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?

If equality is down to biology why are you so upset about womens rights then. Men and women are biologically different so should be treated differently by your logic dopishe

You see, the trouble with mnhq deleting posts is that I've just scrolled up for your more offensive ones and they've been deleted [sigh].

So I'll just remind you of your milder comments:

"cp's and marriage are, for practical purposes, the same so why p* around further and waste time on this issue? So that people can be known as 'married' . As if it makes any difference in the real world" - it makes a difference to people who are not allowed to get married.

"I think the whole thing about gay marriage is a massive waste of time." Gay people don't generally.

And words fail me when it comes to your comments on parenting. Which would take up far too much space for me to quote here.

No, what I did was simple: the rules whereby a married man is automatically assumed-no questions asked- to be the other biological parent of a child that his wife has given birth to cannot POSSIBLY be applied to a lesbian couple.

That is not homophobia, that is just common f-ing sense.

Now -as I said previously- I am fine with gay adoption, however, this rule cannot be applied to gay people in the same way as it is with heterosexual married people.

I ask again, what has this got to do with two consenting adults who wish to make a legal union?

And as for treating couples the same, your two points are

(1) that a child of a marriage is presumed to be the husband's child - and we have all said that is dated and should be changed, for numerous reasons (Jeremy Kyle, surrogacy, lots of reasons; and

(2) committing adultery (i.e having an affair) with a person of the opposite sex is more upsetting than having an affair with someone of the same sex. Which we all also think is untrue and irrelevant.

What other differences are there?

Family dynamics are changing, dopishe - and the way families come together is too. Adoption and and IVF are hardly "gay" issues, are they? Plenty of heterosexual couples are forming families in non-traditional, straight-shagging based ways as well. So, perhaps it's time for this to be reflected in the way birth certificates etc are issued.

MaryZed, you really do take offence easily, don't you?

I mean taking offence easily just because somebody says that the rule that biological parenthood cannot just be taken at face value with gay people.

Adoption between heterosexual couples also needs to be carefully vetted. There isn't any difference there.

So we change the rules to stop husbands being presumed the father? Good idea, taking biological parenthood at face value is silly. Or we change the law so that it also applies to gay couples as well - the legal spouse is always the presumed second parent. Birth certificates do not always have to record the biological truth by law

This is entirely secondary to whether to allow marriage in the first place. It is a very minor secondary consideration

People who attempt to obstruct the process of allowing equal marriage, are ultimately making a futile effort which costs the government time and money needlessly

Fair comment, Crikey, however that's the way it is at the moment.

2, The consequences of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are different because there is the possibility of pregnancy with heterosexuals. Yes, this is true. But it's also true of an awful lot of straight couples - those who marry late in life, those who have chosen not to have children & those who cannot have their own naturally. So, why are you singling out gay people?

Not that any of this has anything to do with the issue of gay marriage, anyway.

Maybe it is. It was once perfectly legal for my grandmother to have a sign in her boarding house window saying - "No blacks or Irish". If something is wrong, we change it.

I'm not entirely convinced (as I said I saw one episode of Jeremy Kyle) that biological parenthood can be taken at face value with heterosexual couples either.

I really, really don't think that husbands should be assumed to be the father, ever.

And also, I have adopted, so I have a very flexible opinion on who a childs parents are. In my opinion, biological relationship is one of the least important elements of a parent-child relationship.

I'm not offended at all, btw. I haven't reported any of your posts, I prefer it when the offensive stuff stays [sigh].

Putting aside gay marriage for a second, getting rid of the rule whereby the husband is automatically assumed to be the father of his wife's baby (unless told otherwise) is a very bad idea.

The point of marriage is to make a declaration of couplehood. Should a man whose wife has died in labour but baby survived have to prove parenthood?

Oh, I've just thought of something.

If a gay man is in a civil partnership or married to another man, but has an affair with a woman (who, wowzer, might be impregnated), is that adultery?

Ditto for a lesbian woman married to another lesbian who has an affair with a man.

Adultery is a bonkers argument for/against gay marriage.

But then, adultery is a bonkers legal term anyway unless, as I said before, you live in the middle East.

Why not? He could, couldn't he? By your standards, he should have to. Because the baby isn't going to have a mother is it, so it's very important the father should prove his right to be a parent in the same way you want gay men to prove their parentage if they have a baby with a surrogate, for example.

*quirrel It wouldn't matter to me if every last gay person in the country said they didn't want to be able to marry - I would still be pushing for a law change. It's the fact that gay people CAN'T make the same choice that straight couples makes that's really the issue - not necessarily whether they want to.

Equality is equality is equality. There are no degrees of it. *

Of course I do completely get your point, mine would be very simplistic if it were just what you're taking from it (no offence).....but my point is that I take the church's choice seriously. It is not the be all and end all. I do not respect the church as a value system and institution, I do not respect marriage as a choice, but I do respect the limits set on it and the concept of choice. I am all for civil partnerships (even though I think the whole idea is silly) for the very reasons that you've set out.

Oh, mrspopov, I fear your post may be lost to the depths of delete-dom, so I will rephrase it for you.

The opinions expressed in Dopishe's posts make her sound as though she might be a bit bonkers, and possibly a tad homophobic, therefore mrspopov doesn't like them very much

[helpful]

Well you might find it bonkers but adultry IS with a member of the opposite sex.

MaryZed like it or not your arguments are not pro-marriage (for anyone) but pro civil partnerships which make no mention of adultery or rules about automatic assumption of parenthood.

For those who find these rules bonkers, it's not marriage they seek for all-with its archaic heterosexual rules-its civil partnerships.

What are the procedures now for babies of surrogacy arrangements, IVF or adoption? And if they work now - why change them? The gender of the parents is surely neither here nor there.

Your conundrum of assuming a biological father is only an issue if two gay people show up to register a baby - and one wants to be registered as the mother & the other the father. Has this ever happened? I seriously doubt it. And, surely, if a registrar has due cause to believe deception he/she can raise the issue - just like they can when they think it's a dodgy wedding.

A lot of people who find the marriage laws bonkers, are heterosexual, and are therefore banned from getting a civil partnership purely based on orientation. And there we are back at the start - non equal situation, people should be able to choose, lets make it equal

I thank you MaryZed, I wouldn't like to be deleted so soon after posting.

How's this? I have an adopted daughter, except I couldn't adopt her, as only one member of a gay couple could be the adoptive parent at the time and we chose my ex to be named on her adoption certificate. So, I have parental responsibility. That'll end when DD is 16, so I will have no legal ties to her whatsover. Am I her mum? Hell yes! Suppose you have a view on that Dopsie?

That's fine.

Civil partnership for everybody (no civil marriage), and churches to do religious marriages for everyone who wants one would be ok.

What might work is for heterosexual people to lobby for a ban on marriage outside church, and cp for everyone.

And the cp could be man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, friend/friend - no preconceptions about love/sex/children, just mutual respect and a willingness to work together as a couple (sexual or platonic, it doesn't matter).

With of course all the legal and financial benefits accorded to marriages.

Crikey, the arrangements for gay parenting, surrogacy, adoption, donor sperm etc are bonkers and need looking at. Lots of children have parents on their birth certs who aren't their biological parents - which is fine by me, but there should be on record somewhere their biological background if it is known.

A bit like adoption - dh and I are on their adoption certs, when they are 18 they can get their birth certs with their biological parents, if they want. Same should apply to straight surrogacy and donor sperm (which tend to be the way to parenthood for many gay and lesbian couples)