anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 I have no problem with them being allowed to marry by law provided hetrosexual couples are allowed civil patnerships. Do you agree with this? Presumably if this bill is passed a lot of them will want to marry in churches, so its the hypocrisy i have a problem with. Maybe you should ask your friends my question. Well we now have a bit of a mess. I'm all for equality so if non-gays see value in a civil partnership then they should be allowed. In my world gays and non-gays would have equal rights in civil marriage. Everyone would HAVE to get a civil marriage first and foremost, if they then wanted a religious blessing then that's up to them. Religious institutions could decide to whom they wanted to offer those blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Well we now have a bit of a mess. I'm all for equality so if non-gays see value in a civil partnership then they should be allowed. In my world gays and non-gays would have equal rights in civil marriage. Everyone would HAVE to get a civil marriage first and foremost, if they then wanted a religious blessing then that's up to them. Religious institutions could decide to whom they wanted to offer those blessing. Religious institutions should not have to make that decision, for a gay person to want the church to bless their wedding is hypocritical. In interest or equality that you are in favour of, do you agree that the bill should only be passed if one allowing hetros to have civil partnerships is also passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Religious institutions should not have to make that decision, for a gay person to want the church to bless their wedding is hypocritical. In interest or equality that you are in favour of, do you agree that the bill should only be passed if one allowing hetros to have civil partnerships is also passed? In an ideal world yes. Given the slipshod approach to policy displayed by this Government I think it's best to pass this current bill and the refine it afterwards to make it more fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 In an ideal world yes. Given the slipshod approach to policy displayed by this Government I think it's best to pass this current bill and the refine it afterwards to make it more fair. Not in an ideal world, in your world. You said earlier in your world gays and non gays have equal rights, so if non gays are not allowed civil partnerships then that is not equal rights and non gays will be being discrimated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 It's diet religion Turks, all the god stuff but only 1 calorie. Any religion that is influenced and changed by government, isn't really a religion at all. As most of them have been shaped by different governments over thousands of years, none are worth bothering about. It is just a way to control the people, always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Dont disagree with that Tokes and sums up the me first, selfish, arrogant way that society has become, everyone wanting their cake and eating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suomi Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 I'd go further with this and suggest that ALL marriages should be conducted as civil ceremonies and then, if people want it, they could have their marriages blessed in a religious establishment of their choice. Currently, all religious ceremonies, with the exception of those carried out in the Church of England, have to have a Registrar present in the same way as civil ceremonies do. The Church of England is excepted because it is the established church (I guess the same applies to the Church of Scotland, but I don't know that to be a fact). FWIW I think marriage should ALWAYS be a civil ceremony first followed by whatever is wanted. It is, after all, a contract first and foremost. Good point. This is how it works in Finland and it works well. We had the civil ceremony the day before our church blessing. Strangely, the Finnish Parliament oppose gay marriage, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Dont disagree with that Tokes and sums up the me first, selfish, arrogant way that society has become, everyone wanting their cake and eating it. Xfactor generation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 You miss the point. Adultery doesn't exist in civil partnerships. Under the existing law gay couples can only "marry" in a way that doesn't recognise that their union should be exclusive to each other. I don't think I missed the point. I may have not explained my point properly though... Lets assume we have a couple (sexual orientation irrelevant) that wish to make a commitment to each other. Lets assume they have a free choice between Marriage and a Civil Partnership. If the main difference is adultery is not punished in a civil partnership then what sort of couple is going to choose a civil partnership over a marriage? Those that would implies to me a likely attitude that would often be referred to when married as an 'open marriage' where there is a implied agreement on non-exclusivity. This then implies that if they were married they would be less likely to sue for divorce for adultery anyway. In which case they might as well be married anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Xfactor generation! X-Actly. I blame Simon Cowell for gay marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Strangely, the Finnish Parliament oppose gay marriage, though. I actually learned that from Eurovision. Who says Saturday night TV isn't educational? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 X-Actly. I blame Simon Cowell for gay marriages. Yeah, he should have gotten gay married years ago. What they need is a celeb to promote their cause. "Don't worry about what the Pope thinks, look at Ryland and his boyfriend, they are getting married and having a gayby." