To find myself suddenly struggling to welcome gay marriage?

[grovel]

My initial reaction was "fine". As I think about it, I become rather sad that we are losing a distinctive quality in the meaning of marriage - namely that it celebrates how men and women complement each other (not only for purposes of procreation).

In every way I want equal recognition of partnerships be they straight or gay. Why then am I sad about changing the meaning of a word?

[CaHoHoHootz]

YAB very very U

I find it really wierd that people care so much what other people do. Your reasons for being sad about it are extremely odd. and
I find it unpleasant that you think it is OK to say you don't welcome gay marriage as much as non-gay weddings. Very judgey of you.

[MyLittleAprilSunshine]

YANBU to think about it, but you'd be VU if you went around telling gay people they shouldn't marry, there is a difference.

We are entitled to our own opinions, no? I have friends in same sex partnerships and I have no problem with them getting married--as much as I don't mind my opposite sex coupled friends getting married. As long as they love and care for eachother I don't mind. But that's me and that's an opinion I'm allowed to have.

Why slander someone for a different opinion, it's not like she's going about saying how awful gay people are.

Not like that person on 5Live last night or this morning, can't remember which it was (pregnancy hormones make me confused as usual) said that all gay people should be celibate, now that's just wrong on so many levels. But hey, if she wants to think that, more power to her.

[Zalen]

jeanvaljean - this 'Then we can leave marriage to the religious only.' seems to preclude the possibility of religious, gay people which seems a little narrow-minded, but that's just my opinion.

[grovel]

I'm the OP.

On page 2 of this thread I said I regretted the original post. Flame me by all means but don't feel that I have not thought further on the subject.

[PostBellumBugsy]

grovel, you are going to have to stand nekkid in trafalgar square after all!

[AMumInScotland]

*jeanvaljean" But nobody is forcing the church (any church) to change. The law which allows for civil marriage to be available to same sex couples is not going to require any religious organisation to change its own rules. It is going to have specific wording which says categorically that religious organisations do not have to celebrate them, or allow their premises to be used for them.

If you look long enough back, churches didn't even do weddings - they were an entirely civil matter. When they started having any involvement, they did them in the church porch at first, because they really didn't want to get involved.

[AMumInScotland]

grovel - The trouble is so many people read the OP and then react - nobody is seeing the fact that you've now said it was badly worded and you have rethought your position.

You could shout it every ten posts or so....

[MrsTerrysChocolateOrange]

grovel it's not about YOU. Stop being so me, me, me.

[AcidTurkishBath]

Why can't these institutions be left to exercise their own rules? Jean - that is the whole nature of the current legislation being proposed. It would allow churches to marry same-sex couples, but would not force any. The Church of England, for example, would be allowed to continue being discriminatory. But Quakers, liberal Judaism and the other religions who are welcoming religions would be allowed to follow their doctrines and marry same-sex couples. It would also allow marriages to be conducted in registrar's offices, just as many opposite-sex marriages are, which would give gay couples the same marital rights as the rest of society.

It isn't about attacking the church and forcing them to do something they object to. It is about not allowing the bigoted churches to prevent other churches doing something they are in favour of.

[Anniegetyourgun]

Someone tried that argument about "now we're going to have to find a different definition of consummation" a few weeks ago, on a rather heated thread which I think may have been in Feminism? Anyway, we trotted off to have a look at the current Marriage Act and blow me down, there isn't a definition of heterosexual consummation in there. So am waiting to see why all of a sudden we need one. (It's all very well to say "well it's obvious innit, one of these has to go in one of those to a depth of x", but we seem to have managed thus far without enshrining it in law.)

ps Non consummation is considered as valid grounds for anullment (have I spelt that right?), but does not automatically invalidate a marriage. If that were so you'd need Marriage Inspectors making sure everyone consummated their marriage at least once, otherwise their licence would be taken away from them.

[Anniegetyourgun]

Oh, btw, historically the Monarch argument doesn't hold water, as more than a few times in history there have been disputes, lack of direct heirs etc and we've gone and borrowed one from eg Scotland (then a separate country) or Holland, or squirrelled around for indirect heirs with enough backing to make it stick. Things do change and it's just as well, really.

[Hobbitation]

AMum - the reason atheists/agnostics would like to hold the religious to the words in their holy books is because religious people use their "interpretations" of their texts to weasel their way out of rational argument. So all the miracles/mystic guff become just parables etc, and you even get some Christians saying they of course don't believe Christ really rose from the dead - thus missing the point entirely of their religion.

