Crosswords0 min ago
Same sex wedding reforms.
96 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ficial-documents.html
Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.
Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?
Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.
Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
International implications? It is open to any country to refuse to acknowledge the validity of any marriage entered into in any other country (subject to any treaty obligations). The word 'marriage' has no significance in itself, however it's translated.. This question arises in Britain from time to time, generally when couples wish to divorce here having been married abroad.
Indeed, it appears to be the case in the US that , since gay marriage is only performed in a few states, under the state's own law and not under a national, federal law, it is not recognised by any other state unless that state has a provision in its own code providing for the recognition of a gay marriage performed elsewhere in the country.
Indeed, it appears to be the case in the US that , since gay marriage is only performed in a few states, under the state's own law and not under a national, federal law, it is not recognised by any other state unless that state has a provision in its own code providing for the recognition of a gay marriage performed elsewhere in the country.
All those who don't seem concerned about the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs disappearing into the realms of history, seem to be the ones who would not show concern for the words England or English disappearing.
But as usual one cannot be in opposition without being called the usual derogative terms in this case 'homophobic', and accusations such as this "that gay people are some kind of sub-species bubbles under the surface".
There are many who have nothing against gays per se or to them taking part in civil partnerships, these could take place in their place of worship if they are religious, nothing against that.
But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years.
Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements?
But as usual one cannot be in opposition without being called the usual derogative terms in this case 'homophobic', and accusations such as this "that gay people are some kind of sub-species bubbles under the surface".
There are many who have nothing against gays per se or to them taking part in civil partnerships, these could take place in their place of worship if they are religious, nothing against that.
But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years.
Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements?
<<All those who don't seem concerned about the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs disappearing into the realms of history>>
There is absolutely no reason why those words would disappear. Why do you think they would?
<<But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years.>>
Religion has appropriated the term marriage......people were getting married in different combinations long before the Abrahamic faiths were designed.
<<Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements? >>
Again, why do you think these terms will disappear?
There is absolutely no reason why those words would disappear. Why do you think they would?
<<But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years.>>
Religion has appropriated the term marriage......people were getting married in different combinations long before the Abrahamic faiths were designed.
<<Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements? >>
Again, why do you think these terms will disappear?
In all honesty, whether it 'works' for you or not is a moot point.......
We haven't decided what we'll do afterwards. Although, I rather suspect that we'll each keep our names exactly as they are and simply use 'Mrs'.
And when anyone enquires (whether on a form or verbally) what my marital status is I can answer "married".
I can't speak for every couple, of course, and they will come to their own accommodations as to what to do with this knotty issue.
We haven't decided what we'll do afterwards. Although, I rather suspect that we'll each keep our names exactly as they are and simply use 'Mrs'.
And when anyone enquires (whether on a form or verbally) what my marital status is I can answer "married".
I can't speak for every couple, of course, and they will come to their own accommodations as to what to do with this knotty issue.
People are assuming something that isn't true, and has been promoted by certain sections of the media.
Men will always call their spouses 'wives' and women will always call their spouses 'husband'.
There are changes that are due to be made to accommodate same sex couples in legal documents and so forth. This will have zero effect on the majority.
Please remember, this isn't going to affect you. But perhaps, there's a third way - where a man and woman are to be wed, documents should refer to 'husband and wife' and where it's two men or two women, it should refer to 'Spouse1 and Spouse2'.
Also - please remember...those in favour of extending marriage to gay people are now in the majority.
...both in polls by the Telegraph and the Times.
Men will always call their spouses 'wives' and women will always call their spouses 'husband'.
There are changes that are due to be made to accommodate same sex couples in legal documents and so forth. This will have zero effect on the majority.
Please remember, this isn't going to affect you. But perhaps, there's a third way - where a man and woman are to be wed, documents should refer to 'husband and wife' and where it's two men or two women, it should refer to 'Spouse1 and Spouse2'.
Also - please remember...those in favour of extending marriage to gay people are now in the majority.
...both in polls by the Telegraph and the Times.
http://www.dailymail....-bigots-liberals.html
This article by Simon Heffer, says it all.
/// The slur ‘homophobic’ is designed, like ‘racist’, to shut down any argument — in other words, to censor debate. ///
/// I can find no evidence that the majority of people support same-sex marriages. My homosexual friends tell me that many of them are opposed to the planned law change, for much the same reasons as I am. One told me he thought they were ‘silly’, ‘patronising’ and ‘just designed to make a political point’. ///
/// Therefore the majority of people — mostly silent — are being asked to accept a policy advocated by a minority, but which would have a serious effect on the nature of marriage. ///
This article by Simon Heffer, says it all.
/// The slur ‘homophobic’ is designed, like ‘racist’, to shut down any argument — in other words, to censor debate. ///
/// I can find no evidence that the majority of people support same-sex marriages. My homosexual friends tell me that many of them are opposed to the planned law change, for much the same reasons as I am. One told me he thought they were ‘silly’, ‘patronising’ and ‘just designed to make a political point’. ///
/// Therefore the majority of people — mostly silent — are being asked to accept a policy advocated by a minority, but which would have a serious effect on the nature of marriage. ///
AOG
Check out the latest polls in the Telegraph and the Times.
