Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
I Don't Understand..
99 Answers
Can somebody tell me, what is the differene between a civil partnership, and a gay marriage? I thought the original thinking behind a CP was to allow the transfer of property to another (eg council property tennancy if one on lease died), they can already adopt children, call yourself by any name as long as it isnt to defraud - so what's the big hoo-haarr over 'marrige'
Answers
It's the word 'marriage.' They want to be able to say they're married, because straight couples can, and currently they can't. The big hoo-hah has come about because the church thinks that marriage is a religious concept distinct from any kind civil arrangement created by the state. This means they get to define what it means, and they currently define it as a...
08:32 Mon 20th May 2013
I don't understand why it's up to anyone other than the two people concerned who gets married. Why should a straight person get to decide if a gay person can marry and kick up such a fuss that they prevent it? how primitive of them. If gay people are allowed to marry then it doesn't take anything away from the straight people who are married, it doesn't make them somehow less married, it just allows gay people equality in this area, and I don't see the ability to produce children ' naturally' has anything to do with it.
It's the word 'marriage.' They want to be able to say they're married, because straight couples can, and currently they can't.
The big hoo-hah has come about because the church thinks that marriage is a religious concept distinct from any kind civil arrangement created by the state.
This means they get to define what it means, and they currently define it as a union between a man and a woman.
The govts attempts to introduce gay marriage are therefore seen as state interference and an attempt to control an institution that is owned by the church.
The big hoo-hah has come about because the church thinks that marriage is a religious concept distinct from any kind civil arrangement created by the state.
This means they get to define what it means, and they currently define it as a union between a man and a woman.
The govts attempts to introduce gay marriage are therefore seen as state interference and an attempt to control an institution that is owned by the church.
How nice, Sharingan, to refer to those who oppose this as "primitive".
I don't think it is primitive at all to do so. This may be the right change for Society as a whole. But Society has been brought up, perhaps wrongly, with an idea of marriage as a particular type of bond. Attitudes rooted so deeply aren't going to change overnight. Redefining marriage isn't just about scribbling over the old definition in a dictionary either, and there will be inevitable legal consequences. In turn, these do affect how current marriages are seen under the law -- in laws surrounding custody in divorce, for example, "mother" and "father" will likely have to be changed to "parents one and two". So legal recognition of well-established roles changes.
The change will perhaps, in 50 years' time, not make anyone beat an eyelid. But here and now, it does matter, and that should be respected and not brushed aside as either bigoted or primitive.
I don't think it is primitive at all to do so. This may be the right change for Society as a whole. But Society has been brought up, perhaps wrongly, with an idea of marriage as a particular type of bond. Attitudes rooted so deeply aren't going to change overnight. Redefining marriage isn't just about scribbling over the old definition in a dictionary either, and there will be inevitable legal consequences. In turn, these do affect how current marriages are seen under the law -- in laws surrounding custody in divorce, for example, "mother" and "father" will likely have to be changed to "parents one and two". So legal recognition of well-established roles changes.
The change will perhaps, in 50 years' time, not make anyone beat an eyelid. But here and now, it does matter, and that should be respected and not brushed aside as either bigoted or primitive.
//If gay people are allowed to marry then it doesn't take anything away from the straight people.....//
that's true enough, but it will of itself create an inequality, because heteros are not entitled to civil partnerships. this has been Peter Tatchell's argument all along - there has to be true equality.
that's true enough, but it will of itself create an inequality, because heteros are not entitled to civil partnerships. this has been Peter Tatchell's argument all along - there has to be true equality.
Thanks for that Ludwig, that explains a lot. So if the church accept it they will be seen to be being hypocritical so that's where the fight comes in I assume. So to marry in a register office would be fine but the in church according to them is a no-no. As I say I don't have any problems with the marriage bit, just the equality as far as my interpretation of marriage goes.
The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is that if a gay couple enter a civil partnership today, they are only entitled to each other's pension benefits from the date that civil partnerships entered the statute books - December 2005.
All contributions made up until that point are effectively null and void.
If a heterosexual couple get married today, they enjoy all pensionable benefit contributions of their partner.
So, you could have a gay couple who have been together for 50 years, but the state will only recognise them as being together for the past eight years.
That's the difference.
Bit nasty if you ask me.
All contributions made up until that point are effectively null and void.
If a heterosexual couple get married today, they enjoy all pensionable benefit contributions of their partner.
So, you could have a gay couple who have been together for 50 years, but the state will only recognise them as being together for the past eight years.
That's the difference.
Bit nasty if you ask me.
