Comments on: Spanish embassy unaware of civil partnerships agreement

Comments on: Spanish embassy unaware of civil partnerships agreement http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/ PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from Pink News - all the gay news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and beyond- thegaynews from Pink News Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:31:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: OMAR KUDDUS http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25257 OMAR KUDDUS Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:46:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25257 Robert, ex-pat BritAs I said to William, “if you go back, I don’t respond normally to anything SMC says because I don’t think it’s a valid argument and the facts distorted”. If you feel that SMC is “abusive, ill-mannered, intolerant and a bully,” who “can't accept opposing views that don't fit in with" their" very conservative agenda, and " they " can't even agree to disagree, so from now on, I will ignore you” I am shore as you and I are not the only ones who feel that way.SMC will in time learn that when ignored, no one is really listening. Robert, ex-pat BritAs I said to William, “if you go back, I don’t respond normally to anything SMC says because I don’t think it’s a valid argument and the facts distorted”. If you feel that SMC is “abusive, ill-mannered, intolerant and a bully,” who “can't accept opposing views that don't fit in with" their" very conservative agenda, and " they " can't even agree to disagree, so from now on, I will ignore you” I am shore as you and I are not the only ones who feel that way.SMC will in time learn that when ignored, no one is really listening.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25258 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:51:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25258 Sister Mary, whatever absurd name you call yourself, I'm not going to dignify your response with an answer, especially when you resort to foul language. You're abusive, ill-mannered, intolerant and a bully, you can't accept opposing views that don't fit in with your very conservative agenda, and you can't even agree to disagree, so from now on, I will ignore you. Sister Mary, whatever absurd name you call yourself, I'm not going to dignify your response with an answer, especially when you resort to foul language. You're abusive, ill-mannered, intolerant and a bully, you can't accept opposing views that don't fit in with your very conservative agenda, and you can't even agree to disagree, so from now on, I will ignore you.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: William - Dublin http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25259 William - Dublin Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:28:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25259 "Marriage is not about defining once's sexuality anyway, its an absurd statement to say the least."Remind me Robert, who said that it does? "Marriage is not about defining once's sexuality anyway, its an absurd statement to say the least."Remind me Robert, who said that it does?

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Sister Mary Clarence http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25260 Sister Mary Clarence Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:55:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25260 Don’t talk to me about ‘smug’ Robert. You and you’re we’re all a f**king victim brigade can’t actually define what the difference is between a ‘marriage’ and a ‘civil partnership’ is. You keep coming up with ‘you can’t do this’ and ‘you can’t do that’, but on closer inspection in actual fact you can.You in particular have raised a number of issues that aren’t actually issues at all. Non-UK resident gay couples can’t enter into a civil partnership (although why they’d want to do it here rather than their own country, I still do not know). It transpires that in fact they can and they have to go through exactly the same procedures as straight couples. You have then latched on it Omar’s situation stating that you are sure straight couples would not be treated like this. Turns out of course that the procedures (convoluted as they are), are again exactly the same for gay and straight people entering into marriages and civil partnerships.You and your cronies lambaste us for accepting second best and vilify anyone who does not conform to your notion of what is acceptable for us all and what is not. We apparently are in a minority and yet you can produce no evidence, other than comments from the marriage mafia, to support that.It is patently clear from the number of false assumptions about the UK Civil Partnerships Registration Scheme that you are not in fact that well informed about it as you would have us believe. You are however prepared to declare it inferior at the slightest suggestion that they may be any sort of issue, irrespective of whether that issue does transpire to be any issue. Further when it does turn out to be nothing at all, you have an uncanny knack of still referring to it as an issue, when you have generally you have been involved in the debate as it is clarified.God knows there is enough wrong with this country and the lives that some people are forced to lead without the likes of you running your own little propaganda war like Lord f**king Haw-Haw.The government has made every effort to mirror marriage with civil partnerships. Unlike marriage it has no religious overtones, one of the issues that was