200 - Women are obligated to take the name of their husbands

AD 1600 - Parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage

Re: "What are 'heterosexual values"

All should know this before making judgements, it seems much of government has no idea, there's plenty to study online and in academic / history libraries.

Every "marrige" over two millennia has been "hetrosexual", that's what it means legally and practically, until just hijacked.

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 12:55:23

So do you want to bring back parental and church consent as a requirement for marriage?

Do you want to oblige women to take the name of their husbands?

You have quoted those facts as proof of heterosexual marriage being the "right" way to do it. So obviously you must agree with them?

Shall we bring back legally allowed marital rape as well? And men "owning" their wives and children. And public hanging?

What century are we in, in your world?

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 13:04:34

Re: Maryz Tue 21-May-13 12:55:23

I am simply saying that the term "marrige" over two millennia has the definition of "hetrosexual", for which there a great weight of legal and other evidence (ie: no dispute possible)

To protect the rights of "hetrosexuals" (the majority) enjoyed for two millennia, I've simply asked the question that if we must go further than an equivalent "Civil Partnership" and call gay partnerships "marriage", then do we need a new word for "hetrosexual" marriage.

HotheadPaisan Tue 21-May-13 13:06:30

You can have civil partnerships if you want.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 13:07:14

ChildrensStoriesNet, I guess you're not 'up' on equality. Society moves on. Marriage has changed through the years. Allowing gay people to marry if they choose to do so is just another change. If marriage is such an important institution, surely it can withstand being extended to loving couples who happen to be of the same sex?

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 13:13:10

Yes, but if some things about marriage have changed (like the rights of a husband to rape his wife, or the compulsory taking of a man's name by his wife), why can't others change?

You aren't seriously suggesting that we base the meanings of all words, all laws and all behaviour on what was accepted practice 2,000 years ago, are you?

You can call it heterosexual marriage if you want to if you want to be a pedantic twat smile

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 13:24:55

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 13:07:14

"Equality" also applies to "hetrosexuals", it would not be fair in my view to hijack their term "marriage" which they have used and enjoyed for millennia.

This is about a term ("marriage") and what it means (not a gay rights issue), taking it's meaning away from "hetrosexuals" is simply "discrimination" against "hetrosexuals". Thus they may wish to have a new term if their's is ultimately hijacked.

I appreciate some want to use the term "marriage" to denote "gay partnerships", but that isn't what "hetrosexuals" are, thus a new term may be appropriate for one or the other.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 13:34:15

ChildrensStoriesNet, gay people getting married will affect your marriage not one single jot. No-one is taking marriage away from straight people. Unless you feel that gay people and gay relationships are somehow lesser than yours?!

It absolutely is a gay rights issue by the way. There is no reason whatsoever why a gay relationship shouldn't be just as loving and committed as a relationship between two opposite sex people. It's purely discriminatory to exclude gay people from the legal protection and status of marriage, should they choose it, as it is to exclude straight couples from having CPs, if they choose it.

Poor persecuted heterosexuals eh? I've heard it all now!

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 13:42:40

Why is it discrimination against heterosexuals? No-one is stopping any heterosexual couple getting (or staying) married? It's just removing the anomaly that homosexual people can't get married.

You know, like when in the old days we removed the anomaly that women couldn't vote, or that black people couldn't travel on buses. It's called equality.

Should we have a male vote and a female vote, since traditionally only men could vote?

When you talk about heterosexual values, do we also need to specify black values and white values? Male values and female values?

What is your opinion on human rights for all humans? Is that ok or are some humans more worthy of those rights than others?

JennySense Tue 21-May-13 13:46:38

Apologies if it's been mentioned but what's the difference between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding [which I had] ?

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 13:48:28

Aww, Seatec went and got her teacher so they could play with the big boys.

Children things change. We no longer are obligated to take the names of our husbands. We no longer use 'obey' as part of the service.
As a history lecturer, I'm well placed to study these wonderful documents that you purport to be available, do share.

Again, the heterosexual values thing is a fallacy. * All should know before making judgements* So you can't answer that one, then.

As for every marriage over 2000 years being a man and a woman, yep, that's why it's being debated in parliament, so that (Hurrah) it no longer has to be a man and a woman. Won't that be nice.

And don't bother coming back with biblical quotes either. The bible says we can murder people if we want, but we don't do that do we.

"I'm all for Gay Couples having partnership rights, however there was no need to go past an equivalent "Civil Partnership","

Childrens tory on what authority do you get to decide what I am my family "need" to have? Why do you state that simply because you believe yourself to be in the powerful majority you have the right to determine the limits of my status?

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 13:52:48

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 13:34:15

Sadly you are missing the point...

For 2000 years to date, confirming you are married means you have a "hetrosexual" partner.

The term "Garried" (gay marriage) is already in use, why not carry on using that for Gay Partnerships, why attack and bully the "hetrosexual" out of their term?

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 13:55:58

Nobody is bullying you Children nobody is attacking you. However, people are attacking the rights and freedoms of homosexual couples, you being one of them.
Sadly, you appear to be missing the point...

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 14:02:08

Re: Isindebusagain Tue 21-May-13 13:49:20

Re: "on what authority do you get to decide what I am my family need"

Not so, you too seem to be going off on a tangent and missing the point...

I'm simply talking about what a term means ("marriage") and who it has applied to for 2000 years to date, there can't be a dispute about the long established facts.

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 14:08:43

Re: Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 13:55:58

Re: "people are attacking the rights and freedoms of homosexual couples"

That's very unfortunate, but that should not excuse any corresponding backlash / discrimination against fair minded "hetrosexuals" (the majority) and their long standing practice.

Such as use of the historic term "marriage" to denote "hetrosexual" partnerships.

RealityQuake Tue 21-May-13 14:10:56

Long established "facts" (by which you actually mean social constructs) are challenged and disputed all the time.

And it isn't 2000 years to date, the law on marriage in the UK hasn't been around that long (and Rome and Celtic Tribal rules before that had far more rules to them, mostly class based).

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:15:15

It was a long established right to beat your slave or wife in public.
It was long established that women did not have the intellectual capacity to vote.
Sorry ChildrensStories but you a) do not have a valid argument
and b) Are being a bigot.

niceguy2 Tue 21-May-13 14:18:30

For 2000 years to date, confirming you are married means you have a "hetrosexual" partner.

