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?

Some councils have both dreary & lovely registry offices...in the same building!

Southampton has one horrible looking big room with 70s pine panelling on the walls - or you can choose the "Mayor's Parlour" which is as gorgeous as it sounds.

So - horses for courses.

Awwww...at your DD signing the register, Empress.

If I ever get married if anyone asks me I want DS to give me away. He's 16 now, and I'd be dead proud - while he'd probably die of embarrassment, which would be a bonus .

That came out a big wrong. I don't mean it would be a bonus if he died - just if he was embarrassed. I embarrass him a lot, and it's highly amusing (for me!).

MaryZed, a few things:

Adoption is a separate issue from gay marriage. NOBODY should be approved to adopt a child just because their spouse is suitable- be they gay or straight.
A married woman may be suitable, doesn't follow that their husband is.

You don't get ownership of a child just because you are in a relationship with somebody. That's bullshit and if you believe then what I think of you is worse than what I think of homophobia.

Anyway, adoption=different thing from marriage, so your point is irrelevant.

Tbh, the simplest thing would be to go down the French route and make only civil marriage legal. Churches can then offer religious ceremonies to whomever they like as it won't really matter. After all, that's the case now for people from other faiths.

I agree with sleepyhead right up at the top.

Only civil marriages should be legally-recognised, and everyone should be able to have them.

Churches and other religious entities can do as they please and it's a matter for the people inside those religions to debate and challenge. But whatever they do it will not be a legal ceremony, everyone will have to go off to the registry office or similar in order for it to be legally recognised.

Can you read dopishe?

Because I have no idea where any of those points came from. You were the one who brought up parenting on this thread [baffled].

And no-one gets ownership of a child, btw, ever. By birth or adoption or any other way.

Anyway, we are in AIBU and YABU to be annoyed by "both sides". One side wants equality (which does not yet exist), one side is against equality.

My sincere apologies MaryZed. The above post should be addressed to mrspopov. Sorry.

Once again, my post as of 8.42 am is to mrspopov. I mistakenly said MaryZed instead.

It still doesn't make sense.

You don't know much about adoption law. Up until very recently, gay couples were not allowed to adopt together as a couple, no matter how suitable they were to be parents.

One had to adopt as a single person, so the child only officially has one parent. It is very sad for the child as although they consider the person their mother/father in every sense of the word the child has no legal rights to it at all. So if that "parent" dies, for example they can't inherit as a child and get tax exemptions, but even worse they often lose contact with that side of their "family".

Nothing to do with the implication that the other half of the gay couple isn't "suitable to adopt" .

The current system is bizarre. We had a civil marriage (in a beautiful old priory, so no dreary registry office), and the registrars were very very specific about not allowing any mention of god, or religious poems or songs etc. It was lovely, probably no diffient in content to a civil partnership. HOWEVER, at the end of all that, my husband and I get to say we are 'married'. A same sex couple could have, essentiall, the entire same day, and yet they aren't married? Is beyond stupid.

I'm with the posters mentioning the French system. Except that I would argue that we all get to be married, since it's not a religious institution anyway, and those that want a church to authorise their union can have their own, seperate word; so they would be married, but maybe 'married infront of god' or similar? Or possibly I'm talking nonsense.

MaryZed

My point is this: adoption -be it by gay OR straight couples- has NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE.

Also, I think I shall have to report your post because you are hinting at homophobia with your last statement when I have CLEARLY used an example of straight couples not being suitable to adopt just because one member is. That is, just because the wife is doesn't mean husband is.

Exactly, dopishe.

I'm really glad we cleared that up. Now why was it you brought up the subject on this thread in the first place? In your post that has now been conveniently deleted [sigh].

I think you are tying yourself in knots, here, which often happens to people whose arguments make no sense

You are going to report my post because my last line "hinted at homophobia"? I think that is a teeny bit of an over-reaction - I was simply explaining why the adoption law (which you had misunderstood) used to be very unfair.