raised as part of the consultation – gay people did not want to be seen to be buying into a religious institution. A large number of people made it clear that they wanted separate but equal, and not use the same processes as our straight counterparts. I have previously commented on how unusually it is for the government to take such notice of consultation as it appears to on this occasion.If you care to read up on the subject, you may be a little more able to make comments about it, but I can only assume that you pick up your information from the posting of other people on these sites and not from reputable factual sources, before rubbishing civil partnerships.We have over the long course of this debate had various people posting comments stating that they are in a civil partnership and that they are pleased with it. Not one has given the slightest indication that they would rather have entered into a marriage, in fact quite the opposite, as I recall ever one has said that they most certainly did not wish to marry. These people are living civil partnerships and I am infinitely more inclined to take note of their impressions and experiences than people on distant shores telling us we’re all shite. Don’t talk to me about ‘smug’ Robert. You and you’re we’re all a f**king victim brigade can’t actually define what the difference is between a ‘marriage’ and a ‘civil partnership’ is. You keep coming up with ‘you can’t do this’ and ‘you can’t do that’, but on closer inspection in actual fact you can.You in particular have raised a number of issues that aren’t actually issues at all. Non-UK resident gay couples can’t enter into a civil partnership (although why they’d want to do it here rather than their own country, I still do not know). It transpires that in fact they can and they have to go through exactly the same procedures as straight couples. You have then latched on it Omar’s situation stating that you are sure straight couples would not be treated like this. Turns out of course that the procedures (convoluted as they are), are again exactly the same for gay and straight people entering into marriages and civil partnerships.You and your cronies lambaste us for accepting second best and vilify anyone who does not conform to your notion of what is acceptable for us all and what is not. We apparently are in a minority and yet you can produce no evidence, other than comments from the marriage mafia, to support that.It is patently clear from the number of false assumptions about the UK Civil Partnerships Registration Scheme that you are not in fact that well informed about it as you would have us believe. You are however prepared to declare it inferior at the slightest suggestion that they may be any sort of issue, irrespective of whether that issue does transpire to be any issue. Further when it does turn out to be nothing at all, you have an uncanny knack of still referring to it as an issue, when you have generally you have been involved in the debate as it is clarified.God knows there is enough wrong with this country and the lives that some people are forced to lead without the likes of you running your own little propaganda war like Lord f**king Haw-Haw.The government has made every effort to mirror marriage with civil partnerships. Unlike marriage it has no religious overtones, one of the issues that was raised as part of the consultation – gay people did not want to be seen to be buying into a religious institution. A large number of people made it clear that they wanted separate but equal, and not use the same processes as our straight counterparts. I have previously commented on how unusually it is for the government to take such notice of consultation as it appears to on this occasion.If you care to read up on the subject, you may be a little more able to make comments about it, but I can only assume that you pick up your information from the posting of other people on these sites and not from reputable factual sources, before rubbishing civil partnerships.We have over the long course of this debate had various people posting comments stating that they are in a civil partnership and that they are pleased with it. Not one has given the slightest indication that they would rather have entered into a marriage, in fact quite the opposite, as I recall ever one has said that they most certainly did not wish to marry. These people are living civil partnerships and I am infinitely more inclined to take note of their impressions and experiences than people on distant shores telling us we’re all shite.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25261 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:22:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25261 Marco, you said to William:" don't assume that differences are bad. And I, too, want a society that acknowlegdes and respect differences. I don't know why you're saying the contrary. The only thing I'm saying is that I cannot see the difference between me and my straight friends, and that I don't think that the mere fact that I sleep with men can be considered a justification for legally treating me in a different way (see: UK's exclusion from the right to marry, creation of the civil partnership."I totally agree, there is NEVER justification to treat anyone differently based on who they sleep with, absolutely none. I have no objection whatsoever to any same-sex couple forming a civil partnership but what I do object to is to deny same-sex couples having the same right as every straight couple, ergo..to marry if we so choose, nothing more.The fact that most here don't want marriage raises the