Bugger me. I thought I was getting married because I wanted to make a commitment to my other half that for richer or poorer, better or worse that we'd be there for each other.

I didn't realise that in reality what I was actually doing was confirming that I'd pulled a chick!

BeCool Tue 21-May-13 14:22:20

Reposting for ChildrensStoriesNet

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 14:24:22

Ok, should we use the word "bote" and "wote" for black and women's rights to vote? Or are they not allowed to vote, like humans?

For 2000 years to date, confirming you are married means you have a "hetrosexual" partner." I will add - for most of those 2,000 years men could rape their wives, women needed parental permission to marry, women couldn't leave abusive husbands, men owned their wives and wives had to obey their husbands. Thankfully most of that has changed.

Is it ok to ban marital rape?
Is it ok for women to vote? To keep their own names? To get married without their fathers' permission? To disobey their husbands?

Please answer even one of my questions. Just to show you are reading them (which I doubt).

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 14:30:02

Re: Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:15:15

Re: "Are being a bigot"

Not so, simply putting forward the rights of fair minded "hetrosexuals" (the majority), who support equality of rights.

It's quite telling that some posters are not prepared to respect the majorities established rights and practices, which may help explain why we are where we are today.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:33:01

Why is it your right to get married and not the right of a homosexual couple.
You are being bigoted by denying them the same rights as you.
Good grief, your denial is both strange and extensive.
No, I'm not prepared to respect the majorities rights and practices. Until the 1950s it was the majorities rights and practice to hang for crimes committed or perceived to have been committed. That was wrong, just as it is wrong to refuse extension of the majority rights to a minority.
Ergo, you are a bigot. Still stands, no matter what.

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 14:33:25

Re: RealityQuake Tue 21-May-13 14:10:56

Re: "established "facts" (by which you actually mean social constructs) are challenged and disputed all the time."

In this case there's a well documented history going back two millennia, thus no dispute.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:33:34

Oh, and where are we today? In a country that allows these freedoms. Good, that's where I want to be.

Fillyjonk75 Tue 21-May-13 14:35:40

What exactly are the differences between a civil partnership and a civil marriage at a registry office?

Aiming this at heterosexual couples BTW, I can see the reasons why civil partnership for homosexual couples may be considered inferior to marriage and why they want to be able to choose marriage.

I can understand someone objecting to a religious wedding because of the vows, but in a civil wedding ceremony you don't make vows or promise to obey or say anything that might be contentious at all. In fact apart from a few words you must say, you can pretty much make up vows that mean something to you. I can also understand people wanting to live together and not wanting to be as committed as to get married, or living together and being committed without feeling they need to make a promise to one another in front of their friends or be legally bound to one another. Pretty risky IMO when you have children, but people are free to choose and that's great.

It's the marriage v civil partnership (for heterosexual couples) I really don't get.

If it's because you object to the "institution of marriage" there is really no such thing in a civil context, marriage is about you and your partner, it's what you make it, as modern or as traditional as you want it to be. To me it's a bit like saying you won't go to university as at one time only men were allowed to get degrees. Or you won't use a bus because at one time, they used to be racially segregated. Or you won't vote, because women didn't used to be allowed to.

ChildrensStoriesNet Tue 21-May-13 14:35:58

Re: Maryz Tue 21-May-13 14:24:22

School run time, got to go.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:40:58

In this case there's a well documented history going back two millennia, thus no dispute.
History doesn't make it right, as has been pointed out frequently on this thread. There is a history of gay women not existing (See Queen Victoria, read Radclyffe Hall) a history of gay men being imprisoned (Oscar Wilde, The ballad of Reading Gaol). Which part of this is right?

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 14:42:16

Very handy hmm

I presume that means you can't answer my questions, as it would have been just as quick to answer as to say it was school run time.

It's quite telling that some posters are not prepared to respect the majorities established rights and practices, which may help explain why we are where we are today - aren't we lucky that the civil rights movement in the states didn't respect the (white) majority's established rights and practices?

So, when you come back, can you give me a quick yes/no answer to the following:

(a) Is it a good thing that we no longer allow marital rape and all the other antiquated "rules" that apply to marriage, including the rule about it only being for one man and one woman?

(b) Is it a good thing that the rights of the (black) minority were upheld against the right of the (white) majority in the United States during the civil rights movement.

If you answer "yes" to those two, then all your arguments fail.

If you answer "no", you are an out and out bigot shock.

Which is it?

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 14:44:12

brew for Maryz
<sits on bench awaiting return>

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 14:49:10


Why do I care. I mean, really, the type of bigots who believe this guff are too thick to even want to be educated.

<wanders off, tutting in granny-ish way>

<ambles by bench and pinches Maryz brew >

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 15:00:06


RealityQuake Tue 21-May-13 15:53:00

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, CSN.

History of marriage in the UK is pretty much only within religious and community institutes until the 1800s. There is no real state in marriage before that point (beyond tax). There is no history of state defining marriage for 2000 years, that's just completely not true. I have no idea where you pulling that number from, but it isn't British history (and even within Christian history, the texts weren't finalized 2000 years ago so the definition can't be then either). The social construct around cishetero marriage as the definition isn't universal nor dated at that point and repeating it doesn't make it so.

And UK law had it that marriage meant men could have sex regardless of what the woman wanted until about twenty years ago. But we changed that regardless of what the majority in power (men) thought because that was what brought betterment, peace, and equality. Which for many is considered the goal. Your goal seems to be traditions for traditions sake regardless that even the history and tradition doesn't back it up.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 16:02:52

Given that the majority are in favour of gay marriage, making these changes respects their views.

IamMrsElf Tue 21-May-13 16:04:46

Civil partnerships for those that want them.

Marriage for those that want it.

No legal partnership for those that don't.

What a Family is, is changing all the time and really should be about loving and nurturing each other.

Can we divorce church from marriage please? There was marriage before the church became involved and I think it blurs the issue.

Fillyjonk75 Tue 21-May-13 16:07:21

Once the equal marriage bill is passed into law though, why are civil partnerships any longer necessary, given that we have the choice of a civil wedding or a religious wedding?

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 16:07:25

And if your in the minority who aren't in favour of same sex marriage, its great because the law doesn't oblige you to have one. You just have to respect the rights of other people to have them.