Oh, and just in case you do manage to get my post deleted [baffled], here it is again:

It still doesn't make sense.

You don't know much about adoption law. Up until very recently, gay couples were not allowed to adopt together as a couple, no matter how suitable they were to be parents.

One had to adopt as a single person, so the child only officially has one parent. It is very sad for the child as although they consider the person their mother/father in every sense of the word the child has no legal rights to it at all. So if that "parent" dies, for example they can't inherit as a child and get tax exemptions, but even worse they often lose contact with that side of their "family".

And the last line (my offensive accusation of homophobia):

Nothing to do with the implication that the other half of the gay couple isn't "suitable to adopt" .

"You don't get ownership of a child just because you are in a relationship with somebody"

Excellent point, which shows exactly why it's a stupid idea to presume fatherhood based on marriage. He shouldn't be able to own the child based on his marriage to his wife

And MaryZed, nothing you said was hinting at homophobia. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on MN. Clearly OP is trying to start a bunfight

LaydeeC - Thanks for the correction. I don't understand all the marriage laws as I said, srry for any confusion I caused

Lilka, it doesn't matter if it is stupid or not; it's how it is.

Nevertheless, this rule cannot reasonably be applied to gay people owing to the fact that biologically speaking , gay couples cannot be the parents of a child as a couple. For the record, I have never said here that gay people make poor parents. Never. You've not said this; but others have.

It seems far more sensible to stop trying to fit homosexual unions into the essentially heterosexual marriage and instead offer civil partnerships to all (WHICH MAKE no mention of sex at all. No consummation. No definition adultery. No presumption of parenthood).

Well, now, finally, you might have got it.

Let's do that. Of course, as a shorthand name for your "civil partnerships to all (WHICH MAKE no mention of sex at all. No consummation. No definition adultery. No presumption of parenthood)", we can use the term "marriage" as we have for generations . For everyone.

By the way, I would like to point out that biologically speaking, adoptive couples cannot be the parents of a child as a couple. So should we unmarry them, and apply the rules of cp to them instead?

Well, I would be fine with everyone having CP, and marriage being a religious thing only which has no legal weight. But that means basically scrapping marriage and disestablishing the CofE - I don't think that's on Cameron's agenda really

So without that option, I go for everyone being entitled to the same options of marriage and civil partnership regardless of orientation, which is the only reasonable thing we can do at the moment

Or yes, what MaryZed said. Totally rewrite the marriage rules so they're like CP's, but still call it marriage, so everyone can get equal unions fit for the 21st century

So, really, dopishe, you've changed your mind.

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

But now you can see that the status quo is unfair, and needs to be changed - whether that's to either offer marriage or civil partnerships (whatever we decide to call it) to everyone equally?

*Leaving aside the church & religious aspects, since this is about civil, secular marriage.

Dopishe I didn't say that anyone should be able to adopt a child without assessment. What I said was that the law at the time only allowed one member of a gay couple to adopt. Both people were assessed and approved as adoptive parents, the law then would only allow one parent to be named on the adoption certificate.

Dopishe The rules can change. That is the function of parliament otherwise we would just have judges applying the same old rules which had always been applied. There is no reason that birth certificates couldn't be updates to include spaces for the parents who are to have parental responsibility and the genetic parents if they are different. Your problem with parenting-stuff is a criticism of the way birth certificates record data not an argument against equal marriage.

Oooh, MaryZed reported for homophobia

Now, I could certainly sign up to retaining marriage as a religious concept, and having all state marriages civil partnerships. But I can't see many heterosexuals who don't want a church wedding being thrilled at the idea.

It isn't a just french system though. Some religions in the Uk do not have a licence to marry - so couples of those religions get married in a register office and then have their religious ritual a week or so later with a large family and friends gathering. It already happens in the England for some religions.

OP, You are coming across as somewhat obsessed with paternity. Have you been affected by this in any way?