question...what if civil partnerships were eventually replaced with marriage, and that could well happen? What would all these naysayers, anti marriag equality people then do? Decline them? They mouth off their disapproval of marriage claiming that its for straights only. Marriage is not about defining once's sexuality anyway, its an absurd statement to say the least. Its the universally accepted form of legal union in every country on this planet. Civil Partnerships/Unions/Pacs/Domestic Partnerships will never have the same status. Five countries to date have realised that because they quite correctly believed that segregation and sexual apartheid is not about equality. Even South Africa acknowledged that, a country that knows more about apartheid, discrimination than any other. Marco, you said to William:" don't assume that differences are bad. And I, too, want a society that acknowlegdes and respect differences. I don't know why you're saying the contrary. The only thing I'm saying is that I cannot see the difference between me and my straight friends, and that I don't think that the mere fact that I sleep with men can be considered a justification for legally treating me in a different way (see: UK's exclusion from the right to marry, creation of the civil partnership."I totally agree, there is NEVER justification to treat anyone differently based on who they sleep with, absolutely none. I have no objection whatsoever to any same-sex couple forming a civil partnership but what I do object to is to deny same-sex couples having the same right as every straight couple, ergo..to marry if we so choose, nothing more.The fact that most here don't want marriage raises the question…what if civil partnerships were eventually replaced with marriage, and that could well happen? What would all these naysayers, anti marriag equality people then do? Decline them? They mouth off their disapproval of marriage claiming that its for straights only. Marriage is not about defining once's sexuality anyway, its an absurd statement to say the least. Its the universally accepted form of legal union in every country on this planet. Civil Partnerships/Unions/Pacs/Domestic Partnerships will never have the same status. Five countries to date have realised that because they quite correctly believed that segregation and sexual apartheid is not about equality. Even South Africa acknowledged that, a country that knows more about apartheid, discrimination than any other.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25262 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:10:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25262 Marco, you make a good point, there is absolutely NO justification. Marco, you make a good point, there is absolutely NO justification.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: MarcoMilano http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25263 MarcoMilano Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:04:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25263 William...Listen, I'm respecting your personal preferences and aspirations. I never talked about about you personal desire not to be married. This conversation is about the legal status quo in the UK. You wrote things that seemed to "justify" it a bit (the argument that gays "are different from heteros", so it is right for them to have a different legal union) so I'm criticizing your words. Simply put!The right to marry is of the individuals, not of the groups! The fact that NOT ALL straight people are promiscuous means nothing: I am exactly as my straight friends are, so I don't understand WHY I'm excluded from the same right to marry that thay have. Then, not ALL gays are promiscuous: thee are some gays that refuse to have promiscuous sex... I personally know a gay couple that is very much against promiscuous sex. Some of them probably never have sex (see: some gay catholic priests... that are continuing to serve the church notwithstanding the Vatican's ban).You say that stright guys/men don't have sex with the same-gender. it's not always true... Italian newspaper are full of reports and statistics saying that a lot of straight people kiss, and have sex with, persons of the same gender... se the adolescents in need of experimentation for example.Even if it was... I repeat you that the mere fact that you say that i'm "different" from my straight friends is not a justification for telling me that I should not have the right to marry, for telling me that I'm worthy of a different union.I don't assume that differences are bad. And I, too, want a society that acknowlegdes and respect differences. I don't know why you're saying the contrary. The only thing I'm saying is that I cannot see the difference between me and my straight friends, and that I don't think that the mere fact that I sleep with men can be considered a justification for legally treating me in a different way (see: UK's exclusion from the right to marry, creation of the civil partnership). - William…Listen, I'm respecting your personal preferences and aspirations. I never talked about about you personal desire not to be married. This conversation is about the legal status quo in the UK. You wrote things that seemed to "justify" it a bit (the argument that gays "are different from heteros", so it is right for them to have a different legal union) so I'm criticizing your words. Simply put!The right to marry is of the individuals, not of the groups! The fact that NOT ALL straight people are promiscuous means nothing: I am exactly as my straight friends are, so I don't understand WHY I'm excluded from the same