Same Sex Marriages.

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am not homophobic, but I can't see why marriage is necessary(especially seeing as it won't be in church)....and why the terms of referenece to married couples should be changed to accommodate homosexuals. I do not wish to be reffered to as 'a party to/in marriage'.........this may seem like a small thing, but to many people(like myself) it is important.
Those who are in a same sex relationship, and have gone through a civil ceremony have the weight of the law on their side already.....they have equality with heterosexual couples.......I don't understand what is to be achieved by this change (which, by the way will cost businesses and governments loads of money - all forms which refer to husband and wife will have to be changed, websites etc).

I really do not care about someones sexual orientation. I would have thought that the government have far more weighty issues to deal with, which should take priority over this.
Lynn Featherstone, it seems has already made her decisions...despite the fact there is supposed to consultation taking place....now in my book, consultation means that there is an element of listening to both sides of an argument and coming to some sort of compromise.........it is worrying that this can be done in such a manner....it leads me to think that there are other issues which could also be dealt with in a similar way...and if t hat doesn't worry you - then it should.

These are elected representatives who are supposed to listen to those who put them in power.

I agree with you Margaret - why should we consign to history the term "husband and wife" just for a small minority of homo-sexuals who want to be "married"! Why do we have to satisfy the minority all the time! It's PC gone bonkers!

I thought marriage was based on sex, that a pair come together to have children - gays can't naturally have children so why should they have the privelage of a marriage in the true sense of the word.

Life is not equal! Tell Cameron if he wants equality to share out his millions!

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh, and when the homophobic /racist/sexist/ ageist tag is levelled at something, it is just to stifle healthy debate. A diversionary tactic.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by mobertol

.

Marriage in society has always implicated a sense of kinship = procreation.
Not all married couples have children, for various reasons, but perhaps this is the final knot that needs unravelling - same sex couples do not naturally produce the next generation.
I have nothing against adoption by same sex couples but i think this is what actually blocks a lot of people into seeing these legal (ie marrige) unions as equal to heterosexual marriages.

Just trying to put into words how i see where most prejudice comes from...

I think Kestrel-X is confusing sex and pro-creation -they are two quite different things.

Wrote the above earlier in this thread - forgot to add that same-sex couples can have children -though not by the traditional methods.
They either find a partner/friend who is willing to help them naturally or go through the "test-tube" route with a donor.

I'm sure most people will have no problem with this for heterosexual couples with problems...(I know several who have had lovely children this way, including a cousin of mine who had twins). So why not for same sex couples?

At the end of the day the most successful marriage is always a marriage of minds.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I really don't care what same sex couples do...whatever floats theeir boat....what i do not agree with is the ditching of the traditional terms 'husband and wife' in favour of 'parties in/to marriage'........I abhor being called a 'partner'........or for that matter 'spouse'.......this government is wanting to change the traditional terms so they do not offend or upset same sex couples.......after all what other reason would they have for instigating such a change?
Since the inception of civil ceremonies, same sex couples have had the same legal protection as heterosexual couples(as long as they have availed themselves of the civil ceremony).....so why is marriage seen as a necessity?
I'm also perturbed that there is supposed to be consultation, but the MP Lynn Featherstone has said, that it isn't if these changes go ahead, but how.....no matter how many people protest.

Now I don't know about you, but this sounds like a done deal, just waiting for a rubber stamp.
I thought consultation meant the exchange of ideas, listening to both sides of an argument before making any decisions.

These changes will have financial implications on businesses of all kinds as well as goverment departments.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by kestrelx;978248I

thought marriage was based on sex, that a pair come together to have children !

So talk us through the process where the man has had a vasectomy and he marries a woman with a hysterectomy.

Any sexual contact is presumably an abomination?

[Margaret Pilkington]

A church wedding ceremony for people who are too old to procreate is a bit different in the wording.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I abhor being called a 'partner'........or for that matter 'spouse'

You're just a funny sod, anyway.

When it comes to what names you're called.

As with your similar abhorrence to being called the 'G' word, by the children of your offspring.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

A church wedding ceremony for people who are too old to procreate is a bit different in the wording.

Sounds like the starting point for discussions about gay church weddings, Margaret!

One of the things that irritates me about the TV presentation of gay weddings is their depiction of spectacularly camp and nauseating gay couples emerging from registry offices in matching pink suits, or in the case of lesbans, looking like extras from Prisoner Cell Block H.

What about couples like my brother and his partner who did it with no fuss or bother?

[MargaretR]

Better still - why bother - nowt wrong with 'over t'brush' if you make wills and have the house in joint names.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes G....I know......I am. It is part of the pernicketiness that comes with age and experience. It's alright, one day it might come to you too ( I hope it does, because it will mean you lived long enough to be an old burger - no bun...just a burger)

I was called to school during the week to pick up Spindles, who was not very well.......the School secretary called his name and said 'Your G word is here to take you home'.......if looks could have killed, she would be being buried next week.

I will be telling her the next time I see her, not to use that word in reference to me....ever again.....and the only reason I didn't tell her at the time, was because the lad looked a bit green round the gills, like his lunch was looking for the emergency exit.

[MargaretR]

I get called 'Nanna' and find it quite nice and 'affectionate sounding'.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by gynn

Sounds like the starting point for discussions about gay church weddings, Margaret!

I somehow think that there might be quite a fair bit of opposition to that from the clergy.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I get called 'Nanna' and find it quite nice and 'affectionate sounding'.

Nope...not for me Margaret. I never had being a G thing, on my bucket list.
It wasn't something I looked forward to or aspired to...in fact it was a bit of a shock to my system
Both of the tinlids call me by my first name and always have done......I will never answer to the G word....ever!

[cashman]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I get called 'Nanna' and find it quite nice and 'affectionate sounding'.

Nowt wrong wi that at all, I get called Grandad n am quite pleased n proud to be called so.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cashman

Nowt wrong wi that at all, I get called Grandad n am quite pleased n proud to be called so.

Me too cashy, was a bit miffed when I was only 42 though