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 In answer to the OP I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 how do you know? I might have wanted a civil partnership but due to DISCRIMINATION i wasnt' allowed one. Have you asked your gay friends why they want the blessing of a religion that condemns them? Hang on, you've lost me. You've said you're married but now you want a civil partnership. Is this with another woman or another man? And since you've also said you've been DISCRIMINATED against, is this DISCRIMINATION against you personally or against you as a (presumed) heterosexual? Either way, who exactly DISCRIMINATED against you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Hang on, you've lost me. You've said you're married but now you want a civil partnership. Is this with another woman or another man? And since you've also said you've been DISCRIMINATED against, is this DISCRIMINATION against you personally or against you as a (presumed) heterosexual? Either way, who exactly DISCRIMINATED against you? Oh dear verbal, have you not taken your medication again? I said i wanted a civil partnership but i had to settle for marriage as i wasnt allowed one, as a hetrosexual male i was being discrimated against and i am not permitted to have one, oh to have the rights of homosexuals! Keep up Verbal, or up the dose, the choice is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 (edited) Religious institutions should not have to make that decision, for a gay person to want the church to bless their wedding is hypocritical. In interest or equality that you are in favour of, do you agree that the bill should only be passed if one allowing hetros to have civil partnerships is also passed? But weren't civil partnerships created to stop gays from getting married properly? Anyway, wether straight people should be able to get civil partnerships is a completely separate issue and shouldn't effect the gay marriage bill. Edited 22 May, 2013 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 But weren't civil partnerships created to stop gays from getting married properly? Anyway, wether straight people should be able to get civil partnerships is a completely separate issue and shouldn't effect the gay marriage bill. Yes it should. Gay people will have the choice to have a civil partnership or a marriage, heterosexuals don't have that choice, in the name of equality then heterosexuals should have the same choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 The simple solution is extend civil marriages to all, bin off civil partnerships and let religions do what they want on the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 The simple solution is extend civil marriages to all, bin off civil partnerships and let religions do what they want on the issue Nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Yes it should. Gay people will have the choice to have a civil partnership or a marriage, heterosexuals don't have that choice, in the name of equality then heterosexuals should have the same choice. I agree that everyone should have the same choice. A bill to change civil partnerships could be brought in after the marriage law, it is a separate issue. At the moment you are being discriminated against twice. If you wanted to marry a man you couldn't, if you wanted to have a civil partnership with a woman you couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Religious institutions should not have to make that decision, for a gay person to want the church to bless their wedding is hypocritical. In interest or equality that you are in favour of, do you agree that the bill should only be passed if one allowing hetros to have civil partnerships is also passed? Why is it hypocritical? Are gays not allowed to believe in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Oh dear verbal, have you not taken your medication again? I said i wanted a civil partnership but i had to settle for marriage as i wasnt allowed one, as a hetrosexual male i was being discrimated against and i am not permitted to have one, oh to have the rights of homosexuals! Keep up Verbal, or up the dose, the choice is yours. Would mrs Turkish have been happy with your wish to have a diluted form of "marriage" where you were not committing exclusively to each other? Seems an odd wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Why is it hypocritical? Are gays not allowed to believe in God? Apparently not. It would also seem that being gay is a decision that one makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Hands up who believes that Turkish really did want a civil union and not a marriage and isn't just saying that to bolster his argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Hands up who believes that Turkish really did want a civil union and not a marriage and isn't just saying that to bolster his argument? He's got a valid point though. Someone on Radio 4's Westminster hour said that they wouldn't extend civil partnerships to straight people because of the cost involved regarding pensions. They didn't expand on the point, does anyone know what the extra cost would be, I presume it'll be around your Civil partner getting a widows/widower pension, whereas a living in sin partnership doesn't qualify. She did make the point that civil partnerships would be attractive to straight couples who don't want or believe in marriage because of the financial benefits, can anyone shed any light on it? I do find it rather ironic that this is being pushed through as a equality issue, whilst denying Turkish his civil partnership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Yes but if gays were simply granted equal rights in the first place then civil unions would never have been invented. The Government have got themselves in a mess over this whole issue and should have presented a more complete bill that either did away with civil unions all together or extended them to non-gays. This botched job is a consequence of wanting to appear 'right on' to younger voters whilst trying to placate their swivel eyed loons in the Tory heartlands. On the other hand the Blair government's inability to push through proper equality in the first place belies their claim to have been a radical government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 She did make the point that civil partnerships would be attractive to straight couples who don't want or believe in marriage because of the financial benefits, can anyone shed any light on it? One aspect (I don't know if there are others) is that if a civil partnership is ended then neither party has a financial claim on the other. Obviously in a marriage one can claim for maintenance and a share of the other persons assets. I wish I had had that with my unwilling to work, unwilling to housekeep, unwilling to look after kids ex.