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, for one, think that women who use sperm donors without going through proper channels -be they heterosexual or homosexual- are highly irresponsible people. If a sperm donor iis to be used a formal legally-binding arrangment should be made.

Am I fine with lesbians going through IVF in a proper manner and getting things straight legally? Yes. Am I fine with them just using some poor bloke without any formal agreement? No. Highly irresponsible. As that man could later claim to be the father and all sorts of stuff that could be detrimental to the child could happen.

Gay parenthood is fine; not doing it all properly and on paper is not.

I'm fed up of Churches interfering in stuff that is none of their darn business. This is about civil marriage, nothing to do with religion at all. They can set the rules for their own believers and there is nothing in this proposal that will change that. They know it full well - they are choosing to muddy the waters. They should keep their beaks out of the affairs of non-religious people and stop trying to force us to live by their rules.

I'm also fed up of allegedly Christian churches who obstinately ignore what Christ actually said. The only reason they are making a fuss is prejudice. Certainly not the word of Christ, whose only teaching on sexual morality was 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Both the telling fibs about gay marriage and the refusal to listen to what Christ actually said lead me to the logical conclusion that this whole fuss is about prejudice and nothing to do with faith at all.

I am personally sick to bloody death of the Church of England meddling locally in community projects, too, that have nothing to do with them. They are irrelevant and they know it so just keep sticking their beaks in to other people's business to justify their existence.

Lord Carey playing the Godwin's Law card is pathetic but typical.

But being responsible about planning to have DCs is something everyone should be doing, whether straight or gay.

Dopishe - even if you do believe that there might be problems surrounding registering the birth of dc, why on earth would that mean that a whole different legal institution (Civil Partnership) was necessary? If the only objection you have to equal marriage is that there might be difficulties in registering children then surely you should be supporting equal marriage but suggesting that the legislation probably needs updating. I'm inclined to think that birth certificates should list "parents" i.e. the people who will be doing the day to day parenting and possibly also have a space for "genetic parents" if it is decided that for health reasons everyone should be able to trace their genetic parents. In most cases this would simply involve writing the names of the mother and father twice. However in a comparatively small number of cases it would make things much clearer and more accurate. I don't consider that to be so burdensome that creating CP is easier!

Churches are not government institutions and therefore should be allowed to marry who they want.

That is precisely what the current system does not allow. The Jewish Reform movement and the Quakers (& I dare say a few others) want to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies within their religions. But they cannot. The current rules don't let them.

I gather that anyone living within a parish has the right to wed within CoE; so simple solution is remove that right and give back to the CoE the right to discriminate about who can get wed in their holy buildings. And give the same right to Quakers & other religions.

I couldn't get married at my parish church, should I want to, because I am divorced. The current vicar doesn't believe in it.

dopishe, you said: "Otherwise, two gay people could just go register a child as their's and next thing you know an angry man starts claiming parenthood."

What about in the case of a woman who gets pregnant and then breaks up with the biological father and marries another man before the baby is born.

Surely they are just "going to register a child as their's and next thing you know an angry man starts claiming parenthood".

Is that ok?

Your arguments only make sense if you are treating parents differently because they are openly gay.

Otherwise any woman could register any child as hers, with any agreeable man along to sign the forms. The registration of a child has nothing to do with who the biological father is, and sadly nothing to do with which (or how many) parents are going to bring that child up.

You seem ridiculously over involved in this OP. What have other peoples marriages/relationships/children got to do with you exactly?

Isn't it fairly obvious that we should all be as equal as can be? That should always be the starting point, especially in law. Of course gay people should have the same marriage rights and straight people. Which they don't.

You also say "Gay parenthood is fine; not doing it all properly and on paper is not."

Are you going to apply that logic to the many, many thousands of children born every year to people who either don't know who the father is, or whose fathers have done a runner, or who are lying about who the father is?