right to marry that thay have. Then, not ALL gays are promiscuous: thee are some gays that refuse to have promiscuous sex… I personally know a gay couple that is very much against promiscuous sex. Some of them probably never have sex (see: some gay catholic priests… that are continuing to serve the church notwithstanding the Vatican's ban).You say that stright guys/men don't have sex with the same-gender. it's not always true… Italian newspaper are full of reports and statistics saying that a lot of straight people kiss, and have sex with, persons of the same gender… se the adolescents in need of experimentation for example.Even if it was… I repeat you that the mere fact that you say that i'm "different" from my straight friends is not a justification for telling me that I should not have the right to marry, for telling me that I'm worthy of a different union.I don't assume that differences are bad. And I, too, want a society that acknowlegdes and respect differences. I don't know why you're saying the contrary. The only thing I'm saying is that I cannot see the difference between me and my straight friends, and that I don't think that the mere fact that I sleep with men can be considered a justification for legally treating me in a different way (see: UK's exclusion from the right to marry, creation of the civil partnership). -

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: William - Dublin http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25264 William - Dublin Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:51:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25264 "William, having a "crummy" job, a failed marriage is not a result of marriage"Robert, I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of people (in every country) are uneducated in menial jobs with wife + 2.5 kids. What is defined as "normal" is a majority concept. But if this is what is "normal", I was simply implying that I don't want it. I wouldn't be where I am today if I wanted to be "normal".My other point was that in my view marriage has been historically a straight institution, and I'm happy for them to keep it, once the civil partnerships have the same rights, they can call it whatever the hell they want... after all, the devil is in the detail. "William, having a "crummy" job, a failed marriage is not a result of marriage"Robert, I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of people (in every country) are uneducated in menial jobs with wife + 2.5 kids. What is defined as "normal" is a majority concept. But if this is what is "normal", I was simply implying that I don't want it. I wouldn't be where I am today if I wanted to be "normal".My other point was that in my view marriage has been historically a straight institution, and I'm happy for them to keep it, once the civil partnerships have the same rights, they can call it whatever the hell they want… after all, the devil is in the detail.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: William - Dublin http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25265 William - Dublin Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:43:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25265 Marco, perhaps you can avoid the histrionics for one moment and make an attempt to actually READ what I wrote. Firstly, I never said that being different is the same as being treated differently. That is obviously your own interpretation, and a wrong one at that.Secondly, you may want a homogeneous society where you don't acknowledge differences, but I don't. Diversity with equality is the core of gay rights.You say "I'm exactly as my straight friends" and "make promiscuous sex". Well, this might be a shock to you, but not all straight people are promiscuous, and I'm pretty sure straight people don't have sex with the same gender. That's difference. You make the mistake in assuming difference is bad. That, my friend, is your cross to bear in life, I am not a counsellor, nor do I share that view. I am different from straight people. I celebrate that difference, it contributes to my individuality, no more or less than my eye colour or hair colour. It does not detract from my belief that I am equal if not better, than those around me.I never said that you do not deserve gay marriage. That is your own insecurity projecting on my words. Nor did I say anything about not supporting a choice, if anything I have already said I can understand why someone would want gay marriage and that's fine for them. It doesn't mean I have to agree or accept gay marriage for me, simply because you think I should. I said I prefer civil partnership. I am entitled to that view, and your hissy fit aside, you have said nothing by way of a logical argument that convinces me otherwise. It would seem you have an axe to grind with someone for what I can only assume is your lack of self esteem. That not withstanding, I am entitled to my opinion, and I expect you to read what I say, not what you think I say. If you don't understand, feel free to ask a question. After all, questions, not assumptions, are the beginning of wisdom. Marco, perhaps you can avoid the histrionics for one moment and make an attempt to actually READ what I wrote. Firstly, I never said that being different is the same as being treated differently. That is obviously your own interpretation, and a wrong one at that.Secondly, you may want a homogeneous society where you don't acknowledge differences, but I don't. Diversity with equality is the core of gay rights.You say "I'm exactly as my straight friends" and "make promiscuous sex". Well, this might be a shock to