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?

'Sall about power innit?

The privileged churches get to do marriages. They don't want to share that. It's bad enough this civil marriage gubbins but at least they've managed to ban the mention of God so they get to keep the monopoly on that.

Remove the power and just keep everything nice and simple. The bishops can go back to looking after their priests and paperwork (or whatever it is they do), Charles can be Defender of All Faiths or None, people can play Amazing Grace on a tape recorder as they walk into the room at their civil ceremony, non-bigotted clergy can marry people as their conscience dictates.

Antidisestabilshmentarianism = increase in the country's net happiness.

sorry link here

It's just political tactics, Lilka.

Equal religious marriage will come, for sure.

lilka, that would mean gay couples could get married in churches in exactly the same way I and lots of other straight couples got married in churches or other places of worship. It's a religious ceremony.

The Mail is simply being ignorant and focussed on the C of E, as if it were the only kind of church. The C of E hasn't yet decided to grow a pair and come out in support of gay marriage, so that's beside the point.

Other Churches do support gay marriage, so gay people could be married in them after a civil legal ceremony.

Yes, it will come. Just frustrating how slow, given they can do it all in one go right here and now

Even though, being born in the 60's i am well aware of how far we come in how short a time (well, relatively speaking. It's an age when you are the one affected by it)

A blessing is a different kind of religious service, at least in all the churches I know.

I think this is important and it matters to a lot of people. Calling their wedding a 'blessing' would be wrong - it's still a wedding, even if the legal bit was done in the registry office.

All that needs to be done is to remove the C of E's right to perform legal marriages and allow gay marriage in a civil ceremony, it's simple.

Right, but gay couples will have to have to two ceremonies then -the secular civil ceremony in the reigstry office to legalise the marriage, then a ceremony in a friendly Church to bless them, which holds no legal weight

It is so frustratingly slow.

I'm a 60s baby, too. I am stunned at how far the world has come since I first came out. I remember thinking, "Well, that's it: no children". Life has been transformed beyond recognition

Honestly, I want the government to clarify all this

Yes, but that's exactly the same situation in which I, and masses of other people, already get married. It's normal. It's already the way marriage operates for loads of straight couples who're religious but not C of E (or possibly Catholic/Jewish, acc. to a poster upthread).

Wow, devora. That is amazing - but still, it's shameful there's not more progress.

I feel a bit better now.

Yesterday I felt thick and uncaring and slightly embarrassed that I didn't know more about this. Now I've decided that not a lot of people understand it fully.

I have just read that Daily Mail link and I've got a different question...

When the churches say they fear the evil gay people might use human rights law to force them to marry them, surely that could happen now?

If someone who's divorced wants to get married in church and the vicar says no, couldn't they 'use human rights law'? But they don't, because why on earth would you want to have one of the most important days of your life in a place where the vicar thinks you're inferior?

Also, couldn't this happen now with the women bishops thing? (which also makes me very very cross) If a female vicar wants to progress in her career and isn't allowed because no matter how good she is at her job, she's a woman - couldn't she 'use human rights law' to challenge it?

Perhaps the church should stop making rules that aren't in keeping with human rights law, then they wouldn't need to be so worried about it.

Agree with the concensus here - people should be allowed to marry who they want; straight or gay, and they should be able to marry where they want.
However, if the religious buildings/affiliated faiths cannot accommodate that then that's ultimately their loss. People are less likely to 'invest' where they cannot be treated with dignity, respect and equality.

I think we do need to decouple terminology with institution though. I got married in church, my sister got married in a registry office. Neither of us is 'more' or 'less' married than the other. So why should it matter if one of us had married a woman. We'd still be married, and would have undertaken the same commitment to our partner.

However, there are far bigger problems in the world than this, and whilst I accept that anyone should be able to marry anyone, I would rather put combating hunger and poverty at the top of the agenda of thing to campaign about. A 14 year old Pakistani girl was recently shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting to go to school. That to me is far worse than the C of E not letting Mary marry Sally/Jim marry Bob, and I would rather invest time and effort into removing this inequality from the world first.

But NotGeoff, it's all very well to say "there are bigger problems in the world"; of course there are, we could all by dying of hunger.

But as a straight married person I don't have the right to tell others not to care about something that I can do, and they can't. It makes me cross seeing people minimise other people's problems.

If someone is gay, then of course I respect their right to say "I don't care about this, the world has bigger problems". But no-one has the right to tell them they shouldn't care.

If that makes sense.

I think I'm going to sign the coalition4marriage campaign; NOT because I'm homophobic but because I think the whole thing about gay marriage is a massive waste of time. By the way, I am bisexual. It makes as much sense to me as the government legislating for women to live in treehouses (if that is what they want to do).

It's all nonsense; a complete an utter irrelevancy and no government should be wasting precious time and money on it (gay marriage).

I'm with the anti's-not because of bullshit like 'sanctity' of marriage (yeah right ) , but because it is offensive to me that this irrelevant piece of garbage is given the time of day by our 'government'.

Well actually, dopische, your posts on this thread make you sound as though you are homophobic, so just saying you aren't doesn't pass muster with me

It may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to many, and you have no right to tell them what to care about.

And finally, your last post has clarified to me why you started this thread in the first place - not to say you were irritated by both sides, but to try to justify your unacceptable views.

And that is my polite opinion. There is a lot more I would like to say, but I won't give you the satisfaction

Ahh, just when the thread had become intelligent and informative, the OP comes back...

'Well actually, dopische, your posts on this thread make you sound as though you are homophobic, so just saying you aren't doesn't pass muster with me'

Agree with MaryZed

It's shocking how much homophobia is still around - the marriage equality issue really has brought it all out in the open. I can't really believe that there is even still a debate about this - as other posters have said, it is a total no-brainer.

I am in a hetero relationship and would dearly love to have a civil partnership. I want nothing to do with marriage - I'm not interested in pledging myself to anyone 'until death do us part', or 'forsaking all others' and I certainly don't want to be involved in 'consummating' anything thank you. The government can stay right out of my bedroom. CPs seem like a much more practical arrangement with none of the baggage of marriage - you become each others' legal partners and next of kin for as long as you want to be. No talk of love or romance - that's private stuff IMHO. Some gay people do not support the arguments in favour of gay marriage because they share these feelings about marriage.

If other people were to see my CP as 'marriage lite' and less important than their marriage, I wouldn't give one solitary fig - that's their business. However, I understand that marriage is very important to some people for reasons of tradition etc, and so we need the two systems in place. Also 100% agree with posters who said that CPs should be extended to any two people, not just those in romantic/sexual relationships with each other.

And if you don't care about this issue, then leave it be and find something else to occupy your time instead of sneering at people who do care about it.

If it talks like a homophobe, signs petitions like a homophobe ... it's probably a homophobe.

When I think something is a waste of time I tend not to start threads about it, discuss it, then go out of my way to sign petitions about it to prove what a waste of time it is. I tend to just ignore it.

Maybe you should show support and help it get pushed through faster then our governments time won't be taken up with such 'garbage' and they can get back to the important things......

It's interesting that those banging on about the sanctity of marriage are mostly citing the purpose of marriage is to procreate... but what if you can't. What if you're infertile. Does that mean you shouldn't be married?

I am happy to add my voice to the masses calling for equality, and to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves. I was not trying to negate the feelings of anyone, but add my own personal perspective.

Never occurred to you lot how offensive it is to people who are facing real problems how ridiculous the gay marriage business is, has it? How to hear the tories drone about this in a blatant attempt at gesture politics (look how nice we all are, sorry, but this is the government that is going to strip women of their rights. THAT'S what matters! Not gay marriage).

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.