John Wright Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The UK government has announced that it intends, after a consultation process, to introduce gay marriage, including proper vows, before the next election, due in 2015. It is still not clear if this proposal will also allow religious ceremonies in churches, if any church decided it wished to provide such services, or what will happen to civil partnerships long term or if existing civil partnerships will be converted, or convertible. It does however mark an end, if passed into law, to the discriminatory nomenclature, and prohibitions as to what can be said and what words and music can be used in civil partnership ceremonies. I for one hope that the opportunity is taken to allow different levels of marriage, civil partnership, opting out of some of the provisions of either (with pre nups and opt ins and outs for property sharing etc)and for the recognition and protection of partners in, and children of, short, medium and long terms common law relationships whether gay, lesbian or straight. Whilst I do not personally believe in marriage or civil partnerships as right for me ( I think they are outmoded patriarchal structures of ownership and control) I welcome this step for those who want to have their relationships s recognised and affirmed. I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates I suspect that this issue is way down the pecking order for most people regarding what concerns them most about the next government. Not sure I really understand the difference between civil partnerships between same sex couples and 'gay marriage'. There clearly must be one, otherwise nobody would be worried about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Dear Mr Houghton................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Unfortunately Houghton's already been round... We should have been ahead of the game on this one - we could have had a selling point for our beleaguered hoteliers. Too late now, I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates I suspect that this issue is way down the pecking order for most people regarding what concerns them most about the next government. Not sure I really understand the difference between civil partnerships between same sex couples and 'gay marriage'. There clearly must be one, otherwise nobody would be worried about it. I shall probably be told off for this ....but starting from the days when Civil Partnerships were first mooted I understood the main difference to be that sex is not express or implied in a Civil Partnership...That Civil Partnerships are by nature Asexual ......unlike marriage where "irretrievable breakdown" is the basis for a divorce and then one may go off into the realms of adultery (Having sex with someone of the opposite sex)and unreasonable behaviour and which can include "giving reason to think that they are having an affair"...amongst other grounds and interpretations! Married couples are supposed to in theory "bonk" but not apparently Civil Partners. Civil Partnerships are dissolved by applying to the Court for a Dissolution Order after a year I think. You can also get a Separation Order in a Civil Partnership as well as an Annulment (Although I cannot think on what grounds a Civil Partnership is annulled so perhaps my theory of Civil Partnership asexuality has become incorect?) Civil Partnerships can also be dissolved on grounds of such as Desertion and Unreasonable Behaviour.. But an Annulment of a Civil Partnership? Perhaps John Wright would care to advise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The UK government has announced that it intends, after a consultation process, to introduce gay marriage, including proper vows, before the next election, due in 2015. It is still not clear if this proposal will also allow religious ceremonies in churches, if any church decided it wished to provide such services, or what will happen to civil partnerships long term or if existing civil partnerships will be converted, or convertible. It does however mark an end, if passed into law, to the discriminatory nomenclature, and prohibitions as to what can be said and what words and music can be used in civil partnership ceremonies. I for one hope that the opportunity is taken to allow different levels of marriage, civil partnership, opting out of some of the provisions of either (with pre nups and opt ins and outs for property sharing etc)and for the recognition and protection of partners in, and children of, short, medium and long terms common law relationships whether gay, lesbian or straight. Whilst I do not personally believe in marriage or civil partnerships as right for me ( I think they are outmoded patriarchal structures of ownership and control) I welcome this step for those who want to have their relationships s recognised and affirmed. I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates If a coupled were married in a Gay civil ceremony as proposed (Religions will apparently be exempt from the obligation)what style or title would a Gay married couple have? 1 Mr & Mr 2 Mrs & Mrs 3 Mr & Mrs 4 None of the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well...Mr or Mrs in both cases, I would suppose. It is an interesting question though. Marriage is a heterosexual institution and heterosexuality is based on the genders of today. How can it be understood to be marriage in the same way when there are two Misters? In a sense, straight people are right when they see that marriage will change when gay people start having them. Although it does reinforce heterosexual values and behaviours such as marriage, it also could potentially take the gender aspect out of the subject of marriage. And without being a heterosexual institution, marriage will be understood to be will be different. Yet until that time comes, I think I'll keep cringing when I hear the contradictory clash of 'gay' and 'marriage' spoken together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Marriage is a heterosexual institution and heterosexuality is based on the genders of today. How can it be understood to be marriage in the same way when there are two Misters? Quite easily. It can simply evolve to be understood as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The second paragraph I wrote was referring to that. Although it is only a possibility and quite