you, but not all straight people are promiscuous, and I'm pretty sure straight people don't have sex with the same gender. That's difference. You make the mistake in assuming difference is bad. That, my friend, is your cross to bear in life, I am not a counsellor, nor do I share that view. I am different from straight people. I celebrate that difference, it contributes to my individuality, no more or less than my eye colour or hair colour. It does not detract from my belief that I am equal if not better, than those around me.I never said that you do not deserve gay marriage. That is your own insecurity projecting on my words. Nor did I say anything about not supporting a choice, if anything I have already said I can understand why someone would want gay marriage and that's fine for them. It doesn't mean I have to agree or accept gay marriage for me, simply because you think I should. I said I prefer civil partnership. I am entitled to that view, and your hissy fit aside, you have said nothing by way of a logical argument that convinces me otherwise. It would seem you have an axe to grind with someone for what I can only assume is your lack of self esteem. That not withstanding, I am entitled to my opinion, and I expect you to read what I say, not what you think I say. If you don't understand, feel free to ask a question. After all, questions, not assumptions, are the beginning of wisdom.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: MarcoMilano http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25266 MarcoMilano Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25266 William...The fact that the person that I love has a penis, and that society has/had a problem with it, doesn't make me a 'different' person. I am an outgoing, liberal, promiscuous guy that loves reading, listening to music, going out with friends, make promiscuous sex, etc etc as every other man. I'm exactly as my straight friends.Then, I repeat you that, even if you were right to say that I'm "different", there wouldn't still be a reason to treat me in a different way. "Difference" does not mean "worthy of a different treatment". If you say that it is right to exclude me from the right to marry you need a justification. To say that I'm "different" is not sufficent, no matter if it's true or not. You have to give me a justification.- William…The fact that the person that I love has a penis, and that society has/had a problem with it, doesn't make me a 'different' person. I am an outgoing, liberal, promiscuous guy that loves reading, listening to music, going out with friends, make promiscuous sex, etc etc as every other man. I'm exactly as my straight friends.Then, I repeat you that, even if you were right to say that I'm "different", there wouldn't still be a reason to treat me in a different way. "Difference" does not mean "worthy of a different treatment". If you say that it is right to exclude me from the right to marry you need a justification. To say that I'm "different" is not sufficent, no matter if it's true or not. You have to give me a justification.-

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: William - Dublin http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25267 William - Dublin Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:55:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25267 "Where is the difference between me and my straight friends?"Look, saying that we are all the same is PC nonsense. Differences are not a bad, diversity its the essence of nature. Gay is not straight. They are different. The difference Marco, is that straight people sleep with the opposite sex and have always been accepted, while gay people sleep with same sex and have been oppressed. If you think this is "the same" then you need a lesson is life, I'm afraid. "Where is the difference between me and my straight friends?"Look, saying that we are all the same is PC nonsense. Differences are not a bad, diversity its the essence of nature. Gay is not straight. They are different. The difference Marco, is that straight people sleep with the opposite sex and have always been accepted, while gay people sleep with same sex and have been oppressed. If you think this is "the same" then you need a lesson is life, I'm afraid.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: OMAR KUDDUS http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25268 OMAR KUDDUS Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:54:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25268 Thank you for making the point for me. Foreign same-sex couples who are not from the EU whose own countries already offer civil unions /partnerships are NOT permitted to form a civil partnership in the UK if they so wished, whilst, foreign “straight couples” are permitted to marry in the UK, if they so choose and have been able to for a long time as long as they get the necessary clearance and stated their intentions to the HOBIA. Non-EU gay couples however are totally restricted to form a civil partnership in the UK.And as if ,“That alone tells you that partnerships are indeed NOT equal”, I could not have put it better myself ,Robert. Thank you for making the point for me. Foreign same-sex couples who are not from the EU whose own countries already offer civil unions /partnerships are NOT permitted to form a civil partnership in the UK if they so wished, whilst, foreign “straight couples” are permitted to marry in the UK, if they so choose and have been able to for a long time as long as they get the necessary clearance and stated their intentions to the HOBIA. Non-EU gay couples however are totally restricted to form a civil partnership in the UK.And as if ,“That alone tells you that partnerships are indeed NOT equal”, I could not have put it better myself ,Robert.