At long last someone at The Pink Paper has written something conveying the true meaning of same-sex marriage. Would it be too much to hope for that other Pink Papers writers will now take some care to understand and respect and include in their writing the same understanding, to not continue to use “gay marriage” and “civil partnerships”, whether in the UK or in any other country, as as if they were identical and the inequality of denying equal access to marriage was insignificant?
You could tell where this was going by the where it was coming from.Parts of the UK may have thriving gay communities but let’s be honest, your country was barely able to offer gays and lesbians civil unions at the end of 2005. For perspective bear in mind that Vermont, in socially retarded America, did the civil union thing in 2000 — almost six years prior to the UK.This judge’s decision reads like a child’s rant.– “It is apparent that the majority of people, or at least of governments, not only in England but Europe-wide, regard marriage as an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children … in a family unit in which both maternal and paternal influences are available,” the judge said. –Who is correct then, “the majority of people” or the “governments”. The judge doesn’t seem to know or care. And so what if this is how marriage is regarded. It’s just plain wrong to exclude people from marriage based on their sexual orientation. And it’s not like the UK is breaking new ground here. Other countries are well passed this point.Marriage may be an age-old institution, but it is not fixed. Women are no longer considered property and people can marry members of different religions, nationalities and races. Marriage is endlessly evolving. And it needs to continue to evolve.Sure it’s best to have both a paternal and maternal influence but half of all marriages end up in divorce court. That’s reality.And how does allowing gays and lesbians to marry take anything away from heterosexual married couples? Explain it to me. In fact it has zero effect on heterosexual relationships and everybody knows it.Wouldn’t marriage for gays and lesbians also promote monogamy, children and a family unit for homosexuals and their families as well? And without the stigma of a second-class relationship.– “Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership.” –Bullshit. Civil Partnerships are inferior by definition. They were designed to be. Under UK law homosexuals are forbidden from marrying. They are a ‘class’ of people who are not allowed to enter into such a contract. Marriage is ‘reserved’ for heterosexuals only. That’s why civil partnerships were invented in the first place, to keep homosexuals out.This is beyond vulgar. It’s impossible to believe an adult wrote this discriminatory filth. — “Parliament has not called partnerships between persons of the same-sex marriage, not because they are considered inferior to the institution of marriage but because, as a matter of objective fact and common understanding … they are indeed different,” –Homosexuals partnerships are not different. Homosexual relationships do not require a separate class of recognition.
Why can’t people just face up to the fact that marriage, by it’s very definition, is an institution for producing Children and as a building block for society? It has to be between one man and one woman for life – nothing else is marriage. It’s not discrimination – it’s just fact…
Heterosexuals don’t need a ‘breeding’ license. Marriage is not a license between two people for the purposes of creating offspring. Lots and lots of people have children without getting married. That’s basically the story of the human race.If marriage were a procreation license people who can’t have children would not be allowed to marry. People who didn’t want children or were too old to have children would not be allowed to marry. But that’s not the case is it?What about gays and lesbians who want children or have children, why can’t they marry then? There are many ways gays and lesbians can have children including the old fashioned way via a surrogate.Removing the gender based discrimination from marriage would have had no effect on the quality of heterosexual relationships or the ability of heterosexuals to make babies. There is no sensible reason to exclude homosexuals from marrying.This lousy judge was making it up as he went along. “Homosexual relationships are different,” he claimed.Sure they are. And relationships between young and old people are different. Relationships between people in prison are different. Relationships between people of different religions and races are different. So what if they are? Does that mean different legal classes have to be set up for citizens under the law? Hardly.In fact the only difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is the sex organs of the partners. That’s what this discrimination is based on. Or at least that’s the excuse he likes to give on paper.He just didn’t feel that homosexuals as a class of people should be allowed to marry. That’s why he refused to recognise the marriage of these two women. This decision is disgusting.
“people can marry members of different religions, nationalities and races. Marriage is endlessly evolving. And it needs to continue to evolve.”…….. I agree, but a marriage is between male and female…….anything else is just a relationship, GOT IT ?”In fact the only difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is the sex organs of the partners.”….. How wrong can you be, how long will it be before the writer works out it’s in the brain wiring ???
What’s all the fuzz about gay marriage? Marriage is an outdated institution, a straightjacket for women. The only people interested in marriage seem to be gays, lesbians, celebrities who need the publicity, religious fundamentalists and the wedding business. What we need is some sort of “social commitment act” that gives equal rights to all forms of cohabitation, straight, gay, asexual, whatever. Also, the discrimination between couples, triplets, or whatever and singles should be abolished. Couples get all kinds of privileges that singles don’t enjoy. By the way, the first (lesbian) couple, gaily and officially married in Spain, already separated. Marriage doesn’t mean anything.
Neil (Liverpool) says: “… marriage is between male and female……. anything else is just a relationship, GOT IT ?”I agree that marriage is between a male and a female in backward countries like the UK, Australia and the US. But this type of gender discrimination is no longer legal in Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada, Spain, Massachusetts and South Africa. The legal definition of marriage is evolving. GOT IT?”In fact the only difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is the sex organs of the partners.”Neil (Liverpool) says: “How wrong can you be, how long will it be before the writer works out it’s in the brain wiring ???”The writer will work this out when the UK forbids opposite sex homosexuals from marrying. Until such time marriage in the UK is not restricted by brain wiring, it’s restricted by genitalia.
Dave from Toronto……….I can understand how you wish to defend and minimise your disability, but do try and understand what I wrote. And as for the UK being a backward country, well that’s just plain silly, the rest of the world owes it’s present standard of living mainly from the ideas and inventions that came out of “GREAT BRITAIN”, Now do try and keep up !
Hello Neil from Liverpool. Are you thinking about the invention of the steam machine? Apart from that Great Britain also exported its laws to the colonies, such as India, where homosexuality still is illegal. Even the discriminatory laws of China were inspired by the British. But that’s history of course…
When the legal marraige of a man and his two wives in Bahrain is also registered in England, this couple will have a case! I mean, polygamy is legal in more countries, yet no one is seeking for them to be made legal here. Why can’t gay people evolve their own institution? Marraige over the centuries, whether with single or multiple partners, (plus societies woth gay clutures, e.g., Ancient Rome), has always been cross-gender. Gay people should not ape what cannot, by culture and definition exclude them, having rejected the sex acts that make marraige ‘;egal’ everywher. (remember that it is consumation that validates a marraige,). They should fashion their own identity of bonding, with the same legal rights as ‘marraige’. No copycats, please.