Same Sex Marriages. - Page 8

Barrie Yates · 17-03-2012, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

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

Same here Cashy - but perhaps we could be called old fashioned, and proud of it

Margaret Pilkington · 17-03-2012, 14:55

in some respects I am old fashioned too, but I never ever wanted to be the G thing and decided that when my daughter had her two children, that I was never going to be addressed as that G word by the children or the family(and in most cases, I tell other people who refer to me as that, that I do not answer to it)....it just isn't me...that G thing.

annesingleton · 17-03-2012, 16:37

I was horrified to be a grandma at the age of 40, and definitely didn't want to be called grandma. My oldest grandson is now seventeen and actually thinks I'm a bit cool, and my youngest grandaughter is seven months old - I am known as "Grannie Annie", "Miss Trunchball" (my childrens nicknames for me) amongst other things, and I don't mind any of them, I also really like being called grandma. My grand daughter Daisy calls me the grandma with the lovely dresses which makes me feel a bit like a Disney Princess!

Stumped · 17-03-2012, 19:02

The poll reflects very much what I was thinking, though maybe I've pitched it too long. My good lady and I are great-grandparents and immensely proud to be called gran and granddad. Children and Grandchildren rank highly among the greatest gifts that we are presented with in this life, and it behoves us all to recognise that they deserve to be brought up in a proper stable environment - hence a mum and a dad, irrespective of whether or not they are married.

garinda · 17-03-2012, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumped

hence a mum and a dad, irrespective of whether or not they are married.

From what I can make of the results, people seem to have differing thoughts on the government's plans.

What is your thinking on the subject, that you see reflected in the poll result?

Perhaps it's me, but it seems that you haven't made your own view very clear.

With your last, quoted sentence, is your conclusion that happy families don't necessarily need a married couple at it's core?

Some people choose marriage, some don't.

So marriage really makes no real difference, when it comes to forming healthy, secure, happy relationships?

annesingleton · 17-03-2012, 19:44

I don't think it matters whether people are married or not, homosexual or heterosexual, when it comes to bringing up children all that matters is that the children have a stable home, preferably with two parents of whatever sexual preference but if necessary one stable parent rather than two unstable ones. And as for marriage, why does it matter whether people are of the same sex if they want to make the commitment?

garinda · 17-03-2012, 20:07

Let's remember, this thread isn't about parenting.

It's about the government's plan to introduce same sex marriages.

You don't need a marriage certificate to create a baby.

Though if you did have to take an exam, before sending seed out to seek egg, it might not be such a bad idea.

annesingleton · 17-03-2012, 20:14

My personal opinion is that there is no need for marriage, and I've spoken about this on previous threads, it's the commitment that matters.
But if people choose to marry I have no problem with them doing so no matter what their sexual preference.
I don't really understand the issue.

garinda · 17-03-2012, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by annesingleton

My personal opinion is that there is no need for marriage, and I've spoken about this on previous threads, it's the commitment that matters.
But if people choose to marry I have no problem with them doing so no matter what their sexual preference.
I don't really understand the issue.

I agree.

I know some thoroughly miserable wedded folk, and some blisfully happy couples who aren't, and visa versa.

It's about choice.

Which I is suppose is the reason why the government seem set on this course.

To give every person the same, equal choice.

Regardless.

kestrelx · 17-03-2012, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not homophobic! People talk about sexual equality - but the world is not equal! If David Cameron wants to make the minority the majority which is what he is doing. Why doesn't he make this country more equal financially?

The Tories were banging on about the family and how New Labour had undermined the family over their time in power, Cameron was saying how it's the undermining of the family that is damaging society, they were also talking about how the family is based on marriage and that they were going to change taxes to make it more attractive for unmarried couples to marry.

annesingleton · 17-03-2012, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

I'm not homophobic! People talk about sexual equality - but the world is not equal! If David Cameron wants to make the minority the majority which is what he is doing. Why doesn't he make this country more equal financially?

The Tories were banging on about the family and how New Labour had undermined the family over their time in power, Cameron was saying how it's the undermining of the family that is damaging society, they were also talking about how the family is based on marriage and that they were going to change taxes to make it more attractive for unmarried couples to marry.

So what is your point, I don't understand what you are saying? Do you agree with David Cameron that marriage is important for stable family life? Or do you disagree with what he wants to do?

kestrelx · 17-03-2012, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by annesingleton

So what is your point, I don't understand what you are saying? Do you agree with David Cameron that marriage is important for stable family life? Or do you disagree with what he wants to do?

At the moment the gay marriages will be in registry offices only, not in churches! But when it gets to churches don't you think it will undermine marriage in the eyes of the wider public. Some Heterosexual people may conclude if gay people are getting married in churches then what is the point of it? That it will dilute the importance of church marriages even further? when Ian Duncan Smith has been banging on before the election about family collapse, due to divorce, being something they need to change?

Just ideas not written in stone!

Margaret Pilkington · 17-03-2012, 21:03

Giving same sex couples the right to marriage isn't making them any more equal than civil partnerships did,(I thought that the idea behind civil partnerships was to give same sex committed couples rights in law which would be the same as heterosexual couples) and this legislation isn't really about equality, it is about political point scoring.

They are going to change the rules(and terminology relating to marriage) for the majority, and this is being done to suit a minority......so as not to offend the minority.......and if you ask same sex couples what they think of it, I think that many would say this new legislation is crazy.

Lynn Featherstone( Equalities Minister) has been advising the clergy not to inflame the situation by using homophobic language........this is a tactic to stifle debate....throw the label 'Homophobic' at someone to shut them up....make them feel that they are prejudiced.......it isn't prejudiced to have a reasoned debate.
But that isn't what Lynn Featherstone wants. There is currently a petition with more than 200,000 signatures on, protesting at the way the changes are being driven through.....but Lyn Featherstone is not going to take any notice of those who have signed the petition - these are people who elected her in a democratic way, their voices are not going to be heard.
Doesn't that give you cause for concern? Because if they can do it for this issue then they can do it for any other issue.......in fact we know our pwn elected representative has voted against us having a say in our future in the EU..... our voices go unheard and politicians go unchallenged.

annesingleton · 17-03-2012, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

At the moment the gay marriages will be in registry offices only, not in churches! But when it gets to churches don't you think it will undermine marriage in the eyes of the wider public. Some Heterosexual people may conclude if gay people are getting married in churches then what is the point of it? That it will dilute the importance of church marriages even further? when Ian Duncan Smith has been banging on before the election about family collapse, due to divorce, being something they need to change?

Just ideas not written in stone!

I don't agree with you or any of the arguments, I just think that if people of any persuasion feel a need to marry then they should be able to do so.
If the Church of England allow gay vicars then they should allow gay marriage.
As I've said before, I think the commitment is far more important than the marriage.
Speaking personally, I was married for nearly thirty years. I've been with my current partner for eight years (unmarried) and I'm far more committed to him than I ever was to my ex husband.

Margaret Pilkington · 17-03-2012, 21:17

I don't think any church makes it a pre-requisite for the clergy to define their sexual orientation before they are appointed to the job.
I am not interested in the bedroom doings of anyone...that is their business, not mine......it only becomes my business if it gets in the way of them doing their job.

As for marriage, it is a matter of personal choice whether you marry or just live together.......it isn't like living together is frowned on anymore.