same sex marriage?

There was a big fuss about it on the news just a few years ago. I can't remember the details. Maybe I'm wrong about the legal recognition bit. I seem to remember it happened just before civil partnerships were discussed, so that might have superseded it.

According to an article from the CAB, there are some things that happen by default even if a couple is not actually married. For example, if you each have separate bank accounts, and one partner dies, their money goes to the estate of the surviving partner.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales...g_together_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm

Yes, and don't forget storms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358

 

Yes, sorry for that. I was hoping no one would notice...

 

No problem with it here, as many of you have said, live and let live.

 

Everyone should have the right to be with whoever they want to be with, without fear of persecution or reprisal, and be afforded the same rights as anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation. We're all humans first and foremost, and need to treat each other equally as such.

 

Well you can now that the law has been changed but you still cannot get married in church as the Christian church forbids it. Marriage between a man and a woman and procreation of children within that marriage is fundamental to the church's teachings. This ideal is still what many people want as marriages in churches prove so perhaps gay people should just accept that.

Val

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

" The traditional meaning of marriage has long been lost, It no longer means till death do us part. "

This is just one more step.

I have no problem with same sex relationships, but as you say, marriage has become a joke, and why do you want to participate in something that is obviously past its sell by date.
" The traditional meaning of marriage has long been lost, It no longer means till death do us part".

 

Some people want to get married, some people don't. Some take it seriously, some don't. Who cares?

Regardless of what happens to the meaning and definition of marriage, I think it will always be about just two people. The couple getting wed. It has absolutely nowt to do with anyone else. Its also one of the most stressful things someone can do, for the simple reason that EVERYONE thinks they are entitled to have some input into the arrangements or even whether its the right thing. The barnies that happened in mine and wife's families and friends when we were getting married, its just mental. I had to shout at the wife's sister for the first time, telling her frankly "when its you getting married, you can decide what the bride will wear, what day it will be on, what venue its at, who will be invited and anything else you want but this time it is NOT you, so shut your whining cake hole and stop upset my wife to be with your incessant rants". Or words to that effect.

Procreation following marriage is over glorified too. The birth of both my sons led to huge arguments within the family, including a monumental fallout that turned into a free-for-all, every man for himself type feud. Why? Because some people didn't like the names WE chose for OUR kids.

So the whole tradition, original meanings etc, its all rubbish. It means nothing. The ONLY thing that matters is the wishes of the couple, and whether they love each other or not. Everything else is just a case of others trying to manipulate your life to suit them.

 

The "ideal" that so many people want is as big and showy a wedding as finances allow, not gods approval. This is proved by how few of them were/are regular church goers before and after the wedding. They'll do a few Sundays to appease the vicar before the big day, but that is as far as their "faith" goes (as proven by the number of people who when ask admit that they have no faith). I'm appalled that the christian minority seem to be excluded from discrimination laws.
No offence was intended.

 

I find this an interesting thread. We have several 'same sex' marriage friends, male and female, some of whom we have known for 30 years, in America, the UK and here. They are all genuine people who would do anything for you ... more than I can say for some heterosexual friends!

T'other half and I never married in a church although we 'were' both Roman Catholic ... we've had our ups and downs like most couples (no children by choice only cats) but we are still together and this month is our 47th anniversary (courthouse affair) and thoroughly enjoying our retirement together.

We do not judge people by their sexual preferences ... why should or would we? It's no different than marrying someone of another race, which has been accepted for many years now.

As always, time moves on and so does life ... live and love and enjoy life with whomever you choose to do so ... don't criticise those who choose to live a lifestyle different than yours ... but be wary of those who choose to steal, rape, pillage, murder and perhaps infiltrate your life without your knowledge. Choose your friends wisely and you will be repaid tenfold.

 

.... it could become an income from an un-anticipated resource at a time when income is also declining? ( )

Interesting point!

Except ... there are recurring articles in the media that "marriage" is in decline.
Although, most interestingly, the rise in "singletons" is attributed more to people declining to marry in the past couple of decades: rarely, if at all (!) do they draw inferences from the fact that in those very same decades which marriage declines, Gay Rights, the "outing" of homophobia as a crime, changes in legislation regarding gay rights and the freedom to be overtly gay may have any impact whatsoever?

