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

[dopishe]

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

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

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

I must hate myself as I fancy other women!

You think it's pointless. But it isn't pointless for other people, is it?

I'm bisexual, and I am intelligent enough to recognize that that does not give me an equal say with the many posters on this thread who are gay and want to be married to their partners, because I am lucky enough to be able to marry mine.

If fancying women were an effective prophylactic against bigotry, I would be very happy - but it's not.

MaryZed, you may not have known much about it yesterday but you were certainly caring.

Geoff, yes, that shooting was horrendous and I agree it needs to be a priority, but I don't think we can realistically say "one issue at a time" or it will take forever.

Dopishe, if that's how you feel that's up to you.

Has it every occurred to you how offensive (and ridiculous) it is for gay people to be constantly treated differently because they are gay?

Why are "women's" rights more important than "gay" rights? What about "all people's rights" for a change.

"No, I am not a homophobe, but I know when I am being had, and gay marriage is an attempt to deflect. What is more, it is utterly and truly pointless."

Well if people would just stop objecting, then the law could be changed as necessary and nobody who isn't directly involved need ever think about it again.

Who said they were, maryzed?

Totally agree with you about how ridiculous it is to treat people differently for their sexual orientation.

Even as a bisexual woman, I realise that simple biology means that if I ever were involved with another woman to the point where we wanted a child together, the authorities would want absolute proof of adoption papers, IVF treatment etc before allowing us to sign a birth certificate.

They simply would not be able to apply the 'husband is father' rule to us.

It's defying nature to say that homosexual and heterosexual couples can be treated in EXACTLY the same way, it really is.

It's also totally naive to pretend that a woman's husband who cheats with another man (as opposed to another woman) produces the same consequences both practically and emotionally.
Emotionally, the feelings invoked will be very different: if he cheats with another man, there is no sense to feeling jealous as there is clearly nothing to compare to; if with a woman, all manner of jealousy may be felt.
And, of course, a man can impregnate another woman.

Of course, there is a difference! This is why mere sexual unfaithfulness is NOT classed in the same bracket as adultery: i.e. sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

'Defying nature'.

What an excellent, logical argument.

It's a really good thing you don't rely on any nature-defying stuff yourself, eh, like modern medicine or, I dunno, the internet?

Or do you imagine defying nature is acceptable if you're in a straight relationship, but not if you're gay?

Bollocks is it 'naive' to pretend the feelings are different. You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course my DH would feel jealous if I cheated on him with a woman.

No sense in feeling jealous?

I think I'd be equally jealous (and gutted) if DW cheated on me with either gender. The fact of the cheating would matter most, not who she did it with.

For someone who thinks gay marriage is a load of irrelevant bollocks you seem very bothered about it and particularly this birth certificate thing. Why that in particular? And what about couples, straight or gay, who for whatever reason are never going to have kids?

Sorry, LRD, the op did. She was citing this government stripping women of their rights as a reason not to let them waste their time on gay rights, which seems a very peculiar way of looking at it.

And, op, I don't think it would make any difference to me who my husband cheated with. I suspect I might be a bit cross either way. But if you are worried about impregnation, does that mean it's ok as long as the woman he cheats with is over, say, 50? Is that adultery, or mere sexual unfaithfulness?

And I thought we'd questioned the "husband is a father rule" as not being appropriate in this day and age for many reasons, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Your arguments are getting a tad hysterical as well as being entirely irrelevant.

I'm beginning to feel like I used to when I got onto threads with dp [baffled]

'Emotionally, the feelings invoked will be very different: if he cheats with another man, there is no sense to feeling jealous as there is clearly nothing to compare to; if with a woman, all manner of jealousy may be felt'

I'll check with my mum and get back to you - I'll ask her if she felt jealous that my dad has spent years shagging other men behind her back, concealing his true sexuality from her and living a lie. Then I'll tell her there is no sense in feeling what I know she does.

I don't know if you're crass and insensitive or just an idiot dopishe. Or maybe both. Please find something more useful to channel your energy into.

HA HA. Believe me, the consequences of a man cheating with another man are very different from him cheating with another woman.

Nobody educate you lot about the birds and the bees?

Now when a man and woman get together and the man puts his...

mary - oh, no, don't apologize, I just couldn't see it.

dopishe - the consequences of cheating with different people are different. We get that.

How does this make it ok to be a homophobe, again?

Funny you mention that feeling, mary ...

My DH has had the snip, he isn't going to impregnate anyone, I guess I should give him the all clear to shag about then as affairs are only hurtful if it results in pregnancy...

Your arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical.

YABU.

Some gay couples would like to be married, not have a civil partnership. I can't see any reason prevent this. No-one's making them get married if they don't want to, but they should have the same options as the rest of us.

I also think the church should allow any vicars who wish to (and there are quite a few), to be able to perform gay marriage ceremonies in church.

I'm getting a massive sense of dejá vue with this thread. There was an identical one a few months ago, I think it was in Feminism, but after about 800 posts I'm fairly sure it was deleted. If this isn't the same OP I'll eat my hat. Exactly same angle of argument, starting with "it's all a big waste of time and money as CPs are the same in all but name", progressing through paternity, an apparent obsession with the definition of adultery, and yes, even stating he/she was a bisexual woman. Much quoting and linking of the various Marriage Acts etc iirc. Eventually the OP got really frothy and admitted to feeling that his/her personal marriage experience would definitely be invalidated if them gays were allowed into the club, and it all descended rapidly into bunfight territory. Hence the deletion. (I suppose it could still exist, but I'm not wasting more than the 20 mins or so I've already spent not finding it.) Anyone else remember that?

(ps my apologies to any French readers, I have that accent the wrong way round but I can't figure out how to do the right ones on my keyboard. Should probably have used a different phrase but it was, to borrow from the French again, the mot juste )

I read a post a while ago (not on this thread) where somebody said they wanted a civil partnership in a registry office the same one as offered to same sex couples. And they said they were denied this. I think the state has to treat the unions in the same way.

I have no memory of that annie, but I could have just missed it.

vivienne - yes, I think I remember that being said on here - I think I agree. Even though civil marriage isn't religious, it's still got an ideological framework some people might not want.

I don't think you do get that the consequences of a man cheating on his wife with another woman are different from his cheating with another man at all LRD. Not at all. Adultery -which has no waiting period unlike other grounds for divorce is between members of the opposite sex. Unreasonable behaviour-which could be with a member of the same sex has a waiting period.

Why is that, I wonder? Is it because opposite sex couples contain a chance of the adulterer making the other woman pregnant? Or the cheating woman has a chance of pregnancy with her lover?

Let me say this clearly: I would not be prepared to wait around if my husband had cheated with another woman purely because she could announce she was pregnant. A man could not possibly do this.

None of these current rules in marriage make sense in terms of homosexuality.

Annie is this the thread you are talking about. It does all look very familiar....