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 One aspect (I don't know if there are others) is that if a civil partnership is ended then neither party has a financial claim on the other. Obviously in a marriage one can claim for maintenance and a share of the other persons assets. I wish I had had that with my unwilling to work, unwilling to housekeep, unwilling to look after kids ex.... That's wrong. The same financial claims can be made on dissolution of a civil partnership as for divorce. The only differences in the process is that it's called something different and has to be in specific courts. Gay people can't even get a "divorce" and have to go to specific courts. And yes, one is in Brighton. It's not hard in the 21st century to have the same marriage, divorce process and court system for gay and straight people alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 He's got a valid point though. Someone on Radio 4's Westminster hour said that they wouldn't extend civil partnerships to straight people because of the cost involved regarding pensions. They didn't expand on the point, does anyone know what the extra cost would be, I presume it'll be around your Civil partner getting a widows/widower pension, whereas a living in sin partnership doesn't qualify. She did make the point that civil partnerships would be attractive to straight couples who don't want or believe in marriage because of the financial benefits, can anyone shed any light on it? I do find it rather ironic that this is being pushed through as a equality issue, whilst denying Turkish his civil partnership. If civil partnership is to remain I don't see why it can't be opened up to straight people if gay people are to have the same marriage rights. However, why would anyone choose civil partnership over marriage? Would anyone really want to enter into an intended lifelong union that does not provide for exclusivity as per marriage? I would like to know Turks rationale, and how he would have sold the diluted form of "marriage" that is civil partnership to Mrs Turkish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 The civil partnership issue is a good one, it's not fair if it remains so. However, it is a side issue to the current debate which is allowing homosexuals access to the institution of marriage. We can deal with the civil partnership issue over the next year or two (if it is even still relevant) and I'm sure it would go through parliament very quickly given the absolutely not cynical support of it at all by tory backbenchers. I'm sure us ever persecuted heterosexuals can wait just another year or two for civil partnerships. Let's not get distracted here. Equal marriage has been a long time coming, and it would be a shame if it were derailed because of a point that can and will be dealt with afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 That's wrong. The same financial claims can be made on dissolution of a civil partnership as for divorce. The only differences in the process is that it's called something different and has to be in specific courts. Gay people can't even get a "divorce" and have to go to specific courts. And yes, one is in Brighton. It's not hard in the 21st century to have the same marriage, divorce process and court system for gay and straight people alike. Okay. Note to self, don't rely on the papers for info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 The simple solution is extend civil marriages to all, bin off civil partnerships and let religions do what they want on the issue What about those that are gay, in a civil partnership and happy with it and dont want to marry? Are you suggesting they be told that their partnership is worthless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Why is it hypocritical? Are gays not allowed to believe in God? Of course, but the bible and Quran forbids homosexuals, why do they want the blessing of a church that forbids them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Would mrs Turkish have been happy with your wish to have a diluted form of "marriage" where you were not committing exclusively to each other? Seems an odd wish. It was never as issue as disgracefully she never had that choice to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Apparently not. It would also seem that being gay is a decision that one makes. No, but you can chose your religion, why chose one that condemns your way of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 The civil partnership issue is a good one, it's not fair if it remains so. However, it is a side issue to the current debate which is allowing homosexuals access to the institution of marriage. We can deal with the civil partnership issue over the next year or two (if it is even still relevant) and I'm sure it would go through parliament very quickly given the absolutely not cynical support of it at all by tory backbenchers. I'm sure us ever persecuted heterosexuals can wait just another year or two for civil partnerships. Let's not get distracted here. Equal marriage has been a long time coming, and it would be a shame if it were derailed because of a point that can and will be dealt with afterwards. It is indeed a side issue, but an issue that as Peter Tatchell points out needs to be addressed. The way I understand it, the Loughton wrecking amendment that was pretending to resolve this issue was defeated and a Labour amendment that addresses the real issue accepted with a view to extending civil partnerships to heterosexuals in the not too distant future. As for why some heterosexuals desire a civil partnership, then it is claimed that for some they feel marriage has sexist and patriarchal traditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 It was never as issue as disgracefully she never had that choice to make. Nicely swerved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 No, but you can chose your religion, why chose one that condemns your way of life? Why should a gay person not have the same entitlement to follow a religion as a straight person? Your attitude to equality is all over the place Del. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Why should a gay person not have the same entitlement to follow a religion as a straight person? Your attitude to equality is all over the place Del. No it isn't, they can chose their religion as I said above, nothing to do with equality. The question was why would they chose to be part of a religon which condemns them in the book that region bases its faith on? Not difficult to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 No, but you can chose your religion, why chose one that condemns your way of life? christianity condemns the way of life of a lot of straight people who are quite readily accepted to get married in church. For example any Catholic who has already had sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 christianity condemns the way of life of a lot of straight people who are quite readily accepted to get married in church. For example any Catholic who has already had sex. And they are hypocrites as well. