egg

Oh dear. You don't get it. Yes, unreasonable behaviour is a way out. The point is that there should be equality. The fundamental problem is that adultery, as a concept, doesn't apply in civil partnerships. Its absence is at the insiste of the church who felt that exclusivity should only apply to straight couples. Again, there should be equality. The dissolution point isn't lost on me. I'm a divorce lawyer. My gay clients should be able to divorce in the same way and in the same court as my straight clients.

Clearly you think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights and status as straight people. We'll agree to differ on that.

Because they are different. If the husband cheats in a marriage his wife can divorce on the fact of adultery. If one party cheats in a civil partnership there is no right to seek dissolution on adultery. Additionally, the two things have different names in law. The "divorce" is only called that for straight couples and not all courts are accessible to gay couples. All couples should have the same treatment, to include getting married in a church if they want.

See my threads above. The relevant question is "why not" rather tha"why". It's a simple position of equality of status and equality of choice.

The question was to Turkish who has ducked questions and valid points. The point is about choice. Gay people should have the same choices as straight people. If they want to get "married" in a setting that doesn't support them then they should have that choice. On the flip side, many people get married in a church but have no religious beliefs and/or do not practice any. It's a choice.

You still won't answer what he says! Do you agree that gay people should be allowed to marry with the blessing of their faith? It's a yes or no.

That's one point. But why not allow gay people to actually get married?

Just answer one question. Why should gay couples not be afforded the ability to have the same "marital" status as straight couple. Please don't respond with a question.

Just assume he's correct, then respond.

Silly answer to a good post. Why not respond to the points he makes.

Why not? Why discriminate?

But why hijack a thread about a particular type of equality with a wish to discuss the wider issue of mulitcultualism generally? If a person recognises the right to freedom of religion, for example, it does not follow that they support gay marriage in its' true form and/or in a religious setting. People have differing views on different issues. Religious education and attitude to gay marriages do not overlap.

They already have, hence gay couples cannot marry and have the same standing as straight couples. The current debate (well it should be but it has been hijacked) is whether civil [partnership ceremonies should be allowed to take place in a church.

I take your point. My daughter goes to a CoE school where she is educated about all religions to include Judaism and Islam and yes it's positive that a "church school" is positive about all religions.

I think her point was that religion is not based on facts. A debate about religion in schools is surely a separate debate to gay marriage or civil partnership in church. I think a fundamental point that many overlook is that we don't actually have gay marriage, we have something with a different name and a slightly different legal basis. I think the relevant discussion is whether it is right that gay couples are treated differently to straight couples in terms of marriage.

Either is fine. Runflats are horrible and ruin the ride. Just ditched them on my wifes mini. Half the price and twice the ride. Put the savings to a can of tyreweld and the jobs a good un.

We will never have proper gay marriage, whether in church or registry office. The church have always objected to "exclusive" same sex relationships hence we have civil partnership where there is no exclusivity and no ability to 'divorce' on the basis of adultery. I think that civil partnerships in their current form will be administered in church. Personally I think the pandering to the church is a nonsense. The marriage act should have been amended to allow for proper marriage between two adults regardless of gender and to be able to marry wherever.

That's for one kid. Some people have more. We ain't in china.

Did you stop to think that perhaps it was because they might be affected, or just presume that they were sick and greedy?

Bless you. Nobody is crying on here. Sadly some people will be hit very hard by this. You clearly don't get that income doesn't always equate to disposable income.

So happy to preach on for cuts to be made but will take tax out of the system.

Why not now? If you feel there's an acceptable threshold to lose one well established, non means tested state payment, you presumably feel that there is an acceptable threshold to lose another?

It's a long established non means tested benefit. Should we take the state pension away from those with decent pensions?

Adjust your mortgage? Your number of kids? Your 3 year loan? Your 3 year car finance?

What DPS said.