That is a much greater (numbers wise) problem than the relatively few children born to gay couples, so your vitriol and concern could be used for that.

But of course, to interfere with those mothers and children would be interfering with their rights to have children, which you wouldn't want to do would you? Unless they are gay of course, in which case you feel you have a right to criticise them.

Your arguments are so mixed up it's unbelievable .

The Unitarians too, lljkk. Some of their churches have gone to the lengths of stopping performing straight weddings until they're allowed to perform gay ones too.

YABU - no one is talking about forcing church marriages int he same way CoE vicars can refuse to marry divorcees they could still refuse to marry a same-sex couple but there are religious groups (quakers for eg) who would happily marry perform same-sex weddings. However, civil ceremonies are different completely - DH and I had a civil ceremony, we had been together just over 2 years - why shouldn't my uncle and his (currently civil) partner who have been together around 25 years be able to get married just becasue they are both men?

Actually, can I ask ....?

If I got married in a registry office, and then divorced in a civil court, why can't I get married in a CoE church? According to them I was never married in the first place.

Well I'm married and have been since the dawn of time, and I am quite happy to stop using the term married and accept any other term as long as the same term and the same legal status applies to everyone.

So let the church keep the word marriage if they want to and if it's so precious to them.

Let it be banished in civil life though.

OR of course, let all unions be called marriages for everyone. I mean, who would that really hurt?

And the churches can refer to theirs as "special marriages" or "the one true type of marriage" or whatever they like.

And I say this as a Christian (sort of) who was married in a church, because I'm in Ireland and at the time it was very difficult to get married anywhere else.

LineRunner, you can, as far as I know.

I know someone who was married in a registry office in England, divorced and then married in a Catholic church in Ireland. But they then had to go the registry office afterwards, because the registry office here didn't recognise the church wedding because she had been married before, but the church were happy to ignore the first marriage and pretend it hadn't happened.

And don't get me started on that old favourite, the Catholic Annulment, where you can basically pretend you weren't married and marry again, in a church, without getting divorced at all .

The Unitarians too, lljkk. Some of their churches have gone to the lengths of stopping performing straight weddings until they're allowed to perform gay ones too. Really? Fucking good for them.

I am also of the opinion that the churches are not actually representing the views of their flocks properly. I'm an atheist, but the vast majority of Christians I know fully support gay marriage. I'm pretty sure that it was reported recently that over 80% of church goers do.

*Could be completely wrong, can't recall where I read that. Happy to be corrected if I've misremembered.

no idea linerunner would probably depend on the vicar and their feelings my parents local vicar refuses to even christen infants with unmarried parents so he'd probably say no.

My local vicar is an utter tool in general, tbh.

MaryZed that's the catholic church though and they have their own special rules.
In France you have to have a civil ceremony to be legally married. If you then want to go on to have a religious ceremony/blessing you can but they keep state and church firmly separate. I cna't help but think that that is very sensible rather than over here where state and the CoE are so interwined.

I agree that Churches are out of sync with their flocks.

Yes, I know, the Catholic church is even more bizarre and contradictory than the Church of England. Interestingly, any vicars I know in the Church of Ireland would be happy to marry same-sex couples if they were allowed to.

So yes, separate church and state completely. Call them whatever you like, but to have the legal protection, you should have to have the state version. You can add in a church version if you want to (and call it marriage if you like).

Your local vicar doesn't ask himself WWJD, then, linerunner. What a swine. If his beliefs are correct, when he gets to the afterlife, he's going to have a few questions asked about turning souls away from salvation...

My local Catholic priest mustn't have a very good opinion of Jesus, judging by what he seems to think Jesus would do.

The concerns about the sanctity of marriage shown by some members of the CofE do seem a bit ironic given the example set by their founder.

If half as much effort went into getting rid of hatred instead of trying to stop people who love each other making it official, the world would be a happier place. Please apply to all religions who are against equality.

What Gay40 said.