quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Lucy it just amazes me how arguments over this naming issue of marriage are debated so passionately when the real issues are ignored. It has nothing to do with the word marriage... or religion in particular...

It has everything to do with it.
However, it's the religious nuts that are making the most noise about it.

A lot of hetero people who are not religious are also complaining about it too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
It is just plain and simple human nature and the revulsion of gay behavior by many straight people and their inability to overcome this way of thinking that has been mainstream since the beginning of civilization.

Whilst this may be true, it is still (unfortunately) the majority PoV at this time.


On a personal note, I have a problem with it too.
Why?
Because I'm a Pagan.
To be legally "married" (and not in a church setting), I still had to spout certain godly words.
I could get around that by having a 'civil' ceremony instead.
But I'm not allowed to have a civil ceremony because I'm being joined (married) to a member of the opposite sex.

So.... the gay community want to use the word "marriage" but us non-gay people aren't allowed to have a civil joining???
How fucked-up and one-sided is that??

A member of our family is gay and we went to his civil ceremony in 2010, so I did a lot of digging about ceremonies and what is allowed and what isn't (for the UK).

Our gays here get exactly the same rights as those that are legally "married" so I don't see what the fuss is all about.
Those hetero's and religious people that want to keep it a sacred word for their ceremony, why not?
So on that premise, why are the gay's kicking up such a fuss over it??

When everything is equal, maybe things will change.... maybe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
why cant you have a civil ceremony???

They won't allow us to have one.
If we were both of the same sex, no problem.
But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason.

We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised.

ETA: It's quite black-and-white.
Same sex joining = civil ceremony.
Different sex joining = marriage.
And never the twain shall meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
why cant you have a civil ceremony???

They won't allow us to have one.
If we were both of the same sex, no problem.
But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason.

We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised.

ETA: It's quite black-and-white.
Same sex joining = civil ceremony.
Different sex joining = marriage.
And never the twain shall meet.

They don't allow you to get married by a magistrate or some other functionary, you have to go to a church? I thought they had civil weddings where you didn't have to say religious vows...friend of mine from the UK did a civic wedding (hetero couple), they were married I believe by a magistrate or judge and they said their own vows, that were not religious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

you have to have a certain set of words or the marriage isn't recognised in law...

So even now, you have to say certain words otherwise it ain't legal.

From your link....

The marriage ceremony at a licensed venue is a civil ceremony. No religious content whatsoever is allowed.

Declaratory Words
I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, [your full name], may not be joined in matrimony to [your partner's full name].

Contracting Words
I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, [your full name], do take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband].

Alternative Declaratory Words
I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [your full name], may not be joined in marriage to [your partner's full name].
-or-
by replying ‘I am’ to the question ‘Are you, [your full name], free lawfully to marry [your partner's full name]‘.

Alternative Contracting Words
I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband].
-or-
I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband].

I don't know whether you'd care to go into it, but I'd be curious to know what problem these pose for a Pagan?

K.

quote:

DECLARATION OF INTENT
HP/S: What is your name? (Answer with legal and/or Craft name).

HP/S: And what is your desire? Answer: To join with s/he whom I love.

HP/S: __________, will you have this woman/man to be your partner, to live together in marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honour and keep her/him in sickness and in health, for as long as love may last?
Answer: I will.

HP/S: _{man}_ and _{woman}_, you stand before me, the Gods, and this company, having desired the bond of marriage. Do you do this of your own free will, coming here today without coercion or pressure from other persons?
Answer: I do.

HP/S: Will you seek to do her/him harm? Answer: I will not.
HP/S: And if harm is done, will you seek to repair it? Answer: I will.
HP/S: Will you seek to be honest with her/him in all things? Answer: I will.
HP/S: Will you support him/her in times of distress? Answer: I will.
HP/S: Will you temper your words and actions with love? Answer: I will.

HP/S: These things you have promised to your partner, before this company and the Gods. May you ever be mindful and strive to keep the vows you have spoken.
(These vows may be spoken with a tying of a cord or ribbon about the wrists of the enjoined after each answer, with the HP/S adding, “And so the bond is made” or “And to that promise you are bound.”)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh I see so its not that you arent allowed, its that because you sont like 2 words in the actual ceremony ok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

As no one has yet explained how hetero marriage is devalued by allowing queers to marry...

As no one here has claimed that, it is a crimson clupeid.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

A man tells me he is a church lady and that would not cause anyone confusion? I rarely pay attention to profiles if someone has one. I am seriously laughing so hard. Really?
It is not because I can't supply information I have decided I would rather not. This is not rational to you but may God bless you and I mean that in sincerity.
I will leave fancy talk to the intellectuals.

I apologize.

I should not have gotten personal.

That's a line I usually strive not to cross, but sometimes, as in this thread, I fall short.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
There is your proof in the written word.... homophobia preceded religion.... if not then you must agree there is a real vindictive God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Will which is it ... there IS a God and he IS against gays... or the very mortal men who wrote the Bible had preconceived ideas of homosexuality and that is why they wrote the verses in the Bible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

However, there are obvious echoes of this argument to be found in several posts here. Any one advancing an argument that queer relationships are not entitled to be recognised in the same manner as straight ones is clearly insisting that queer relationships are somehow different, that queer relationships are undeserving of the full recogition afforded to straight relationships through the institution of marriage .... that queer relationships are somehow inferior or less valid than straight ones. Unless an assumption along these lines is being made, it simply doesn't make sense to argue for different statuses for straight and queer relationships.

Of course there's a difference. If it didn't make any difference to people whether they had a contra-sexual partner or a same-sex partner, there wouldn't be an issue. Nor is it necessary to deny that difference in order for them to enjoy equal legal rights. Men and women enjoy equal legal rights. Why do some people find it necessary to indulge in derogatory assumptions about anyone whose opinion is at variance with their own? Personally, I am indifferent to which of the two options eventually obtains. But I'm tired of seeing sincere people, who wish gays no ill, portrayed as if they were of the same ilk as those of whom we will soon have one less.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

When allegedly "sincere people" oppose equality for queers in any sphere, they are acting with ill-will towards queers. Despite their pious claims to the contrary, opposing equality cannot be described as "wish[ing] gays no ill", it is de facto acting with ill will towards gays and queers. These people are insisting that, in relation to the right to marry, queers accept a second class status solely on account of their sexual preference.

We are perfectly entitled to examine why they insist that queers accept second class status in any sphere of life. The days when queers had to accept second class status in anything have long gone and they aren't ever coming back

You are pushing a bogus argument, and assigning ill-will to a broad swath of people on no other basis than a claim to mind-reading. Equal legal recognition does not turn on a word. According to Pew Research the number of people who favor gay unions with full and complete equal status under the law is 31% higher than those who favor gay marriage, and that gap has remained consistent for the past decade, with the percentage of those who favor gay unions passing 50% eight years ago.

It is impossible to reconcile full and complete legal recognition of gay unions with "second class status," or to plausibly argue that favoring such reflects "ill will," and it is only arguments like yours that have stood in the way of gays achieving equal recognition for their unions long ago.