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'm happy with gay people having civil partnerships and being able to adopt, but it is clearly barmy to pretend they are the same as heterosexual relationships when the consequences of sexual conduct with both are fundamentally different.

dopishe, the consequences of cheating will vary hugely depending on situation. The gender of the person you cheat with is a factor, but so are many other things, as people have said.

If your DH cheated on you with a woman who couldn't have babies, would that be ok?

If your issue is the rules on adultery, let's junk them. I'm happy with that, as they're rooted in sexist bollocks (a fact you're ignoring and calling 'biology').

The consequences of their sexual conduct are entirely their own affair and should have no bearing on the law.

You seem overly obsessed with other peoples sex lives.

I would guess it's simply because the law hasn't caught up yet.

Annie, that's very interesting.

That's the one, Missy, well done. I should have hunted more diligently.

I wouldn't have the extra burden of thinking that he had to contribute financially to another child, would I? You seem to live in a bubble, LRD, you really do. A nice bubble free from the harshness of life.

Go I am afraid you are very very wrong. The consequences of their sexual conduct are NOT their own affair at all. A man who as a result of his sexual conduct impregnates a woman will be made to pay by the law.

You're talking nonsense.

I don't want the rules on adultery junked! If that were the case, I'd have the extra waiting time to go for unreasonable behaviour instead. That's a few extra months waiting to find out if the other woman was pregnant. No ta.

"Go I am afraid you are very very wrong. The consequences of their sexual conduct are NOT their own affair at all. A man who as a result of his sexual conduct impregnates a woman will be made to pay by the law."

And gay marriage is affected by that how?

Married man has affair with woman. Married man has affair with other man. Same for women. What has any of that got to do with marriage laws?

In fact if gay people are having affairs with other gay people, as you have said, there arent going to be any pregnancies. So why are their sexual affairs anyone elses business? By your reckoning its the straight people that make a big mess that other people need to be involved in. So by your logic, gay marriage is superior to straight marriage.

dopishe - I live in a bubble? Well, at least it isn't a bubble where homophobia is acceptable.

I have no idea what your getting at talking about financial burdens? So it's fine with you if someone you're with sleeps around, so long as they never get anyone pregnant? And that's the only possible financial commitment you imagine happens in a marriage?

You are seriously naive.

So adultery both ways.

I'm happy with gay people having civil partnerships and being able to adopt, but it is clearly barmy to pretend they are the same as heterosexual relationships when the consequences of sexual conduct with both are fundamentally different.

Well, glad that you're "happy" for gay couples to have civil partnerships (big of you) - but let's follow your logic through, shall we? The consequences of an infertile couple's sexual relationship is different from that of a fertile heterosexual couple, isn't it? So, shall we treat them differently too?

Doesn't work, does it? Here's why - marriage is NOT all about sex and babies. It's about love and commitment to another person.

This undercurrent of homophobia dressed up as, "Oh but I don't have a problem with gay people, but....." is quite sickening.

You haven't answered my question about whether it's ok for my dh to have an affair with a woman over, say, 50 who won't get pregnant.

Is that adultery or not?

Seeing as the difference between adultery and not adultery is that the woman might get pregnant.

Um, what extra waiting time for unreasonable behaviour? There isn't one.

Does anyone quote adultery as a reason for divorce any more, just as a matter of interest? I thought the days of taking photographs with the "other woman" to be shown in court were long gone.

LRD You are the naive if you don't think the prospect of the other woman getting pregnant is not an extra problem.

Let's follow the it's about love and commitment argument pro-gay marriage further, if I love and am committed to my sister and we promise no sexual conduct will take place, should we be allowed marriage? There will be absolutely no sexual element at all. Love and commitment-in themselves- are no argument for marriage at all.

It's still adultery MaryZed, however, that's not to say that every opposite sex affair will result in pregnancy, just that adultery is shorter wait than unreasonable behaviour because it is possible.

Gay partnerships tend to involve sex somewhere, oddly enough, even if they don't involve procreation.

So what is your argument that my husband having an affair with an over-50 woman is worse than him having an affair with a man? I don't get it.

I also don't get why marriage has to involve sex if you don't want it to. I know an older couple who got married for companionship (both in their late '70s). I'm pretty sure from what they have said that sex wasn't/isn't part of it, but companionship, financial security, love and friendship are.

Which brings us back to the possibility of getting rid of civil marriage, and having civil partnerships for everyone. That would be ok - but for everyone, including the traditional man/woman scenario.

Once again, adultery is NOT shorter wait than unreasonable behaviour. That is simply incorrect. There is no required waiting period to file for either grounds, unlike desertion or separation. Also adultery requires a burden of proof, which unreasonable behaviour does not. (Think someone has been watching too many US court dramas. May I remind you this discussion is about UK law.)

Dopishe I am a bit worried that you can't tell the difference between romantic love & the love you feel for your sister.

Is your next argument going to be "I love my cat. Can I marry him too?"

Crikey, it's been used .

Not by Dopishe AFAIK but apparently if I'm allowed to marry DW it opens the floodgates for people to marry their dogs. And their horses. And no doubt their cats.

Empress Yes, I know. It's depressing.

The other common "argument" I've heard is - "Gay marriage makes "real" marriage less meaningful". Right - so, all the hetero couples would immediately fall out of love & leave their partners, would they? Because their marriage suddenly means less?

Grrrrr.