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 And they are hypocrites as well. What's your point? You can be a Christian and not live your life exactly how the bible says you should. Very few people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 You can be a Christian and not live your life exactly how the bible says you should. Very few people do. Why would you chose to be part of a religion that says you should die due to your way of life, would a Jew join the nazis?not only that but then want that religion to bless the very thing it condemns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 No it isn't, they can chose their religion as I said above, nothing to do with equality. The question was why would they chose to be part of a religon which condemns them in the book that region bases its faith on? Not difficult to understand. On that basis everyone who steals, commits adultery or a biblical sin would be precluded from following a religion and/or having a proper marriage. Or is it just gay men that you say should be singled out? Del, we'll never agree on this. Call me a soppy liberal but i think that everyone should be able to follow whatever religion they believe (not you or anyone else) suits them. They should also be able to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 On that basis everyone who steals, commits adultery or a biblical sin would be precluded from following a religion and/or having a proper marriage. Or is it just gay men that you say should be singled out? Del, we'll never agree on this. Call me a soppy liberal but i think that everyone should be able to follow whatever religion they believe (not you or anyone else) suits them. They should also be able to marry. Read post 91. I believe the Quaran and bible actually say homosexuality is punishable by death, so why would you want to be a member of a religion that states that? Why would you want it to bless your marriage when the book that passages of scripture that will be read at your ceremony also states you should die for your sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Read post 91. I believe the Quaran and bible actually say homosexuality is punishable by death, so why would you want to be a member of a religion that states that? Why would you want it to bless your marriage when the book that passages of scripture that will be read at your ceremony also states you should die for your sexuality. You sure that's what the bible says? Regardless, I'd hazard a guess that in 21st century the church probably won't actually kill a gay person. I might be wrong though. If I was gay and believed in the virtues of Christianity I'd probably like the opportunity to pursue that religion. I'd be reasonably confident of the faith not killing me, and would be comforted by the fact that adulterors and thieves are allowed in the church and that some of them may even have been allowed to get married. The bottom line is its not for anyone to question why anyone should choose to do something. It's about that individual being able to make a decision the same as you, me or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 Dumb Turks, Christians can do what they want as long as the remember to say sorry before they die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 22 May, 2013 Share Posted 22 May, 2013 You sure that's what the bible says? Regardless, I'd hazard a guess that in 21st century the church probably won't actually kill a gay person. I might be wrong though. If I was gay and believed in the virtues of Christianity I'd probably like the opportunity to pursue that religion. I'd be reasonably confident of the faith not killing me, and would be comforted by the fact that adulterors and thieves are allowed in the church and that some of them may even have been allowed to get married. The bottom line is its not for anyone to question why anyone should choose to do something. It's about that individual being able to make a decision the same as you, me or anyone else. Except of course I can't make the decision to have. Civil partnership...... Anyway, of course you'd be confident that as a gay Christian you wouldn't be killed for it, however I find it very odd that a gay person would seek the blessing on a gay wedding by a relgion whose book their faith is based on condemns their sexuality, very odd indeed. It's be like a Jew wanting to become a Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Except of course I can't make the decision to have. Civil partnership...... Anyway, of course you'd be confident that as a gay Christian you wouldn't be killed for it, however I find it very odd that a gay person would seek the blessing on a gay wedding by a relgion whose book their faith is based on condemns their sexuality, very odd indeed. It's be like a Jew wanting to become a Nazi. I understand your opinion about someone else's right to choose for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 That's the whole problem with religion isn't it, the rules. Who made them up? When I ask the door knockers they say "they are the word of god", so not the Romans I reply. They then tell me that god came down from heaven and put those words into mans head and man put them into a book. This book is now the rule book, we have to follow these rules or we are going to go to hell forever. That's a long time I think. If these rules are the word or god, rightly or wrongly if you want to follow that religion to avoid hell or whatever, you should follow those rules right? That's all fine but what happens if we change the rules like now? Government "you have to change your rule book as some of the rules are homophobic" Church "but dems the word of god!" government "I don't care, this is the 21st century ya know, change some of the rules"... Does this mean that god has come down from heaven and is now instructing the government to change the word of god as god has changed his mind? What if it's the devil that is doing all this stuff, god is furious but he is busy saving people's dogs from tornados as he has a back log of prayers (peoples wish lists) as long as my knob? I get what egg is saying, it's like being a catholic and wearing a condom. It's their right to choose the bits of the religion they like and pretend the other rules don't exist. Sort it out with St Peter at the gates and try and blag your way in as you followed most if the other rules. However egg, don't you see what Turks is saying? Even a little bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now