Happiness all round.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 16:10:20

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at someone seriously suggesting the use of 'garried' to mean 'gay married'. Utterly bonkers.

CSN, you have a very high-handed and patronising attitude on here which, in addition to your bigoted views, is alienating a lot of people. Maryz's comparison with the civil rights movement is a good one. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers too.

Fillyjonk75, there's loads of explanation of the difference in the first few pages of the thread

Fillyjonk75 Tue 21-May-13 16:18:34

Sorry, I wasn't around for the first few pages, I have read them and no-one has convinced me of the necessity of civil partnerships so I wanted to get the thread back on topic and away from the issue of gay marriage.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 16:29:04

If 'marriage' carries too much baggage, and 'civil partnership' sounds a bit as though you are pairing up with an office block, maybe...



Fillyjonk75 Tue 21-May-13 16:47:14

Jumping over the broom.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 17:07:18

Fillyjonk75, here are my reasons why I don't want a marriage but do want a CP (I'm in a opposite sex relationship):

- patriarchal history of marriage
- patriarchal current reality of marriage in some countries and cultures
- for me, it doesn't feel realistic or make any sense to pledge to stay together with another person for the rest of your lives. It may work out that way, but if it does it will be because you are fundamentally compatible and work together at your relationship, not because you promised to on one particular day
- no legal requirement for CPs to be 'consummated', the very concept of which makes me heave
- no presumption of fidelity in CPs. I am in a mongamous relationship but I feel the terms of a couple's sex life should be for them and them alone to work out, not prescribed by the government/church
- no 'husband' and 'wife' labels with all the baggage that entails, which for me is full of bad stuff. I would much rather be DP's legal partner and he become my legal partner
- I like the briskness and efficiency of the CP ceremony. You are free to add in as much or as little fluff and soppiness and romance as you want. The word 'love' is not part of it unless you want it to be. I like the idea of signing a legal contract and then celebrating it in any way you want to.

I am not remotely interested in taking marriage away from people who want it. I'm not interested in undermining other people's marriages. I know it's important to some people to promise to be together forever and good for them. But this is human relationships we are talking about - how could a 'one size fits all' policy possibly be expected to work? I think that all adults should be able to choose between marriage and CP rather than being shoehorned into just one way of doing things.

Lottapianos Tue 21-May-13 17:08:19

merrymouse, I did look into handfasting some time ago and found some beautiful wording from a ceremony. DP would have to be dragged screaming through it though - it's so not his cup of tea at all!

And of course there's no legal protection sad

ChocolateCakePlease Tue 21-May-13 17:15:21

I couldn't care less if a gay couple want to marry but i do find it an odd notion to want to do something that the bible doesn't recognise? Surely that is cherry picking the bible to suit?

Jux Tue 21-May-13 17:44:12

Oh, good grief.

Fillyjonk75 Tue 21-May-13 17:44:18

^patriarchal history of marriage
- patriarchal current reality of marriage in some countries and cultures^

But universities have a patriarchal history. Voting has a patriarchal history, does that mean you wouldn't take part in higher education or vote? Surely it's the current situation of being completely what you make it that counts?

- for me, it doesn't feel realistic or make any sense to pledge to stay together with another person for the rest of your lives. It may work out that way, but if it does it will be because you are fundamentally compatible and work together at your relationship, not because you promised to on one particular day

Then don't promise to stay together. Make up your own vows. But go into any kind of relationship committment intending to sleep around? If you want someone else, break up.

- no legal requirement for CPs to be 'consummated', the very concept of which makes me heave
If you don't want to sleep together, no-one is going to stand over you and check whether it happened smile

- no presumption of fidelity in CPs. I am in a mongamous relationship but I feel the terms of a couple's sex life should be for them and them alone to work out, not prescribed by the government/church

But why enter a marriage or any partnership without wanting to at least try to be faithful? Why not just keep it casual, if you want numerous partners?

- no 'husband' and 'wife' labels with all the baggage that entails, which for me is full of bad stuff. I would much rather be DP's legal partner and he become my legal partner

You could label yourselves how you want once married. You may find you get called husband and wife even when you are not married or in a civil partnership.

- I like the briskness and efficiency of the CP ceremony. You are free to add in as much or as little fluff and soppiness and romance as you want. The word 'love' is not part of it unless you want it to be. I like the idea of signing a legal contract and then celebrating it in any way you want to.

I've been to several civil partnerships and civil weddings and there is no discernible difference in length, formality or content, it is up to the individual couple.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 17:46:42

Unless you have a religious marriage the bible isn't part of the ceremony by law. As most people don't have religious marriages these days, I would go as far as to say that the bible doesn't have much to do with modern marriage unless you actively decide that it should. (Except in the indirect cultural sense that the bible had influenced western thought over the last 2000 years).

ChocolateCakePlease Tue 21-May-13 18:50:07

The point i was making was if marriage is made legal to gay people that would give them the right to marry in church and a church couldn't discriminate. So i was just saying some gay couples may choose to marry in a church or in a religious setting is odd because the bible doesn't recognise gay relationships. That was what i was getting at.

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 18:56:01

I don't think a church is under any obligation to marry anybody. However, I am pretty sure there are gay christians who would argue that if the bible says anything about gay marriage it is very peripheral to their faith, and I imagine that there are churches that agree with them.

Dawndonna Tue 21-May-13 18:57:14

It doesn't recognise equal partnerships between men and women either, but they (the churches) still managed to remove 'obey' from the ceremony.

ChocolateCakePlease Tue 21-May-13 19:03:52

I guess this proves the bible is a load of bollocks and they may as well shut churches down because the rules are made up as they go along.

infamouspoo Tue 21-May-13 19:08:31

'As a hetrosexual I feel discriminated against'

I think my eyes rolled out of my head and across the floor

merrymouse Tue 21-May-13 19:31:48

Given that its a selection of texts written by different people over a very long time it's not surprising that different people get different things out of it. However, yes, if you attempt to read it as a coherent rule book I would say your assessment would be pretty accurate chocolate

Gossipmonster Tue 21-May-13 19:46:07

MPs have just voted 366-161 in favour of The Marriage Bill = Same Sex Marriage smile

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 19:48:58

So is ChildrensStoriesNet not back from the school run yet? Or has she realised here posts make her sound like an ignorant bigot [hopeful]

Why aren't all the Christians who are against gay marriage out shouting on the streets objecting to non-church-civil "marriages" and insisting they should be called carriages (you geddit, civil-marriage grin) because they aren't between one man and one woman before God.

