Can anyone give solid reasons as to why the government should be involved in marriage at all? Why should the government be concerned that two citizens are joined in marriage and more importantly, why should those citizens be treated differently from unmarried citizens?

Wouldn't it make more sense for marriage to be treated the same as any other legally binding contract, where the signatories to said contract dictate the terms of the agreement and should a dispute arise, this is dealt with through mediation and the courts? In this way, anybody of any belief, sexual persuasion etc can "marry", they can wrap this in whatever ceremony (religious or otherwise) they like and everybody's happy.

As an aside, I can't really understand why homosexuals are so concerned with this topic. Rightly or wrongly, they already have civil partnerships which is marriage by any other name. It seems to me they're making a big whoohaa about something which, to all intents and purposes, is just a word. You could argue that it's symbolic of oppression but is there anything else?

(May 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm)davidMC1982 Wrote: As an aside, I can't really understand why homosexuals are so concerned with this topic. Rightly or wrongly, they already have civil partnerships which is marriage by any other name. It seems to me they're making a big whoohaa about something which, to all intents and purposes, is just a word. You could argue that it's symbolic of oppression but is there anything else?

Yeah, equal recognition and all that is just lost on you isn't it?

(May 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm)davidMC1982 Wrote: As an aside, I can't really understand why homosexuals are so concerned with this topic. Rightly or wrongly, they already have civil partnerships which is marriage by any other name.

It's a good emotive argument, but it does a disservice to the injustice of racial segregation (and to the homosexuals who face(d) true oppression). This is even highlighted in your picture, where the whites had the nice clean tidy sink and the blacks the dirty one in the corner. The important part of the picture isn't that they are labelled differently, but that they are actually treated differently. A more accurate representation of civil partnerships would be to have both labels over the nice clean tidy sink.

My argument basically says every "joining of people" should be treated the same, like any other contract, and any label and ceremony attached to that is left to the people involved to decide. The government should have no role in recognising (or not) marriage. If you can show me why this would be a bad idea I'm all ears.

The problem is that the government do recognise marriage. As long as that is true, they should allow it for both gay and straight relationships.

But if we're having an argument about how marriage is currently handled by the government and how it should be handled by the government, then it's as valid to say "they shouldn't recognise marriage at all" as it is to say "they should allow it for both gay and straight relationships".

Using your argument, Muslims should be able to argue that the government should recognise polygamous marriages also. Using my system, everybody is automatically treated equally whereas, with the current system, Muslims etc are treated worse than homosexuals and monogomous heterosexuals.

---

(May 20, 2013 at 5:39 am)davidMC1982 Wrote: But if we're having an argument about how marriage is currently handled by the government and how it should be handled by the government, then it's as valid to say "they shouldn't recognise marriage at all" as it is to say "they should allow it for both gay and straight relationships".

Using your argument, Muslims should be able to argue that the government should recognise polygamous marriages also. Using my system, everybody is automatically treated equally whereas, with the current system, Muslims etc are treated worse than homosexuals and monogomous heterosexuals.

The gays are not going to stop imposing its will upon religious groups, they're already trying to make preaching against homosexuality publicly a "homophobic" offense haha. They're out of their mind, they're an unhinged fanatical special interest group.

---

Don't you just love equality?

PS; speaking of fairness David, the gay lobby wants to get rid of an amendment to the bill to allow heterosexuals to have a civil partnership, go figure! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954 These bastards are going to get their bill killed off in the Lords anyway if they continue like that.

Quote:They're out of their mind, they're an unhinged fanatical special interest group.

Only in the same way religious organisations are an "unhinged fanatical special interest group". It's my contention that the government should give no special rights, privelages, responsibilities or duties to any citizen or group of citizens, organisation or group of organisations (that includes tax breaks to churches).

Quote:speaking of fairness David, the gay lobby wants to get rid of an amendment to the bill to allow heterosexuals to have a civil partnership, go figure!

Maybe it's my reading comprehension, but that article says nothing about the "gay lobby". It's all about Conservative critics:

Quote: Tory critics have tabled an amendment saying heterosexual couples should be allowed to have civil partnerships, if gay couples are allowed to get married.

And those critics would be correct.

However, discussing how the real world "is" from a societal point of view isn't very interesting. What's more interesting is how people think it should be. My proposal is the only one that would allow anybody the freedom to enter legal partnership with anybody else, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality etc.

Not entirely sure what the point of heterosexual civil partnerships would be. Why not just legalize gay marriage, and with the same bill, convert all civil partnerships to marriages, whilst getting rid of the civil partnership system.

Sorted.

(May 20, 2013 at 11:41 am)Tiberius Wrote: Not entirely sure what the point of heterosexual civil partnerships would be. Why not just legalize gay marriage, and with the same bill, convert all civil partnerships to marriages, whilst getting rid of the civil partnership system.

Sorted.

Or, since people seem to think that there's no difference between civil partnerships and marriages, switch them around: civil partnerships become "marriages" and marriages become "civil partnerships". There's no difference, right?