45% in favour
36% opposed
Those who are against the equalisation of marriage laws try to claim that it's 'gay activists' who are trying to force the issue.
Well, that's not true. Look at the figures - nearly half the population are in favour of gay marriage.
And as we're talking about civil marriages, why are we paying so much attention to what the Church has to say?
Check out the latest polls in the Telegraph and the Times.
45% in favour
36% opposed
Those who are against the equalisation of marriage laws try to claim that it's 'gay activists' who are trying to force the issue.
Well, that's not true. Look at the figures - nearly half the population are in favour of gay marriage.
And as we're talking about civil marriages, why are we paying so much attention to what the Church has to say?
" Since marriage as an institution was adopted by various religions long before governments became involved with it as a legal formality it should be largely for them to decide whether they want their institution changed so radically. "
Unfortunately, it's not that simple given that the Church of England is part of the state...
There's also the fact that the current set of laws actually prohibits churches like Unitarians and some Anglicans who are completely in favour of gay marriage from carrying it out. I'd actually agree that no church should be forced to carry out gay marriages (what'd be the point?), but legalizing gay marriage is a necessary prerequisite to allowing the various churches to sort it out for themselves. Parliament would not have to 'waste its time' on the issue if the established set of laws were not so inadequate for allowing that to happen.
AOG:
"
But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years. "
It's about participation - let me explain: Marriage, as you say, is a very old cultural institution which is highly valued in this country. It is so old, in fact, that it pre-dates a time when what are today called gay relationships were recognised as being valid (or even existing). All that gay people are currently asking is the ability to participate in an established cultural ritual precisely because they value it and, just like everyone else, they see it as important. Most married couples (including yourself, I'm assuming?) don't really have any objection to allowing gay couples the right to participate, and there are some faith organisations which are quite happy to perform it, so why not? If gay couples were out to destroy marriage as an institution, they wouldn't seek to participate in it.
As for the minority-majority argument, as was demonstrated to you earlier by sp, there is not much evidence that the majority are actually opposed to these measures - if anything, they seem to be in favour or at least acquiescent. Further, the reason these laws need to be changed is that they do put a minority on an unequal footing - gay couples who wish to get married, and faith organisations who wish to marry them are actually barred from doing so. Given that everyone seems to agree that there's no real reason why that should be so, why shouldn't the govt change it?
"Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements?"
You are talking about the presence of the words on forms - which is purely an administrative convenience. If you accept the argument I've outlined above, it doesn't make any sense to have a convoluted system particular forms for particular couples and instead just to adopt gender-neutral terminology. It's nothing more than an administrative convenience. This is not the same thing as the word disappearing from society, not by a long shot. And I think you know that full well.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple given that the Church of England is part of the state...
There's also the fact that the current set of laws actually prohibits churches like Unitarians and some Anglicans who are completely in favour of gay marriage from carrying it out. I'd actually agree that no church should be forced to carry out gay marriages (what'd be the point?), but legalizing gay marriage is a necessary prerequisite to allowing the various churches to sort it out for themselves. Parliament would not have to 'waste its time' on the issue if the established set of laws were not so inadequate for allowing that to happen.
AOG:
"
But why must they demand to get 'married', a term used for the union between heterosexual couple for thousands of years. "
It's about participation - let me explain: Marriage, as you say, is a very old cultural institution which is highly valued in this country. It is so old, in fact, that it pre-dates a time when what are today called gay relationships were recognised as being valid (or even existing). All that gay people are currently asking is the ability to participate in an established cultural ritual precisely because they value it and, just like everyone else, they see it as important. Most married couples (including yourself, I'm assuming?) don't really have any objection to allowing gay couples the right to participate, and there are some faith organisations which are quite happy to perform it, so why not? If gay couples were out to destroy marriage as an institution, they wouldn't seek to participate in it.
As for the minority-majority argument, as was demonstrated to you earlier by sp, there is not much evidence that the majority are actually opposed to these measures - if anything, they seem to be in favour or at least acquiescent. Further, the reason these laws need to be changed is that they do put a minority on an unequal footing - gay couples who wish to get married, and faith organisations who wish to marry them are actually barred from doing so. Given that everyone seems to agree that there's no real reason why that should be so, why shouldn't the govt change it?
"Also why do the words Husband & Wife, Bride & Groom, Mr & Mrs, have to disappear, can't gays also hold these titles, instead of special descriptions being made to suit their requirements?"
You are talking about the presence of the words on forms - which is purely an administrative convenience. If you accept the argument I've outlined above, it doesn't make any sense to have a convoluted system particular forms for particular couples and instead just to adopt gender-neutral terminology. It's nothing more than an administrative convenience. This is not the same thing as the word disappearing from society, not by a long shot. And I think you know that full well.
AOG, a week or so ago when we spoke about this, you said…..
//No opinion either way myself, just making for a balanced argument.//
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1112123-2.html
… and now you’re claiming the article by Simon Heffer says it all.
Have you changed your mind?
//No opinion either way myself, just making for a balanced argument.//
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1112123-2.html
… and now you’re claiming the article by Simon Heffer says it all.
Have you changed your mind?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.