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?

Apart from in name, what are the key points of difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership? I thought they had the same rights.

Can someone fill me in on what's missing, please?

Name and sex is all I can see that's different. You're still legally tied to one person, still need to legally dissolve it before you can become CP'd to someone else, still have all the inheritance rights.

I had heard before it became legal that it wouldn't just be a romantic partnership (for want of a better word) but that they'd allow it for, for example, two sisters who'd lived together their whole lives and owned their home etc together so that their half would be protected should the other die but I've not seen any evidence of that since it came in.

I live in Canada now where same sex marriage is allowed and Ive not heard anyone raising it as an issue. My friend at work refers to her wife and we all know what that means. Partner on the other hand can mean a variety of things, depending on the context some of which have very little to do with love. I think that marriage ceased to be used as a religious only term some time ago.

I knew there were certain things that civil patnership didn't cover but I don't know what they are. I had assumed it was more or less the same as marriage.

I've never been married but my sis has been married to her female partner for several years. I call it married. They are married, they are very happy and committed for life, isn't that the main thing?

I hope that they will one day be allowed equal status with heterosexual couples. It makes me very sad that they are not.

Nooka, most people call their civil partner their husband/ wife.

I found a difference! If you become CP with a sir you don't get the title his wife would have got. I think the difference ceremony wise is they don't get a choice about having it religious or none religious, they have to have the civil service.

What really devalues my marriage is this idea that it seems to matter most to those with whom I most strongly disagree: bigots!

If marriage between a man and a woman is all about excluding everyone else, It really makes me regret having entered one in the first place.

It would make me feel my marriage was valued more. I married my DH because I loved him, that was all. Refusing to allow same sex marriage devalues marriage as a whole, as it brings it down to some sort of breeding partnership and takes the romance out of it.

Yes couldn't agree more.
I wanted to get married (DH was pretty ambivalent but happily 'doesn't mind') but it was more the personal bond than the public one that I was interested in.
I've had many quite horrible conversations with frothy pro-marriage types about how marriage shores up public decency or demonstrates your responsible adult status to The World. Well I don't care what the world thinks, and it's demonstrably bollocks anyway that it's somehow more decent or more responsible to be married.
We always joked that if civil partnerships were available to all, we'd divorce and get ourselves one of those instead. (Doesn't go down well, usually, that one.)

One thing a homosexual friend pointed out to me was that by having civil partnerships for homosexuals only, and marriage (even civil marriages) for straight couples only, the government has in effect created a list of who is gay and who is straight.

NO! My neighbours son was gay. He and his partner were ( even to the eyes of a small child who simply saw them as good friends) very fond and supportive of each other. I've no idea exactly how long they were together as his mum died, but well over 15 years.
I've known marriages that have lasted 8 months.

Can't help sorry. I wouldn't feel any different about my marriage.

"in all seriousness, i've never understood why this has been such a big deal to the american right-wingers, i was astounded a few years ago when i realised it was a deal breaker for some voters, whether their candidate supported it or not"

me too, especially because large parts of the American right are liberal in the traditional sense (i.e. the government should only infringe on a persons autonomy to stop them infringing on anothers rights) and as such logically they should support an ideal system which basically allows citizens to do what they want as long as they don't affect another negatively. However they seem to have their own brand of crack-pot logic which goes against this.

The only caviat I would have is that if you want to be married in the eyes of God and that's what you believe, the civil service would have no meaning, so leave it as it is.

If you aren't bothered about the religious element then have a civil ceremony in a registry office.

If gay people want to have the religious element and therefore have a marriage than "just" a civil ceremony then that's fine too BUT no church, priest, man of the cloth or whatever you want to call them should ever ever be sued if they refuse as it is against their believes.

This is an area where I believe both gay people and the church should find a way to live and let live.

No.

More power to them.

"gays" are we a separate breed now?

Ah okay then

Brandy I don't understand why a person would want to be a part of a church that preaches sex outside of marriage is a sin but fights against gay marriage. The Catholic church for example teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin for gay people and heterosexuals, I kind of liked sex outside of marriage so I left them to it.

If I wanted to worship a God I'd find a chuch that was a bit more relaxed about sexuality. If I wanted to stay in the faith and change their thinking (thinks of heads bashing brick walls at this stage) then I might look to it's internal mechanisms to canvass for change. Personally I didn't care enough so I walked away.

I was happy the church was happy I carried on as I liked and the church carried on as it likes. That to me is living and let living.

EQual but different in my view if the church want to let them them good if they don't then it's up to them every club has rules not sure why any one would want to marry in a club that excludes and vilifies them.

I am black I don't want to join the bmp and I don't need their blessing

If you gay you can get married all be it being called something else why do you need the church

No

I think the distinction between "marriage" & "civil partnership" is unnecessary - surely a register office wedding (of a hetero couple) is a civil partnership?

what I do find weird is that some hetero couples feel deprived because they want a 'civil partnership' & can't have one