Gay marriage - 'shameful'?

[Halibut 12]

As I said above, so are couples in a Civil Partnership. Nobody would call them anything but married.

 

The debate truly serves no purpose but to satisfy the opponents of equality. The rights are already won.

 

No they aren't. Gay people can't get married. It's unequal. It's disallowing gay couples the same freedom as straight ones.

[quisquose 10]

What is the difference between a Civil Partnership and a Marriage, then? Everything I have read indicates that there is no difference in the legal rights of the partners.

 

What's the difference between sitting at the front of the bus and the back of the bus, then? I'm sure the seats at the back are just as comfy.

[Womerry2 10]

Which brings about the question, why have a separate legal term for same sex marriage?

 

To make it quite clear to the more regressive churches that this is a matter entirely outside their jurisdiction?

[RootsBooster 24]

To make it quite clear to the more regressive churches that this is a matter entirely outside their jurisdiction?

 

How does it do that?

[Womerry2 10]

What's the difference between sitting at the front of the bus and the back of the bus, then? I'm sure the seats at the back are just as comfy.

 

I refer you to my previous repsone regarding the KKK.

[Womerry2 10]

No they aren't. Gay people can't get married. It's unequal. It's disallowing gay couples the same freedom as straight ones.

 

You enter a Civil Partnership, giving you the same legal rights and legal status as a heterosexual marriage. Then you are married. Which particular freedom are we missing here?

[quisquose 10]

I refer you to my previous repsone regarding the KKK.

 

Which doesn't make sense as a reply.

[Womerry2 10]

How does it do that?

 

By conveying, in a civil (i. e. non-religious) ceremony, the same legal status on the partners to the marriage as was previously only available to heretosexual couples.

 

How is that anything but a good thing?

[RootsBooster 24]

By conveying, in a civil (i. e. non-religious) ceremony, the same legal status on the partners to the marriage as was previously only available to heretosexual couples.

 

How is that anything but a good thing?

 

I refer you to my previous post at #227

[Suffragette1 10]

As I said above, so are couples in a Civil Partnership. Nobody would call them anything but married.

 

The debate truly serves no purpose but to satisfy the opponents of equality. The rights are already won.

 

No they haven't. It's the same as saying you go and sit at the back of the bus, as far as I'm concerned.

[Womerry2 10]

Which doesn't make sense as a reply.

 

The comparison to civil rights based on skin colour simply does not stand up in this case. The civil partnership gives THE SAME legal status as a conventional marriage, the sole difference being the absence of a religious blessing - so insisting that this is somehow a gross injustice is, as I said before, akin to claiming that blacks will only achieve true equality if invited to join the KKK. There are some faith groups who feel the need to comment, at length, on homosexuality. Why would we still listen, when their opinion is utterly irrelevant now that we have a system that gives equal rights? Why continue the debate with the bigots?

[Suffragette1 10]

By conveying, in a civil (i. e. non-religious) ceremony, the same legal status on the partners to the marriage as was previously only available to heretosexual couples.

 

How is that anything but a good thing?

 

The term 'civil partnership' is so clinical for a start. The term 'marriage' conveys a completely different meaning. And before anyone starts with the 'marriage is a union between man and woman within which to bring children' etc, then perhaps we should disqualify couples who a) can't have children b) do not want them or c) those who are too old to have children naturally.