UKIP candid Geoffrey Clark calls for disabled foetuses to be aborted

[aliceBB 10]

No. But accurate reading and clarity of thought are pre-requistes for successful lawyers (and politicians). You need to stop thrashing about so much, and focus.

 

Read what I wrote agin. Engage your brain and try to give a sensible reply.

 

Perhaps you could entertain us all by explaining why your party opposes gay marriage.

 

I agree completely, but you are on a hiding to nothing. Despite their legal training, some legally qualified people are averse to debate, preferring merely to deny the validity of ideas/facts which they don't believe, and simply asserting their own opinions/version of reality, as though the latter are the incontravertible truth. Reasoning and explaining don't enter into it!

Edited January 3, 2013 by aliceBB

[Eater Sundae 12]

In what way is not getting married a disadvantage?

 

When in a hole, stop digging.

[maxmaximus 10]

When in a hole, stop digging.

 

You can't think of any disadvantages then and in the absence of a disadvantage there is no discrimination.

[Eater Sundae 12]

You can't think of any disadvantages then and in the absence of a disadvantage there is no discrimination.

 

Of course there's a disadvantage. If a gay couple wish to get married, they cannot, whereas a heterosexual couple can. Ergo, the gay couple are disadvantaged. They are suffering discriminaton. Pretty simple, really.

[Guest sibon]

Of course there's a disadvantage. If a gay couple wish to get married, they cannot, whereas a heterosexual couple can. Ergo, the gay couple are disadvantaged. They are suffering discriminaton. Pretty simple, really.

 

I'd leave it if I were you. Max is simply trolling. There is no other explanation for the content of his eight posts on this thread.

 

I did think that he was the reincarnation of Mr Smith, but Smithy occasionally had some intelligent things to say, so I'm probably wrong.

[Plain Talker 11]

Of course there's a disadvantage. If a gay couple wish to get married, they cannot, whereas a heterosexual couple can. Ergo, the gay couple are disadvantaged. They are suffering discriminaton. Pretty simple, really.

 

There's even more to this than the "marriage" thing, where gay couples are discriminated against.

 

For example, a gay person may have been estranged from their birth family for forty years or more, yet that person's estranged family can be given more entitlement over the decision whether their life-support system can be switched off, or how their estate is to be divided up, than their partner has even if they have been together for thirty or forty years.

 

Without a Marriage (or "civil partnership", whatever you choose to call it) there are no rights for the partner.

 

That is just out of order, in the extreme.

[maxmaximus 10]

There's even more to this than the "marriage" thing, where gay couples are discriminated against.

 

For example, a gay person may have been estranged from their birth family for forty years or more, yet that person's estranged family can be given more entitlement over the decision whether their life-support system can be switched off, or how their estate is to be divided up, than their partner has even if they have been together for thirty or forty years.

 

Without a Marriage (or "civil partnership", whatever you choose to call it) there are no rights for the partner.

 

That is just out of order, in the extreme.

 

But under the current rules a civil partnership solves that problem so there's no disadvantage.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2013 at 07:19 ----------

 

Of course there's a disadvantage. If a gay couple wish to get married, they cannot, whereas a heterosexual couple can. Ergo, the gay couple are disadvantaged. They are suffering discriminaton. Pretty simple, really.

 

And yet you have still failed to explain the disadvantage and how it is discrimination. Just stating it doesn’t make it so.

 

Marriage is just a ward and a civil partnership gives them the same rights as being married so there is no disadvantage and no discrimination.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2013 at 07:25 ----------

 

I'd leave it if I were you. Max is simply trolling. There is no other explanation for the content of his eight posts on this thread.

 

I did think that he was the reincarnation of Mr Smith, but Smithy occasionally had some intelligent things to say, so I'm probably wrong.

 

Your post is off topic and a personal attack of another member which falls within the definition of trolling and is against forum rules.