I might not agree with them, but I would have a lot more respect for their views if they were objecting to everyone who doesn't believe in God getting married and suggesting they all have civil partnerships, rather than just objecting to same-sex couples getting married.

iclaudius Tue 21-May-13 20:45:46

I still don't understand why people seem so focused on deriding the opposite sex couples who want a CP

It suits us - we really want it. We've been together a long time and marriage has never appealed. No real reasons - just doesn't. CP is a lot cheaper and easier than having a solicitor draw up wills etc to the same ends.

I don't criticise people's desire to marry - why are people criticising our wish to have each other recognised as next of kin etc?

EatenByZombies Tue 21-May-13 21:10:04

Maryz you raise a good point.

I shall steal it for later use grin

Jux Tue 21-May-13 21:51:36

I'm married. If it had been available 17 years ago, I would have much preferred a CP.

OxfordBags Tue 21-May-13 21:56:29

Bloody hell, CSN, your posts read like a handy guide to spotting ignorant religious bigots.

Equality threatens the hegemony! (It's like the cretins who perpetuate the myth that being a Feminist means you hate men)

The religious way of life has worked perfectly for millennia! (Well, if you were a rich, white, heterosexual Western male. It was pretty fucking grim for everybody else, but let's gloss over that, hey?)

The Bible is the only guide to life, why would you want to go against it? (where do I crapping start with that level of immaturity and ignorance?!)

As a mega-massive militant Atheist, posts like that make me feel sorry for the Christians I know who aren't thick and prejudiced and who actually do take the whole 'God is love' thing seriously.

And why do so many Christians pick and choose from the Bible when it suits them? I mean, I know the answer - because instead of being adult enough to face up to their own flaws and inadequacies, they pitifully and nastily need some 'other' to hate, judge and feel superior over - but can't they see how shameful it is?!

The Bible says man shall not lie with man.
Yeah, and the very same part of the Bible states that the wearing of mixed fibres and eating shellfish are equal abominations. Why are you not kicking off about shellsuits and prawn cocktails?
Well, those last two bits were just rules that made sense back then, but not now.
So how come the homosexual thing is still relevant? And what about the whole sacrificing children to God stuff? Or the stoning of rape victims? What about those, how come the gay stuff still stands, but that stuff doesn't?
Answer: because I am a pathetic homophobe hiding behind an antiquated collection of fairy stories and irrevevant lifestyle rules for another part of the world 2000 years ago that I lack the moral fibre to challenge and/or intelligence to properly think about.

Just popped back into --the colleseum- the thread to say that I have now polled at least 20 of my fellow 'gays' and not one of us has heard of the term 'garriage' for 'gay marriage' but we have ALL had a right good laugh about it and want to thank childrens Tory for giving us so much opportunity for silly ventriloquist-dummy-speak fun!

We wish her the very best - that being a genuine opportunity, close to home, but without too much anguish, to get a different perspective on life and a comensurate increase in intelligence to deal with it.

Off to have a gottle of gear grin

If heterosexual couples start referring to their "hettage", will homosexual couples start demanding the right to do the same?

You are welcome to pay 'homage' to me any day lovely grin

OxfordBags Tue 21-May-13 23:15:17

Such flirting has no place outside of garriage, tut tut.

Or "pollage", like in the Old Testament.

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 23:32:04

Poor ChildrensStories must have got stuck in traffic. I do hope she is ok and hasn't been attacked by rampaging homosexuals trying to undermine her marriage

EatenByZombies Tue 21-May-13 23:37:57

I have had it up to here with fecking quotes like The bible says no man should lie with another man , mixed fibres and eating shellfish. angry
The bible was not written by any one man, nor during any one period of time. It contradicts itself a few times because of the different authors' viewpoints. It gives specific things to not do, but also teaches that the ultimate commandment is to love one another as he loves us and treat eachother respectfully.

Romans 13:10: “Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Jesus says in John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
He goes on to say “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
The Bible defines love as obedience to God’s Law. It is that simple. There is no ambiguity or confusion! Therefore people who claim that "God hates gays" or the like are idiots who obviously don't grasp the bible as well as they would like to think. Nowhere does Jesus say, “He who professes to love Me—yet breaks My commandments—still loves Me.”

Stupid fecking ignorant Westborough-loving "Christians" are permitted to continue spouting this bullshit over there <points left>

Intelligent human beings who do or do not follow Christ but understand that the bible's over all meaning is to love one another and spread peace and tolerance throughout the world no matter what each fecking verse might say if taken out of context may join me over there <points right>

Everyone else can stay here in the middle and contemplate their sins grin]

I think I've said my piece.

I object to the term "homosexual". It is discriminatory. All homosexuals should henceforth be referred to as "heterosexuals".

EatenByZombies Tue 21-May-13 23:39:23

Supposed to be a grin after "sins"

Maryz Tue 21-May-13 23:44:40

Do you know, there is nothing less christian (as in behaving in a so-called christian love-thy-neighbour fashion) than an extremist bible-bashing Christian.

If you get what I mean.

Do any of them ever say to themselves "what would Jesus do?" Because you can bet your bottom dollar that what Jesus wouldn't do would be to make anyone feel like a second class citizen.

It's fucking unfair on all the christian Christians out there who are tolerant and understanding of pretty everyone.


EatenByZombies Tue 21-May-13 23:54:40

Once again you speak my mind in slightly more polite ways than I, Maryz grin

Thank you MaryZ.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 00:24:34

I don't think the Bible has one overall meaning, for the precise reasons you give, EatenByZombies, and I don't believe that Jesus as one specific person actually existed either (a whooooole other thread, I know), and I feel like you are writing from a perspective that Jesus and God exist and the Bible is something which contains an intrinsic spiritual truth and power, which is not how I feel about any of that at all, BUT I do agree that if people are going to take anything from it, it should be to love each other and just chill out about shit, dudes. Although anyone that needs any sort of book to tell them that in the first place is pretty worryingly immature and amoral.