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: OMAR KUDDUS http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25269 OMAR KUDDUS Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:42:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25269 What is the problem .You are different and so need to be treated differently. Right? MarcoMilanoYAH. In your dreams and not whilst there is a breath left in my body.I am shore that if given the chance now those who said that the ban on interracial marriage didn't discriminate on the basis of race because anyone could marry a person of their race! would still agree and argue that their stance is morally correct.Or sit at the back of the Bus, or allow discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour religion etc.I am assured and given EQUALITY by Statutory Parliamentary and EUHR laws, and I am never ever going to be treated like a second-class citizen, even if others feel ok in being labelled as such.You are right that it is an absurd argument, an absurd argument that not only diminishes your loved one and you, but states that you are different and not “normal” like the rest of society.Robert, I too could live with civil partnerships as long as the government and the law recognise them as marriages under a different name. I’d have no problem with that. I would have no problem if they would just let me get married / partnered with my lover, but we are not going there.The issue is not marriage or civil partnership but equality and choice and not to be labelled differently from the rest of society, as sexuality has as much a right in society as all forms of freedoms, choices and all the other rules that govern and make up a civilised society, of equal peers. What is the problem .You are different and so need to be treated differently. Right? MarcoMilanoYAH. In your dreams and not whilst there is a breath left in my body.I am shore that if given the chance now those who said that the ban on interracial marriage didn't discriminate on the basis of race because anyone could marry a person of their race! would still agree and argue that their stance is morally correct.Or sit at the back of the Bus, or allow discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour religion etc.I am assured and given EQUALITY by Statutory Parliamentary and EUHR laws, and I am never ever going to be treated like a second-class citizen, even if others feel ok in being labelled as such.You are right that it is an absurd argument, an absurd argument that not only diminishes your loved one and you, but states that you are different and not “normal” like the rest of society.Robert, I too could live with civil partnerships as long as the government and the law recognise them as marriages under a different name. I’d have no problem with that. I would have no problem if they would just let me get married / partnered with my lover, but we are not going there.The issue is not marriage or civil partnership but equality and choice and not to be labelled differently from the rest of society, as sexuality has as much a right in society as all forms of freedoms, choices and all the other rules that govern and make up a civilised society, of equal peers.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25270 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:25:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25270 Marco, well said. The miscegenation laws in the U.S. which forbade white people from marrying people of African descent was only rescinded as recently as the 1960s. Its the same difference we are seeing today in the form of civil unions/pacs/partnerships. Separate never was nor will it be equal, no matter how many rights one may gain, identical or not. They should never be segregated to a different category ever. This is about denial, Marco.Another thing Marco, foreign same-sex couples whose own countries already offer civil unions/pacs/partnerships long before the UK had any such thing, are NOT permitted to form a civil partnership in the UK if they so wished (some foreign straight couples marry overseas as a matter of choice). Whereas, foreign straight couples are permitted to marry in the UK, if they so choose. That alone tells you that partnerships are indeed NOT equal. Marco, well said. The miscegenation laws in the U.S. which forbade white people from marrying people of African descent was only rescinded as recently as the 1960s. Its the same difference we are seeing today in the form of civil unions/pacs/partnerships. Separate never was nor will it be equal, no matter how many rights one may gain, identical or not. They should never be segregated to a different category ever. This is about denial, Marco.Another thing Marco, foreign same-sex couples whose own countries already offer civil unions/pacs/partnerships long before the UK had any such thing, are NOT permitted to form a civil partnership in the UK if they so wished (some foreign straight couples marry overseas as a matter of choice). Whereas, foreign straight couples are permitted to marry in the UK, if they so choose. That alone tells you that partnerships are indeed NOT equal.