So, would you feel less married if gays were allowed full marriage rights?

[PointyLittleDonkeyEars]

link here.

I'm not after a bunfight, just some honest opinions. I'm heterosexual, married almost 14 years and I would not feel that my marriage was devalued in any way if homosexual couples were allowed to marry. I feel that two people who love each other enough to commit for a lifetime should be allowed to do so in all the same ways that heterosexual couples are.

I'm also aware that there are people who feel quite differently, and I'd really like to know why. I just don't get it.

I've heard the arguments - the Bible-based ones, the ones based on procreation, the historical/traditional ones, and none of them make any sense. We are living in the year 2011, things change. We now have female priests in the C of E, women can vote, men can be midwives and nurses - the world has moved on. Why is this so bad?

I also wouldn't care less if hetro marriages were re-named civil partnerships, wouldn't affect my relationship with DH in the slightest, wouldn't have changed my wedding day, I don't get people who think it would!

Agree with Trills.

Only dh or I (or both) could devalue our marriage.

Absolutely not- what Yama said, the only people who could devalue dh's and my marriage are dh and I.

Nope, not bothered at all.

I think to be fair to the C of E as things stand you cannot have a civil partnership ceremony performed in a church because apart from anything to do with sexuality, it is a secular rite. You can't have a civil wedding in a church either, just as you cannot have anything religious (prayers, hymns etc) at a civil wedding or civil partnership.

That said I think gay legal unions should be called marriage. I know a gay couple who are holding out for the possibility of proper marriage, rather than having a civil partnership.

Of course not.

I really hope Scottish legislation goes through. It's ridiculous that same sex couples can't have a civil marriage ceremony if they want one. I don't think churches should have a say about what happens with regards to civil ceremonies tbh.

www.equalmarriage.org.uk/ for any Scottish mnetters with an interest in contributing to the consultation.

No.

I hope gay marriage becomes a legal option.

agree with trills.

I read as far as '(same sex marriage) is not the same because they can't have children.'

As a woman who is infertile that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard - am I not properly married because I can't have a biological child!!

They sound like idiots, marriage is for people who live each other and want to commit their lives to each other, regardless of what sex they are. To suggest heterosexuals will feel 'less married' is ridiculous.

So in a nut shell, no, sorry for my rant! I also haven't read anyone elses posts so if I've ex-posted sorry!

'gays' is considered offensive btw...I don't think you were trying to offend though! Just pointing it out.

Of course we should be allowed to marry, call it marriage etc. I am civil partnered and that just sounds silly to say!...I am married in my eyes, but would like to call it that. Hopefully Scotland can pave the way.

Oh OK, I see I have missed the point, an exception seems to be being made so that civil partnerships can be held in religious premises but the C of E don't like it.

They have got it wrong.

No. Obvs.

No, why would it. Two people love each other and want to get married. I don't give two hoots what combination of genders they are.

I thought civil partnerships were the same as marriage, it's only on here I've learnt they're not. So to have a distinction seems pointless. I'm Catholic but as our church has a very openly gay resident singer it might be one of the few who would allow marriages between whoever wanted them. I live in hope!

No, of course not. IMO it's discrimination against gay people not allowing them to be married in the same way straight people are. Seriously what is the problem?

No, absolutely not.

bananamam I realise 'gays' is considered offensive by many - sorry, I'm Dutch by birth and we tend towards the very blunt. I've already apologised upthread but will do so again - I apologise for wording my post title poorly.

This is as outdated as saying that heterosexual couples who marry but doesn't want to have children are devaluing marriage.

My only comment would be that gay couples should come up with a different name for their partnerships just to divorce themselves from such an anachronistic institution as the church!

Nope. Not in the least.

Of course not, what a ridiculous idea !

Just to show my ignorance I thought a civil partnership meant a marriage outside a church until I actually got married.

I cannot see the point in any differentiation. 2 people are uniting due to their love for each other. That is all that matters.

What are the actual differences between 'married' and 'civil partnership'?

Personally I think someone getting married for the 3rd/4th/5th time devalues 'marriage' far more than a homosexual couple getting married could ever do.

It's a shame people think otherwise in this day & age.

I'm not married so I wouldn't be in a position to feel less married, I think gay people should have full marriage rights though.

I'd also like to see civil partnership extended to heterosexuals, marriage has so many centuries of unpleasant baggage attached to the concept, I'd like to be able to do something different and I'd much rather be a life partner than a wife.

I know two gay couples who've both been together well over 10 years, and I felt awful when I had to tell them I was getting divorced after 4 years and then remarried 2 years later. It's really not fair. They've put in the actual time and commitment, but can't get married, yet I can swan about marrying and divorcing as I please? Doesn't make sense.

Totally agree with trills - either everyone has a civil partnership, or everyone gets married.

Of course not.

I also would like to see civil partnerships available for all. I would much rather be civilly partnered than married (so long as it could be to DH, obv).