EatenByZombies Wed 22-May-13 02:05:45

Fair enough, Oxford . I think the overall meaning of the bible is to love eachother because.. that's what God/Jesus/whatever wanted us to do most of all.
I was mainly trying to get at the fact that people like to use Leviticus as a reason to do some "gaybashing" but it's stupid because Jesus said (either as a human being or casper the friendly ghost grin ) that to love him is to follow his laws. And his laws were the commandments. So everyone who fails to love eachother (ie not be a bigot) is failing his commandment and therefore cannot claim to love Jesus because they are failing on a fundamental level smile

Whether you consider Jesus to be an actual human who lived or a metaphor, they're still silly grin

Bunbaker Wed 22-May-13 06:55:30

I agree Maryz. It gives the rest of them a bad name. I know a lot of Christians who feel that religion is a personal thing and would never dream of imposing their beliefs on anyone else. In fact, the type of religious zealot I see described on MN is someone I never come across in real life.

Tailtwister Wed 22-May-13 07:47:50

I like the system in France. A civil ceremony for the legal part and then a church one later for those who want to.

No-one should impose their views on other people. However, it does not follow that religious faith should be treated like a dirty little secret.

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 09:52:02


Firstly, let me make it clear, in my view most gay people are fine, the following relates to a small number.

Some time ago a family member had a problem with a Gay Couple (female / female) who ran a sports club for girls. Problems arose when it transpired the Gay Couple were engaging in voyeurism when young (under 16) club members were strongly encouraged (by them) to shower as a group entirely naked after sporting activity.

The “Females Only Rule” in girls changing rooms was no help to simply control the difficult situation. Supervision was necessary for safety reasons.

It further transpired that girls showing sporting excellence and signs of glamour (make up / clothes etc) were victimised / made to feel uncomfortable by the ruling couple.

When approached properly the couple were quite aggressive and engaged in attacking some of the well meaning “hetrosexual” parents with numerous false accusations.


Without causing offence, how could the “sexual inclination” of gay people be made obvious / declared to avoid such problems, in particular when it appears the historic “hetrosexual” term “marriage” is about to be “hijacked” to include “Gay Couples” possibly making it more difficult to avoid situations like the above?

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 09:59:54

My question is: of what relevance does your pernicious, prejudicial tale have to this discussion. Oh and I don't believe you. Far too convenient.

5madthings Wed 22-May-13 10:05:39

Err a persons 'sexual inclination' being gay or 'straight' has no bearing on whether this are a child molseter, have 'paedophilia' tendencies so why would you need to know whether someone isnngay/straight or bisexual, otsnot relevant.

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 10:15:14

RE: 5madthings Wed 22-May-13 10:05:39

Re: "why would you need to know whether someone isnngay/straight..."

It's a child protection issue, ie: the female gender gay person with a male inclination should be treated like a traditional male in some key areas.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 10:20:26

That story is 100% bullshit. If you've not just made it up here, I bet some silly, immature girl made up a pack of lies about some perfectly decent adults who might not even have been lesbians, to either get some petty revenge for an imagined slight, or to come up with some excuse to get herself out of trouble, or just good old fashioned attention seeking.

Your post seems to imply that society needs to know who is not heterosexual, in order for us to be able to keep ourselves and our children away from their evill perverted ways...

I know, what about a nice pink triangle on their sleeve?! And we could put yellow stars on the sleeves of Jews, and have all the disabled children put to sleep and... Have I made my point yet? hmm angry

Please be a wind-up merchant, CSN, I don't think I can cope with you being real.

How nice of you to find 'most' gay people fine. So magnanimous of you, I'm sure it makes them so happy and relieved to have your approval.

Tell me, what do we do about all the heterosexual pererts and predators? Because virtually all sexual crimes are committed by heterosexual males. Even the rapes of other men and abuse of boys are done over 90% by straight men (because rape and abuse are about power, not sex). If we use the crude logic you appear to be implying, namely that being perverted somehow shoulld stop you being able to get legally married, shouldn't we be promoting gay marriage over heerosexual marriage then, with sexual crimes being a mainly straight thing? Hmm?

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 10:20:33

Re: Isindebusagain Tue 21-May-13 22:55:12

Re: "20 of my fellow 'gays' and not one of us has heard of the term 'garriage' for 'gay marriage'"

52,800 references on Google to "garriage"

The term "garriage" is already in wide use for "gay equality"

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 10:25:11

Re: OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 10:20:26

My question is about how we could treat female gender gays with male inclination fasirly and the same as their "hetrosexual" counter parts.

Re: "That story is 100% bullshit."

Sorry, it's true, it's a real event (well documented).

chipmonkey Wed 22-May-13 10:33:24

Have just skimmed through the last part of the thread.
To me, "garried" sounds like being done by Gary Barlow.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 10:36:42

Firstly, 'female gender gays' is not a real thing. It makes no scientific or cultural snese whatsoever. If you are confusing gender with sexuality then you are so lacking in basic understanding about, well, everything, then you really shouldn't be participating in this debate because it is clearly beyond your intellectual reach. Female homosexuals or lesbians are the terms you need.

Secondly, being a lesbian is not having a male inclination, FFS. It has nothing to do with a woman having a man's sexuality. Again, if you think this, then you are clearly not intelligent enough to understand even the tiniest bit of debate on the subject. Theoretically, if you want to speak this way, then male heterosexuality is actually men having a lesbian inclination, as all foetuses start off female.

Thridly, if you genuinely want to treat heterosexuals and homosexuals the same, then erm, just treat them the same! Do not delude yourself that all these things you suggest like making gays and lesbians identify them is treating them equally, it is outrageous homophobia and discrimination. Start by learning about what sexuality is. It is created in utero at the same time as the sex of the foetus becomes fixed. It is not a choice. It is not trying to be like the opposite sex. It is not wanting to be the opposite sex.

Fourthly, lesbians don't need to be identified in the ways you describe. They are not sexual predators who will fancy every single female child or woman they come across or see naked. You have fallen for the inane and insane hate rhetoric about homosexuality. Please educate yourself.

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 10:46:42

Re: OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 10:36:42

Re: "'female gender gays' is not a real thing"

So why are we frequently asked our (physical) gender on official and other forms?

I guess you are not denying some female gender people do have a male inclination and do have a sexual interest in the female gender.