an unlikely one. If the current thinking of the gay community as a whole can be summed, marriage will never be that popular. And the institution has particularly ingrained heterosexual facets that I think remain paramount, such as the procedures that currently go with weddings. I think that straight marriage and weddings will always eclipse gay in terms of content and there would therefore be challenging of these norms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquarius Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I hope the IOM follows suit. Something to raise on the door step with election candidates I suspect that this issue is way down the pecking order for most people regarding what concerns them most about the next government. Not sure I really understand the difference between civil partnerships between same sex couples and 'gay marriage'. There clearly must be one, otherwise nobody would be worried about it. What a very disregarding response! While it may be down the pecking order for you - it may be a very important statement and example for others so they can show the love and commitment to their loved one - maybe a parallel reason which led you to marry?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquarius Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Marriage is a heterosexual institution and heterosexuality is based on the genders of today. How can it be understood to be marriage in the same way when there are two Misters? Quite easily. It can simply evolve to be understood as such. sensible answer for a change PL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 It is still not clear if this proposal will also allow religious ceremonies in churches, if any church decided it wished to provide such services, or what will happen to civil partnerships long term or if existing civil partnerships will be converted, or convertible.John, not sure what you mean by mention of whether the proposal will allow religious ceremonies. Is that not the decision of the Church who they marry? Whatever is the case, it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I thought Civil Partnerships was the same agreement as like marriage, but I looked it up all the same: Civil partnership Same-sex couples can have their relationships legally recognised as 'civil partnerships'. Civil partners must be treated the same as married couples on a wide range of legal matters, including: tax, including Inheritance Tax employment benefits most state and occupational pension benefits income-related benefits, tax credits and child support their duty to provide reasonable maintenance for their civil partner and any children of the family ability to apply for parental responsibility for their civil partner's child inheritance of tenancy agreements protection from domestic violence immigration and nationality purposes ------------- Looking at the list above, Civil partnerships appear to be a marriage to me, as it describes the partnership as 'their relationships' which would mean to me that it was a loving relationship? Agree/disagree with this statement? If this is not the case, then the partnership would therefore appear to be for equal rights as like that of a married couple. Ps, I'm not trying to be deliberately controversial and have admitted previously that I'm a traditional type of person, but I personally don't agree that a gay marriage certificate should be named exactly the same as a traditional marriage certificate. I realise that it won't be everyone's answer, but it is my answer and hope that it is respected as my opinion, whether people agree with it or not. That said and although I'm not keen on gay marriages, I do see the benefit of people living together in a caring and loving way. One possible solution; If the disagreement from the Church (and me) is that traditional marriages are between male and female, then why not have one for Traditional marriages and another for Untraditional marriages? It's only a play on words and may be the solution for the Church and gay people who wish to marry. Agree/disagree with this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I suspect that this issue is way down the pecking order for most people regarding what concerns them most about the next government. Not sure I really understand the difference between civil partnerships between same sex couples and 'gay marriage'. There clearly must be one, otherwise nobody would be worried about it. What a very disregarding response! While it may be down the pecking order for you - it may be a very important statement and example for others so they can show the love and commitment to their loved one - maybe a parallel reason which led you to marry?! Do you honestly think that gay marriages are a more important issue than the economy, pension provision, health, education, planning, town centre regeneration, the role of the LegCo, choice of chief minister and many other issues relevant to most of us? I don't, and neither do most people, therefore it is way down the pecking order for MHKs questions. Less of a 'disregarding response' and more a considered opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The issue is not about RIGHTS. It is just as much about how such things are termed. A civil partnerships is a distinct legal thing separate from marriage. There are the same rights but a different system depending on sexuality. That's where the problem lies. I realise that it won't be everyone's answer, but it is my answer and hope that it is respected as my opinion, whether people agree with it or not. That said and although I'm not keen on gay marriages, I do see the benefit of people living together in a caring and loving way.You can't hope for people to respect your opinion when someone doesn't have a high opinion of them when they disagree. It isn't enough just say you are a traditional person if you want people to respect and understand your opinions. You serve your opinions better when you explain why you are traditional and why being traditional is important to you. Otherwise you come across as if you just pick your opinions out of a hat. Maybe you are right but maybe you are ignorant of something and are wrong. It's no big deal. Just say what you think. At least you'll gain respect of being willing to talk about why you have your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.