TBH I find atheists rabidly questioning people about their beliefs and being all "Aha! So you're not a proper Christian then!" often more annoying than someone being evangelical about their religion. I'm agnostic for what it's worth - I do pick and choose. A bit of Christianity, a sprinkling of Buddhism, a lot of humanism. Definitely the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

[CatWithKittens]

Annie - You are absolutely right the Act does not define consummation and, as you say, an unconsummated marriage is voidable not void. The failure of the Act to give a definition is simply because, just like ecclesiastical law before it, the common law provides one so there was no need for the Act to do so. Current law requires penetrative sexual intercourse for consummation. The clear requirement for and definition of consummation is therefore enshrined in law. The consultation document does not deal with this at all simply suggesting that the Courts will have to determine what constitutes consummation for same sex marriages. I suspect that the heterosexual male judges who sit in the House of Lords may well foresee some difficulty with that and want it defined by Parliament

[AcidTurkishBath]

Everybody picks and chooses part of their religions. For example, one of the passages against homosexuality in the bible is right before a rule about cross-breeding. Do Christians object to labradoodles (or most flowers nowadays) on the whole?

[changeforthebetterforObama]

Umm, you do realise that no one is going to force you (or anyone else who is straight) to marry a gay member of your sex. 'Special meaning of marriage'?? Sorry, I think that the failure rate of more than 1 in 3 marriages points to a status in trouble. I really can't see how two men or two women getting married will undermine heterosexual marriage, but then I am not homophobic.

I imagine the gay weddings will be either achingly tasteful or wonderfully camp.

[Alisvolatpropiis]

YABU,but you've admitted it.

PackingIdiot the Royal family were all born in Britain, except the Duke of Edinburgh therefore...they are British.

[Blu]

FAIR DO, OP, GLAD YOU HAVE THOUGHT IT THROUGH!



I hate it when people march into a thread and start spouting irrelevant bollocks because they haven't read the thread.

jeanvaljean - it isn't about being in some sort of spurious 'equality warpath' for the sake of it. Look at the people flocking to actually get married in those Seatttle pics, and the average age of them. I would say older than the average age of heterosexual newlyweds. The number who talk of having been together more than 20 years - this marriage, on the same terms and with the same term, is important to them. Marriage has huge ceremonial weight. Imagine being told that men (or white people) can be 'Members of the Library', but women (or black people) must apply for a licence to borrow books, instead. The needless distinction would be outrageous.

Some religious people have a particular take on marriage, but I do not see why the rest of us should have to observe that. Marriage is an institution that exists beyond religious contexts.

(and I am a marriage refusenik)

[ComposHat]

I really can't see how anyone can object to gay marriage.

Really what is the fuss about? What do they think will happen if/when gay people can get married? The high heavens will fall in? Plagues of locusts will roam the earth?

It isn't like they are making gay marriage compulsory, if you don't want to marry someone of your own gender no one will make you.

[suburbophobe]

Haven't read the whole thread.

But (gay) marriage is about a lot more than a "white wedding in a church".

It's about the legality. That you can be considered next-of-kin and have your partner inherit etc. and all the rest.

Rather than the parents and family who threw you out when they couldn't deal with it....

They pay their taxes, why on earth should they not have the same rights?!

[ArielTheBahHumbugMermaid]

Am watching the Lords on the news at the moment.

I just cannot understand why some people are so bothered about it, I really can't.

[sashh]

Er...why are we losing it? Are you telling me that the gays can marry and normal people can't?

Er...................

Gay isn't normal?

[whois]

I can't get worked up about this for or against.

[Devora]

Well, I'm getting just slightly fed up with all those posters who come on these threads to roll their eyes and complain about how very tedious it is for them, how bored they are with having to let this trivial little topic flit across their frontal lobes.

This isn't for your entertainment, last time I checked. It's for equality in the eyes of the law, which some of us have been campaigning for for many, many years (30 years in my case). It's so my children don't have to learn that their parents are not considered less equal or important than their friends' parents. It's for religious freedom, so that the Quakers and the Liberal Jews can marry members of their congregations as they want to. It's so trans people don't HAVE to get divorced when they transition. It's because it's the right thing to do.

I have seen a lot of progress in my lifetime, from the strongly condemnatory attitudes of most of society when I was a gay teen, to today when these threads demonstrate the empathy, integrity and warmth of most MNetters. But those of you who feel your boredom or lack of understanding is in any way relevant, or who imagine yourselves somehow ahead of the curve in being a bit oh-excuse-me-while-I-yawn-they're-discussing-gays-again, please understand that lesbians and gays are not just for Christmas, not only deserving of respect when we're doing something that's interesting to you.

[Anniegetyourgun]

Lots of people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. I can't see that it's anything to be proud of, though.

[Anniegetyourgun]

CatWithKittens, I don't understand that comment at all. How does common law come about without legislation? Is it not through usage and case law? Surely that means a definition of consummation of same sex marriage will develop over time just as the other thing did. Thus no need to legislate specially, just as there was no need to legislate specially for heterosexual consummation. After all, it's not as if homosexuality is exactly a new thing. It's been going as long as there has been sex of any other kind, unless you believe literally that once upon a time there was only one man and one woman in the whole world.