To treat these fairly and be fair to everyone else, how could we know this without causing offence?

Re: "have fallen for the inane and insane hate"

Not true, just want to know how we could be fair to all and respect each others rights.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 11:04:19

No, no, NO, being a lesbian does NOT mean you have a 'male inclination'. Just saying that is so incredibly offensive and just not true or correct, that I cannot believe you don't realise how bad it is! You keep saying you want to know how everyone can be equal, but the ways you describe homosexuality is so offensive, it's would've been disgusting 30 or 40 years ago!

When you say female gender gays - a phrase you must have made up, or read on some ridiculous site - it makes you sound really stupid, I must tell you. Why can't you say lesbians or female homosexuals/gays? The gender thing just makes you sound like you're trying to make yourself sound clever or add weight to your argument, but it does the opposite. I think you're trying to find some smart way of pushing your wrong and vile idea that lesbians are aping men, but failing.

You can't say female gender gays, because it's nonsensical. It's not a thing. Gender is a social construct, it's not a real thing. Gender is what says girls like pink and boys like blue - it's been made up by the culture you live in. SEX is what you have between your legs, the biological fact that makes you make or female. I think you are getting sex and gender mixed up... And if you don't understand the difference, I don't think you'll be able to get your head around the answers to your questions, sorry.

You don't seem to understand the tiniest thing about sexuality, and particularly non-heterosexuality. You need to not only educate yourself with FACTS, you need to really look deeply at your own attitudes. Because for all your talk about wanting everyone to be equal, your attitude is jaw-dropping.

Why do heteros need to have homosexuals identified for them?! And why would it be 'fair' on heteros to do so? Why is it necessary?

You need to start from not just knowing, but truly believing that allpeople are equal. It's very hard to cause offence if you aren't harbouring secret or unconscious prejudices. If you find out that someone is gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, whatever, then it's just information, like someone has red hair, or wears glasses, or doesn't like eggs. You don't treat them any differently. There is no job they shouldn't do, there is no reason why sexuality has to be identified for work purposes, or any purpose. Do you go around telling everyone that you are straight? Do you need to put it on forms, or inform people for jobs? Of course not. It's the same for homosexuals too. It's just who you fancy in your head, and what you do with other consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom (or other areas, heheh), what bearing does that have on anything else that heterosexuality doesn't?!

What saddens me most, is that I suspect you really do believe you are asking about wanting to promote equality, but really don't understand how appalling and ignorant what you're saying really is.

eccentrica Wed 22-May-13 11:06:35

"52,800 references on Google to "garriage"

52,000? Yeah that's pretty much telling you that it's not a real word.

For comparison:

There are 14,700,000 results for 'felching', 62,900,000 for 'santorum', and 42,700,000 for 'rimming'.

DP, DP, Give me your answer do
I'm female gender but with male inclinations 'twards you
We must,nt hijack marriage
But can settle for a Garriage
But we'll look sweet
Out on the street
On our foreheads a Pink Tattoo


infamouspoo Wed 22-May-13 11:43:10

Good grief Childrens Tories. Just use the word 'Lesbian'. Then remember lesbian does not equal either paedophile or even interested in ALL women anymore than a hetero man is interested in ALL women.
And people's sexual orientation is none of your business.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 11:45:40

An enchating ditty, but your sort shouldn't be out on the streets, Inde! You might rape every female you see. I know you carry a massive strap-on with you at all times precisely for that reason (a strap-on because of your male inclination, of course). Do you dare deny it?!

infamouspoo Wed 22-May-13 11:54:47

I just spat coffee on the keyboard you vipers grin

grin Oxfordbags
Alas it is true I cannot deny it

<hoiks up harness, flexes tattoo'd biceps and shuffles off to letch at the girls school next door>

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 13:45:52

It's a child protection issue, ie: the female gender gay person with a male inclination should be treated like a traditional male in some key areas.
Bollocks! I chose my words wisely.

Not true, just want to know how we could be fair to all and respect each others rights.
Not true, just want to know how you can write your bloody nonsense all over the internet.
Now, I haven't seen you answer Maryz questions:
(a) Is it a good thing that we no longer allow marital rape and all the other antiquated "rules" that apply to marriage, including the rule about it only being for one man and one woman?

(b) Is it a good thing that the rights of the (black) minority were upheld against the right of the (white) majority in the United States during the civil rights movement.

If you answer "yes" to those two, then all your arguments fail.

If you answer "no", you are an out and out bigot .

Which is it?

unlucky83 Wed 22-May-13 13:57:39

Don't believe childrenstories - but that is an interesting point...made me think...
How would you feel if it was a heterosexual man in the changing room with (older) teenage girls showering? That would make me uncomfortable...
As would a heterosexual woman in the changing room with male teenagers...(but wrongly I guess - I think that the woman might be the most uncomfortable)
Not saying that gay people are perverts/paedophiles etc -but they are going to look at the naked bodies in a different way...hmmm - not sure how to feel about that ....confused

"Not saying that gay people are perverts/paedophiles etc -but they are going to look at the naked bodies in a different way"

Are they? That's one hell of an assumption you have there Unlucky

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 14:20:00

Bloody rubbish unlucky and if anyone of either sex fancies you, be flattered, not uncomfortable or outraged.

Thurlow Wed 22-May-13 14:25:14

I think what unlucky is trying to get at is whether male teachers aren't allowed in the female changing rooms either because they are a different sex, or because the majority have a sexual interest in females.

Personally, I assumed men weren't allowed in the women's changing rooms, and vice versa, for the first reason, not the second.

I think the argument about sexual interest could just stand up if you were talking about all adults, but if you are talking about children... eurgh. That would be assuming that all men and lesbians fancied young girls, or vice versa.

ChildrensStoriesNet Wed 22-May-13 14:47:54

Re: OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 11:04:19

You won't achieve anything good by constantly trying to move the goal posts and or assert I am saying things that I'm not, a cheap deceptive trick, which reminds me of some politicians.

A surprising number of posters are doing this.

I guess there's no one here (so far) that can help answer the question about how we can treat "male inclined" females the same as "hetrosexual" males on the key issues.

Thanks for all you input.

Over and Out.

