Gay marriage views?

[Xuhaib]

any chance of free food is a ftw to me.

[benchmark00]

Pro civil union + codified rights.

Against labelling it 'marriage'.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Pro civil union + codified rights.

Against labelling it 'marriage'.

Don't get this one myself. Why call it something else when it's clearly the same thing?

[ripper868]

Agree with benchy.

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Don't get this one myself. Why call it something else when it's clearly the same thing?

Because it placates all the people who thinks it does make a difference and is functionally the same thing that people on the other side of the fence are fighting for.

What's in a name?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Mr Casson

Because it placates all the people who thinks it does make a difference and is functionally the same thing that people on the other side of the fence are fighting for.

What's in a name?

Inclined to agree, same rights on pensions, inheritance, next of kin, etc, but in not giving it the same name it is tacit discrimination; as I said in my first post, a sop to mad people. I could see why gay people might get on their high horses about it, if it didn't matter HM Govt would've called it a marriage.

If a black man married and white woman and was only allowed to call it a "civil union" there'd (rightly) be an outcry.

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

pro civil union + codified rights.

Against labelling it 'marriage'.

+1

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Hurricane

I guess you could quote the Bible at a stretch which has some anti gay passages so that would be the argument if I was to make one. We had a heated debate at a bible study over gay issues once. Some fundamentalists who don't want to question the bible and its modern relevancy have plenty they can draw upon in making anti gay arguments. If you are not religious then this argument wouldn't hold any weight for you either.

Bible bashers will inevitably quote a passage from Leviticus which calls homosexuality an abomination.

The irony is that the same passage in Leviticus also specifically outlaws several other things which people do everyday, such as shaving and wearing clothes made from more than one material.

[Blaze 18]

I'm not against it. Live and let live.

[sledger]

Yeah, couldn't care less tbh, let people do what they want.

[flibbertyjibber]

Let them get on with it, these couples are obviously in love so why not let them 'marry' in the same way as a man and woman.

As a side note i should actually vote for the bottom option (no pun there) as i have spent more time at a sporting venue with Gay in it than any other. The much missed Gay Meadow in Shrewsbury.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Don't get this one myself. Why call it something else when it's clearly the same thing?

Well hang on, the relevant piece of legislation in Australia explicitly says a marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm not trying to deny gay couples any rights at all, but that's the definition.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Well hang on, the relevant piece of legislation in Australia explicitly says a marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm not trying to deny gay couples any rights at all, but that's the definition.

I'm not disputing what the current legal definition is, I'm sure you're right. What I'm suggesting is that, given the acceptance of the same rights and effectively the same legal position, why should the definitions remain seperate?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Bible bashers will inevitably quote a passage from Leviticus which calls homosexuality an abomination.

The irony is that the same passage in Leviticus also specifically outlaws several other things which people do everyday, such as shaving and wearing clothes made from more than one material.

Or the ones about stoning your daughter. You can pick all sorts of things. AFAIK, homosexuality isn't really covered in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Well hang on, the relevant piece of legislation in Australia explicitly says a marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm not trying to deny gay couples any rights at all, but that's the definition.

Well there was legislation against interracial marriage too. Doesn't make it right.

If it's the same, why give it a different name?

Obviously I'd take civil unions over nothing, which is what exists in many cases in the US, but it's not marriage and the push shouldn't be over unless it's called marriage. As BoyBrumby alluded, if an interracial couple had the same rights, but were labeled something different, there'd be an outcry. And people forget: they used to quote bible passages for their opposition to interracial marriage too. Then it became terribly not-PC to be against that, and it kind of went away.

Hopefully the same thing happens with gay marriage eventually. Obviously civil unions would be a nice start, if they existed in all the states in the US - it's great that other countries already have them.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

In the UK at least a civil union has exactly the same rights as a marriage but was not called as such as a sop to mad people in Kent who read the Daily Mail.

The LGBT troop at Manchester uni inform me that this isn't quite the case and marriage and civil partnerships are actually treated rather differently by the law.

They regularly chat bollocks though so I dunno if that's true or not. Can anyone definitively clear it up?