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25271 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:15:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25271 Marco, absolutely right, there is no difference between us and straights and the only one is that we prefer having an intimate relationship with same sex, nothing more, nothing less. In ALL other areas, we are the same.Sr. Mary, your response to Marco is beyond condescending. You know damn well he could never marry his boyfriend in the UK, so don't be so smug. Another thing, what would you and all the other anti-marriage naysayers do if the government were to abolish civil partnerships in favour of marriage, just as Sweden is about to do and as five other far more progressive countries have already done? Lets hear it. Marco, absolutely right, there is no difference between us and straights and the only one is that we prefer having an intimate relationship with same sex, nothing more, nothing less. In ALL other areas, we are the same.Sr. Mary, your response to Marco is beyond condescending. You know damn well he could never marry his boyfriend in the UK, so don't be so smug. Another thing, what would you and all the other anti-marriage naysayers do if the government were to abolish civil partnerships in favour of marriage, just as Sweden is about to do and as five other far more progressive countries have already done? Lets hear it.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25272 Robert, ex-pat Brit Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:59:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25272 William, having a "crummy" job, a failed marriage is not a result of marriage. We each are in control of our own destinies. One can have a crummy job without having to be married.The only difference between straight and gay is with whom we sleep, nothing more. Other than that, we are the same. We don't need more class structure in a society notoriously renowned for it. I'm not denigrating anyone for wanting or insisting on an civil partnership in place of marriage. We in the UK don't have any other option. Both straight and gay should have the option, to marry or not to marry. Clearly some of you don't want that. I do as do the majority of gay people around the world. Even if that is not yet feasible, we will never be deterred from securing that right. Its happening, slowly but surely, there is no turning back.I can live with civil partnerships as long as my government and the law recognise them as marriages under a different name. I have no problem with that.As for apYrs' problem with pension rights that would have been avoided had he been married to a woman, clearly more needs to be done to bring these partnerships into parity with married couples, all things being equal which they are not, obviously. William, having a "crummy" job, a failed marriage is not a result of marriage. We each are in control of our own destinies. One can have a crummy job without having to be married.The only difference between straight and gay is with whom we sleep, nothing more. Other than that, we are the same. We don't need more class structure in a society notoriously renowned for it. I'm not denigrating anyone for wanting or insisting on an civil partnership in place of marriage. We in the UK don't have any other option. Both straight and gay should have the option, to marry or not to marry. Clearly some of you don't want that. I do as do the majority of gay people around the world. Even if that is not yet feasible, we will never be deterred from securing that right. Its happening, slowly but surely, there is no turning back.I can live with civil partnerships as long as my government and the law recognise them as marriages under a different name. I have no problem with that.As for apYrs' problem with pension rights that would have been avoided had he been married to a woman, clearly more needs to be done to bring these partnerships into parity with married couples, all things being equal which they are not, obviously.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: MarcoMilano http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25273 MarcoMilano Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:22:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25273 Sister Mary Clarence...The right to marry is the right to marry the person you love... the person of your choice. People don't marry their teachers, their friends, my neighbors, ecc: people merry their loved ones! I'm gay... so the person I love is/will be a man... The fact that I'm gay excludes me from the possibility to marry.Your words are like the woirds of the Americans of the past... those who said that the ban on interracial marriage didn't discriminate on the basis of race because anyone could marry a person of their race!It's an absurd argument. An absurd argument that also diminish my loved one: HE is not replaceble!- Sister Mary Clarence…The right to marry is the right to marry the person you love… the person of your choice. People don't marry their teachers, their friends, my neighbors, ecc: people merry their loved ones! I'm gay… so the person I love is/will be a man… The fact that I'm gay excludes me from the possibility to marry.Your words are like the woirds of the Americans of the past… those who said that the ban on interracial marriage didn't discriminate on the basis of race because anyone could marry a person of their race!It's an absurd argument. An absurd argument that also diminish my loved one: HE is not replaceble!-

