same sex marriage?

On the contrary, I find lots of your information very useful!

 

I too know a couple of children who were raised by a lesbian couple. Both grew up to be well adjusted heterosexuals who are a pleasure to be around.
The one affect of their parents lifestyle was that school was pretty tortuous at times thanks to the cruelty of some children who were no doubt raised by heterosexuals.

As far as gay marriage goes it is very hard for someone who does not believe in marriage (nothing more than another exercise in mind control by the religious in my opinion) to have a considered opinion on it.
What does rankle with me is (as stated by others) the hypocrisy of the church on this and their complete lack of christian charity. No offence intended, it's just how I feel.

 

Non-fiction?

I read every single non-fiction book in my 'Junior School' library, then every single book in my 'Grammar School' library and from then on every single one that interests me, now up to around 3hrs + per day online.

 

There are good practical reasons too. My missus and I had planned to get married regardless, but I expedited the plans when I had a bout of life threateningly bad health (as in I was able to do everything still, but a particular condition meant that it wasn't certain that I'd be able to for that much longer). At the time, the benefits package I had through work included a 'death in service' benefit that was a lump sum payout of 4 times my gross annual salary, plus a widow's pension at something like 75% of my salary for life. Being married meant this automatically would go to the wife, but if I popped my clogs before we were married, it would be for the pension trustees to decide who the benefits went to, which would almost certainly be my missus but there was the risk that they'd decide, quite legally apparently, that it should be reinvested into the pension fund for the benefit of remaining members.

But then a Chinese witch doctor achieved what the NHS had failed to achieve. Through the use of some poisonous roots and herbs and wood shavings, my liver started to behave itself once more, and here I am

 

Nine years ago it was ECHR for civil partnership (Fair enough for financial reasons)
Now ECHR for Marriage ( Wrong, marriage is for procration, a problem that same sex would find hard to overcome)
Guarantee in five years it will be the ECHR demanding Church marriage, and a hefty fine for those vicars and priests that do not carry it out Led by the Pink Gestapo

Jack McH

 

I used to think that too, but we have to accept that time moves on. Not so many years ago the bar was exclusively for men, and women could only go in the lounge. Probably even fewer years ago the working men's clubs were exclusively for men. There was a time when shops were shut on sundays, which was a bit of a sod if you weren't religious and therefore couldn't understand why one of your only two days off per week were pretty much useless to you needed to buy anything. The same church that defines marriage as being for procreation has had to concede many things over the years, having been proven wrong, outdated and irrelevant. I wonder how many Christians who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds devoutly go hungry for a while after Lent, or would treat their wives like their legal possessions (until not so long back, the woman getting married declared in the eyes of their god that in effect, their body and soul was being given to their husband, like a possession).

My point is not to discredit the church, the religions, any gods that might be reading this, or any mortals. The point I'm trying to make is that things change. Sometimes they have to. Straight marriage isn't even what it once was, and since the rules changed about common law partners, saying that a person leaving their partner has similar rights whether they are legally wed or not.

My final thought for now is this. If marriage is for procreation, that what does that mean for very loving, heterosexual couples who married and either can't or chose not to have kids?

 

Is that true? When did that get past me? AFAIK, if you are in a common-law relationship, no matter how long-standing you have zilch rights in the eyes of the law, if your partner dies you would have absolutely nothing, no rights to live in their house or inherit or anything.

That is the whole point of marriage - it provides a clear-cut, defined legal state to which both parties have undisputably committed, conferring essential rights to both parties on a whole range of issues.

If you granted pension rights to a girlfriend where would you draw the line? A 20 year girlfriend? A 10 year girlfriend? A girlfriend you've just started dating? A girlfriend you had a baby with after a one night stand? An f buddy? It's just not possible to draw the line, which is why marriage as a legal institution is so essential.

 

That's why we have a "civil partnership" !!!

Val

 

How is marriage for procreation? Don't people have rugrats outside of marriage then? What happened before religion invented marriage? Were people not having sex and children?
Marriage is about legal rights and protection for both parties whatever their gender. I don't see how it is any different from any other contract between partners (ie business partners) and what genitalia each partner has shouldn't come into it.

 

It did the same job but still wasn't equal to marriage. One or the other had to be abolished. You could argue that a registry office wedding is effectively only a civil partnership.

Gay couples (lesbians) are able to procreate and raise children within marriage. Some male gay couples are also able to do that with 3rd party help, or to adopt. How does that make their parenting any different from a heterosexual couple that raises a step-child, an adopted child, a child with one parent from outside the marriage, a child from AI or donor eggs?

I believe gay parents have similar chances of being good (or bad) parents as heterosexual couples. I would like, however, to hear more research about the effects on the children of a very non-traditional upbringing.

Even some of the churches are coming round to the idea that, as well as the hugely important legal aspects, the emotional and symbolic aspects of marriage from the participants point of view are more important than who's got which equipment and what they do with it. In 2014 simplistic rules about procreation no longer apply.

 

As one half of a same sex relationship, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage.

My partner and I have been together for nearly 10 years. I love him with every inch of my being, why shouldn't I be able to commit to him in the same way that heterosexual couple would? The traditional meaning of marriage has long been lost, It no longer means till death do us part. People jump in and out of relationships like I change my socks and nobody looks down on these people. And if I choose to get married, how will that affect you? Will there be some great flood? Famine? Or will things remain exactly the same?