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 14:57:24

Ooo, does this mean ChildrenStories has given up.
He/She certainly hasn't answered any of the questions put, so we can take it he/she is a 100% genuine bigot.

unlucky83 Wed 22-May-13 15:03:35

I really mean I don't know how I think/feel...not a critism or an insult to anyone of any sexuality ...
Thanks thurlow ...I'm talking sexually mature girls (or boys) - say 15 and up...not children...and if it is the second reason - why is that? Why differentiate between the sexes if not for reasons of sexuality?
I know I would feel very uncomfortable if my DD1 (12 and becoming physically mature) told me she had a male PE teacher in the changing rooms with them...
Honestly don't know how I would feel if I knew it was a lesbian PE teacher - think I'd kind of think that the teacher /pupil relationship would make a difference - but then that should apply to the male teacher too...confused
Isinde And to say that someone who is sexually attracted to women looks at women's bodies in the same way as someone who isn't - that really doesn't make sense...of course they must or they wouldn't wouldn't want to have sex with them...not a big assumption at all...
(I have to say here - I have two very good friends who when we were younger ( late teens/early 20s) became a (lesbian) couple (still lesbian - not a couple anymore)...made me really think about my own sexuality -and I don't find women attractive like that -they are too soft is the best way I can explain it is just 'no' - no appeal - maybe that might change next week when some wonderful women walks into my life - but I would be really surprised if it did...)

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 15:04:26

There is no such thing as a male inclined female. It is a term you have made up. You either mean a lesbian, which is a woman who fancies other women, which is not the same as a man fancying a woman, or you mean someone who is female-to-male transgendered. A F2M trans you would treat the same as any other man, what with them being a man, a lesbian, you would treat like any other woman, or like a lesbian, if there was ever some reason in which to respond to them according to their sexuality.

I don't really understand how anyone could even think up such ridiculous 'questions'!

But then, I haveanswered you several times now, and you act like no-one's replied, so we can take it you are either a massive goady thick bigot or just a really thick bigot.

The only person moving any goalposts is you, CSN. Mainly because you just don't understand what the hell you are talking about. You not understanding the very simple and obvious things people say to you is not their deception, just your inadequacy.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 15:05:46

Isin, how do you cope? I mean, all this shit about male inclination and lesbians must fancy other women and girls, blah blah, is making melose the will to live and I'm strickly dickly!

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 15:16:49

But actually it's got nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with sex. As in females all in together, males all in together. That's it. Nothing to do with blokes fancying girls or women fancying girls. Most people don't fancy kids, and at 15 and 16, to the average 30 year old, they're kids.

grin Oxford at strickly dickly

Most heterosexual woman I know (and I know a lot, have seen many naked and fancy none-of-em funnily enough) do not define themselves by their sex-drive and do not walk around wondering if they fancy every male they encounter. The only person male or female, gay or straight, that I am sexually attracted to is my DP. So lucky me. grin

I think that Children Tory has not got the software to understand homosexuality. In her thinking only Males can be attracted to Females therefor any female who is must be "male inclined" It has a sort of logic to it if you were operating on a really really narrow band-width. hmm

chipmonkey Wed 22-May-13 15:41:08

Lesbians bodies are identical to other women's bodies so I don't see how any female of any age should have a problem with sharing a changing room with a lesbian. When I am getting changed in the gym I don't give a thought to whether the other women around me are gay or straight. And supposing they did fancy me ( unlikely, given that I don't actually go to the gym often enough to look good naked!) I would be unbothered by it. As a straight woman, I don't think of boys who are the same age as my teenage sons in a sexual way and I would imagine that a lesbian teacher would be the same about young teenage girls. Being gay or straight has nothing to do with paedophilia.

EatenByZombies Wed 22-May-13 15:56:19

CSN .. Isn't in the Talk Guidelines not to hijack another person's thread? grin
Post again somewhere else so that we can go back to TheJoyfulPuddlejumper's issue because yours is irrelevant to the OP.

infamouspoo Wed 22-May-13 16:22:53

'"male inclined" females'

Surely thats heterosexual women then? women who fancy men?

unlucky83 Wed 22-May-13 16:50:51

I don't think it paedophilia when you are talking about sexually mature 15 yr olds ...don't agree with it - but in some countries you could be married with children at less that age ...they are not 'children'
As to 30 yr olds not fancying 15 yr olds ..that isn't true either...pupils do run off with teachers etc - recent one of the 30 yr old male and the 15 yr old in France IIRC and a female teacher was prosecuted over having sex with teenage boys - it does happen ..
If it isn't about sexuality -why don't have mixed changing rooms - why do we cover our bodies at all and mainly from the opposite sex..
Anyway agree thread hijack...and I'll go away quietly ... sorry - I will ponder more to myself...

Dawndonna Wed 22-May-13 16:58:19

But it's rare and you are making something out of nothing.

seeker Wed 22-May-13 17:15:36

Isn't a male inclined female straight?

Maryz Wed 22-May-13 19:54:48

I'm so disappointed she didn't answer any of my questions sad. I really expected to be educated, to look at her arguments and say [lightbulb] I now understand why it would be earth-shattering to allow same-sex couples to marry.

I think, though, she lost any respect she might possibly have had with the sentence "in my view most gay people are fine" - it smacks of "some of my best friends are black" and is always followed by a "but"

I do like Isindebus's ditty though grin

Jux Wed 22-May-13 21:07:21

"female gender gay person with a male inclination"

I'm still not entirely sure what the, er, woman meant by that.

I'm sorry to continue the derail, but that phrase is going to be imprinted on my mind as a perfect example of a grammatically correct phrase which carries no meaning at all. grin

Jux Wed 22-May-13 21:08:54

PS, you guys were brilliant. Well done for not losing your rags.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 21:26:09

Jux - it's a classic example of someone who's not that bright trying to find what they believe is a clever and 'look how non-biased I am, honest!' way to say something that there is at least one perfectly short, easy and commonplace term for.

I love the way she's confused gender with sex and clearly thinks that being a lesbian is about being like a man. It's like somebody from a 70s sitcom has suddenly stumbled out of a time machine and is trying to engage with 2013 understandings and politics.