 

This is a discussion and I'm simply asking why some people think its discrimination just because gay people can't marry each other when a civil partnership gives them the same rights as being married, so they are not being disadvantaged, and if there is no disadvantage there is no discrimination.

[aliceBB 10]

 

This is a discussion and I'm simply asking why some people think its discrimination just because gay people can't marry each other when a civil partnership gives them the same rights as being married, so they are not being disadvantaged, and if there is no disadvantage there is no discrimination.

 

A civil partnership is not the same as a marriage. For one thing, you cannot have a civil partnership in a church of England (and many other places of worship), whereas a straight couple can insist on a church marriage, even if they have no faith whatsoever.

 

The discrimination is against gay couples who wish to have a religious service to sanctify their union.

[maxmaximus 10]

A civil partnership is not the same as a marriage. For one thing, you cannot have a civil partnership in a church of England (and many other places of worship), whereas a straight couple can insist on a church marriage, even if they have no faith whatsoever.

 

The discrimination is against gay couples who wish to have a religious service to sanctify their union.

 

Yes they can, but rightly there is no law to compell a church to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

 

Same-sex couples are to be allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other places of worship in England and Wales. 2 November 2011

 

Gay couples to be allowed civil ceremonies in church 01 Nov 2011

 

Gay couple become first in Britain to hold civil partnership ceremony in a church. 19 July 2012

 

 

A civil partnership is, in effect, a legal marriage between two people of the same sex. Although there are differences between a marriage and a civil partnership, a couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple.

 

This is because it would clearly be prejudicial and discriminatory if individuals of different sexes could marry and have more legal rights and protection than two people of the same sex who entered a civil partnership.

 

At present, when a heterosexual couple gives notice of their intention to marry, their details, including names, occupations and addresses are made public, as the marriage register is a public document. When drafting the civil partnership act the Government recognised that there could be a risk of harassment for some lesbian and gay couples if their sexual orientation were made public. Because of this addresses are not published to protect people’s privacy.

Edited January 6, 2013 by maxmaximus

[aliceBB 10]

Yes they can, but rightly there is no law to compell a church to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

In your opinion!

 

Same-sex couples are to be allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other places of worship in England and Wales. 2 November 2011

Yes, but they cannot be, and will not be allowed to be, conducted in the Church of England, whereas anyone who is marrying someone of the opposite sex has a legal right to be married by the C of E, (because it is effectively a machine of the state). Some would see that as discriminatory.

 

In practice, couples (of any orientation) will probably choose to marry where they feel welcome/accepted rather than where they do not. Thise with faith will probably seek out a church which doesn't discriminate against them.

 

For the C of E (or synagogues, or mosques) to refuse to marry them is however a form of discrimination, even if their legal rights in a civil partnership are equivalent to those of married couples. The salient point is surely whether and to what extent that discrimination affects their lives.

 

Some would argue, not a lot. I am not gay so I don't know.

Edited January 6, 2013 by aliceBB

[maxmaximus 10]

In your opinion!

 

Yes, but they cannot be, and will not be allowed to be, conducted in the Church of England, whereas anyone who is marrying someone of the opposite sex has a legal right to be married by the C of E, (because it is effectively a machine of the state). Some would see that as discriminatory.

 

In practice, couples (of any orientation) will probably choose to marry where they feel welcome/accepted rather than where they do not. Thise with faith will probably seek out a church which doesn't discriminate against them.

 

For the C of E (or synagogues, or mosques) to refuse to marry them is however a form of discrimination, even if their legal rights in a civil partnership are equivalent to those of married couples. The salient point is surely whether and to what extent that discrimination affects their lives.

 

Some would argue, not a lot. I am not gay so I don't know.

 

Yes it my opinion and is based on free will, why do you think the C of E should be forced to marry gay couples? And in what why is does it disadvantage gay couples if the church won’t marry them?

[retep 68]

Why not start their own church if they aren't happy with the rules of others.