In times past, homosexuals (of both genders) would be forced by societal rules/acceptance to enter into "marriages" with a person of the opposite sexual orientation, just so they would "fit in". That really isn't so very long ago either! Just imagine the trauma of having to live the whole of your life in a lie? Imagine the emotional and stressful existence for their poor, unfortunate and unknowing spouse? Add both of those into the mix and then add any child born (naturally) into such a sham and "dysfunctional" wouldn't even come close to describing the situation and the longer term effects upon the children.

I like that you chose to use the word "people" - because homosexuals (of both genders) are people too

Marriage: what is it for? Why was it "invented"? Procreation? Property rights? (and I mean that, as in, a woman became the "property" of their man!).

Oh it's all very well spouting "love". But, that was rarely likely to come into it when "partnerships" and "marriages" were first arranged/designed. It was about S.U.R.V.I.V.A.L.... and, alliances ... and, money ... and power!

It isn't that far back in history (less than 100 years) that women could only secure a home and food on the table via marriage! (Although other, more dubious means, did of course exist). Even though that meant they were the possession of their husband: yet, if they didn't marry, they remained the "property" of their father! It was more about property than procreation! If it wasn't, why did men marry at all when prostitution was (and still is) rife?

Let us not forget the very real, and pragmatic, reasons for marriage by dressing it up in "love" and "religion". It was about survival, male dominance (be it church, or male possession) and sex (children often the by-product and, not always, the intention).

Just as women were suppressed, legally and morally, for centuries and climbed their way through many of the disadvantages of their gender to now share the same rights as males - so now, we have those who are born with a different orientation staking their own claim on the right to be deemed equal on all platforms.

So, churches wish to take the moral high ground? Fair enough! But, when they see those sparkly, pink pounds as a way to maintain the churches coffers now the hetros are no longer hitching ... they may well take a more "liberal" view: Supply and Demand and all that

 

Ah, well, see, I have a good theory on this.

Why was religion invented? Why do different religions have differences in rules? Why do some say you can eat certain meats and others say absolutely not? Why do some religions demand that you wash your hands and feet several times a day?

Now imagine this. Imagine being unique in your community because you are vastly more clever/wise than your peers (this is how religious figures emerge is it not)?

Imagine that you've noticed over the course of your life so far that when people in your hot country with no fridges handle the meat of a particular animal, they quite often get sick, and those that don't bother to keep themselves clean also get sick. Imagine that you've noticed that the 'town bike' always seems to be ill and many of those who've been with the promiscuous one(s) have become poorly. You can't explain any of it because you haven't learnt of the existence of micro-organisms yet, but you've definitely noticed a pattern. What do you tell people? Do you say "Hey guys, I've noticed that some of the people that ate the meat of that animal/didn't wash their hands/had sex with such and such, got ill and some even died, and some of those that didn't eat the meat/did wash their hands/didn't have sex with such and such but have been in regular contact with those that did, have also got ill and some have died, so lets not do that". Not really very persuasive is it. How about just saying 'God said don't eat the meat of this animal/have sex with lots of different people/do wash your hands or you'll burn in hell'. That's a bit more persuasive.

And as for procreation. Even these days there are plenty of people about born to promiscuous mothers who are not 100% sure who their dad is. Imagine a few hundred years ago when there was a lot less law and a lot of tribal feuding/warring. You're not going to want all your men fighting amongst themselves when the enemy is at the door, and you're not going to want the young lads spending more time being unsure which of the 50 blokes in your village is your dad than thinking about learning to hold a sword, so you make it simple. Nobody bonks anyone unless they're married, and divorce is a sin. Simple, another problem solved

 

Hmm, I sense an agreement (of sorts) between us, CL1

 

You're right. I was not offering my opinion as a contradiction to what you said, more an elaboration.

 

The numbers of openly gay people not marrying must have made a difference but so has society's widespread acceptance of common law unions. I wonder if there are more female singletons now than in the post war era?

Many of those gay people entering into marriage would be doing so for the purest reasons - to feel like a full part of the community, to enjoy the benefits of affectionate partnership and the rewards of raising children. Sometimes -usually- these things are more important than pursuing individual sexual fulfilment, leading some gay people even today to suppress their sexuality and enter into heterosexual marriage. So I don't necessarily see it as a sham, though there would certainly be a sense of dissonance, and no reason for the situation to be particularly dysfunctional if both parents are committed and loving.

Our society makes too much fuss about sex sometimes. But long-term pair-bonding is likely to remain a cornerstone of society, I think it's hard-wired into the human psyche.

Have you been watching too many medieval dramas on TV?

Agreed, and the fact that women now have lots of economic options is probably the main reason that marriage has been in decline.