Civil partnership vs marriage

[Ric.ror]

I really don't know what the difference is

[mushroom25]

actually Tambo, POW and Cammy are married. heteros are not entitled to a civil partnership - it's a point that Peter Tatchell keeps making, that there is discrimination in both directions on this.

[anotheoldgit]

It would seem that most homosexuals are indifferent towards the drive for homosexuals to marry, since only a quarter of homosexuals would marry if the law was changed.

So it seems from their point of view it is no big issue.

http://www.dailymail....ive-gay-marriage.html

[FredPuli43]

Wonder if there's a poll about how many heterosexual couples live as man and wife and are not bothered about getting married ? Apathy about that is common, and it appears to be so among homosexuals.

Apathy is not the point, aog. The previous government avoided the term 'marriage' because it might upset some of the House and the Church. What harm is there in renaming a civil partnership as 'marriage'? We call the civil ceremony of marriage of a man and a woman that, why not call the homosexual 'civil partnership' that? It is conducted in the same place and is legally indistinguishable.

[ludwig]

I still don't understand what the church is objecting to. If a marriage isn't a specifically religious thing - which it can't be because people get married in registry offices as well as chuches then..

a) What's their problem?
b) What the f's it got to do with them what it's called?

If the state was proposing to take it upon itself to declare people as 'christened' following some sort of non-religious ceremony, I could understand the objections, but I just don't get the whole problem with the word 'marriage'.

[pdq1]

Marriage between gays is a step too far. They have already corrupted the English language with the word 'gay' and now intend to cheapen religion by trying to get married in the church.

[FredPuli43]

We've corrupted the language with the words 'fairy', 'fag', and 'queen' so let the homosexuals have a go with 'gay'!

Corrupting religion? At present the churches are set against the ceremony, but if they change their minds that might be seen as progress, not corrupting the religion. Religions do progress with the times. Jews don't stone adulteresses any more, heretics aren't put to death by other Christians, there's quite a list of change over time.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Religions do progress with the times. Jews don't stone adulteresses any more, heretics aren't put to death by other Christians, there's quite a list of change over time. ///

I notice you didn't mention any changes in Islamic attitudes.

[jackthehat]

As Islam isn't (yet....if you read the Doom-mongers) the established Church in England, the Imams will have to make their own decisions.

It still means that gay Muslims can be legally married, even if their religion won't accept them as such.

[mushroom25]

Ludwig wrote:-
//I still don't understand what the church is objecting to. If a marriage isn't a specifically religious thing - which it can't be because people get married in registry offices as well as chuches then..

a) What's their problem? //

it's to do with the church's Canon Law, specifically this:-

"B30 Of Holy Matrimony

1. The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."

if the government amends the legislation concerning marriage to include same-sex couples, civil law would then be at odds with canon law. and, whilst Mr Cameron asserts that the church woild be granted an exemption, his own legal advisers have told him such an exemption would be ruled offside, in terms of discrimination AND human rights legislation.

ultimately, this may cause the church to break its ties with the establishment - meaning that they would no longer act as marriage "agents" of the state, so a marriage in church would have no legal standing, as applies currently to islamic ceremonies; but perhaps better, it will see the end of the church sitting in the house of lords.

[FredPuli43]

aog, I didn't happen mention Muslims, but that wasn't because of their 'attitudes'. There are strict, conservative and extreme Muslims and there are liberal, progressive ones. Some Muslims in Northern Nigeria, for example, would stone a woman to death, other Muslims wouldn't, to choose my Jewish example.