I Don't Understand..

[Iluvspikey]

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'

[Sharingan]

I don't consider that I am being rude jim and I resent the implication that I am. In my opinion any culture which does not place all of it's citizens equally ( or as equally as possible) in every sense is primitive. If anyone can honestly find a valid reason why this so adversely affects them personally ( other than offending their ideas of right and wrong) then I could be persuaded to change my mind, but no-one has this far been able to do so, so describing that viewpoint as primitive is, in my opinion, completely fine.

[Sqad]

Shari my darling..........remember that "touch of humility" that i mentioned a few weeks ago................;-)

[Sharingan]

Glad you're a Dr Sqad, it appears I'm suffering from a touch of amnaesia today :) xx

[FredPuli43]

Incidentally. Peter Tatchell, writing in the Guardian today, says "The 1949 Marriage Act does not stipulate that marriage partners must be male and female......Prior to the 1970s, there was no ban on same sex marriage; it was de facto legal"

Well, that is good news .Pre-1949 there must have been legal gay marriage. Why are we fussing now? Just repeal the 1949 Act !

[jim360]

Of course it's completely fine in your opinion... but it's fundamentally not, because You started off that point with "in my opinion...". I'm fairly sure you're more insistent than I am that other people's opinions ought to be respected.

We had a debate about that the other day around whether people's opinions about medical treatment ought to be respected even if they were based on no evidence. That time, I felt that they ought not to be but you were the opposite. Possibly the difference is that you could legitimately argue in some cases that it was more personal in that case, but sometimes medical decisions do have a knock-on effect on society. But I digress.

As far as I can see there are no objections to gay marriage that will stand the test of time. That's an opinion, though, and we ought to wait and see. I don't think you have any factual basis, yet, to argue that all opposing views are invalid.

[FredPuli43]

Sqad, remember that touch of "not being patronising" which we forgot to mention some weeks ago.

[Old_Geezer]

As far as I can see it is just a difference in name. One was an attempt to ensure both types of couples were treated equally in law, the other was a move to please the gay community and cause offence to other groups who accepted the tradiational definition of marriage as something different, and which needed the natural male/female relationship.

[Sqad]

Odd Fred...up to about 20 years ago, I hardly ever used, or saw used the word "patronising" but now one has to be very careful what one says about, particularly females, without being accused of "being patronising."

I like Shari........but..........I feel, in my opinion, that to learn and respect the word "humility" would serve her well in her future career.

That's all Fred..........just an opinion.

[Sharingan]

The thing is jim ( here goes my amneasia again), this is a debate and I do indeed support everyone's right to an opinion on it, but I also support MY right to voice an opinion on their opinion, and if you are going to get offended by the use of words like 'primitive' in a debate so important and label anyone who uses them rude, then you're going to stifle the very debate that you are trying to uphold.
'Primitive' is not particularly insulting. Had I said ' anyone who opposes this is *mad* a moron* a Nazi* a fascist* homophobic*mentally ill*should be hung upside down by their bits*' etc etc etc then I could see your problem with rudeness. I did none of those things I used restraint and settled for 'primitive' in a perfectly legitimate context. How sterile and worthless would a debate be if we could not express ourselves adequately?

[jim360]

Well then I have a right to voice an opinion about your opinion of their opinion, etc., etc.

It depends a bit on how you are using primitive: as "old-fashioned", or as "not advanced, simple"?

[anotheoldgit]

One hears much about equality coming from some homosexuals but they fail to mention that heterosexuals do not enjoy equality also, I refer of course to the fact that 'Civil Partnerships and it's advantages are not open to Heterosexual couples.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

But it would seem that this is now being addressed and could delay the matter of 'same sex marriages'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327224/Meltdown-gay-marriage-Cameron-faces-humiliating-Commons-defeat-Tory-MPs-prepare-amendment-delay-weddings-election.html

[Sharingan]

I do understand what you mean Sqad, and actually all joking apart I do take it on board, but how do you argue ( especially on a message board) with 'humility'? This is a debate and I think you should constantly review your opinions based on what other people are saying to you but ultimately load your cannons and let 'em have it, in the nicest possible way of course, otherwise it's not a debate is it?

[sebhfhion]

perhaps instead of all this feather pumping someone can actually answer the question posted?
//Can somebody tell me, what is the difference between a civil partnership, and a gay marriage? //
Because I thought for all legal purposes and spousal rights it was the same thing?

[Sharingan]

Sp has already answered this about an hour ago:-

''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.''

[FredPuli43]

aog, there is no benefit in law for a heterosexual couple who have a civil union rather than a marriage; in fact there is one less,it seems, concerning pensions. Therefore, a heterosexual couple are asking "What's in a name? " and , in some cases, also thinking that the word marriage is demeaning to a woman.

Do you agree that marriage is just a name and therefore it can be applied to homosexual couples just as some heterosexual couples think civil partnership should be applied to them ?

[sebhfhion]

Sorry Sharigan I missed that post, I only look into AB at coffee times and lunchtimes, busy busy x

[jim360]

"...but ultimately load your cannons and let 'em have it, in the nicest possible way of course, otherwise it's not a debate is it?"

Fair enough, I suppose. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite. I think the difference is when we "let 'em have it." On an issue like this I think some opposing have views which are worthy of respect, or at least are entirely understandable. In certain other topics I probably will come out all guns blazing.

[Sqad]

Shari............you are destined for the "top" whether in the Law or the "media".......there will be times when you know that you are correct, you argue your case, but the decision from a superior overrules you........you have got to learn when to back down otherwise you may find that a successful career is attenuated.

...that's all.....probably don't know what i am talking about anyway...;-)

[Sqad]

Off to my Club now...back in a couple of hours.....

[ummmm]

Sqad...this thread isn't about Shar and she doesn't have to explain herself, nor change her debating style, to please you.