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Sister Mary Clarence http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25274 Sister Mary Clarence Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:05:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25274 Marco, you are not excluded from marriage either. You are quite at liberty to marry a nice girl if you can find one. Just as there is nothing to stop one of your straight mates or mine finding a same sex partner and forming a civil partnership. Marco, you are not excluded from marriage either. You are quite at liberty to marry a nice girl if you can find one. Just as there is nothing to stop one of your straight mates or mine finding a same sex partner and forming a civil partnership.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: MarcoMilano http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25275 MarcoMilano Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:57:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25275 William...Where is the difference between me and my straight friends?I'm a very outgoing, promiscuous and libertarian guy... my straight friends are outgoing, promiscuous and libertarian too. I CANNOT see any difference.Then, you shoud consider that "difference" does not mean "exclusion": black people are people that have a different skin colour from white people... but the Government does not exclude them from marriage. There must be a justification for treating someone differently... the "difference" is not sufficient.- William…Where is the difference between me and my straight friends?I'm a very outgoing, promiscuous and libertarian guy… my straight friends are outgoing, promiscuous and libertarian too. I CANNOT see any difference.Then, you shoud consider that "difference" does not mean "exclusion": black people are people that have a different skin colour from white people… but the Government does not exclude them from marriage. There must be a justification for treating someone differently… the "difference" is not sufficient.-

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: William - Dublin http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html/comment-page-4/#comment-25276 William - Dublin Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:34:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6404.html#comment-25276 Omar, Robert and Marco, I can see your points of view on this, and yes, I'm sure some do equate the full matching of both straight and gay marriage.However, from my understanding of the law on civil partnerships in the UK, do they not give all the rights that a straight marriage gives, the rightsthat matter the most: i.e. inheritance, tax allowances, parental rights? From what you are saying, there seems to be some differences between the civil and marriage, legalities that will be ironed out in time I'm sure, but in every way that matters, are they not the same, just called different names? Is that not acceptable, as we ARE different from straight people? And believe me, I celebrate that difference as a very positive thing every day. I just don't feel a need to emulate the straight masses, I have always cherished being not like them... if I did want to be like them, I'd be living a lie with a wife in a very, very unhappy marriage, with feck all education and a crummy job. That is what the average straight has, and what my partner and I do not. (Unfortunately in Ireland, we are no where near the British level of protection for LGBT people)I hope you get the marriage you all seek. Personally, I think society's attitudes are a bigger battle for us all, not the minor details of civil partnership versus marriage. But I do believe credit where credit is due:- the UK has made tremendous advances in the recent laws, and it is a credit to British society and government that you have these rights available to our kind, especially when only a few years ago we were criminals. I do not think Sister Mary et al is advocating the status quo, simply that, like me, civil partnerships as provided by the British Law is what they want and need, and are to be celebrated, not condemned as insufficient. Omar, Robert and Marco, I can see your points of view on this, and yes, I'm sure some do equate the full matching of both straight and gay marriage.However, from my understanding of the law on civil partnerships in the UK, do they not give all the rights that a straight marriage gives, the rightsthat matter the most: i.e. inheritance, tax allowances, parental rights? From what you are saying, there seems to be some differences between the civil and marriage, legalities that will be ironed out in time I'm sure, but in every way that matters, are they not the same, just called different names? Is that not acceptable, as we ARE different from straight people? And believe me, I celebrate that difference as a very positive thing every day. I just don't feel a need to emulate the straight masses, I have always cherished being not like them… if I did want to be like them, I'd be living a lie with a wife in a very, very unhappy marriage, with feck all education and a crummy job. That is what the average straight has, and what my partner and I do not. (Unfortunately in Ireland, we are no where near the British level of protection for LGBT people)I hope you get the marriage you all seek. Personally, I think society's attitudes are a bigger battle for us all, not the minor details of civil partnership versus marriage. But I do believe credit where credit is due:- the UK has made tremendous advances in the recent laws, and it is a credit to British society and government that you have these rights available to our kind, especially when only a few years ago we were criminals. I do not think Sister Mary et al is advocating the status quo, simply that, like me, civil partnerships as provided by the British Law is what they want and need, and are to be celebrated, not condemned as insufficient.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]>