I was going to explain how, apart from the presumption that lesbians must be sexual predators, lesbian gym teachers in changing rooms is a totally different thing than male ones being there, not least because, in our misogynist society, it is sadly commonplace for a small number of men to prey on women and girls. It's a 'thing' in our society, whereas there is just not a 'thing' where lesbians prey on other females. Obviously, a small number do, but the numbers are so small that it can't be considered a 'thing' or a threat. Even female paedophiles are nearly always hetero, or, sadly, are most likely to abuse their own offspring, ie not be a public threat.

But there would be no point, as I don't think Childrens Tories could grasp or accept that.

unlucky83 Wed 22-May-13 22:43:18

oxford after pondering more that's more or less the conclusion I came to ...and also I think the male PE teacher in with the girls would make me uncomfortable because in general and IME men are more visually aroused if that makes sense -like looking at magazines etc -letchy ...impressions of old men lusting after school girls as in Britney oops video -yuck!
...whereas women (again in general) it is more a mental thing if that makes sense - so actually I really wouldn't worry about the lesbian gym teacher....
(OMG just thought now about how that works with a male homosexual gym teacher confused but as I have DDs don't have to think about it...not that I did anyway - I really must stop avoiding thinking about what I really do have to think about ...)

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 22:54:07

Erm, I don't think that's the reason why lesbian or gay teachers wouldn't be a threat (or less of a threat), as it still works on crass stereotyping. It is entrenched in our society that females exist for the 'male gaze', and leading on from that, are at his sexual disposal. Homosexuals of either sex haven't been up with that sort of cultural presumption about their sexual 'rights'.

Also, are people still operating under the unconscious presumption that gays and lesbians are somehow more predatory, or automatically fancy more people more often? Didn't that became a really offensive and embarrassing thing to think back in the early 90s?!

Jux Wed 22-May-13 23:16:02

Childrens Tories seems to be assuming that only people who have any control over their libido are female heterosexuals. I'm afraid, unlucky, that something like that is what seems to underlie your comment too.

Way back in the 60s when I was growing up, there were some men who would try to ensure their backs were up against a wall if they met a gay man. They seemed to think that all gay men would jump them if they let them see their arse. Mightily ridiculous.

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, don't lust indiscriminately and uncontrollably after every person they meet. It's complete madness, and unutterably sad, that there are still people who think like that.

We are all the same.

SDeuchars Wed 22-May-13 23:17:43

Thank you for the way you saw off CSN - as a Christian reading through the exchange, I was cringing at the thought she'd expect me to agree with and support her.

BTW, I think one of the problems is that people confuse "marriage" and "wedding". You can have a "church wedding", which is a one-off ceremony. There is no such thing as "church marriage". Marriage is the ongoing relationship and partnership. I would support a situation in which ALL the legal stuff was civil and then people could have whatever religious (or other) folderols that they want.

Just wanted to say that Sdeuchars has a really interesting point. If "wedding " is what we can all equally have if we choose to then "marriage" becomes an ongoing action or actions that build that ongoing relationship and partnership.
Now that makes sense to me.
The whole thing for me is fundamentally about equality,
I may or may not want to get married or civilly partnered or to jump the broom or hand-fest but what I do want is the same rights and respect as my sister and friends. I expect my government and society to treat my relationship, my family and our rights and responsibilities as part of that society in the same way as they would any other family.

Part of the "values" that I believe the UK has mean that we believe in justice and fair play and protection for all; not the might of the majority and the tyranny of the most powerful. That naive view is often challenged but I still hold to it.

And, after a monster hijack of this thread fwiw I think that if we hadn't fudged the issue back in 2004 then we would have just passed an equal act and CPs would not exist for anyone.

OxfordBags Wed 22-May-13 23:52:47

Great points from all three of you above. SDeuchars, don't worry, sensible people know that the majority of Christians aren't ignorant loons. Isin, I agree with the stuff about the fudging in 2004. It just made no sense back then and look where we are now. And it goes without saying that I totally agree with everything you say about equality.

PS SD, the legal side of things IS already actually civil - the ony thing that truly legally marries you is the witnessed signing of the marriage certificate.

SDeuchars Thu 23-May-13 00:12:38

Yes, Oxford, I know that but few people seem to.

Another area of discrimination is that churches generally have a perpetual license from the local authority for conducting religious weddings. Most have someone authorised as a registrar and can carry out a wedding whenever is convenient. If they want to carry out civil partnerships (which has been possible since 2011), they have to purchase an additional license annually and some councils choose to price it prohibitively.

The problem with CP (and civil marriage) ceremonies is also that they have to (by law) be completely separate from any religious element. The church I attend could choose to carry out a CP ceremony but the legal bit would have to be done without reference to God. So we could have a service followed by a legal union or vice versa but it could not be entangled as happens with a wedding.

I'm not sure if it is even legal to carry out a civil marriage in a church (not saying anyone would want such a thing, but it is a logical extension).

SDeuchars Thu 23-May-13 00:15:58

So what I posted before was shorthand for saying that I think we should have a situation similar to that in France - everyone (gay or straight) should have to trot along to the register office for the sole civil union process to make the partnership legal with all appropriate legal and civil rights (tax, inheritance, adoption, etc.).

After that you could have any additional bits as required, whether humanist, pagan, Christian, massive party, whatever. None of those things would confer the legal rights.

unlucky83 Thu 23-May-13 00:39:29

I never said or thought because someone was gay they were more promiscuous/has less control/ more predatory fact not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote?
I do think I have to disagree on the male/female thing - irrespective of sexuality -always generalisations but I do think there are big differences between men and women
Pornographic magazines for women not v. successful - fifty shades another matter ...-for men the opposite is true ..images and not much reading ...
And having lived and worked with men from all walks of life/backgrounds - IME (and the intelligent,well educated ones can hide it well) strip away the pretense (esp give them a few drinks let their primitive brain emerge a bit ) and they do think with their dicks ...
(good genetic reasons for that have to invest very little in sex, women -potentially 9 months danger to health - so have to be slightly more selective )
And it is actually our expectations as a society that keep that in check...not the other way round ...
I really will bow out now ...

iclaudius Thu 23-May-13 01:11:05

i just got an email from the labour party celebrating the gay marriage bill and stating ... 'I am delighted that we are so close to having equal marriage in our country, and so very proud of our party.'

made me feel cross

RubyGates Thu 23-May-13 07:45:37

SDeuchars, I didn't know that's how the French did it, but yes, that would be ideal.

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