Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[Ryantology]

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.

The entire idea of civil unions is that the religious concede the legal benefit of marriage to gay people while still being able to exclude them from the club, so to speak. For religious opponents of marriage equality, it is precisely what that image indicates: separate but equal. It is a concession to modernity which still allows the religious majority to exclude the minority, under the guise of preserving a tradition (which most of them don't understand correctly). Gay people can't call it marriage for no reason other than because the religious have stolen the term, claimed it as their own, and won't give it up without a fight.

The other major problem is that civil unions are not as equal as they are separate, at least, in the United States. Civil unions do not confer federal-level benefits the way marriage does, so you get state-level benefits only.

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.

This would be fine for me.

[One Above All]

Just wondering: am I the only one who read this thread's title as "Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE equality in the UK"?

[Faith No More]

---

---

Assuming that is true and not one woman abusing her father's image to push her own agenda, how is that even relevant? I must have missed the memo where the Kings became arbiter of all things related to equality.

---

Just wondering: am I the only one who read this thread's title as "Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE equality in the UK"?

I read it as, "Gay people are gross."

[rexbeccarox]

I've never been so willfully ignored in my life. I'm going to try one more time:

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

You started this thread, and my question is valid, so please stop ignoring me.

[Tiberius]

The other major problem is that civil unions are not as equal as they are separate, at least, in the United States. Civil unions do not confer federal-level benefits the way marriage does, so you get state-level benefits only.

That's not the case in the UK, since we don't really have the same concept of "states", at least not in England (where the government of England is also the government of the UK).

The main difference between civil partnerships and marriages, and the reason the two are not equal, is that civil partnerships cannot include "religious readings, music or symbols". Originally it was the case that you couldn't hold one in a religious venue, but that was scrapped a few years ago (and unlike what some people would have us think, when civil partnerships were allowed to happen in religious venues, it was at the venue's discretion. No religious body was forced to accept same-sex civil partnership services).

So effectively, the two are not equal. A religious same-sex couple cannot have a religious civil partnership service, nor can they have a religious marriage, even if they want to, and even if they find a religious institution which would happily perform one (and there are many that would).

[ideologue08]

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

It is your reading comprehension. If you read it carefully, you would realize that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals.

---

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.

So when it comes to heterosexual rights, all you can muster is "not sure what the point" is? Kinda shows your true colours doesn't it? And I'm not sure why you are even saying that since you are heterosexual after all. Don't be more gay than the gays Tiberius...

[Tiberius]

So when it comes to heterosexual rights, all you can muster is "not sure what the point" is? Kinda shows your true colours doesn't it? And I'm not sure why you are even saying that since you are heterosexual after all. Don't be more gay than the gays Tiberius...

Erm, no. The issue of heterosexual civil partnerships is a delay issue, it's not a civil rights issue. It was invented to delay the gay marriage bill. There are literally no reasons for heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership, since marriage is already open to them and entails all that civil partnerships do (and more). Adding to that, if the gay marriage bill passes, civil partnerships would be obsolete, for the same reasons...

This doesn't mean I'm against civil partnerships for heterosexuals. If heterosexuals want them instead of marriages, fine, but there doesn't seem to be any point when it's a watered down version of what they already have at their disposal. So like I said; it's a delay issue.

[NoraBrimstone]

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

Ideologue08: What scares you about same-sex marriage or other alternative-type marriages?

One of these has to be visible, right?

[ideologue08]

So when it comes to heterosexual rights, all you can muster is "not sure what the point" is? Kinda shows your true colours doesn't it? And I'm not sure why you are even saying that since you are heterosexual after all. Don't be more gay than the gays Tiberius...

Erm, no. The issue of heterosexual civil partnerships is a delay issue, it's not a civil rights issue. It was invented to delay the gay marriage bill. There are literally no reasons for heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership, since marriage is already open to them and entails all that civil partnerships do (and more). Adding to that, if the gay marriage bill passes, civil partnerships would be obsolete, for the same reasons...

This doesn't mean I'm against civil partnerships for heterosexuals. If heterosexuals want them instead of marriages, fine, but there doesn't seem to be any point when it's a watered down version of what they already have at their disposal. So like I said; it's a delay issue.

Just look at the words you're using, it's a "delay" issue, "not a civil rights issue", "invented to delay", "no reasons" for heterosexuals to have civil partnership, there isn't "any point". Forgive me but it sounds like you don't have any justification for this opinion. How would you like it if I said there's "no point" for gays to marry or that the gay marriage issue is just a distraction (which it is). Either you want equal rights or you don't, am I wrong? If heterosexuals don't want to marry but have a civil partnership, you would say no to them, you would say gay rights come first because heterosexual rights is just a "delay" tactic. How condescending.

[Angrboda]

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

It is your reading comprehension. If you read it carefully, you would realize that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals.

Actually, if you read the article carefully, it only states that Stonewall,"said it would be a 'terrible pity' if the legislation got 'bogged down' and urged MPs from all parties not to 'play politics' with it." While it may be true that Stonewall is against civil partnerships for heterosexuals, nothing in the article actually indicates this.